Justice is served!

[Metanis]

SHUT THE FUCK UP METANIS.

Neither crime is justifiable, or in any way right. Nick Berg being killed was an evil/wrong thing, which is completely separate from the evil wrong things that were done to the Iraqi prisoners. BOTH crimes are crimes, and both crimes deserve punishment.

You're an asshole to even bring that up in this thread. One thing has fuck all to do with another.

You don't get it? Not surprising, you're a moron too.

[Ceredwin]

While I agree that crimes should be punished, why are you all over Metanis for bringing up Berg here, Arunuil? Where was your outrage when Kyoukan brought up everything but the kitchen sink on the Berg thread, not even backed by facts, mostly her "feelings"? You really ought consider a job in the media Arunuil, would fit in well.

oh yeah that is a lot worse than dropping a sattelite guided bomb onto a mosque full of people.

if you are shocked and outraged by a beheading then no wonder something is so wrong with your country. you have absolutely no sense of reality.

your country is levelling entire blocks of people's houses and buildings that date back from before north america was even discovered in fallujah and baghdad, with gunships and tactical bombers. thousands of civilian casualties, and you're horrified at one retard (who, btw, had no fucking business being in Iraq to begin with) losing his head priviledges. boo fucking hoo. go live in somewhere that is being occupied by a hostile and aggresive foreign nation bent on exploiting your country's national resources for personal profit and then come back and tell me how outraged you are some dumb cunt getting his noodle hacked off. you probably wouldn't even look twice at it because you are too busy scrubbing the stain off the wall that you used call your little brother before PFC Clem Yokel mistook his blow dryer for an RPG and called for a squad of A-10's to obliterate everything within 100 square yards.

[noel]

While I agree that crimes should be punished, why are you all over Metanis for bringing up Berg here, Arunuil? Where was your outrage when Kyoukan brought up everything but the kitchen sink on the Berg thread, not even backed by facts, mostly her "feelings"? You really ought consider a job in the media Arunuil, would fit in well.

It's not my job to troll Kyoukan's posts. There are plenty of people here who do that already. If the masses aren't smart enough to realize that she says a lot of shit just to get a reaction, that's not my fucking problem. Metanis is actually stupid enough to think that Berg really is relevant to the issue at hand.

Because I have a reasonable opinion, based on what I know to be fact, I should get a job in the media? You're reaching.

[vn_Tanc]

This thread is a shining example of what is wrong with trying to discuss anything on VV.

You have the "waah waah don't criticise my country or I'll cry" brigade, the "troll anything Kyo says ever" brigade and the "Every view other than my own is liberal brainwash so I'll ignore it" brigade ALL desperately trying to get the thread off topic. It's just fucking tiring.

To summarise though, in the vain hope it gets through:
1) Criticism of the US does not imply everyone else/my government is totally above reproach in all actions from time immemorial.
2) The fact the everyone else/my government is NOT totally above reproach in all actions from time immemorial does NOT invalidate criticism of the actions of the US (or anyone else for that matter)
3) Kyoucan yanks retards chains for fun. Every time you bite, retards, you are just amusing her.
4) Like it or not there ARE some valid criticisms that can be levelled at the US at this time (see (1) and (2) before getting your panties in a bunch. I know you read them 30+ seconds ago but concentrate and see if you can remember the points I made). Dismissing every little slight as slanted propoganda marks you out as a totalitarian or a dolt. Neither is attractive.

[noel]

This thread is a shining example of what is wrong with trying to discuss anything on VV.

You have the "waah waah don't criticise my country or I'll cry" brigade, the "troll anything Kyo says ever" brigade and the "Every view other than my own is liberal brainwash so I'll ignore it" brigade ALL desperately trying to get the thread off topic. It's just fucking tiring.

To summarise though, in the vain hope it gets through:
1) Criticism of the US does not imply everyone else/my government is totally above reproach in all actions from time immemorial.
2) The fact the everyone else/my government is NOT totally above reproach in all actions from time immemorial does NOT invalidate criticism of the actions of the US (or anyone else for that matter)
3) Kyoucan yanks retards chains for fun. Every time you bite, retards, you are just amusing her.
4) Like it or not there ARE some valid criticisms that can be levelled at the US at this time (see (1) and (2) before getting your panties in a bunch. I know you read them 30+ seconds ago but concentrate and see if you can remember the points I made). Dismissing every little slight as slanted propoganda marks you out as a totalitarian or a dolt. Neither is attractive.

This needs to be a fucking sticky.

[Dregor Thule]

Yes because the protection of basic human rights of prisoners of war under the geneva convention is most certainly a leftist issue.

I wonder if Nick Berg demanded his rights?

I'm pretty sure you don't have any rights when being held hostage by fanatical militants, but congratulations on forming a complete sentence. Or are you trying to justify what happened in the prison (and it's looking like other detention facilities perhaps) by playing the Berg card? It was a pre-emptive abuse of POWs? You should let others think for you before you type.

[Cartalas]

Yes because the protection of basic human rights of prisoners of war under the geneva convention is most certainly a leftist issue.

I wonder if Nick Berg demanded his rights?

I'm pretty sure you don't have any rights when being held hostage by fanatical militants, but congratulations on forming a complete sentence. Or are you trying to justify what happened in the prison (and it's looking like other detention facilities perhaps) by playing the Berg card? It was a pre-emptive abuse of POWs? You should let others think for you before you type.

I dont think Metanis was trying to justify what happened in the prison, Sir. Suckacock! I thnk what he was trying to say is "Look guys your to busy shoving daisy's up your ass to see both sides". Take a look back at all the threads as your gobbling down a nice plate of sprouts singing "we are the world"

Now did you go back and look? or are you able to hit the back button on WebTV?


Here is the difference in the threads.

On the subject on Berg.

Right Wing says " OMG this is horrable I hope the people responsable pay"
Far Right Wing says: ( I dont think there are any on this board), OMG nuke Iraq kill all the Dune Coons.

Left Wing says: AKA you morons: Well he shouldnt of been there serves him right, its the americans fault, its all about OIL!!!!


On the Subject of the Tourted prisoners:

Right wing says " I sure hope the punishment fits the crime"

Far right wing says " Fuck em there sand niggers anyway, (again I dont think anyone on this board is that way)

Left wing says: OMG they should be killed its americas fault, Its all about OIL!!!!


You see you are so blinded by your hate that you cant see the big picture, There are men and women out there that want the Iraq people to have a better life, is there another way? maybe. Is there a better way? maybe. But for right now this is the path that has been chosen, I for one cannot stand the deaths both Iraq and americans or British,or japanese, or anyone. But God Damnit if you feel so strongly about getting america out of Iraq tell your country that, make your country force the United states out, pick up arms travel to Iraq and fight with Al Queda ( because you know damn well its them that are hindering the rebuilding process).

[Kelshara]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

[Metanis]

I merely found Kooky's invocation of "rights" particularly funny. Examine the concept of RIGHTS. Especially consider the number of avowed aetheists on this board. If God isn't there to promise and establish a framework of RIGHTS then who is?

In other words, you have exactly those rights that someone is willing to fight and die for. Since most of you Liberal & Leftists roll over and play dead upon the first sign of trouble then I find it hugely amusing that you get indignant over a perceived violation of yours or anyone elses RIGHTS.

When I asked the rhetorical question about Nick Berg asking for his rights I was giving you a visceral clue that you don't have any fucking RIGHTS unless civilized men agree on a common standard. (The current crop of middle eastern Moslems seem to lower the bar in this regard).

So once again, you clueless toddlers of the left (Kooky as the poster child), you have a good time pointing out America's moral flaws. I never said I condoned what happened in those prisons, but I damn sure don't think it's very important in the larger context of extinguishing terrorism in the world. It's a footnote in a much larger story. Sort of like most of you punks.

[Cartalas]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

[Zaelath]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

Hrmm, but it was enough cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq....

Sorry, but the whole "it was a few rogue soldiers, errr and their CO, oh and that one general" shtick won't make people in Iraq go, "Oh, alrighty then, no problem"

[Cartalas]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

Hrmm, but it was enough cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq....

Sorry, but the whole "it was a few rogue soldiers, errr and their CO, oh and that one general" shtick won't make people in Iraq go, "Oh, alrighty then, no problem"

There is a big difference there all Afghanastan had to do is to give up the criminals.

[Zaelath]

I merely found Kooky's invocation of "rights" particularly funny. Examine the concept of RIGHTS. Especially consider the number of avowed aetheists on this board. If God isn't there to promise and establish a framework of RIGHTS then who is?

Well, there's always self-preservation. People like rights, and order, it gives them a feeling of security. The whole concept of morality and community was established long before whatever imaginary friend your religion is based on was thought up.

[Dregor Thule]

I merely found Kooky's invocation of "rights" particularly funny. Examine the concept of RIGHTS. Especially consider the number of avowed aetheists on this board. If God isn't there to promise and establish a framework of RIGHTS then who is?

In other words, you have exactly those rights that someone is willing to fight and die for. Since most of you Liberal & Leftists roll over and play dead upon the first sign of trouble then I find it hugely amusing that you get indignant over a perceived violation of yours or anyone elses RIGHTS.

When I asked the rhetorical question about Nick Berg asking for his rights I was giving you a visceral clue that you don't have any fucking RIGHTS unless civilized men agree on a common standard. (The current crop of middle eastern Moslems seem to lower the bar in this regard).

So once again, you clueless toddlers of the left (Kooky as the poster child), you have a good time pointing out America's moral flaws. I never said I condoned what happened in those prisons, but I damn sure don't think it's very important in the larger context of extinguishing terrorism in the world. It's a footnote in a much larger story. Sort of like most of you punks.

So you're saying because the other side doesn't afford the same rights that the US shouldn't have to? Because that's an error on your part. You might want to look up and read the Third Convention in the Geneva Conventions. There you have who defines the rights. Not some God, but the nations of the world. Do you not think that they should be followed?

[Zaelath]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

Hrmm, but it was enough cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq....

Sorry, but the whole "it was a few rogue soldiers, errr and their CO, oh and that one general" shtick won't make people in Iraq go, "Oh, alrighty then, no problem"

There is a big difference there all Afghanastan had to do is to give up the criminals.

Okie dokey, and what say I explain that I'm going to bomb the shit out of you if you don't give up the criminals?

Of course, you can't, you don't even know where they are, and even if you did you don't have the authority.

Ah well, perhaps you can write a letter of complaint to your congressman, which puts you a long way in front of the average Afghani.

[Dregor Thule]

The Taliban was very much harboring Bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network, I'm surprised you're even trying to argue that point.

[Cartalas]

If you want people who have been tortured to have a better life, torturing them is obviously the best way to win their hearts and make them support your efforts!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

Hrmm, but it was enough cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq....

Sorry, but the whole "it was a few rogue soldiers, errr and their CO, oh and that one general" shtick won't make people in Iraq go, "Oh, alrighty then, no problem"

There is a big difference there all Afghanastan had to do is to give up the criminals.

Okie dokey, and what say I explain that I'm going to bomb the shit out of you if you don't give up the criminals?

Of course, you can't, you don't even know where they are, and even if you did you don't have the authority.

Ah well, perhaps you can write a letter of complaint to your congressman, which puts you a long way in front of the average Afghani.

And you see a problem with this?

Lets say someone kills your dad and runs into a house and hides. Now the owner of the house willfully helps the crimina, Are you saying noone has a right to go in and get him.

[miir]

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

No, but the actions of these few representing your country reflects badly on the whole country.

[Cartalas]

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

No, but the actions of these few representing your country reflects badly on the whole country.

Yea kinda like those Iraq carbombers! you see you cant have it both ways

[Zaelath]

Well, there's a case to be made that Bin Laden was keeping the Taliban in power too. Regardless, it was a sovereign country, the US didn't agree w/ their rule so they invaded.

What would be your reaction if Iraqi's tried to invade the US to get Ms England?

Okay, they can't invade, what if they decided to embark on a terrorist campaign to get you to hand her over?

I'm not saying I condone that idea, but you can't just disown a few people who represent a country at your convenience either.

[Zaelath]

And you see a problem with this?

Lets say someone kills your dad and runs into a house and hides. Now the owner of the house willfully helps the crimina, Are you saying noone has a right to go in and get him.

I very much doubt his house is a soverign nation, but if "a house" in your example is the Elbonian Consulate, guess what, no you don't have that right.

[Cartalas]

Well, there's a case to be made that Bin Laden was keeping the Taliban in power too. Regardless, it was a sovereign country, the US didn't agree w/ their rule so they invaded.

What would be your reaction if Iraqi's tried to invade the US to get Ms England?

Okay, they can't invade, what if they decided to embark on a terrorist campaign to get you to hand her over?

I'm not saying I condone that idea, but you can't just disown a few people who represent a country at your convenience either.

Well If Ms England was a terrorist im sure we would hand her over

[Cartalas]

And you see a problem with this?

Lets say someone kills your dad and runs into a house and hides. Now the owner of the house willfully helps the crimina, Are you saying noone has a right to go in and get him.

I very much doubt his house is a soverign nation, but if "a house" in your example is the Elbonian Consulate, guess what, no you don't have that right.

Bosnia was a Soverign nation

[Kelshara]

In other words, you have exactly those rights that someone is willing to fight and die for. Since most of you Liberal & Leftists roll over and play dead upon the first sign of trouble then I find it hugely amusing that you get indignant over a perceived violation of yours or anyone elses RIGHTS.

Don't see you out there fighting for what you believe in. Me, I was denied entry into the military due to busted knee from sports. What is your excuse? Oh wait, you are nothing but a big mouth are you.. a big mouth with lots of hot air behind it.

When I asked the rhetorical question about Nick Berg asking for his rights I was giving you a visceral clue that you don't have any fucking RIGHTS unless civilized men agree on a common standard. (The current crop of middle eastern Moslems seem to lower the bar in this regard).

Think is, civilized people HAVE agreed on these rights. It is called the Geneva Convention.

So once again, you clueless toddlers of the left (Kooky as the poster child), you have a good time pointing out America's moral flaws. I never said I condoned what happened in those prisons, but I damn sure don't think it's very important in the larger context of extinguishing terrorism in the world. It's a footnote in a much larger story. Sort of like most of you punks.

Once again I bet if it was you being tortured you would piss your pants, scream for your mother and yell about your rights as an American!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

That might be, but how high up did the orders come from? Don't even try to claim they did it all by themself. That is a joke! And unfortunately, the few here will and have tarnished the image of the many. It will be a hell of a lot harder to win over the Iraqis now due to these few soldiers.

Yea kinda like those Iraq carbombers! you see you cant have it both ways

Not even in the same league Cart, and you know it. You are trying to win over a people who have been tortured and abused, right? You try to tell them everything will be better now, right? And then the same people (aka somebody in an US Uniform) torture your brother/neighbor/whatever.. would YOU believe what they told you? And that is the average Iraqi, and the average Iraqi are NOT supporting car bombers.

[Dregor Thule]

Well, there's a case to be made that Bin Laden was keeping the Taliban in power too. Regardless, it was a sovereign country, the US didn't agree w/ their rule so they invaded.

What would be your reaction if Iraqi's tried to invade the US to get Ms England?

Okay, they can't invade, what if they decided to embark on a terrorist campaign to get you to hand her over?

I'm not saying I condone that idea, but you can't just disown a few people who represent a country at your convenience either.

A sovereign country yes. Innocent no. This was a case where trying to negotiate the handover failed and action had to be taken. I still can't believe you're trying to argue this.

[Cartalas]

In other words, you have exactly those rights that someone is willing to fight and die for. Since most of you Liberal & Leftists roll over and play dead upon the first sign of trouble then I find it hugely amusing that you get indignant over a perceived violation of yours or anyone elses RIGHTS.

Don't see you out there fighting for what you believe in. Me, I was denied entry into the military due to busted knee from sports. What is your excuse? Oh wait, you are nothing but a big mouth are you.. a big mouth with lots of hot air behind it.

When I asked the rhetorical question about Nick Berg asking for his rights I was giving you a visceral clue that you don't have any fucking RIGHTS unless civilized men agree on a common standard. (The current crop of middle eastern Moslems seem to lower the bar in this regard).

Think is, civilized people HAVE agreed on these rights. It is called the Geneva Convention.

So once again, you clueless toddlers of the left (Kooky as the poster child), you have a good time pointing out America's moral flaws. I never said I condoned what happened in those prisons, but I damn sure don't think it's very important in the larger context of extinguishing terrorism in the world. It's a footnote in a much larger story. Sort of like most of you punks.

Once again I bet if it was you being tortured you would piss your pants, scream for your mother and yell about your rights as an American!

The actions of a few solders does not consitute the whole country.

That might be, but how high up did the orders come from? Don't even try to claim they did it all by themself. That is a joke! And unfortunately, the few here will and have tarnished the image of the many. It will be a hell of a lot harder to win over the Iraqis now due to these few soldiers.

Yea kinda like those Iraq carbombers! you see you cant have it both ways

Not even in the same league Cart, and you know it. You are trying to win over a people who have been tortured and abused, right? You try to tell them everything will be better now, right? And then the same people (aka somebody in an US Uniform) torture your brother/neighbor/whatever.. would YOU believe what they told you? And that is the average Iraqi, and the average Iraqi are NOT supporting car bombers.

Metanis served in the military so those remarks were unwarrented

[Zaelath]

And you see a problem with this?

Lets say someone kills your dad and runs into a house and hides. Now the owner of the house willfully helps the crimina, Are you saying noone has a right to go in and get him.

I very much doubt his house is a soverign nation, but if "a house" in your example is the Elbonian Consulate, guess what, no you don't have that right.

Bosnia was a Soverign nation

In the summer of 1991, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, civil war broke-out in Yugoslavia. This horrific war, on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II, raged out of control for four and a half years. Bosnia-Herzegovina (referred to hereafter as Bosnia), with its richly mixed population of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, quickly became the main battle ground, in which tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were left homeless. Unable to negotiate a peaceful solution, the international community turned to the United Nations for help. Using traditional peacekeeping methods, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was able to contain the conflict and provide some relief for the victims, but it was unable to stop the bloodshed and soon found itself a victim of this brutal war. As conditions continued to deteriorate, the UN Security Council expanded UNPROFOR's mandate, established safe areas, and called upon NATO air power as the protector and enforcer.

The UN mounting a peace keeping operation to stem genocide, which degenerated into a war is a little different to the US unilaterally deciding to invade countries on whatever pretext is handy at the time.

[Cartalas]

And you see a problem with this?

Lets say someone kills your dad and runs into a house and hides. Now the owner of the house willfully helps the crimina, Are you saying noone has a right to go in and get him.

I very much doubt his house is a soverign nation, but if "a house" in your example is the Elbonian Consulate, guess what, no you don't have that right.

Bosnia was a Soverign nation

In the summer of 1991, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, civil war broke-out in Yugoslavia. This horrific war, on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II, raged out of control for four and a half years. Bosnia-Herzegovina (referred to hereafter as Bosnia), with its richly mixed population of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, quickly became the main battle ground, in which tens of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were left homeless. Unable to negotiate a peaceful solution, the international community turned to the United Nations for help. Using traditional peacekeeping methods, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was able to contain the conflict and provide some relief for the victims, but it was unable to stop the bloodshed and soon found itself a victim of this brutal war. As conditions continued to deteriorate, the UN Security Council expanded UNPROFOR's mandate, established safe areas, and called upon NATO air power as the protector and enforcer.

The UN mounting a peace keeping operation to stem genocide, which degenerated into a war is a little different to the US unilaterally deciding to invade countries on whatever pretext is handy at the time.

Iraq maybe but not Afghanastan the UN backed that one.

[Zaelath]

Well, there's a case to be made that Bin Laden was keeping the Taliban in power too. Regardless, it was a sovereign country, the US didn't agree w/ their rule so they invaded.

What would be your reaction if Iraqi's tried to invade the US to get Ms England?

Okay, they can't invade, what if they decided to embark on a terrorist campaign to get you to hand her over?

I'm not saying I condone that idea, but you can't just disown a few people who represent a country at your convenience either.

A sovereign country yes. Innocent no. This was a case where trying to negotiate the handover failed and action had to be taken. I still can't believe you're trying to argue this.

*shrug* I'm just playing devil's advocate, since Americans seem to have so much difficulty in seeing anything from any perspective other than their own.

[Krimson Klaw]

Sure.

[Zaelath]

Iraq maybe but not Afghanastan the UN backed that one.

You sure about that? http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... p11Law.asp

[Cartalas]

Iraq maybe but not Afghanastan the UN backed that one.

You sure about that? http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... p11Law.asp

Even after reading that propaganda site yes im sure.

[Kylere]

The world had been moaning about the Taliban, and their repression of people, there inability to give women any rights, their destruction of 1500 year old monuments because they were against their religion etc.

No one is complaining that the Taliban is no longer in power, except their followers, even the various Sunni, Shite etc groups of muslims seemed to be bother by the actions of the Taliban. Hell Pakistan is muslim and they knew the Taliban were not good news.

[Arilain]

Terrorists are not covered in the Geneva Convention. That does not excuse Army Reservists from doing what they did to the people in that prison. I am thankful that it came into light of public attention but I am angered about the publicity it recieved as well. I also find it hard to believe that OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people think that prisoner abuse is a new thing. Ever heard the stats on how many Iraqis were MIA from the Desert Storm? Well if you decide to find out look under the desert in Kuwait. The massive amounts of surrendering Iraqis overwhelmed the MP's that were not prepared for them or supplied to feed them. Now you wonder why they chose to run rather than surrender the second time around.

Arilain

[Krimson Klaw]

When the French were defeated by Germany, they continued to fight through an underground network. They were called Freedom Fighters, or resistance fighters. Why are we calling these Iraquis that are doing the same thing "terrorists"?

[Kelshara]

That happened in every country in Europe during WW2, and they were pretty much celebrated as heroes everywhere. I've asked myself (and others here) that question before but not gotten a response.

[Arilain]

The French resistance used suicide bombers?


Arilain

[Krimson Klaw]

Ohhh, that's the difference. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Truant]

The French resistance used suicide bombers?


Arilain

The japanese did more or less in WW2. what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Is there some like, document that states that suicide bombers is the line in the sand.

OH NO MOTHERFUCKERS, YOU USED A SUICIDE BOMBER. YOUR ASS IS GRASS BITCHES.

[Arilain]

Japanese wore uniforms in WWII, and were a recognized army. Also I might point out that we are still in Japan. I say we pull out of everywhere not just one place. I am sure the original owners of the land we occupy across the world would be grateful.

[Kelshara]

The resistance forces during WWII dressed like everyone else to blend in. They hid among other people and wherever they were the least likely to be found. They used explosives which they snuck up and placed during the night usually. They very VERY rarely engaged in gunfights.

But they were heroes because they were on the right side!

[Truant]

Ok, so if you aren't enlisted in a recognized army, but are still fighting for your country (your being the one you live in that is now occupied) you are considered a terrorist?


I mean, seriously...if the US were invaded right now...are you going to go enlist, and spend 6 weeks in training while your home town gets shelled into the mantle of the earth...or are you going to grab your rifle and go shoot some helmets off the invading forces.

Are you then a terrorist?

I'm serious, where is the line? Is it just, on this side, we are the United States, and on that side, you are all terrorists.

[Arilain]

Sadly the way the Geneva Conventions are written if you have on a recognized uniform you are "protected" Otherwise if you are in civilian dressed they can shoot you on the spot. How mant Germans faced war crimes for murdering French resistance fighters? Should we change the conventions to cover those that are fighting for thier homes? I wholeheartedly agree. Should we change the conventions for those that are fighting for a politcal cause other than saving thier homes? No

[Vetiria]

So someone invades the US and you try to help fight to save the country, but you only wear your house clothes instead of a uniform, you shouldn't have any rights? How about if you were wearing a McDonald's uniform? Would you be okay then?

[masteen]

IMO, the word "terrorists" is being thrown around too freely. Al Qaeda = terrorists. Iraqi insurgents, I'm not so sure about.

I'm sure some are on the same level of bin Laden's bunch, but I'm also sure that some are just doing what they think is right to protect their homeland.

If my home were invaded, I'd be one of the first at the local sporting goods store to stock up on 30.06 ammo and night vision scopes.

[Truant]

Well as long as we understand that every person on this planet that is not in a 'recognized' military uniform is a terrorist and has no rights, we are ok I guess.

[Arilain]

Thats why the Geneva Conventions should be changed. Except for those in a Mc Donalds uniform cause they are the true evil of the fast food industry, and they screwed up my order =(

[Winnow]

I really don't care what they're called. Call them Freedom Fighters. Our press is free to call them whatever they want. Call the American and Canadian forces Team Evil Doer. It doesn't change anything.

[masteen]

Trying to paint everyone that opposes us as "terrorists" is as counterproductive as the stupidly broad strokes our government uses in the drug war.

[Truant]

Trying to paint everyone that opposes us as "terrorists" is as counterproductive as the stupidly broad strokes our government uses in the drug war.

I understand, but some of the "kill em all" people that scare me, need to understand they are in the same shoes.