| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Comments:
<0> But you're not, for that particular case
<0> You have, in plenty of others. Hell, you're hauled up in front of the WTO almost yearly
<1> the same was said during the Iraq war
<0> When again, you broke international law.
<1> we violated international law by using napalm
<1> but the US never signed any agreement to stop using napalm.
<0> But you did sign the geneva convention
<2> Okay
<2> What's this stupid crap about, Asriel
<2> Where did we violate the geneva convention?
<1> there, go nuts JB.
<1> I got them started
<0> I won't argue with JB, he hasn't a clue how to do it :)
<2> Where did we violate the geneva convention?
<0> It's a standing rule I have
<3> isn't guantanimo (or how you spell it) one big violation of the geneva convention ?
<2> No, it isn't, Joey.
<0> No. Because apparently, you can arbitarily name people something else, and it doesn't apply
<4> oh good lord
<2> Nothing in the Geneva conventions prohibit nations from operating naval bases.
<3> what about how the prisoners there are treated ?
<0> Like if ImaginaryLand goes to war with the US and captures a load of their soliders, storing them by the sea and calling them "Enemy combatants" strips them of all those rights
<5> technically, the detainees at gitmo are not part of any internationally recognized state's military
<2> Asriel simply doesn't understand the geneva conventions
<0> And the US won't have any problems with that
<2> What about how the prisoners there are treated, Joey?
<2> Contrary to popular wisdom by idiots like Asriel, the geneva conventions do not prohibit taking people prisoner.
<0> POW are granted certain rights by the convention
<0> rights you're not applying in your "War on terror"
<2> Rights we are applying
<2> And they're not POW's.
<0> What are they then?
<0> This is a "War on terror", right?
<0> They're terrorists, right?
<5> to be considered a POW you must be a member of a military that flies a flag, i believe
<0> Hence, they would seem to be "POW"
<5> not some terrorist cell
<0> peterhu - Hence the retardedness of declaring "War on *concept*"
<3> if they aren't POW shouldn't they have the same rights to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time like any other prisoner in the US ?
<2> Sorry, kid, but the 4th convention specifically declares citizens of a neutral nation engaged in military operations against a country to be unprotected by the mandates of the 4th convention.
<3> or shipping them to another country a way of not have to deal with that ?
<2> And that covers treatment of prisoners of war.
<2> I cannot go to Mexico, throw a firebomb into the Mexican senate, and expect to be protected by the 4th geneva convention.
<2> That's just stupid.
<4> neutral nation?
<2> And only an ignorant hippy could think otherwise.
<0> Then why did you declare "War on terror"?
<2> Yes, Tech, for instance if an Afghani is fighting in Iraq.
<0> Or was that just PR bull****?
<2> Against US forces.
<2> As Afghanistan is in a neutral state with us, the Afghani terrorist is on his own
<0> What about the Afganis you have that you captured in Afganistan?
<2> They don't go to gitmo
<2> Fine understanding of current events.
<0> Heh. Really
<2> And even if they did, they'd be treated as prisoners of war.
<0> Somehow, I don't believe that
<2> We haven't violated the geneva convention.
<2> Of course you don't believe it.
<0> Nor do the Red cross, nor most of the international community
<2> Because your knowledge is not based on facts or consistent analysis.
<2> Sorry, but that's not true either.
<0> Hell, your biggest "ally" in the war on terror already hates the place enough to call it "An abberation"
<2> You know, saying you don't believe it doesn't prove it false, Asriel.
<0> which is diplomatic code for "WTF are they thinking"?
<2> It just proves that your beliefs are not rooted in facts.
<0> Well, we're going on the logic that "Oh, we don't mistreat prisoners"
<2> Show me the facts, Asriel, not stupid quotes.
<0> "Oh wait, those prisoners that we electrocuted the genitals of, those were....mistakes. Yeah, just a few rogue people"
<2> You do have facts, right?
<2> Or do you just make up 100 quotes and feel satisfied?
<0> No, because the US won't let anyone else into the place
<0> And has *lied* in the past about this
<2> Of course we do
<0> The UN international inspectors *walked out*
<5> in america, it is customary to electrocute the genitals of the person you have just formally greeted
<2> So you're saying that you have NO REASON TO BELIEVE that GTMO is misrun?
<0> Because you wouldn't give them the access
<0> Let's review. The red cross? Denied adequete access. The UN? Denied adequte access
<5> in fact, it has become so commonplace, we forgot exchanging of greetings in favor of gential electrocution
<0> The only people claiming it's all fine are, in fact, the US
<0> Who claimed it was all fine in Iraq and, oh wait, that was bull****
<0> You can see the worlds scepticism here
<5> plus, bush is hitler
<0> Your international stock is hovering around the 0 mark
<0> Your credibility is about the same
<2> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?ei=5088&en=1dad3d8009fd09c5&ex=1259557200&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=
<5> america is the devil, etc, etc
<6> America ****S
<2> Is that what you're talking about, Asriel?
<6> i ****ing hate this government
<2> They didn't say they're denied access.
<2> And they didn't say they have any evidence of torture.
<6> oh well then nevermind
<6> America rules
<6> we should invade iran next!
<0> http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1646305,00.html?gusrc=rss
<6> and crown Bush II Emperor
<0> is what I'm talking about
<0> Let me find the red cross one
<2> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?ei=5088&en=1dad3d8009fd09c5&ex=1259557200&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=
<5> i still think i am qualified to be supreme leader of this nation, and then the world
<0> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178286,00.html
<2> ...
<2> the Red Cross, which has been conducting visits to Guantnamo since January 2002
<2> ...
<5> first order of business: kill JBlitzen
<2> November 30, 2004
<2> 2005 is a little late in the game to say that the Red Cross has never had access.
<2> I guess visiting doesn't mean you're allowed to visit
<7> hello )
<2> Perhaps they were there illegally, is that what you're saying, Asriel?
<0> It remains a fact that the only country and organisation in the world claiming that Guantnamo is all above board and fine is...
<5> yes, but what that doesn't say is that those visits are for spring break
<0> *drum roll*
<0> The country running it!
<5> and to film red cross gone wild
<3> peterhu people in the US voted for bush twice, I'm sure they vote for you, just look like a retard on your campaign poster :o)
<0> This isn't at all suspicious to you?
<5> i don't think i can do that, Joey__
<5> i might get JBlitzen to pose for me though
<2> Oh
<2> Haha
<2> Asriel, your link wasn't about the Red Cross.
<2> You stupid idiot
<2> That was some UN political appointees
<0> fine, have another one
<0> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-02.htm
<2> What do you mean "another one"
<5> POW RIGHT IN THE KISSER
<2> If this says anything that withstands scrutiny, so far it will be your "only one".
<0> not specifically about gitmo, just 3000 people in Iraq this time
<2> Oh, not about gitmo.
<0> Anyway, you're not answering the point
<2> So you're saying "ignore all the bull**** I just spewed, because now I have more bull****"
<0> How do you answer the fact that the only people saying gitmo is fine and dandy are the US?
<2> Exactly how short do you think my memory is
<2> I mean, seriously
<0> When in fact, if it *was* fine and dandy, you'd expect the UN to be allowed in, the red cross to have unfettered access
<2> Your other bull**** hasn't even left the visible page in my buffer
<0> and at least *one* of your allies would actually support it
<2> No, I would not expect the UN to be allowed free reign in a US secure facility.
<2> Particularly as the UN has clearly in recent days been proven to be complicit in transmitting cl***ified information to our enemies.
<2> Which isn't entirely surprising, as the UN is largely composed of our enemies.
<3> if the US expects Iran to allow the UN to their facilities, they should allow the UN in theirs as well
<2> No international treaty requires granting the UN unfettered access to secure facilities, Asriel.
<2> No, we really shouldn't, Joey.
<2> Because your **** doesn't withstand scrutiny either.
<0> Did I say it did? I'm not sure they actually asked for unfettered access anyway
<2> But I'm trying to be generous by focusing on Asriel.
<2> Okay, Asriel
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
zymmy
funny marid cards
which channel is the history channel?
dudak yala
#AllNiteCafe
hbo chatzone
difference between Eclipse and MyEclipse
#c++
#skype
qemu dreambox
|
|