Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (7049)	2/19/2004 8:02:31 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I realize you don't consider people fighting with and for Al Qaeda to be terrorists After ten posts spanning three days, your realizations is still far from adequate. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Its members are terrorists. HOWEVER, most of the detainees of Guantanamo were captured while fighting American invasion in Afghanistan. YOU DON'T KNOW that they are Al-Qaeda. Very likely, some are peasants who picked up the rifle when they saw hellicopters landing on their soil. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TERRORISTS. It is the bending over backwards to justify freeing terrorists and prevent our learning anything from them that causes me think you have an animus against America If you think pasting parts of the Geneva Convention and thereby forcing your stubborn self into accepting that it has more provisions than just "orderly soldiers carrying insignia" yada yada, and hence applies to those captured while fighting American military in Afghanistan is "justifying" anything, well, that is your problem. I think you have a problem telling your opinion from facts And I don't care what you think about my soi-disant "problems". Come back to the point - Do you understand why Geneva Convention applies to the detainees of Guantanamo who were captured fighting American invasion in Afghanistan? [Or do I have to post the Geneva Convention again? Sigh.] Since they were captured in the company of armed men, yes I do think it was OK Let us all hope that your teenage son never finds himself in the vicinity of an "armed man" and gets jailed for life in a military prison. You might develop a heart that cares for 13-year old boys even if they are from Afghanistan, who knows? They just happened to be in a warzone in a foreign country (to them) and had a rifle handy and picked it up when they saw an American soldier approaching. (BTW this is a particuarly stupid thing to do.) Your attitude here is a good example of bending over backwards to find a reason to condemn American actions. I am beginning to despair with how this conversation is going absolutely nowhere. Geneva Convention has an article talking about this very case - about people picking up arms and impromptu fighting an invading military. THEY don't seem to find it stupid that a man might decide to fight for his country. And I don't see YOU accusing the Geneva Convention, which your country signed, of "bending over backwards to condemn American actions". As you can see, they were treated humanely during the period of their detention Good. Now give him back the two years of his life.