Historical context applied to Current Events

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue [they are terrorists].

Source.

keltic, would you please take your words out of my quote, please. At least have the honor of correctly showing a quote here, good grief.

Twisted logic, mis quoting, and generally no common sense on display here by all libs.

Since when did a "clue" imply a problem had been solved 100% conclusively. Look up the word "clue in the dictionary, and you might get a clue.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I must have missed this stupidity disguised as a reply.

You haven't been reading Okie's posts?

Quote:
Only a fool would say "Anyone who tries to kill you in wartime is automatically a terrorist?"

I only see one person here saying that.

OK, i see, you haven't been reading Okie's posts.

Quote:
The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear about who is and who is not protected by it. We have lawyers and advisers in the military and government whose job it is to analyze and clarify such documents and make decisions based on that analysis to decide who is and who is not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

If you really need me to tell you who is and who is not a terrorist, then you need some serious help.

I've already both posted a link to, and quoted Article Five of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, so i'll not repeat that. That article clearly states that anyone taken in arms about whom there is any doubt is to be afforded all the protections of the Convention, until such time as the individual's status is determined by a competent tribunal. Nowhere does it say until such time as lawyers and advisers in the military and the government, and nowhere does it acknowledge the right of any government to proceed in such a manner, which would be a clear violation of the Convention.

For once, McWhitey, why don't you try actually reading the thread, reading the links--why don't you actually attempt to learn what the truth is before you let your mouth run--or rather, your fingers run over the keyboard. Engage your brain for once, before posting a reply.

Yes, I have been reading okie's posts.

You seem to think that there is some doubt as to the status of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay. That because of that doubt article 5 of the Geneva Conventions must be upheld.

I say there is no doubt and that due to Article 4 of the convention on treatment of prisoners of war which identifies a legal combatant as someone who fights under a recognized state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions; wears a fixed insignia or uniform; carries his arms openly; and conducts operations in accordance with the laws of war -- which rules out terrorists.

You don't get to just pick and choose the articles of the Geneva Conventions that fit your argument while ignoring the rest of it. The whole reason for that is to separate soldiers from terrorists.

Last year the Supreme Court acknowledged that this war is different, and that determining a combatant, legal or otherwise, is not as simple as it used to be. Lower courts are divided on how to interpret this decision, but the fact is that every Guantanamo detainee has had a chance to contest his detention as a combatant before a military tribunal. It's enough for now just to note that this is beyond what the Geneva Conventions require for a POW.

Are you saying the Supreme Court is wrong?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue [they are terrorists].

Source.

okie wrote:

keltic, would you please take your words out of my quote, please. At least have the honor of correctly showing a quote here, good grief.

Twisted logic, mis quoting, and generally no common sense on display here by all libs.

When quoting, the quoter is allowed to insert explanatory information in square brackets. This I have done. Nothing wrong with that.

0 Replies

To remove any doubt Okie was talking about deciding who was a terrorist, I shall repeat Okie's statement without square brackets. However, I will include the same two explanatory statements Okie himself included IN HIS OWN post. Judge for yourself.

McGentrix wrote:

If terrorists want to be protected by the Geneva conventions, they should act accordingly. Otherwise they do not apply to them.

The Geneva conventions are to protect soldiers and civilians, not terrorists.

Setanta wrote:

This is the same stupidity for which i already called Okie. How do you know they're terrorists, McWhitey? Just because you say so? We should ignore the terms of the Geneva Convention just because McWhitey says they're all terrorists?

okie wrote:

If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue.

0 Replies

It might be your first clue. That doesn't mean what you want it to mean though.

0 Replies

Since Setanta only talked about terrorists and okie seems to be answering Set's questions there really can't be any other reading than okie is referring to terrorists.

Anyone with a 3rd grade English education would understand what okie was referring to based on the questions asked and answered.

0 Replies

and anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension skill would understand what he was saying.

0 Replies

Oh don't worry, McG. We all understand what Okie is saying all right. Unfortunately for Okie.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

and anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension skill would understand what he was saying.

0 Replies

EVERYONE, no matter how they are fighting, no matter what their status, be that uniformed, non-uniformed, irregular, civilian, even "terrorist", is covered by the Geneva Conventions. No-one is not covered. They have different sets of rights, depending on the determination and adjudication of their status, but EVERYONE is guaranteed basic rights by those conventions. The problem is the Bush administration did not adhere to even the lowest level of rights for its detainees. It's reaping the whirlwind as a result.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

and anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension skill would understand what he was saying.

McGentrix, I have almost concluded it is futile to debate liberals. If you enter into a debate about whether Iowa is one of the United States, they will first argue over whether Iowa even exists, and probably would deny that it does exist.

I doubt any of these guys would even want to describe what a "terrorist" is, or what an "insurgent" is, or what an "enemy combatant" is. They may not even believe they exist. After all, I get the impression from them that we just rounded up a bunch of harmless chaps that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and locked them up as a show of doing something, and also for the enjoyment of torturing them, probably Dick Cheney's idea.

After all, we have many libs denying the planes brought down the towers. And one screaming lib on tv claimed it was impossible for steel to melt in a fire. So her point was I guess that Bush did it. I wonder if she has ever wondered how steel was made in the first place? Such people are not rational. And they are also driven by hatred. You cannot reason with them. I have about given up.

0 Replies

By the way, I see little point in trying to draw a distinction between a terrorist, insurgent, or enemy combatant, or whatever other name somebody could conjure up. They don't wear uniforms or represent a country as far as I can tell, and none seem to care whether they kill men, or women, or children.

If you are playing a game, and only one side attempts to observe the rules, then which one should be blamed? Evidently, the libs here want to blame the one that is trying to observe the rules. Even though we are operating with a handicap, I think we are conducting ourselves pretty decently. You cannot say that for the opposition. Yet, who gets attacked here? I guess chalk it up to the fact that some people are just irrational, and hatred doesn't help people to be rational.

0 Replies

The problem is, okie, we are NOT obeying the rules. That's why the Supreme Court keeps telling W he's unconstitutional.

0 Replies

And exactly which case are you speaking of now?

0 Replies

I love the way Okie says something snide, then when called on it plays the part of victim. Take the following quote when he is talking about identifying terrorists.

olie wrote:

If they are trying to kill you, that would be your first clue.

Clearly, stating something in this seemingly obvious manner is a snide way to get your point across. Such as the following:

Q: How will I know what an assailant looks like?

A: Look around. If you see someone screaming curses at you while running at you with a knife, that's a clue.

Or

Q: How will I know if someone is a docotor?

A: If he walks around in a white lab coat which says "Dr." plus a name afterwards, that's a clue.

Yet when called on this, both Okie and McG actually maintain that Okie is being terribly misinterpreted by "libs", that when Okie says that something is a clue he only means that it was to be considered as one of several criteria in making a decision.

On one page, Okie is the snide wiseass. On the next page, he's the poor misunderstood victim. What baloney.

0 Replies

Kelticwizard, perhaps you are just too stupid to understand what okie said, I don't know. I know that I had no problem understanding it so it wasn't that abstract a statement.

You have made a grand showing here demonstrating your inability to comprehend the written English language and the only person that you are making appear the fool is yourself.

I wonder kw, what would the second clue be for you?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Kelticwizard, perhaps you are just too stupid to understand what okie said, I don't know. I know that I had no problem understanding it so it wasn't that abstract a statement.

You have made a grand showing here demonstrating your inability to comprehend the written English language and the only person that you are making appear the fool is yourself.

I wonder kw, what would the second clue be for you?

What did the "they" refer to in okie's statement then McG since you can read okie's mind. Did the pronount not refer to the antecedent as is required in normal grammar? Do conservatives have different grammar rules? Please explain those rules(antecedent) and point to where they(pronoun that refers to antecedent.) can be found.

0 Replies

I have the capacity to infer meaning from statements rather then letting the words confuse me as most liberals seem to do.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I have the capacity to infer meaning from statements rather then letting the words confuse me as most liberals seem to do.

So no explanation?

No explanation other than you are superior because you ignore the meanings of words and the rules of grammar.

I guess that would be no explanation but a rather handy excuse for most of the posts you make.

0 Replies

If you are concerned with grammar, I would suggest maybe spending more time in this section of A2K.

0 Replies

Historical context applied to Current Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know