John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
I say we put him in a Turkish prison.
Saddam Hussein captured
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Nah, I say we strip him naked, cover him with honey, and send him out to the Alaskan wilderness. If you don't know why we should do this, refer to the Order and check my topic, "Alaskan Nightmare...!Warning! Graphic!"
If we're talking seriously here, torture is NOT an option.
I mean, w t f? Saddam was supposed to be "the evil one" because, amongst other things, he was claimed to be the head of a government that tortured human beings. Yes, Saddam is a complete and utter souvabitch, but yet and still a human being.
Even from a totally pro-bush pro-war point of view, it's paradoxal...
Blocking his body substances production... What's next? Zyklon B?
I'll "rip to shreds" the rest later
I mean, w t f? Saddam was supposed to be "the evil one" because, amongst other things, he was claimed to be the head of a government that tortured human beings. Yes, Saddam is a complete and utter souvabitch, but yet and still a human being.
Even from a totally pro-bush pro-war point of view, it's paradoxal...
Blocking his body substances production... What's next? Zyklon B?
I'll "rip to shreds" the rest later
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Ok first, we weren't talking seriously, second, there are two types of "beings" in this world, human"beings", and terrorists. How can you call yourself human when you don't give a damn about human life? Or maybe we were talking seriously, hmm.... Either way, I don't agree with torturing Saddam, he didn't do anything bad for me other than harboring my country's enemy and being my country's enemy. I don't like the guy, but I still don't agree with torturing him. We should really torture Osama if we ever get him though.
Sir Kalthorine
First time out of the vault
Sad confession: With the Return of the King release imminent over here in the UK, I pretended I was too ill to go out on Saturday night so that I could wallow in the bliss of watching the extended editions of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers in excited anticipation of going to see the final film in the trilogy later this week...
So all night I dreamt of Elves and Hobbits and High Fantasy...
And then I woke up and, still half-asleep and daydreaming about Lord of the Rings, turned on the television to Sky News...
And spent 5 extremely befuddled minutes watching the coverage of Saddam Hussain's capture, convinced from the footage of his medical examination that the U.S. Army had captured Gimli
So all night I dreamt of Elves and Hobbits and High Fantasy...
And then I woke up and, still half-asleep and daydreaming about Lord of the Rings, turned on the television to Sky News...
And spent 5 extremely befuddled minutes watching the coverage of Saddam Hussain's capture, convinced from the footage of his medical examination that the U.S. Army had captured Gimli
welsh
Junkmaster
That's funny. Poor Gimli captured and interrogated by US Army Rangers.
Ranger commander- "Anal probe. And go deep, boys."
Gimli- "Damn Orcs weren't so fierce at Helms' Deep! ArggHH!"
Poor Gimli.
I wonder how much info Saddam has to offer up. Be curious to see how the intelligence was collected before they got him.
I hope this takes a lot of the enthusiasm out of the Iraqi resistance and this damn war can end sooner and rebuilding will be easier.
If Saddam could be used to help end the resistance should he still be put to death?
welsh
Junkmaster
Elissar said:
I was thinking "fed to a pack of wild weasels," but's better!
Have to check out that Alaskan nightmare though.
Still we need something better for Osama.
I am a little more keen on the "Kick Osama in the ass for $10" at the World Trade Center before his ass gets roasted.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Psh. True punishment isn't just to execute in excruciating ways. The keyword here is terror. Nothing would be more terrifying to Saddam than being handed over to the very people he oppressed for 30 years.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
He is still trying to justify his acts. When asked by an Iraqi council why he did the things he did, he didn't answer, instead, he tried to justify it, when told of the hapiness and joy of the iraqis, which Al Jazeera seems afraid to show that because they still want the world to hate us, he replied, those are angry mobs, when told of the mass graves, he replied those are theives, when asked about WMD's, he said America used that as an excuse to invade his country, when asked then why he made the ruckess with the UN inspectors, he didn't answer, when offered a drink, he refused and said some crap. Funny, he never talked s*** when the soldiers captured him, or when they were interrogating him, or when they were cleaning him up. My point, he is a coward who wants to believe Iraq will mourn him and fight to the death to have him back.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok, time for the Economist to weigh in.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2295809
The tyrant in chains
Dec 15th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
American troops have captured Saddam Hussein in a bloodless raid near his hometown of Tikrit. The event could be a turning point for Iraq. But the attacks on coalition forces and their Iraqi allies have not stopped
Reuters
“LADIES and gentlemen, we got him.” Thus did Paul Bremer, America’s top administrator in Iraq, announce his most important capture at a press conference on Sunday December 14th, amid scenes of wild jubilation. The day before, American troops had found Saddam Hussein hiding in a farmhouse cellar in Ad Dawr, ten miles (16km) from his hometown of Tikrit. The former dictator gave up without a struggle; not a single shot was fired. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, showed extraordinary video footage of a bearded, ragged Saddam being examined by a medic—proof to Iraqis that their hated former leader is indeed in American custody. America delayed announcing the news until Sunday, presumably to wait for confirmation of DNA tests. When in power, after all, Saddam had a number of doubles.
In Baghdad, Iraqis celebrated in the streets with honking horns and bursts of gunfire. At last, the tyrant will face trial for his crimes. Saddam’s regime has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands. Mass graves are littered throughout the country. One of his forces’ most brutal acts was the gassing of Kurdish villagers in 1988—the first time a modern leader had used chemical weapons against his own people. Saddam also sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in three disastrous wars, the most costly of which was the 1980-88 war with Iran. Neighbouring Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990 only to be booted out by America and others, has joyfully welcomed his capture. Reaction from other Arab leaders has been muted: despite having little love for Saddam, many are dismayed by the shamefulness of his no-contest capture.
American and British leaders are jubilant. In a televised address, President George Bush called Saddam's capture “crucial to the rise of a free Iraq” and the end of a “dark and painful era”. Saddam is the ace of spades in America’s deck of most-wanted Iraqis. To have caught him alive and healthy, when he was expected to commit suicide if trapped, is an almost unimaginable coup. Many Iraqis, after all, had given up any hope of his being found at all. His peaceful capture is in stark contrast to the killing of his sons, Uday and Qusay, in a firefight lasting several hours. One of the war's great mysteries—what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—now has its best chance of being solved.
Even as world leaders hailed Saddam’s capture, talk turned quickly to the future of Iraq. “Let his capture bring about unity, reconciliation and peace between all the people in Iraq,” said Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair. In Baghdad, Mr Bremer made a special point of appealing to militants who have been firing on American troops and Iraqi “collaborators” to end the violence.
Whether the militants will now fold, or become more determined than ever, is a crucial question. Saddam, holed away in a farmhouse, seems to have been in no position to plan the resistance (though it is not clear how long he had been there, or how many other hideouts he had). Loyalists to his Baath Party may fight on, in order to derail a democratic Iraq. So far, the violence shows no sign of abating: two car bombs killed at least nine Iraqis at police stations in and around Baghdad on Monday.
Even if the militants carry on, Saddam’s capture may help win over ordinary Iraqis who have been wondering whether to trust the Americans with their future. Seeing their former dictator, once a resident of luxurious palaces, bedraggled and powerless at the hands of the Americans should persuade them that he will never mount a comeback—though it is unlikely to quell their concerns over the occupation. The news will also give a well-timed political lift to Mr Bush at home, especially going into the 2004 presidential race. It may rattle Howard Dean, the leading Democratic challenger, who has been staunchly against the war.
And what of the future of Saddam himself? Iraqis, backed by America, are planning to hold tribunals for their Baathist thugs (see article). Saddam may be no exception. Mr Bush has yet to make clear his intentions, though he has said the Butcher of Baghdad “will face the justice he denied to millions”. Given America's distaste for international criminal courts under the UN's auspices, it may be only too happy to see him tried by his own people. Mr Blair, the president's closest ally, has already said that Iraqis will decide Saddam's fate. It will surely be kinder than those of the countless Iraqis he tortured or gassed.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2295809
The tyrant in chains
Dec 15th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
American troops have captured Saddam Hussein in a bloodless raid near his hometown of Tikrit. The event could be a turning point for Iraq. But the attacks on coalition forces and their Iraqi allies have not stopped
Reuters
“LADIES and gentlemen, we got him.” Thus did Paul Bremer, America’s top administrator in Iraq, announce his most important capture at a press conference on Sunday December 14th, amid scenes of wild jubilation. The day before, American troops had found Saddam Hussein hiding in a farmhouse cellar in Ad Dawr, ten miles (16km) from his hometown of Tikrit. The former dictator gave up without a struggle; not a single shot was fired. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, showed extraordinary video footage of a bearded, ragged Saddam being examined by a medic—proof to Iraqis that their hated former leader is indeed in American custody. America delayed announcing the news until Sunday, presumably to wait for confirmation of DNA tests. When in power, after all, Saddam had a number of doubles.
In Baghdad, Iraqis celebrated in the streets with honking horns and bursts of gunfire. At last, the tyrant will face trial for his crimes. Saddam’s regime has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands. Mass graves are littered throughout the country. One of his forces’ most brutal acts was the gassing of Kurdish villagers in 1988—the first time a modern leader had used chemical weapons against his own people. Saddam also sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in three disastrous wars, the most costly of which was the 1980-88 war with Iran. Neighbouring Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990 only to be booted out by America and others, has joyfully welcomed his capture. Reaction from other Arab leaders has been muted: despite having little love for Saddam, many are dismayed by the shamefulness of his no-contest capture.
American and British leaders are jubilant. In a televised address, President George Bush called Saddam's capture “crucial to the rise of a free Iraq” and the end of a “dark and painful era”. Saddam is the ace of spades in America’s deck of most-wanted Iraqis. To have caught him alive and healthy, when he was expected to commit suicide if trapped, is an almost unimaginable coup. Many Iraqis, after all, had given up any hope of his being found at all. His peaceful capture is in stark contrast to the killing of his sons, Uday and Qusay, in a firefight lasting several hours. One of the war's great mysteries—what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—now has its best chance of being solved.
Even as world leaders hailed Saddam’s capture, talk turned quickly to the future of Iraq. “Let his capture bring about unity, reconciliation and peace between all the people in Iraq,” said Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair. In Baghdad, Mr Bremer made a special point of appealing to militants who have been firing on American troops and Iraqi “collaborators” to end the violence.
Whether the militants will now fold, or become more determined than ever, is a crucial question. Saddam, holed away in a farmhouse, seems to have been in no position to plan the resistance (though it is not clear how long he had been there, or how many other hideouts he had). Loyalists to his Baath Party may fight on, in order to derail a democratic Iraq. So far, the violence shows no sign of abating: two car bombs killed at least nine Iraqis at police stations in and around Baghdad on Monday.
Even if the militants carry on, Saddam’s capture may help win over ordinary Iraqis who have been wondering whether to trust the Americans with their future. Seeing their former dictator, once a resident of luxurious palaces, bedraggled and powerless at the hands of the Americans should persuade them that he will never mount a comeback—though it is unlikely to quell their concerns over the occupation. The news will also give a well-timed political lift to Mr Bush at home, especially going into the 2004 presidential race. It may rattle Howard Dean, the leading Democratic challenger, who has been staunchly against the war.
And what of the future of Saddam himself? Iraqis, backed by America, are planning to hold tribunals for their Baathist thugs (see article). Saddam may be no exception. Mr Bush has yet to make clear his intentions, though he has said the Butcher of Baghdad “will face the justice he denied to millions”. Given America's distaste for international criminal courts under the UN's auspices, it may be only too happy to see him tried by his own people. Mr Blair, the president's closest ally, has already said that Iraqis will decide Saddam's fate. It will surely be kinder than those of the countless Iraqis he tortured or gassed.
welsh
Junkmaster
and about the rest-
Bringing the old regime to trial
Dec 11th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The plan for an Iraqi tribunal worries human-rights campaigners because it will be run by local judges rather than the United Nations, and thus may be seen as a tool for vengeance
IT SHOULD be cause for satisfaction, even catharsis, if not celebration. A special tribunal is being set up to try top people in Saddam Hussein’s regime for genocide, torture, mass slaughter and other atrocities. Human Rights Watch, a respected international lobby group, reckons that at least 290,000 Iraqis were murdered in the last two decades of Mr Hussein’s rule; that figure excludes those—probably many more—who died as a result of wars started by Saddam. Nor does it include the millions of Iraqis who suffered in other ways. Bringing the chief perpetrators to book and creating a new system of law must surely be applauded.
Not yet. The trouble is over who should oversee a new judicial process. This week, Iraq’s American-appointed Governing Council announced that a tribunal would be set up to try the miscreants—and that it would be run entirely by Iraqis. International human-rights groups, the United Nations, and even Britain, America’s main partner in Iraq’s ruling Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), are worried. They fear that the tribunal may fail to comply with international standards of fairness. It may seek to impose the death penalty on the worst culprits. Most worryingly and self-defeatingly, it risks being seen by both Iraqis and outsiders as a tool for vengeance rather than as the beacon of a new, clean and impartial judiciary.
Most tribunals set up over the past decade—to try war crimes and crimes against humanity in such troubled places as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and, most recently, Cambodia—are under the auspices of the UN and have at least a strong component of international judges. All are conducted in accordance with international law. None permits the death penalty. But the planned Iraqi court is being set up, with America’s encouragement, without reference to the UN. It will be run entirely by Iraqi judges, mainly under Iraqi criminal law and procedure, which often clash with international law. Once the CPA hands over formal sovereignty to a transitional government in July, the new rulers may insist that the tribunal be empowered to re-impose the death penalty the Americans suspended after toppling Saddam in April.
The British, in particular, were alarmed by the plans for the court, and quietly urged Bertrand Ramcharan, the UN’s acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, to write last week to Paul Bremer, the American proconsul who heads the CPA, to mark his concern over the draft plan’s apparent incompatibility with international humanitarian law. Mr Ramcharan also suggested that international judges, prosecutors and investigators with experience in human-rights cases should be more involved. The Governing Council’s draft mentioned international lawyers only as possible advisers.
Thanks to Mr Ramcharan’s intervention, the council made some last-minute amendments. Details of the court’s statutes have yet to be published. But the council is believed to have decided, for example, to let international lawyers be brought in as investigators, though not as judges. And defendants are to have a right to legal representation and to an appeal. But no explicit ban on capital punishment is included in the tribunal’s statutes. Indeed, some council members have hinted that it could well be resuscitated and imposed on Saddam, in absentia if necessary, and on his closest aides. This would make it virtually impossible for Britain and any other European Union country to hand over prisoners to the tribunal.
“It will be a noble experiment,” says Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister who is in the Governing Council. “It shows we want to apply the rule of law and not let the desire for revenge take over.” Human-rights groups are not convinced. Richard Dicker, legal director of Human Rights Watch, worries that “this could degenerate into political show trials.”
Motes and beams
In any event, finding qualified and impartial Iraqi judges and lawyers to man the proposed five-judge tribunal will be hard. Many of those who worked under the old regime are likely to be seen as tainted, while the objectivity of those returning from exile, many of whom were victims of Saddam, may be queried too. The CPA is vetting all present Iraqi judges for their integrity and for their past membership of Saddam’s Baath Party. The records of half of them have so far been examined; only one in five has been disqualified.
Hitherto, the Americans have supported UN-sponsored war-crimes tribunals. But in Iraq, from the outset, they have promoted the idea of an all-Iraqi court with no UN involvement, arguing that the Iraqis themselves, as the main victims of Saddam, were entitled to try their own persecutors. They have even offered $75m to support the court. But many suspect that the Americans’ opposition to an international tribunal for Iraq is part of their campaign against the UN’s International Criminal Court, not because of a genuine change of opinion. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, they certainly took the opposite view, even threatening to cut loans to a reforming Serbian government if it did not hand over Slobodan Milosevic to the UN’s war-crimes tribunal in The Hague.
Of the 7,000 or so people still being held by coalition forces in Iraq, only around 100 are classified as prisoners of war: that is, uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. Under international law, they must either be freed or brought before a military court when hostilities have officially ceased. Around 2,200 are “criminal detainees”, looters and the like, who will eventually be handed over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in normal Iraqi courts. The remaining 4,800-odd are so-called “security internees”: suspected insurgents, al-Qaeda terrorists, would-be suicide bombers, and anyone else deemed to pose a threat to the coalition’s forces or to Iraqis in general. They include 101 “high-value detainees” suspected of the worst atrocities under Saddam, including 38 of the most wanted 55 people (two of whom have been killed) in the Americans’ “deck of cards”.
Unlike America’s 660 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, all its security internees in Iraq are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Though they have not been charged and have no access to a lawyer, their cases must be—and are being—subject to regular review. If no longer considered a danger, they may be freed or, if suspected of a crime, switched to the criminal-detainee category to await trial in an ordinary court. But those still deemed a security threat can continue to be held by the “occupying power”, namely the CPA, for as long as the occupation continues.
What will happen to the detainees come July 1st next year, when the Iraqis are supposed to take over? No one is sure. Most of the mass murderers and other gross violators of human rights will probably end up before the new special tribunal, which is expected to start operating next year. Others may be freed. But the Americans will probably ask to keep those thought likely to provide useful information for its war on terror. So they could then fall into the same legal limbo as the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay.
Bringing the old regime to trial
Dec 11th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The plan for an Iraqi tribunal worries human-rights campaigners because it will be run by local judges rather than the United Nations, and thus may be seen as a tool for vengeance
IT SHOULD be cause for satisfaction, even catharsis, if not celebration. A special tribunal is being set up to try top people in Saddam Hussein’s regime for genocide, torture, mass slaughter and other atrocities. Human Rights Watch, a respected international lobby group, reckons that at least 290,000 Iraqis were murdered in the last two decades of Mr Hussein’s rule; that figure excludes those—probably many more—who died as a result of wars started by Saddam. Nor does it include the millions of Iraqis who suffered in other ways. Bringing the chief perpetrators to book and creating a new system of law must surely be applauded.
Not yet. The trouble is over who should oversee a new judicial process. This week, Iraq’s American-appointed Governing Council announced that a tribunal would be set up to try the miscreants—and that it would be run entirely by Iraqis. International human-rights groups, the United Nations, and even Britain, America’s main partner in Iraq’s ruling Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), are worried. They fear that the tribunal may fail to comply with international standards of fairness. It may seek to impose the death penalty on the worst culprits. Most worryingly and self-defeatingly, it risks being seen by both Iraqis and outsiders as a tool for vengeance rather than as the beacon of a new, clean and impartial judiciary.
Most tribunals set up over the past decade—to try war crimes and crimes against humanity in such troubled places as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and, most recently, Cambodia—are under the auspices of the UN and have at least a strong component of international judges. All are conducted in accordance with international law. None permits the death penalty. But the planned Iraqi court is being set up, with America’s encouragement, without reference to the UN. It will be run entirely by Iraqi judges, mainly under Iraqi criminal law and procedure, which often clash with international law. Once the CPA hands over formal sovereignty to a transitional government in July, the new rulers may insist that the tribunal be empowered to re-impose the death penalty the Americans suspended after toppling Saddam in April.
The British, in particular, were alarmed by the plans for the court, and quietly urged Bertrand Ramcharan, the UN’s acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, to write last week to Paul Bremer, the American proconsul who heads the CPA, to mark his concern over the draft plan’s apparent incompatibility with international humanitarian law. Mr Ramcharan also suggested that international judges, prosecutors and investigators with experience in human-rights cases should be more involved. The Governing Council’s draft mentioned international lawyers only as possible advisers.
Thanks to Mr Ramcharan’s intervention, the council made some last-minute amendments. Details of the court’s statutes have yet to be published. But the council is believed to have decided, for example, to let international lawyers be brought in as investigators, though not as judges. And defendants are to have a right to legal representation and to an appeal. But no explicit ban on capital punishment is included in the tribunal’s statutes. Indeed, some council members have hinted that it could well be resuscitated and imposed on Saddam, in absentia if necessary, and on his closest aides. This would make it virtually impossible for Britain and any other European Union country to hand over prisoners to the tribunal.
“It will be a noble experiment,” says Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister who is in the Governing Council. “It shows we want to apply the rule of law and not let the desire for revenge take over.” Human-rights groups are not convinced. Richard Dicker, legal director of Human Rights Watch, worries that “this could degenerate into political show trials.”
Motes and beams
In any event, finding qualified and impartial Iraqi judges and lawyers to man the proposed five-judge tribunal will be hard. Many of those who worked under the old regime are likely to be seen as tainted, while the objectivity of those returning from exile, many of whom were victims of Saddam, may be queried too. The CPA is vetting all present Iraqi judges for their integrity and for their past membership of Saddam’s Baath Party. The records of half of them have so far been examined; only one in five has been disqualified.
Hitherto, the Americans have supported UN-sponsored war-crimes tribunals. But in Iraq, from the outset, they have promoted the idea of an all-Iraqi court with no UN involvement, arguing that the Iraqis themselves, as the main victims of Saddam, were entitled to try their own persecutors. They have even offered $75m to support the court. But many suspect that the Americans’ opposition to an international tribunal for Iraq is part of their campaign against the UN’s International Criminal Court, not because of a genuine change of opinion. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, they certainly took the opposite view, even threatening to cut loans to a reforming Serbian government if it did not hand over Slobodan Milosevic to the UN’s war-crimes tribunal in The Hague.
Of the 7,000 or so people still being held by coalition forces in Iraq, only around 100 are classified as prisoners of war: that is, uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. Under international law, they must either be freed or brought before a military court when hostilities have officially ceased. Around 2,200 are “criminal detainees”, looters and the like, who will eventually be handed over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in normal Iraqi courts. The remaining 4,800-odd are so-called “security internees”: suspected insurgents, al-Qaeda terrorists, would-be suicide bombers, and anyone else deemed to pose a threat to the coalition’s forces or to Iraqis in general. They include 101 “high-value detainees” suspected of the worst atrocities under Saddam, including 38 of the most wanted 55 people (two of whom have been killed) in the Americans’ “deck of cards”.
Unlike America’s 660 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, all its security internees in Iraq are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Though they have not been charged and have no access to a lawyer, their cases must be—and are being—subject to regular review. If no longer considered a danger, they may be freed or, if suspected of a crime, switched to the criminal-detainee category to await trial in an ordinary court. But those still deemed a security threat can continue to be held by the “occupying power”, namely the CPA, for as long as the occupation continues.
What will happen to the detainees come July 1st next year, when the Iraqis are supposed to take over? No one is sure. Most of the mass murderers and other gross violators of human rights will probably end up before the new special tribunal, which is expected to start operating next year. Others may be freed. But the Americans will probably ask to keep those thought likely to provide useful information for its war on terror. So they could then fall into the same legal limbo as the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Who gives a crap about the terrorists at Guantánamo Bay? They are terrorists. It makes me mad to think that we are spending money to make sure they get some form of comfort and make sure they are treated "humanely." Hell, let them rot for all I care. I would rather be taxed and have that money go to all of you than to those rats in Guantánamo. Kill them already and get it over with! But torture them first.
Right ON!!!!!!Paladin Solo said:
Sieg Heil!
Solo.. If we tortured them, we would only prove to the entire world that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.
Better to pay to feed them and keep them locked up than to lower ourselves to their level and pave the way for yet more terrorists to hate and attack the free countries of the world.
Better to pay to feed them and keep them locked up than to lower ourselves to their level and pave the way for yet more terrorists to hate and attack the free countries of the world.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Well then just kill them. Why are we feeding them? They hate us, they want to kill us, they won't, or don't provide us anything useful, unless there are those who talk. So I say, we salvage the snitches, and hang the rest! If they were human, and true warriors of war, then I would expect them to be taken care of according to the Geneva Convention, and then those who are just soldiers, let back to their country, unless they commited some war crimes of course. But they aren't human, they are terrorists.
Trrruue Variorz of Var, ja? Kill ze terroristen, zer are no human beings! Vi vill make extermination camps, Heini? Terroristen sehr bose!
Siieg Heeil, Nazipaladin!
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I never said anything of extermination camps. I said hang them. But, if you want to be happy we'll try (trial) them just for you ok Wooz? And no they aren't human beings. They care nothing for human life. If they did, they wouldn't be terrorists now would they? I also don't appreciate the nazi name calling, so please stop.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Uhm...I'm not that crazy. I just do sympathize terrorists. Is that so hard to understand. Sheesh.
Look, kid. The fact that you deny their humanity and, therefore, suggest to kill them makes YOU the same, since you have no respect for their human lives.
That s what Elissar tried to tell you in the last post.
Secondly, try to understand why the t3rRoRist5 act that way. In fact, all extremists believe to be "true warriors of war", fighting in the service of God. Like some die-hard, brainless grunts on the other side.
The difference is that the terrorists don t have 90 billion buck budgets to wage war, so they use the only possible tactic they can, which is evertything besides a frontal attack with an enemy a thousand times stronger.
I m not justyfing their position, just analizing it. Anyways,a terrorist is not something you re born with, you become one. Now, try to understand why these people become terrorists.
And I would be "happy" if you d get yourself a bit of education. Reading books other than Mein Kampf helps, too.
That s what Elissar tried to tell you in the last post.
Secondly, try to understand why the t3rRoRist5 act that way. In fact, all extremists believe to be "true warriors of war", fighting in the service of God. Like some die-hard, brainless grunts on the other side.
The difference is that the terrorists don t have 90 billion buck budgets to wage war, so they use the only possible tactic they can, which is evertything besides a frontal attack with an enemy a thousand times stronger.
I m not justyfing their position, just analizing it. Anyways,a terrorist is not something you re born with, you become one. Now, try to understand why these people become terrorists.
And I would be "happy" if you d get yourself a bit of education. Reading books other than Mein Kampf helps, too.