theparanoid Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Well, UN never approved it...Ok I take by highlighting C you indcated which of the condition the terriost meet.See the problems is those not say they need to meet one of them. They need to meet all of them.fulfill the following conditions. That means for them to be covered they have to meet A, B, C and D.A. It possible. But I doubt it.b. They do not meet this one. C. Do you now for the fact they they always carry opens openely? I mean they people held might have had hidden weapons they draw and attack as the troops passed them. So How do you know that they always carry there weapons in the open. ie that they on can tell they are armed. See the stories I heard from war veterans tell me this this one is not true.D. I pretty sure they fail this one. Hijack planes and crashing them into buildings I believe removes this off the plate. Bomb bus/subway and train stations also removes this one from the field.Seems to me they might follow 1/4 or maybe 1/2 of the condition. Problem is what you quote states they must fullfil ALL of them. A, B, C, and D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joachimnor Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Well, still there is 1 and 6... and thats just in article 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoppah Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Well, UN never approved it...Never approved what? I didn't say the UN approved torturing or killing innocent civilians. It's funny that you keep hiding behind that convention and ignore the rest of my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jab16 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 C. Do you now for the fact they they always carry opens openely? I mean they people held might have had hidden weapons they draw and attack as the troops passed them. So How do you know that they always carry there weapons in the open. ie that they on can tell they are armed. See the stories I heard from war veterans tell me this this one is not true.This is extremly true. Being myself, and knowing people in the armed forces as well as working with them I agree with this post. Take for example the special opperations teams opperating in the hindu kush mountain range. When your up there doing recon on movment and you see a man with a wagon full of explosives walking around, can you shoot??? No, anyone know why??? because goverment figures around the world say that, well mabie the guy just wants to walk around at night with expolsives on him. Can you shoot??? No you cant, and if you do shoot extremists will find out and the media will get wind. The media is 10 times worse then you can possibly imagine in that kind of situation. Even if it means that you are going to possibly save the lives of 15 helpless people in a marked hundreds of miles away. @joachimnor: so you are saying that even thought troops cant do anything, and people may die, they still deserve the same rights as everyone else??? think, 27 people from europe died in 9/11 that wern't even american citizans of the 334 people from other countrys besides the intended U.S. do they really deserve the same rights as other people?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theparanoid Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Well, still there is 1 and 6... and thats just in article 4(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.There not armed forces there terrriost. That a proven fact. Sorry there not cover by that one. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. umm Nato is currently occupied Afganistan and remove the taliban from power because they sponser, support and allow 9/11/2001 to happen. So this also those not count.As for no un approve. I have yet to see one un sancation aganist NATO, US, UK, Germany, or other country involde in Afghanistan. In case you where sleep on Sept 11, 2001. The US was attack and 2,973 died, mostly civilians and not all us citizens. That attack was carried out by Al'quida with the support of the Taliban. So Know that we proven with your own post that there not POW. I mean they barely meet one of the 4 requirement to be a POW by your own post.Again we already established that they do not conduct them self according to customs of war and that they attack civilians. Nor do they carry armos in the open. Nothing you posted applies to the terrorist.Edit post to correct the number killed by terriost on 9/11/2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunter42 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 In case you where sleep on Sept 11, 2001. The US was attack and over 4,000 Civilian, not all us citizens died. That attack was carried out by Al'quida with the support of the Taliban.Man this is rather disrespectful!6000 + people died on that day, and you make fun of it!A US woman has been added to the list of those killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, after dying from dust generated by the towers' collapse.---The ruling that she was the tragedy's 2,750th victim may have implications in the cases of dozens of other deaths. ---The 9/11 death toll, not including the hijackers, also includes 184 killed when a plane flew into the Pentagon and 40 killed in a hijacked plane that crashed into the ground in PennsylvaniaIf either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 2572 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoppah Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 2572Yes, that's what I meant with incorrect statements. 6000, I wonder where he got that from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 This is extremly true. Being myself, and knowing people in the armed forces as well as working with them I agree with this post. Take for example the special opperations teams opperating in the hindu kush mountain range. When your up there doing recon on movment and you see a man with a wagon full of explosives walking around, can you shoot??? No, anyone know why??? because goverment figures around the world say that, well mabie the guy just wants to walk around at night with expolsives on him. Can you shoot??? No you cant, and if you do shoot extremists will find out and the media will get wind. The media is 10 times worse then you can possibly imagine in that kind of situation. Even if it means that you are going to possibly save the lives of 15 helpless people in a marked hundreds of miles away.easy solution: shoot the press.more of a danger to society than any terrorist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theparanoid Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If either of you two are going to argue about a terrorist attack, try and get your figures right. The highest the official figure ever was was at just more than 6500 but that was soon after the attacks and that number dropped as duplicated names were found and residents assumed missing returned to their homes.By the looks of things, the current figure sits at 25722,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacksAccording to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacksI was using the numbers form the news after the attacks. Never bother to check if they were lowered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzyface Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Do we know who tried to hack him yet?I think a mod should change the thread title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dosedmonkey Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well, somalia was in war loooong before thatYes, but so was Afghanistan, Taliban in the south (Supported by Pakistan before 9/11) and the 'Rebels' in the north (supported by India). If Obama puts efforts into stopping the nuclear stalemate between Pakistan and India, and get them working closer together, that could help the effort in Afghan.Anyway I'm impressed with everyones maturity in this thread, even if I don't agree with you, its good to hear everyones views.And rather then going through this whole thread, its easier to say I mostly agree with Hoppah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundking Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I have actually been enjoying this debate, and I am quite pleased that none of us moderators have had to step in and end it, and it only started to get a little hot once, the rest it's been a good debate. Personally, I don't support us being over there, I don't care about anyone else, but as for Canadians, I don't think we should be there, now mind you, I still support the troops, just not our involvement in it. I don't think there is a point for us to be over there as anything more than diplomats and peace keepers, which technically we may be, but I don't agree, because we carry out operations, and they aren't peace keepers, but are soldiers. I understand that over there now we are a bit of an important being, and we did do a lot, and that if we left mid operation, we would do a lot of harm. The thing is, as someone previously stated, all the way back to bible times, war s have been a way to solve things in the middle east, it's their culture. I think the only way we'll be able to stop the wars forever, is to kill almost all of them, therefore ending that culture. That's not an alternative that is realistic, nor one I support. I think it boils down to the fact that two completely different cultures don't like the way another one runs, and neither are really going about it the best way. Now since I'm just a regular citizen and not a general, I don't really have a say in better tactics, and I honestly can't think of a better way then this, but I know there must be some better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jab16 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Going with what NFK just said, generals need to realize that this is just as much a mental war as it is physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundking Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Most wars are mainly mental, especially this one, with the mindset of the terrorists that this is for Allah, they'll be much more willing to try anything. There are two completely different mindsets that need special attention from both sides, or else it's just gonna keep going until one side runs out of people, or pulls out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 lol but werent there "personal wars" before and no one cared?Define none cared.... did we leave the topics on the forum? Do you still see those topics active? Didn't we give warnings? I already said a feww pages ago that I am going to close this shitSo indeed we don't care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erfd Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think the next problem might be Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennie900 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 1 soloution. Blow them all up. and i know people will bitch about this but i dont care, this is my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forensics Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 1 soloution. Blow them all up.Not what I'd call a solution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 1 soloution. Blow them all up. and i know people will bitch about this but i dont care, this is my opinionamen. lol wouldnt Hoppah just reopen the topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erfd Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 1 soloution. Blow them all up. and i know people will bitch about this but i dont care, this is my opinion I agree 100% Look at world war 2, they blew whole town to pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usmc123 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I agree 100% Look at world war 2, they blew whole town to pieces.Well sure after 4 years of war (for the U.S.) It's not like the U.S. entered the war. Dropped two bombs on Japan and there was a parade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppysboy222 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 F***! Someone just found out my email password... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
917893678251 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 There;s actually 2 problems,North Korea and Iran both have nuclear missiles pointed at the US trying to blow them off the map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 sigh... where do you get your information? there, so far, is no indications of weapons (except for NK), just some nuclear materials. until more proof comes im not against them.besides, if they did launch an attack against the US or any of the Allied/Russian nations, it would be retarded because their missiles would be blown out of the sky before they even got out of their silos and then theyd have the entire world essentially hounding their asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundking Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 That's the best thing about Canada.. Everyone loves us, not like their favourite, but the little cute kid in school... No one wants to spend time with him, but everyone knows, anyone so much as picks on him, and they get their asses kicked.. That's us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
