Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bush musketeer
they way i look at it the Al'Queda blokes reckon they are fighting for there freedom from the west and some of its ideas that they dont agree with right? and the fanatics amonsgt em are going to do whatever they think it will take. and if that means going outside the geneva convention when it suits them then they will.
as im sure they will use the GC to go on about how bad they have been treated when taken prisoner and then try blameing the us and others and saying things like if the coalition dont play by the rules why should we , its there way of using public opinoin to influence the war.
just like they say that they main reason for this war is to get oil.
|
Ok, so which is it? Is it because we invaded Iraq, or is it because they are fighting for freedom from the west?
Since when do terrorists organisations follow the GC to be able to go outside of it as it suits them?
I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are waivering on many points. |
From the coverage that i have seen ,much of which is australian media so it might not of been viewed by ppl in the us. and from the discussion's i have had with various ppl including ppl who have came to australia as a direct result of the afghanistan war. i would say it was both some of them think that because the coalition ivaded iraq that that is why they are fighting the way they are and using the tactics that they are using . while others think that they are fighting because they want to hold on to there traditional values ; such as what clothes women should or shouldn't wear which in many cases are quite different to views held in the west ,along with other so called fundementalists views which are too many to go into.
so depended on the soldier/terreorist they could be fighting for both of the afforementened reasons or completly different ones. in other words there are many and varied reasons.
it was my opinion that the fact that they are at least taking prisoners is about as close to gc as they were going to get and when the prisoner abuse thing came out it allowed them to use worse ways to treat coalition prisoners wether millitary or civilians ones by using the excuse if you like that it was revenge for what happened to there blokes that were captured. (even though they could of been doing stuff like on the video b4 the abuse stuff came into circulation).
i have also discussed this with my grand father and his brothers who fought in the pacific in ww2 and dealt with similar (and worse) things firsthand which i why i personally think that the taking of prisoners is not the number one concern in a war, winning the bloody war to stop all this crap happening would be my number one concern. crap as in 911, bali and other things which are things that should not of bloody happend to start with.
and this doe's not mean that i think that prisoners of war should be left to the mercy of the enemy whoever it might be at the time. i think that if you have even a tiny chance of rescuing prisoners it should be attempted.
cheers i hope this cleared something up and yes i do tend to waiver it has taken me years of practice to waiver this much
June 3rd, 2004
--
