To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 15512
15511  |  15513
Subject: 
Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:32:39 GMT
Viewed: 
216 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
Given the amount of debate here following Sept 11th, I am surprised this • hasn't come up in this forum before.

Are the  al-Qaida suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base being • treated fairly?

And if the US is at war with terrorists, are they prisoners of war?

lawrence

Dubya conveniently avoided having to worry about that distinction by not
actually declaring war.  The 'war on terror' is a colloquialism, a title for a
foreign policy inititive with a military component.

Colin Powell (while i have respect for him in some ways, his actions at My Lai
in Viet Nam leave me suspect) was smart enough to know that to declare war on
Afghanistan would have brought a host of Islamic nations in to the fray, so
the administration did an end run around congress to declare 'war' on
terrorism, wherever it stands.

So... first, its afghanistan, next will be somalia, after that iraq, i wonder
how long before its hidoing in Viet Nam.  It seems that the admin is going
after those places that have handed the US a big plate of humble pie
(afghanistan, somalia and Nam) or have been a thorn in their sides (iraq).  As
i see it, its never been a war of justice, its been a war of revenge.
Otherwise they would have gone in on the ground from the start- and not been
terrorists of a different stripe with their high altitude bombing of civilian
and 'military' targets.  Oh well, they are only dark-skinned
third-world foreigners, its not like they *matter*. After all- they have no
money, so nokia, pepsi and walmart won't have much reason to set up shop there.

So, while they are in reality, prisoners of war, legally, they will not be
considered such, so they can be interrogated, beaten and tortured with the
administration retaining a clear conscience (presuming it has a conscience-
which is a big leap in the first place).

I believe the common phrase among the john q. sixpacks is "kick their ass and
steal their gas!"

Pathetic.  Really sad.  And you know what?  Its likely all downhill from here.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.  That movie 'the siege' isn't so unrealistic now, is
it?

john



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
 
"John Grubber" <jgrubber2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:GqCuAF.n30@lugnet.com... snip (...) Several of them are British. Hardly as you describe. Though many in the UK would say 'serve them right' lawrence (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  So are they prisoners of war or what?
 
Given the amount of debate here following Sept 11th, I am surprised this hasn't come up in this forum before. Are the al-Qaida suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base being treated fairly? And if the US is at war with terrorists, are they (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

18 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR