is this the democrcy and iraq s liberation they re talkin about !!!!!!!

[krenalor]

Well, thats not exactly what I meant, to use nukes, rofl. I meant for EVERYONE to question what you are being told and by whom. It includes the media, religious figures, countries leaders, etc, etc. Stop being distracted from what is really going on, and don't let minor things over-ride your sense to see the real evils.
Saddam Hussien gassed 5000 Kurds in just one event, why is nothing said? A minor little incident in a prison, with oh my gosh, mostly real killers and a few get hurt? It's pathetic any news agency makes anything of it, it's page 8 news at best.
Show Saddam's crimes, where they belong, show Pakistani people starving while Police take bribes to do their job, and Officials live like fat cats. Show the truth, grow some BALLS.

[TrainedMind]

*shakes head in dismay*

No love! I hope you are proud inciting hatred around here..

*looks for a Barney tape to give to Mo and ams33*

[Taekwondo Guy]

Originally Posted by mywetnightmares

While I think some of these posts are a bit extreme, I tend to side on the right as opposed to the left. Here's a few of my ideas.

1.) Store all NATO rounds in lard, if a muslim is killed by one of those rounds he dies unclean and goes to hell.
2.) When a suicide bomber blows himself up send his remains back to his family in a box of pig innards, he is ritually unclean and he goes to hell.
3.) All we need is one nuke and one dummy nuke, not many to deal with this problem. Shoot the dummy ICBM right into the heart of Mecca, then somebody needs to get on tv and say next time it'll be for real if you don't knock this sh!t off.

.

Lmao... you logic is refreshing

I think the poll results so far tell the truth... nobody cares for terrorists

[mo3taz]

Originally Posted by TrainedMind

*shakes head in dismay*

No love! I hope you are proud inciting hatred around here..

*looks for a Barney tape to give to Mo and ams33*

no hatred man we are just trying to make people know the truth

are these pictures of the taliban people or whatever in jail???

i hope we're not *****ing about mistreating terrorists here because if i was one of the jail guards i would be the first to let my daily anger out and stress off on one of those bit.ches....

[ams33]

Originally Posted by krenalor

Why don't you post the pictures of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of Saddam Hussein? I know, it's because you are an anti-American , who loves evil, and supports it by attacking anything good that ever happens. So a few criminals got humilated? Saddam tortured family members, raped, and killed whole villages. But that was okay, as you are a supporter of evil it was great for you.
I expect some balance, if it was me, I would have run on every channel, every commercial break, for a year on end the towers falling in New York. All the churches (with manditory attendance to boot) having Pastors screaming for "infidel blood" and roused the public to such a fury Afghanistan would be smoking nuclear waste (want war-well give it to them no more games, fight it like WW2 and see how much "fun" it is, heck intentionally kill civilians, its war after all). Hell I would have shown the Taliban torturing women, killing people in the soccer fields the UN built for Afghanistan, etc, etc.. They would be so hated, there would be huge parties celebrating the nuclear fires that consumed them.
Then I could say "I am just like an Arab governments, I must find an outside evil to deflect public dismay while I steal money, keep 99% of the people poor, and act in whatever secret evil way I like by controlling the media".
It's simple, quit being a puppet of the media. Be scared-Rumsfeld finally relized the US must do some media reports showing us in a positive light. It wouldn't take much for them to demonize a country and you really don't want the US military attacking you with the intent to kill every living thing in your country. Think thats far fetched? Its pretty much a sure thing we dropped the second nuke on "those yellow nip bastards" while the Japanese had already tried to surrender.

heheh , i edited ur quote a bit , am not gonna replie by a bad language like u did , am gonna go down to ur level dude , i thought at least u ll have a respect for urself and the country u represent , and by the way am not anti american so speak only about urself next time eh , and besides 10x dudes who always say : saddam did worse ....and ...kill them all ...war is hell ....it really makes me laugh bec it really shows that there exist a lot in the US who think with their arms and not using their brains ...thats a good sign ....why dont u just admit it when u do something wrong .....war is hell ...ya keep sayin it while ur sittin on ur couch watchin tv or eatin a snack ......someday evil is gonna end ...all the lies re gonna fall ...and truth will stand tall ....that was always the trend .....read history , just a bit ....instead of using ur arms to hit ....left and right ...knowing nothing about this fight ......YES god exist and this is only a test ...so just rest ....we ll meet someday ...in the after life ....where justice will prevail ....keep urself relaxed , keep all the hype ....keep keep it and like i always say : everything have an end ...this have been always the trend

[ams33]

seems we have a lot of sarcastic and ignorent people over here .....i was wrong that i thought some of u are educated or at least : equilibrated ....am done with this thread ....seems BB is the only thing where ur knowledge kindness and good language are showen .....that s it ....

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by dd3060

and dont forget that geneva convention only applies to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS FIGHTING UNDER THE FLAG OF A COUNTRY. Terrorists are not soldiers, don't wear uniforms and they dont fight under the flag of any country. Therefore the genvea convention does not apply to them.





if they were animals i would have shed tears. animals are helpless and dont chop off the heads of people to prove their point. when those muslim animals show some humanity then maybe we will care. until then too bad so sad. it has nothing to do with their race. i dont care if they are white, black, green, red, yellow, catholic, muslim, whatever. if you are a terrorist i have no sympathy for you. those "prisoners" should have been executed on site! they should count their lucky stars they are still alive

Your quote about "Uniformed soliders Fighting under the Flag of a country" could,nt be more wrong. The Geneva Conventions clearly states that resistance movements apply under Geneva conventions. So do Volunteers and civilian members.Also, Try to remember that The Geneva Conventions makes our soliders safer. It gives the enemy more of a chance to surrender and actually want to surrender as opposed to being tortured. Regardless of the way that we are treated as P.O.W's, we take the "High Ground". We are The U.S. We should never resort to the lower excuses of human beings and treat Prisoners who over 90% have not been charged with any crime and lower ourselves to their level. it should be insulting to every person who calls themselves americans that we have done this. On every level it's unacceptable and only hurts the U.S. in the long run.
We used to be better than this and now we are too closely approaching the line of the very enemy whom we are at war with.

[mywetnightmares]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

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.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

That's straight out of the Geneva Convention. If you take the time to read it you'll see that terrorists and resistance fighters of the type we've been fighting in Iraq and around the world don't fall under it's protection.

I have problems with what happened at Abu Grhaib. It was a bunch of sadistic idiots running around messing people up. Furthermore, for all their trouble, they didn't actually extract any information from the prisoners.

Now I have problems with the type of thing that went on at Abu Grhaib because it was unregulated and served no purpose. I have no problem however with some interrogators slapping some of those b!tches around to get some information out of them. If we're gonna go to the trouble of keeping them alive we should at least be getting some useful info out of them.

[Bubba04]

this is a bodybuilding forum...lets leave peoples political views on CNN

[mywetnightmares]

I thought this was the serious topics sub-forum, which is precisely meant for discussing things like politics and other issues.

Originally Posted by mywetnightmares

I thought this was the serious topics sub-forum, which is precisely meant for discussing things like politics and other issues.

beeeyum.....

burn

[dd3060]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

Your quote about "Uniformed soliders Fighting under the Flag of a country" could,nt be more wrong. The Geneva Conventions clearly states that resistance movements apply under Geneva conventions. So do Volunteers and civilian members.Also, Try to remember that The Geneva Conventions makes our soliders safer. It gives the enemy more of a chance to surrender and actually want to surrender as opposed to being tortured. Regardless of the way that we are treated as P.O.W's, we take the "High Ground". We are The U.S. We should never resort to the lower excuses of human beings and treat Prisoners who over 90% have not been charged with any crime and lower ourselves to their level. it should be insulting to every person who calls themselves americans that we have done this. On every level it's unacceptable and only hurts the U.S. in the long run.
We used to be better than this and now we are too closely approaching the line of the very enemy whom we are at war with.

as much as you liberals dont like facts the fact is you are absolutely wrong. the geneva convention does not protect terrorists. do some research before you come on here and make a fool of yourself.

[krenalor]

They certainly aren't "freedom" fighters when they kill their fellow countrymen. They should be summarily executed which is legal in the Geneva Convention. Then the piddly Liberals will whine about it, and everyone can tell them to shut up. They are just CRIMINALS, of the most cowardly sort.

John Kerry didn't win because the liberal democrats have been to STUPID to realize the country is slightly leaning right, so don't nominate a liberal from a liberal state. Nominate a centralist from a conservative state, instant win. Some are now getting a clue, and I would certainly vote for a centralist Democrat instead of a Republican I don't like much.

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by dd3060

as much as you liberals dont like facts the fact is you are absolutely wrong. the geneva convention does not protect terrorists. do some research before you come on here and make a fool of yourself.

Do you have the slightest clue of what you are talking about?? Perhaps your high school teacher gave you a little background on the Geneva conventions. That was really nice of him. I'm sure you went home from school that day and though you had a real take on The Geneva Conventions( Probably the same day you started growing pubes).
Meanwhile, some of us had actual 3 day courses on the Geneva conventions, While in The Military. I'm sure some people out there know what I'm talking about. Probably not you.
Anyway, next time, try to do some research on Protocol I and Protocol II of The Geneva Conventions Additions that was added in 1979.
I'll make it easy for you and provide a link.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm

Also, like I was trying to say before. The Geneva Conventions protects OUR troops by treating every person in a Humane way. It's not that difficult to comprehend. If Bush or Cheney would have actually spent some time In Vietnam insteading of draft-dodging, they would realize.
Why is it that people who actually did serve our country are against this Treatment( John Mcain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham) and those are the conervatives.

[krenalor]

Thats another thing that makes G.W. Bush an idiot, he should have signed the bill and not fought it. Of course all politicians, including Democrats, dodged the draft in anyway they could.
The Vietnam War was fought like we had a blindfold on and an arm tide behind our back. It was one stupid way to fight curtesy of both Democrats and Republican "leadership". I don't care if it was right or wrong, don't fight if you plan on acting like morons.
Idiot Politicians should set the POLITICAL restrictions of a conflict then let a MILITARY leader fight it.

[dd3060]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

Do you have the slightest clue of what you are talking about?? Perhaps your high school teacher gave you a little background on the Geneva conventions. That was really nice of him. I'm sure you went home from school that day and though you had a real take on The Geneva Conventions( Probably the same day you started growing pubes).
Meanwhile, some of us had actual 3 day courses on the Geneva conventions, While in The Military. I'm sure some people out there know what I'm talking about. Probably not you.
Anyway, next time, try to do some research on Protocol I and Protocol II of The Geneva Conventions Additions that was added in 1979.
I'll make it easy for you and provide a link.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm

Also, like I was trying to say before. The Geneva Conventions protects OUR troops by treating every person in a Humane way. It's not that difficult to comprehend. If Bush or Cheney would have actually spent some time In Vietnam insteading of draft-dodging, they would realize.
Why is it that people who actually did serve our country are against this Treatment( John Mcain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham) and those are the conervatives.

sorry but i was in the military too (i got out cause i couldnt stand another day serving with Bill Clinton as my commander in chief, if i could go back in i would cause i would be proud to serve under a real american like Bush). and you are absolutely dead wrong. as much as you want to side with terrorists and as much as you want them to defeat the US, as much as you sympathize with their cause, as much as you idolize them, as much as you wish they would attack inside the US again, the geneva convention does not protect terrorists. plain and simple. your absolutely wrong. and oh by the way John Mcain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham i wouldnt call them conervatives, they call themselves republicans cause they have to win elections but they are really closet liberal democrats and that is why none of them will get the republican nomination for president.

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by dd3060

sorry but i was in the military too (i got out cause i couldnt stand another day serving with Bill Clinton as my commander in chief, if i could go back in i would cause i would be proud to serve under a real american like Bush). and you are absolutely dead wrong. as much as you want to side with terrorists and as much as you want them to defeat the US, as much as you sympathize with their cause, as much as you idolize them, as much as you wish they would attack inside the US again, the geneva convention does not protect terrorists. plain and simple. your absolutely wrong. and oh by the way John Mcain, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham i wouldnt call them conervatives, they call themselves republicans cause they have to win elections but they are really closet liberal democrats and that is why none of them will get the republican nomination for president.

Do you really think that we want the terrorists to attack the U.S??
So Graham, Hagel and Mcain aren't Conservatives but Bush who has not vetoed one spending bill and has took the Biggest Surplus in Our History(Thanks Bill) and turned it into the Largest Deficit in our history IS a conservative. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

Not quite.
Hagel and McCain were Republicans and Fighting in a war when George Bush was getting DWI's and snorting lines.
Both are Pro-Life, Pro-Business and actually Fiscally Conservative. They vote to balance budgets,meanwhile Bush takes the Biggest surplus in history and turns it into the biggest deficit in history, and he does it in 4 years. Bush has NEVER vetoed a spnding bill.

anyway, here is some of the voting records for Hagel.
Rated 8% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-labor voting record
Voted YES on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq