The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 8




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 26th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
ya,


the terriosts think that their using of dirty bomb is to kill bad guys in a HOLY war...


so who is right?

both sides can justify themselves,

in this case, the winner is the right one as the winner can tell the loser to shut up, right?
June 26th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
As for whether or not American service men are willing to be exposed to depleted uranium. They rather prefer the danger of having an A-10 give them close air support to having a T-72 or terrorist position breathing down their neck. Despite using depleted uranium rounds, A-10s are consistently one of the most valued planes for CAS by infantrymen.
I would beg to differ, albeit some servicmen might prefer the exposure to DU ammo to a MBT. However for myself and other veterans I know who were exposed in 1991 they would disagree. I and the others I have spoken to about this would prefer the offending armour be taken out with a maverick, hellfire or some other weapon which would not then expose us to a silent killer.
June 26th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
ya,


the terriosts think that their using of dirty bomb is to kill bad guys in a HOLY war...


so who is right?

both sides can justify themselves,

in this case, the winner is the right one as the winner can tell the loser to shut up, right?
So saying it's a holy war makes killing civilians right?
--
Boots
June 26th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Apparently as far as CSmaster is concerned there isn't a difference between military servicemen and civilian men, women, and children.

While I obviously don't agree with those who would wage war against the United States military, if they confine their attacks to the military I can't fault them for that.

However the very purpose of a dirty bomb is to kill and maim civilians. Something CSmaster can't seem to grasp.
June 26th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
ya,


the terriosts think that their using of dirty bomb is to kill bad guys in a HOLY war...


so who is right?

both sides can justify themselves,

in this case, the winner is the right one as the winner can tell the loser to shut up, right?
Equating the use of depleted uranium rounds versus armoured targets to the use of a dirty bomb is specious logic. I resent it as this is a serious issue you are muddling up with illogical arguments. This is just a bit off topic and I have started a thread on the use of depleted uranium where it would be more germaine to hash it out.

Everyone is always right in their own mind. It is a matter of perspective that differs the interpretation. Mao Zedong and George Washington were both terrorists and insurgents or freedom fighters and patriots depending on your perspective.

And in this case, as in all wars, the winner doesn't have to tell the loser to shut up because dead men don't talk.
June 26th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
CSmaster, I will let your past two posts stand as others have already responded to them, but if you continue to ignore warnings, further disciplinary action will be required. Put forth the effort to make your posts readable or do not post.
July 2nd, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Would it be relevant to raise the issue of the Taliban goverment not being recognized by the world community ?
I mean lawful combatants belong to a government and act according to the laws of war.
Now what if that gov is not recognized? does it stillmake sense to talk about lawfulness of combatants?
July 2nd, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Would it be relevant to raise the issue of the Taliban goverment not being recognized by the world community ?
I mean lawful combatants belong to a government and act according to the laws of war.
Now what if that gov is not recognized? does it stillmake sense to talk about lawfulness of combatants?
I think GC does not say anything about this.
July 29th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Now just what do you do with armed civilians who think nothing of killing people for reasons that you would believe. Do you turn them lose to start again or do you do what America has done and that is remove from this Afghanistan completely. Until things have settled down there or they have changed their ways, and later is most unlikely. Many of these people that America has detained are the hard line Taliban they were the local enforcers the muscle, they are the people that want to return the very simple life that they claim is gods will, no radios no music, no television, no medicine, no books no newspapers, no sport. Any one caught doing any of these things can be severely punished or even killed. We all know about political niceties, but you can not always treat these people as you would a fellow American as their concept of the law is so different to yours
July 29th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Don't know if i've replyed to this before.

Just a note, the human rights (regarding torture and such) still applies for terrorists whenever they are classed as prisoners of war or not, as of UN resolusion.