Historical context applied to Current Events

McGovern, who do you think you're kidding?

Okie made a wiseass comment, in the "state the obvious as if you were talking to a child" mode. Setanta and later others called him on it, and now you are trying to claim it was a serious answer.

Your strained, nonsensical protests only serve to illustrate how far you are willing to go to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Incidentally, on other threads you have resorted to such things as questioning my right to start a thread over coverage of the news in the politics section, etc. You've been this way quite awhile now.

At one time you could be counted on to give some sort of reasonable argument from the conservative standpoint. That time has long since gone.

0 Replies

The only one making "strained, nonsensical protests" appears to be you. But, then again, I would expect no less judging from your posting history.

0 Replies

idiot

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

idiot

I don't think you should be using such terms against kelticwizard. Despite my disagreements with him, I hardly consider him an idiot.

0 Replies

Based on McG's claim about pronouns and how they don't refer to the antecedent I have come to the conclusion that he thinks they refer to the post 2 posts prior to the one they are used in and have nothing to do with the quote in that post.

Since McG post is the post 2 posts prior to his, I have come to the conclusion McG is talking to himself when he says this.

Quote:

I don't think you should be using such terms against kelticwizard. Despite my disagreements with him, I hardly consider him an idiot.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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.

Article Four of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War DOES NOT SAY that those taken in arms must be in uniform, or that they must be the soldiers of a state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions. Since it seems that you are content to lie about this, i will quote all of Article Four, and emphasize a line which shows that those taken in arms need not necessarily be in uniform, or even a part of regularly organized military forces:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Since you seem content to lie about this, i will again provide a link to this Convention.

You only make yourself look more ridiculous when you lie about something so elementary which can be so easily verified. Once again, you define these people as terrorists, and beg the question. It is precisely because of idiotic arguments such as yours, which lend themselves to murderous and illegal actions, that there is an Article Five. They are not terrorists by definition, unless and until they are so adjudged by a competent tribunal.

0 Replies

What part of "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." don't you understand Set?

You pointed it out, yet you seem to fail to understand what it means.

I have told no lies and your haughty tone does little to bolster your argument.
I did not say "that those taken in arms must be in uniform,". I said "wears a fixed insignia or uniform;". Surely you are familiar with the word "or"?

They are terrorists by definition. You just can seem to bear saying it. Typical to your belief structure.

0 Replies

You lied when you stated that those who are to enjoy the protection of the Convention must be members of the armed forces of a nation which is signatory to the Convention. You stated that this was so defined in Article Four--that is a lie.

It is also not true that Article Four states that those taken who are to be treated as prisoners of war under the terms of war must wear a uniform or[/u] insignia--that's another lie.

You know nothing about my "belief structure"--but given that you are willing to lie about the terms of the Convention, despite the ease with which one can contradict your bullshit, i am not suprised to see you claim that you do.

Who is to determine whether or not those taken in arms respect the laws and customs of war? Article Five of the Convention deals with that precisely--a competent tribunal. You can't seem to bear saying that. It also seems that you can't bear to read the Convention, even though i've posted a link to it twice. It also seems that you can't bear to refrain from lying about the terms of Article Four, even though i've posted it here in its entirety.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What part of "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." don't you understand Set?

And what proof do you have that those picked up on the battlefield weren't carrying their arms openly or respecting the customs of war?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You lied when you stated that those who are to enjoy the protection of the Convention must be members of the armed forces of a nation which is signatory to the Convention. You stated that this was so defined in Article Four--that is a lie.

No, again that is what you wish I had written to make your bloviated point. I said no such thing and now it is you that is lying. It's in print what I wrote, but you either choose not to read what I wrote or you are an idiot.

I wrote: "identifies a legal combatant as someone who fights under a recognized state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions;"

Now, explain to me how what I wrote there becomes "those who are to enjoy the protection of the Convention must be members of the armed forces of a nation which is signatory to the Convention."

Is your ego so big that you have to make things up about what people write? That you have to lie about what others write?

Quote:

It is also not true that Article Four states that those taken who are to be treated as prisoners of war under the terms of war must wear a uniform or[/u] insignia--that's another lie.

"(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

Where's the lie Set?

Quote:

You know nothing about my "belief structure"--but given that you are willing to lie about the terms of the Convention, despite the ease with which one can contradict your bullshit, i am not suprised to see you claim that you do.

You have not contradicted a single thing I wrote. You have reworked what I wrote into something you coould argue against and claim some sort of wierd thrill in doing so. I think that speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof.

Quote:

Who is to determine whether or not those taken in arms respect the laws and customs of war? Article Five of the Convention deals with that precisely--a competent tribunal. You can't seem to bear saying that. It also seems that you can't bear to read the Convention, even though i've posted a link to it twice. It also seems that you can't bear to refrain from lying about the terms of Article Four, even though i've posted it here in its entirety.

Again, you haven't contradicted a single thing I said. You have contradicted yourself only. I think you enjoy talking to yourself.

You are caught in your typical haughty attitude here Set. Maybe you should just apologize before you dig yourself a deeper hole?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, again that is what you wish I had written to make your bloviated point. I said no such thing and now it is you that is lying. It's in print what I wrote, but you either choose not to read what I wrote or you are an idiot.

I wrote: "identifies a legal combatant as someone who fights under a recognized state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions;"

OK, so what? Even if you don't care for the way i worded it, this statement on your part is a lie. Anyone who reads Article Four can see that.

Quote:

Quote:
It is also not true that Article Four states that those taken who are to be treated as prisoners of war under the terms of war must wear a uniform or[/u] insignia--that's another lie.

"(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

Where's the lie Set?

The lie arises form the fact that this is a description in only one category, and is not a description which applies to all categories. Your wording makes it appear that only those wearing a uniform or insignia qualify, and anyone reading Article Four in its entirety can see that it is not true.

Quote:

Quote:
You know nothing about my "belief structure"--but given that you are willing to lie about the terms of the Convention, despite the ease with which one can contradict your bullshit, i am not suprised to see you claim that you do.

You have not contradicted a single thing I wrote. You have reworked what I wrote into something you coould argue against and claim some sort of wierd thrill in doing so. I think that speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof.

It's always hilarious to see you comment on the inferences about the character of others. I have contradicted everything that you wrote about who is covered by the Convention, and did it by the simple expedient of quoting the text of Article Four of the Convention. It does not refer to "a recognized state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions" and it does not limit its definitions to those wearing a uniform or insignia.

Quote:

Quote:
Who is to determine whether or not those taken in arms respect the laws and customs of war? Article Five of the Convention deals with that precisely--a competent tribunal. You can't seem to bear saying that. It also seems that you can't bear to read the Convention, even though i've posted a link to it twice. It also seems that you can't bear to refrain from lying about the terms of Article Four, even though i've posted it here in its entirety.

Again, you haven't contradicted a single thing I said. You have contradicted yourself only. I think you enjoy talking to yourself.

You are caught in your typical haughty attitude here Set. Maybe you should just apologize before you dig yourself a deeper hole?

There's nothing to apologize for. The Convention never mentions a requirement that those taken must be from a nation which adheres to the convention, and it lists many, many categories with no reference to wearing a uniform or insignia.

You've just been making **** up and it enrages you that you've been called on it. If Article Four contains the language you claim it contains, it is a simple matter for you to quote it directly, and list your source. You haven't done so for the simple reason that you can't.

The difference between your point of view and mine is not one of polar opposites. You claim that all of them are "terrorists." I'm not claiming that none of them are terrorists, i'm simply pointing out that you don't know if any of them actually are terrorists unless and until, as required by the convention, . . . such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. That's a direct quote from Article Five of the Convention.

0 Replies

Historical context applied to Current Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know