: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:32 am  

girl power wrote:

Have I walked into a parallel universe, whats the problem with treating those guilty of trying and suceeding in killing thousands whether it be here or in the usa harshly. In my view Guantamo Bay despite its many faults was nott a bad thing. Whilst I would not fancy being waterboarded etc please remember you will not get confessions that may save lives by being nicey nicey.

How do you know that they are guilty?

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:41 am  

View from the full back wrote:

How do you know that they are guilty?

That was really where I was edging...

Are we really saying guilty until proven innocent? I hope not.

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:43 am  

girl power wrote:

But as I say everyone accepts there is a war going on and what other way than some form of torture will get results, by torture I mean mind games, waterboarding etc, beating someone up is a different matter.

You might as well beat them up. The results are the same, and so is the damage.

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:45 am  

guess who wrote: We are in a war. War is a bloody horrible thing. There are no rules in war. Yes there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

guess who wrote: We are in a war. War is a bloody horrible thing. There are no rules in war. Yes there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:46 am  

girl power wrote:

Instead of just thinking about those arrested why do folk not care about the innocents that have been blown up, we are far to soft as it is.

People do care.

However, if you are fighting a war to defend a set of values,. then surely you have to do your damndest to adhere to those values?

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:57 am  

guess who wrote:

We are in a war.
War is a bloody horrible thing.
There are no rules in war.

Being the good guy, will not let you win the war.

If one side is prepared to do anything to win, then the other side has to do the same.

Innocent people get caught up ion it all the time.

War is a horrible thing, but they are regulated by the Geneva Convention.

This states that prisoners of war cannot be tortured.

Despite the Bush administration calling it a war on terror, they used a loophole to justify torture by saying that because the US didn't formally declare war on a country (Afghanistan) but invaded the country to pursue Al-Qa'ida it technically isn't a war and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

They're a set of hypocrites, you can't say it's a war one minute and not the next.

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:15 pm  

aj cougar wrote: Yes there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions I just wonder when Al-Qa'ida signed up to it? That should only apply when both sides sign up to it. If they don't then anything can go. Al-Qa'ida would happily behead one of our soldiers on tv. I have no problem with Guantamo Bay. Getting someone in a prison and asking them "now be a nice chap and tell us what plans you have to kill or soldiers", is all well and good. But what do you do when he tells you to French Connection UK off?

aj cougar wrote: Yes there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions I just wonder when Al-Qa'ida signed up to it? That should only apply when both sides sign up to it. If they don't then anything can go. Al-Qa'ida would happily behead one of our soldiers on tv. I have no problem with Guantamo Bay. Getting someone in a prison and asking them "now be a nice chap and tell us what plans you have to kill or soldiers", is all well and good. But what do you do when he tells you to French Connection UK off?

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:20 pm  

guess who wrote:

I just wonder when Al-Qa'ida signed up to it?

That should only apply when both sides sign up to it.
If they don't then anything can go.

Al-Qa'ida would happily behead one of our soldiers on tv.

I have no problem with Guantamo Bay.

Getting someone in a prison and asking them "now be a nice chap and tell us what plans you have to kill or soldiers", is all well and good. But what do you do when he tells you to French Connection UK off?

And tell me this: what has guantanamo bay actually acheived?

It's a damn good promotional and recruitmnet tool for Al-Qa'ida as far as I can see.

And our side acting like barbarians only serves to legitamise them doing the same.

You can't fight a war based on morals without having morals.

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:30 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

And tell me this: what has guantanamo bay actually acheived?

It's a damn good promotional and recruitmnet tool for Al-Qa'ida as far as I can see.

And our side acting like barbarians only serves to legitamise them doing the same.

You can't fight a war based on morals without having morals.

aj i have no idea what it has achieved.
The American/British secret service, dont told tell me all the info they got from it.

If your twisted enough, you could turn anything into a promotional tool.

Pussy footing about with these people will not help anything. We need to be bigger and bader (sp) than them.

: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:45 pm  

guess who wrote:

aj i have no idea what it has achieved.
The American/British secret service, dont told tell me all the info they got from it.

If your twisted enough, you could turn anything into a promotional tool.

Pussy footing about with these people will not help anything. We need to be bigger and bader (sp) than them.

Terrorism relies on weakness and fear.

A terrorist would happily jump you from behind, with no warning, but cry like a stuck pig when anything happens to them. It was the same with the IRA and its the same today, they use our laws, clever lawyers and loopholes to hamstring us.

I do not think that we should lower our moral standards but we need a much more robust approach with terrorists (and their supporters).