35 replies to this topic

[Wesley]

I believe you are right, that the Taliban does not commit acts like this. It does however commit other acts that are also shocking to many and are not praiseworthy. Neither side seems to be very exemplary in this conflict.

On another note, I was listening to a interview of a retired colonel discuss this incident, and he said that he believed that the mindset demonstrated in this video, the complete disregard for human dignity and honor, is traceable all the way back to President Bush and his administrations (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_orde"]practiced dismissal of the Geneva conventions[/url]:

All members of the U.S. Armed services are required to have training on the Geneva Conventions and Law of War at basic training. This training reoccurs on an annual basis.

It is true the Bush administration at the highest levels did order unjust things which went against those conventions, and I can see how theoretically, this could be an influence. Still, at every lower level, members of the armed forces are trained about these laws and are warned of what articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice they violate and what the probably punishment will be. You can guarantee these members will be punished.

[the sad clown]

All members of the U.S. Armed services are required to have training on the Geneva Conventions and Law of War at basic training. This training reoccurs on an annual basis.

It is true the Bush administration at the highest levels did order unjust things which went against those conventions, and I can see how theoretically, this could be an influence. Still, at every lower level, members of the armed forces are trained about these laws and are warned of what articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice they violate and what the probably punishment will be. You can guarantee these members will be punished.

I have no doubts about anything you said. But I believe that there is something fundamentally true about the assertion that the gainsaying and circumventing of the Geneva Conventions at the top has had an effect down the ranks. Perhaps not for most individuals, but it could certainly create an environment that proves to be a tipping factor for less stable or scrupulous individuals. I regret that it seems Bush will not be held accountable for this and many other disastrous things he performed while in office.

[ParadiseLost]

I regret that it seems Bush will not be held accountable for this and many other disastrous things he performed while in office.

I definitely don't doubt that the military officers who did this will be punished in some way but yes will Bush be? What is wrong with society that they think politicians should be immune from the law!

[SaracenSoldier]

Definition of Terrorism as posted here (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/terrorism[/url]

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

It is why I am politically unaffiliated with any group, and do not sponsor the policies of any political organization.

A sponsor of terrorism means the organization actively was affiliated with those who did act for the purposes listed above.

The question which needs to be asked then, is which entities use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce? Which entities seek to cause fear and submission through violence and threats of violence? Which entities use such methods to govern or resist governing?

The above definition can be applied to almost every country and government on the planet. ANd the most guilty of the above in scale would be the US.

When an organization such as Boko Haram doesn't even say they are attacking churches for any reason other than to establish Shari'a law (political purpose), there is no way to defend or propose to defend that action. The Taliban, who definitely did govern by the above definitions, have no good reason to govern the way they did. The Marines who defecated on corpses, that is at best ignorant but isn't something which in of itself causes fear. The eventual goal within Afghanistan is to have a government which does not rely on the above methods to govern. If that is possible, who knows. If the Taliban is the eventual outcome of Afghanistan again, I feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan who have suffered so much from all the war brought on by the Soviet Union, Pakistan, the United States, and Taliban, and various forms of Mujahideen. I hope they can be governed equitably and peacefully, without fear or violence.

You seem to have missed my entire point in the "boko haram" thread. I'm seriously wondering whether I can't communicate well enough!

missjupiter on the other thread said that "boko haram" are fighting against Christians because of the killing of their leader. Now you are saying they are fighting against Christians because they want Islamic law. Both of these are untrue because "boko haram" themselves have said that they are only fighting against Christians because Christians have been killing Muslims. Of course this does not mean I am defending their actions but it means I am trying to clarify for me and everyone else the real motives for their actions.

Saracen, I do apologize for offending you. I should have not said you defended terrorist groups or defended terrorist actions. I would advise though, with a name like Saracen (the group of pre-Islamic Arabs descended from Abraham and Sarah and famous for fighting) and Soldier, that you use a well defined position when discussing possible alternatives to the stated positions.

My alternative is the same as every Muslim. We want to live under the Islam that was practised by The Prophet Muhammad(saw) and the first 3 generations of Muslims. But I don't have to make that known in every single conversation. A lot of non-Muslims here criticize Islam and at the same time they say they "don't support the actions of 'the West'" and they don't post any alternatives.

[Mercyonmankind]

Sad, don't know what to say...

[The Doc]

I think the general media and portrayal of Islam/Muslims present today, in addition to the US crusader type message of this 'war on terror' probably makes these few soldiers feel better for doing this disgusting act to the dead.

Its like they're dead but THAT is not enough! Lets humiliate them further.

If Muslims did this there would be uproar.

[Ron Shirt]

The US allows media around is ridiculous. It's all controlled and it's made sure that the message they want to send out is received. Just like how they lied about their casualties during Vietnam. Even with this current video it was captured on what seemed an amateur phone camera. Or else it would have never got any attention.

No one ever said they supported "boko haram". Even using Taliban as an example when compared to the US or others does not mean one supports them. And what you refer to as "justifiable defence" simply means one does not blindly follow propaganda of one side but seeks to get the views of all sides before coming to a conclusion about certain events, people, etc. This is a serious problem with a lot of "Westerners". When one does not follow their 'mindset', propaganda or view of certain events and questions them then somehow that person automatically supports the "other side". Quiet annoying to be frank.

BTW just as a FYI apparently the Taliban are not "terrorists" anymore . : (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir/detail/218035.html[/url]

Strange, only a week or two ago someone on this forum admitted that he supported Boko Haram, as a minority, infilcting Sharia law on the majority in Nigeria. He then further admitted that this would be to support a dictatorship.
Amazing.

ron

[Younes]

Strange, only a week or two ago someone on this forum admitted that he supported Boko Haram, as a minority, infilcting Sharia law on the majority in Nigeria. He then further admitted that this would be to support a dictatorship.

I think you are referring to me here. I didn't say that I supported Boko Haram. In fact, I said that I don't Boko Haram so you just lied there.

[Ron Shirt]

I think you are referring to me here. I didn't say that I supported Boko Haram. In fact, I said that I don't Boko Haram so you just lied there.

No I didn't 'lie'. I admit what I just said was slightly wrong. My mistake. But you did say that you 'knew and supported what Boko Haram were doing' and also that it would be right, in your view, for them to impose Sharia law upon the majority of Nigerians. Hence you admitted to supporting a dictatorship. Am I right or am I wrong?

ron

[Younes]

No I didn't 'lie'. I admit what I just said was slightly wrong. My mistake. But you did say that you 'knew and supported what Boko Haram were doing' and also that it would be right, in your view, for them to impose Sharia law upon the majority of Nigerians. Hence you admitted to supporting a dictatorship. Am I right or am I wrong?

Okay. Now I consider you a liar. This is what I said, an excact quote: "I know enough about Boko Haram to not spell their name as Boko Harem. I know what they are doing.". So you just put words in my mouth. In fact, I said that I don't support what Boko Haram is doing.

[Ron Shirt]

Okay. Now I consider you a liar. This is what I said, an excact quote: "I know enough about Boko Haram to not spell their name as Boko Harem. I know what they are doing.". So you just put words in my mouth. In fact, I said that I don't support what Boko Haram is doing.

Right I've just gone back and seen what you said. You went so far as to admit that (in theory presumably) you would support BOKO HARAM if they, as a minority enforced Shariah law on the majority (if that is indeed what they are) in Nigeria. You also said (rather tantislisingly I thought) that you 'know what BH are doing'. You stopped short of actually saying that you supported them. Is that correct? You did not actually state that you did not support what BH are doing. So that makes you the one who is lying.

The fact that you openly came out and said that you would be in support of what would be a dictatorship is the only thing in your favour. Otherwise you are condemned for holding extremist views, by the vast majority of fair minded peoples throughout the world.

r

[Ron Shirt]

Furthermore Mr. 'Younes'. You obviously misread (or did you read what you wanted to read?) what I actually said in my earlier post:

"Strange, only a week or two ago someone on this forum admitted that he supported Boko Haram, as a minority, infilcting Sharia law on the majority in Nigeria. He then further admitted that this would be to support a dictatorship."

Repeat: " .. that he supported Boko Haram, as a minority, infilcting Sharia law on the majority in Nigeria".

Repeat: SUPPORTED BOKO HARAM, AS A MINORITY, INFLICTING SHARIA LAW ON THE MAJORITY IN NIGERIA"

If you require further explanation I shall be more than happy to provide it.
Maybe you would also like some information regarding the nature of dictatorships, which again, to the best of my ability I will be more than happy to provide.

salaam,

ron

[Younes]

Right I've just gone back and seen what you said. You went so far as to admit that (in theory presumably) you would support BOKO HARAM if they, as a minority enforced Shariah law on the majority (if that is indeed what they are) in Nigeria. You also said (rather tantislisingly I thought) that you 'know what BH are doing'. You stopped short of actually saying that you supported them. Is that correct? You did not actually state that you did not support what BH are doing. So that makes you the one who is lying.

What have you done here is to try to read between the lines. The thing is you, Ron, do not know how to do that so simply don't. I never said I would support Boko Haram. I also didn't say anything tantalizingly, whatever you mean by that. What I meant is that I know what they are doing, i.e. killing people. I said in that thread, "However, this doesn't mean that I support what Boko Haram is doing.". Now if you knew how to actually read between the lines - which you don't so don't try it anymore- then you would have understood that I don't support Boko Haram. And to make it perfectly clear for you, I will reiterate: I don't support Boko Haram.

[Younes]

And to make things even more clear, I don't support Boko Haram "inflicting" Sharia in Nigeria.

[Ron Shirt]

What have you done here is to try to read between the lines. The thing is you, Ron, do not know how to do that so simply don't. I never said I would support Boko Haram. I also didn't say anything tantalizingly, whatever you mean by that. What I meant is that I know what they are doing, i.e. killing people. I said in that thread, "However, this doesn't mean that I support what Boko Haram is doing.". Now if you knew how to actually read between the lines - which you don't so don't try it anymore- then you would have understood that I don't support Boko Haram. And to make it perfectly clear for you, I will reiterate: I don't support Boko Haram.

It is entirely your business if you support BOKO HARAM or not, although I would have thought, bearing in mind your position as IF 'Guardian' you would need to be rather careful about revealing (worse in my opinion) that you apparently support dictatorships per se.

Perhaps this transcript might help you:

Younes: "Yes, it is allowed for Muslims to impose Sharia on non-Muslims."

Ron: "Even if the Muslims are in a minority?"

Younes: "Yes"

Ron: "So this would be what is called a dictatorship .."

Younes: No reply

Later: Ron: "And setting aside history for the moment, am I correct in assuming that you would support the imposition of Shariah law in Nigeria by an un-elected group whom you believe to be Muslims?
In other words, in the language of the 21st century, you would support a dictatorship?"

Younes: "If Sharia Law was established in Nigeria by an unelected group, then, yes, I would support it. However, this doesn't mean that I support what Boko Haram is doing. And yes, I guess in the language of the 21st century I would support a dictatorship."

Perhaps the above will help you with your obvious issue with 'reading between the lines'


good luck, (I guess)

ron

[Younes]

It is entirely your business if you support BOKO HARAM or not, although I would have thought, bearing in mind your position as IF 'Guardian' you would need to be rather careful about revealing (worse in my opinion) that you apparently support dictatorships per se.

Yes, it is my business if I support them or not, but don't go around claiming that I support Boko Haram because I don't support them.