Originally posted by Xexima Originally posted by abbaba It makes sense to me. These "prisoners of war" aren't Private Ali or Corporal Mohammed of the Iraqi army, they are terrorists who very well might know something about other terrorist attacks or plans. The Geneva convention protects soldiers of sovereign nation who wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The insurgents in Iraq or terrorists anywhere else are none of these.
You have to realize that these people in Iraq have very limited weaponry, and very basic training. Compaired to U.S. soldiers, they are nothing. So, of course they are going to use unorthadox fighting methods to try to kill our soldiers. It is how we won our own revalutionary war. If these people were to walk around in a uniform showing their weapons they would be killed instantly by our men.
Oh, and just to clear this up, we are NOT fighting TERRORISTS in Iraq. We ARE fighting Iraqi FREEDOM FIGHTERS. They are SOLDIERS. You cannot fight and kill a terrorist. Terrorists are only defeated by spies and intelligence that can stop them before they attack. so, just stop calling them terrorists, because they aren't, atleast have the decency to call them soldiers, even though they are fighting and killing our men, and even though they are a part of wicked organizations. To call them terrorists dehumanizes them, and that is probably one of the reasons the dumbfuck we have as a president thinks it is okay to torture them.
Anyway, torturing is a horrible way to obtain information, as someone said before, they would say whatever they could just to stop the pain. And to torture them just lowers us to their level.
Oh, by the way, I support our troops, and their safe return home which they are being robbed of.
If you remember, during the Revolutionary war, we had the Continental Army, who most certainly did wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The Militia also openly displayed weapons. They didn't have uniforms because the government couldn't afford them. It was a traditional war. Regardless, both sides knew who the other side was. We didn't blow up Churches or public buildings. We didn't murder civilians. As was the custom of a chivalric war, for the most part captured enemy soldiers on both sides were treated with respect.
You call them Freedom Fighters? Soldiers?
Freedom Fighters that saw off the heads of captured journalists like Daniel Pearl? Soldiers that blow themselves up in crowded market places and mosques to kill women and children?
If all they did was fight the Coalition and Iraqi government troops you might have a point. But they don't, and you don't.
Originally posted by baff You funded and supported the IRA. Armed and trained them. Allowed them to raise sponsorhip and harbored them in your country. And yes this does include a revolutionary war, right after the First World War, it was sponsored by America and Germany. In Britain, "Republicans" are terrorists. In 2003 Bush put them on the terrorist list, effectively putting an end to their fund raising in America, but as always still refuses to extradite any of them. Bill Clinton is famous for attending IRA fund raising dinners every year of he was in office at $5,000 a pop. Next time anybody really wants the Irish vote, the money will start to flow again.
Absurd. The IRA may be supported by a small portion of the Irsh-American community, but they certainly are not funded and supplied by the US government.
Contrary to popular belief, the IRA didn't rely on American money or weapons. And they couldn't rely on American political support, which was limited at the beginning of the Troubles and continued to shrink as the IRA campaign dragged on and most influential Irish-Americans, especially politicians, distanced themselves from the IRA.
Absurd. The IRA may be supported by a small portion of the Irsh-American community, but they certainly are not funded and supplied by the US government. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/reports/america.html Contrary to popular belief, the IRA didn't rely on American money or weapons. And they couldn't rely on American political support, which was limited at the beginning of the Troubles and continued to shrink as the IRA campaign dragged on and most influential Irish-Americans, especially politicians, distanced themselves from the IRA.
Yes, I'll take PBS's word over your nutty claims.
And yet last month congress still refused to ratify any extradition treaty that means they have to hand over IRA members.
IRA haven't relied on U.S. financial support for the last 3 years. And as for political support, Bill Clinton regularly flew to Ireland to talk with IRA members and negotiate with the British government on their behalf.
You must think we're all stupid.
Where do you think M16's come from? Or Barret 50. cals? Garand and Thompsons? A load of American military hardware, just happens to show up in the hands of "The Republicans" for use against one of America's traditional enemies but "it didn't come from America".
You might be willingly ignorant, but the people on the recieving end aren't.
In fact, while the Clinton administration has pledged support, it has acknowledged for the last few years that it is up to the British and Irish governments and the various parties on the ground in Northern Ireland to sort out their differences and reach a compromise
It is implicite in this statement that a few years ago the Adminstration did belive that the internal affairs of the U.K. was something it should interfere with and explicitly mentions the support of the Clinton administration.
and another...
American influence continues.
Please don't waste my time linking to things you haven't read. If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't bother at all.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by abbaba
Absurd. The IRA may be supported by a small portion of the Irsh-American community, but they certainly are not funded and supplied by the US government. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/reports/america.html Contrary to popular belief, the IRA didn't rely on American money or weapons. And they couldn't rely on American political support, which was limited at the beginning of the Troubles and continued to shrink as the IRA campaign dragged on and most influential Irish-Americans, especially politicians, distanced themselves from the IRA.
Yes, I'll take PBS's word over your nutty claims.
And yet last month congress still refused to ratify any extradition treaty that means they have to hand over IRA members.
IRA haven't relied on U.S. financial support for the last 3 years. And as for political support, Bill Clinton regularly flew to Ireland to talk with IRA members and negotiate with the British government on their behalf.
You must think we're all stupid.
Where do you think M16's come from? Or Barret 50. cals? Garand and Thompsons? Did you really think that America supported royalists over Republicans? Did you really think that America never interfered with countries outside it's borders, or didn't engage in any proxy wars?
You might be willingly ignorant, but the people on the recieving end aren't.
Here's a quote from your link.
In fact, while the Clinton administration has pledged support, it has acknowledged for the last few years that it is up to the British and Irish governments and the various parties on the ground in Northern Ireland to sort out their differences and reach a compromise
It is implicite in this statement that a few years ago the Adminstration did belive that the internal affairs of the U.K. was something it should interfere with and explicitly mentions the support of the Clinton administration.
and another...
American influence continues.
Please don't waste my time linking to things you haven't read. If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't bother at all.
So Bill Clinton tried to negotiate peace between the IRA and the British government. So what? That's what everyone wants, peace. Negotiating with them is one thing, how you can stretch that into siding with them against the British Government is pretty extraordinary.
Of course if you continue to make totally asinine statements like "The US has terrorized Britain for 200 years" it's pretty difficult to argue with someone who actually believes that.
but they are a tiny minority with no basis in the populous. Those Irish that wanted independance got it in 1921, those that wished to stay part of the Union did so.
The only reason the IRA have any negotiating power at all is because they kill people. If it wasn't for the terrorism, no one would listen to them.
Clinton rewarded their campaign of bombing by giving them the world stage and treating them like they were reasonable people, and not people who specifically target women and children and then bomb them.
It should not be lost on you that Bill Clinton was also a personal and significant donor to the Republican movement. $5,000 a year, every year he was in office. Each year the BBC would film him doing it, and play it to the world.
You of course think it is totally justified for Bill Clinton to get involved with the internal politics of another soveriegn nation and try and coerce them into giving in to terrorism. Clinton was an enemy of my people. He chose his side.
And yes mate 200 years. That's our history. Deny it if you want. It doesn't change anything.
.
See anything that reminds of you America in these murals yet?
Originally posted by baff They don't want peace, they want revolution. but they are a tiny minority with no basis in the populous. Those Irish that wanted independance got it in 1921, those that wished to stay part of the Union did so. The only reason the IRA have any negotiating power at all is because they kill people. If it wasn't for the terrorism, no one would listen to them. Clinton rewarded their campaign of bombing by giving them the world stage and treating them like they were reasonable people, and not people who specifically target women and children and then bomb them. It should not be lost on you that Bill Clinton was also a personal and significant donor to the Republican movement. $5,000 a year, every year he was in office. Each year the BBC would film him doing it, and play it to the world. You of course think it is totally justified for Bill Clinton to get involved with the internal politics of another soveriegn nation and try and coerce them into giving in to terrorism. Clinton was an enemy of my people. He chose his side.
And yes mate 200 years. That's our history. Deny it if you want. It doesn't change anything.
I'm still waiting for proof of your claims that Clinton supported the IRA, especially proof of monetary contributions. He tried to make peace between the British and the IRA...Just like Jimmy Carter did in the Middle East. I'm certainly not a fan of Bill Clinton, but for other reasons. No one forced you to agree to any peace deal.
You can claim whatever you want. I'm sure the Irish see it quite differently than you do though, seeing as how British oppression in Ireland goes back hundreds of years to Cromwell's invasion in 1649. Talk about hundreds of years of terrorism, you just have to look at what the British did in Ireland. There's a reason the IRA hates you.
No nation is without sin, and I find your hatred of the US (for 200 years of terror) pretty ironic considering what the British did in their colonies (the opium wars in China being one of the worst), Ireland included. Let me guess, though, the US is responsible for all of that.
At any rate, I'm done with this debate for now. I'll be on vacation for a week and a half.
Originally posted by abbaba Originally posted by baff
I'm still waiting for proof of your claims that Clinton supported the IRA, especially proof of monetary contributions. He tried to make peace between the British and the IRA...Just like Jimmy Carter did in the Middle East. I'm certainly not a fan of Bill Clinton, but for other reasons. No one forced you to agree to any peace deal.
You can claim whatever you want. I'm sure the Irish see it quite differently than you do though, seeing as how British oppression in Ireland goes back hundreds of years to Cromwell's invasion in 1649. Talk about hundreds of years of terrorism, you just have to look at what the British did in Ireland. There's a reason the IRA hates you.
No nation is without sin, and I find your hatred of the US (for 200 years of terror) pretty ironic considering what the British did in their colonies (the opium wars in China being one of the worst), Ireland included. Let me guess, though, the US is responsible for all of that.
At any rate, I'm done with this debate for now. I'll be on vacation for a week and a half.
And this is the root of American sympathies for terrorism in my country. Now you understand.
I can also make quite a convincing case for Al Quaeda, but I don't. I sponsor their destruction instead.
I don't hate the U.S. I like the place. We willingly sent troops to help you defeat Al Quaeda and I support this action.
My allegience to the U.S. is not so strong however that I will follow it wherever it goes whatever it does, even at the expense of my own people or my humanity. Neither am I blind to history. I don't seek to blame the U.S. for all the evils of the world, neither do I seek to falsify those evils it does participate in. Life isn't either love or hate.
I'm getting pretty tired of our alliance currently, it hasn't seemed to benefit us for a long time now. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't really want to be associated with your philosophy. In fact, your personal philosophy instills me with the need to stand against you and the malice you embody.
By all means carry on with your "the world hates us" paranoia. Presumably that makes torturing foreigners all more palatable.
.
.
.
Here's a selection of articles from the New York Times. New York is the centre of the "Irish vote".
Clinton Administration suspends deportation proceedings against five veterans of Irish Republican Army who have settled in New York region and one from St Louis, saying that letting them stay in this country 'could contribute to peace process'; announcement comes after visit to White House last week by Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, political wing of Irish Republican Army.
But the first handshake between President Clinton and Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, stole the spotlight
When the White House overrode the recommendations of its own diplomats and granted a temporary visa to allow Gerry Adams, the Irish republican leader, to attend a conference in New York last week, it made no secret that the move was urged by two of the nation's most prominent Irish-American politicians: Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York
The Administration had been leaning against issuing the visa to the official, Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, leaving the White House caught between the British Government and a powerful bloc of Irish-American legislators who favored the visa.
The Annual Friends of Sinn Fein Dinner in New York was Clinton's favourite.
Comments
You have to realize that these people in Iraq have very limited weaponry, and very basic training. Compaired to U.S. soldiers, they are nothing. So, of course they are going to use unorthadox fighting methods to try to kill our soldiers. It is how we won our own revalutionary war. If these people were to walk around in a uniform showing their weapons they would be killed instantly by our men.
Oh, and just to clear this up, we are NOT fighting TERRORISTS in Iraq. We ARE fighting Iraqi FREEDOM FIGHTERS. They are SOLDIERS. You cannot fight and kill a terrorist. Terrorists are only defeated by spies and intelligence that can stop them before they attack. so, just stop calling them terrorists, because they aren't, atleast have the decency to call them soldiers, even though they are fighting and killing our men, and even though they are a part of wicked organizations. To call them terrorists dehumanizes them, and that is probably one of the reasons the dumbfuck we have as a president thinks it is okay to torture them.
Anyway, torturing is a horrible way to obtain information, as someone said before, they would say whatever they could just to stop the pain. And to torture them just lowers us to their level.
Oh, by the way, I support our troops, and their safe return home which they are being robbed of.
If you remember, during the Revolutionary war, we had the Continental Army, who most certainly did wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The Militia also openly displayed weapons. They didn't have uniforms because the government couldn't afford them. It was a traditional war. Regardless, both sides knew who the other side was. We didn't blow up Churches or public buildings. We didn't murder civilians. As was the custom of a chivalric war, for the most part captured enemy soldiers on both sides were treated with respect.
You call them Freedom Fighters? Soldiers?
Freedom Fighters that saw off the heads of captured journalists like Daniel Pearl? Soldiers that blow themselves up in crowded market places and mosques to kill women and children?
If all they did was fight the Coalition and Iraqi government troops you might have a point. But they don't, and you don't.
Absurd. The IRA may be supported by a small portion of the Irsh-American community, but they certainly are not funded and supplied by the US government.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/reports/america.html
Contrary to popular belief, the IRA didn't rely on American money or weapons. And they couldn't rely on American political support, which was limited at the beginning of the Troubles and continued to shrink as the IRA campaign dragged on and most influential Irish-Americans, especially politicians, distanced themselves from the IRA.
Yes, I'll take PBS's word over your nutty claims.
And yet last month congress still refused to ratify any extradition treaty that means they have to hand over IRA members.
IRA haven't relied on U.S. financial support for the last 3 years. And as for political support, Bill Clinton regularly flew to Ireland to talk with IRA members and negotiate with the British government on their behalf.
You must think we're all stupid.
Where do you think M16's come from? Or Barret 50. cals? Garand and Thompsons? A load of American military hardware, just happens to show up in the hands of "The Republicans" for use against one of America's traditional enemies but "it didn't come from America".
You might be willingly ignorant, but the people on the recieving end aren't.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~kildea/belfast/4b.jpg
Here's a quote from your link.
In fact, while the Clinton administration has pledged support, it has acknowledged for the last few years that it is up to the British and Irish governments and the various parties on the ground in Northern Ireland to sort out their differences and reach a compromise
It is implicite in this statement that a few years ago the Adminstration did belive that the internal affairs of the U.K. was something it should interfere with and explicitly mentions the support of the Clinton administration.
and another...
American influence continues.
Please don't waste my time linking to things you haven't read. If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't bother at all.
And yet last month congress still refused to ratify any extradition treaty that means they have to hand over IRA members.
IRA haven't relied on U.S. financial support for the last 3 years. And as for political support, Bill Clinton regularly flew to Ireland to talk with IRA members and negotiate with the British government on their behalf.
You must think we're all stupid.
Where do you think M16's come from? Or Barret 50. cals? Garand and Thompsons? Did you really think that America supported royalists over Republicans? Did you really think that America never interfered with countries outside it's borders, or didn't engage in any proxy wars?
You might be willingly ignorant, but the people on the recieving end aren't.
Here's a quote from your link.
In fact, while the Clinton administration has pledged support, it has acknowledged for the last few years that it is up to the British and Irish governments and the various parties on the ground in Northern Ireland to sort out their differences and reach a compromise
It is implicite in this statement that a few years ago the Adminstration did belive that the internal affairs of the U.K. was something it should interfere with and explicitly mentions the support of the Clinton administration.
and another...
American influence continues.
Please don't waste my time linking to things you haven't read. If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't bother at all.
So Bill Clinton tried to negotiate peace between the IRA and the British government. So what? That's what everyone wants, peace. Negotiating with them is one thing, how you can stretch that into siding with them against the British Government is pretty extraordinary.
Of course if you continue to make totally asinine statements like "The US has terrorized Britain for 200 years" it's pretty difficult to argue with someone who actually believes that.
They don't want peace, they want revolution.
but they are a tiny minority with no basis in the populous. Those Irish that wanted independance got it in 1921, those that wished to stay part of the Union did so.
The only reason the IRA have any negotiating power at all is because they kill people. If it wasn't for the terrorism, no one would listen to them.
Clinton rewarded their campaign of bombing by giving them the world stage and treating them like they were reasonable people, and not people who specifically target women and children and then bomb them.
It should not be lost on you that Bill Clinton was also a personal and significant donor to the Republican movement. $5,000 a year, every year he was in office. Each year the BBC would film him doing it, and play it to the world.
You of course think it is totally justified for Bill Clinton to get involved with the internal politics of another soveriegn nation and try and coerce them into giving in to terrorism. Clinton was an enemy of my people. He chose his side.
And yes mate 200 years. That's our history. Deny it if you want. It doesn't change anything.
.
See anything that reminds of you America in these murals yet?
http://peacelinetours.g2gm.com/murals/rep4.jpg
http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2005/07/28/1122550966_0.jpg
http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050926/160X_IRA_050926.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/74/250px-NIrelandWeaponsJM.jpg
I'm still waiting for proof of your claims that Clinton supported the IRA, especially proof of monetary contributions. He tried to make peace between the British and the IRA...Just like Jimmy Carter did in the Middle East. I'm certainly not a fan of Bill Clinton, but for other reasons. No one forced you to agree to any peace deal.
You can claim whatever you want. I'm sure the Irish see it quite differently than you do though, seeing as how British oppression in Ireland goes back hundreds of years to Cromwell's invasion in 1649. Talk about hundreds of years of terrorism, you just have to look at what the British did in Ireland. There's a reason the IRA hates you.
No nation is without sin, and I find your hatred of the US (for 200 years of terror) pretty ironic considering what the British did in their colonies (the opium wars in China being one of the worst), Ireland included. Let me guess, though, the US is responsible for all of that.
At any rate, I'm done with this debate for now. I'll be on vacation for a week and a half.
I'm still waiting for proof of your claims that Clinton supported the IRA, especially proof of monetary contributions. He tried to make peace between the British and the IRA...Just like Jimmy Carter did in the Middle East. I'm certainly not a fan of Bill Clinton, but for other reasons. No one forced you to agree to any peace deal.
You can claim whatever you want. I'm sure the Irish see it quite differently than you do though, seeing as how British oppression in Ireland goes back hundreds of years to Cromwell's invasion in 1649. Talk about hundreds of years of terrorism, you just have to look at what the British did in Ireland. There's a reason the IRA hates you.
No nation is without sin, and I find your hatred of the US (for 200 years of terror) pretty ironic considering what the British did in their colonies (the opium wars in China being one of the worst), Ireland included. Let me guess, though, the US is responsible for all of that.
At any rate, I'm done with this debate for now. I'll be on vacation for a week and a half.
And this is the root of American sympathies for terrorism in my country. Now you understand.
I can also make quite a convincing case for Al Quaeda, but I don't. I sponsor their destruction instead.
I don't hate the U.S. I like the place. We willingly sent troops to help you defeat Al Quaeda and I support this action.
My allegience to the U.S. is not so strong however that I will follow it wherever it goes whatever it does, even at the expense of my own people or my humanity. Neither am I blind to history. I don't seek to blame the U.S. for all the evils of the world, neither do I seek to falsify those evils it does participate in. Life isn't either love or hate.
I'm getting pretty tired of our alliance currently, it hasn't seemed to benefit us for a long time now. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't really want to be associated with your philosophy. In fact, your personal philosophy instills me with the need to stand against you and the malice you embody.
By all means carry on with your "the world hates us" paranoia. Presumably that makes torturing foreigners all more palatable.
.
.
.
Here's a selection of articles from the New York Times. New York is the centre of the "Irish vote".
Clinton to Permit Fund-Raising In the U.S. by Top I.R.A. Figure
Clinton Administration suspends deportation proceedings against five veterans of Irish Republican Army who have settled in New York region and one from St Louis, saying that letting them stay in this country 'could contribute to peace process'; announcement comes after visit to White House last week by Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, political wing of Irish Republican Army.
But the first handshake between President Clinton and Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, stole the spotlight
When the White House overrode the recommendations of its own diplomats and granted a temporary visa to allow Gerry Adams, the Irish republican leader, to attend a conference in New York last week, it made no secret that the move was urged by two of the nation's most prominent Irish-American politicians: Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York
The Administration had been leaning against issuing the visa to the official, Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, leaving the White House caught between the British Government and a powerful bloc of Irish-American legislators who favored the visa.
The Annual Friends of Sinn Fein Dinner in New York was Clinton's favourite.