[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

And yet we have this:
Me:
We have already agreed that for some their is no such thing as loyalty to the UK it's all about the West and the real or imaginary attacks on Muslims world wide, why do you think on the basis of polls thousands of Muslims enjoying the hospitality of the UK support terrorist attacks on the uk

You:
Well, obviously, because they aren't "enjoying" the "hospitality of the UK" enough. What's there to enjoy about being stigmatized in your own country?

Really Kaminyu are you incapable of lateral thinking?

And then you said:
So you consider that if one feels that the hospitality is not 100% then it's okay to kill fellow citizens

Which has made the jump from "why some Muslims condone terrorism in the UK" to "Is Kaminyu okay with it". That's two different subjects of the same issue, and they have nothing to do wtih each other. We were discussing the former, not the latter. How much more do I need to spell this out for you?

Well you wouldn't know would you:

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 create a comprehensive legal regime for the

treatment of detainees in an armed conflict. Members of a regular armed force and

certain others, including militias and volunteer corps serving as part of the armed

forces, are entitled to specific privileges as POWs. Members of volunteer corps,

militias, and organized resistence forces that are not part of the armed services of a

party to the conflict are entitled to POW status if the organization (a) is commanded

by a person responsible for his subordinates, (b) uses a fixed distinctive sign

recognizable at a distance, (c) carries arms openly, and (d) conducts its operations in

accordance with the laws of war. Groups that do not meet the standards are not

entitled to POW status, and their members who commit belligerent acts may be

treated as civilians under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War (GC). These “unprivileged” or “unlawful combatants” may be

punished for acts of violence for which legitimate combatants could not be punished.

Some have argued that there is implied in the Geneva Conventions a third category

comprised of combatants from militias who do not qualify for POW status but also

fall outside of the protection for civilians. These combatants may be lawful in the

sense that they do not incur criminal liability for engaging in otherwise lawful combat,

but they would not be entitled to privileges as POWs or protected civilians.

Of course I would know:

The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) denotes a person denied the privileges of prisoner of war (POW) designation, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; one to whom protection is recognised as due is a lawful or privileged combatant.[1] Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she ("he") no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a POW, but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation.

It was a completely different "right"

No it wasn't.

But you clearly had little comprehension and understanding of what you had written, please try harder to express you views more clearly, sorting out your muddle thinking is tedious

Don't be ridiculous. How could I possibly have little comprehension and understanding of what I wrote, when I'm the one writing it? I know what meaning i put in my own words, while you obviously do not, and therefore, you are the one lacking in "comprehension" and "understanding".

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6080]And then you said:
So you consider that if one feels that the hospitality is not 100% then it's okay to kill fellow citizens

Which has made the jump from "why some Muslims condone terrorism in the UK" to "Is Kaminyu okay with it". That's two different subjects of the same issue, and they have nothing to do wtih each other. We were discussing the former, not the latter. How much more do I need to spell this out for you?

Well I guess let alone being capable of lateral thinking you don't even understand the meaning of the word

Of course I would know:

Such self delusion

The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) denotes a person denied the privileges of prisoner of war (POW) designation, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; one to whom protection is recognised as due is a lawful or privileged combatant.[1] Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she ("he") no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a POW, but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation.

Once again you have either forgotten what you wrote or as I have suggested and evidence is growing you do not comprehend that which you write.

This was the exchange:

I don't need to wriggle out of anything. You're just being unnecessarily nit-picky about terminology and semantics, with "POW"s and "internees", when both, at the end of the day, are still prisoners taken during a time of war.

Wow so it's the same is it , same rights under international law for example;yeah sure

Yes. It's called the Geneva Conventions, which apply to both groups.

Kaminyu,Now think about the words I have highlighted

No it wasn't.

Kaminyu, You wouldn't know

Don't be ridiculous. How could I possibly have little comprehension and understanding of what I wrote, when I'm the one writing it? I know what meaning i put in my own words, while you obviously do not, and therefore, you are the one lacking in "comprehension" and "understanding".

Kaminyu, After the recaps of what you wrote I bet your the only person on this forum that believes that

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Well I guess let alone being capable of lateral thinking you don't even understand the meaning of the word

This coming from someone who randomly brings up red herrings, then assumes it's the same subject.

Such self delusion

On your part.

Once again you have either forgotten what you wrote or as I have suggested and evidence is growing you do not comprehend that which you write.

This was the exchange:

I don't need to wriggle out of anything. You're just being unnecessarily nit-picky about terminology and semantics, with "POW"s and "internees", when both, at the end of the day, are still prisoners taken during a time of war.

Wow so it's the same is it , same rights under international law for example;yeah sure

Yes. It's called the Geneva Conventions, which apply to both groups.

Kaminyu,Now think about the words I have highlighted

Now on top of your red herrings, you're now using strawman arguments. I never said they had the same rights, nor did I mean that by calling them all POWs (which I was using in a very general sense anyway).

Kaminyu, You wouldn't know

I would certainly know more than you would, roboto.

Kaminyu, After the recaps of what you wrote I bet your the only person on this forum that believes that

And now you're assuming everyone on this forum thinks just like you do, except for me. Placing bets on the correctness of your ignorant assumptions isn't a very smart thing to do Mr. Roboto, since the odds are against you.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6198]

Now on top of your red herrings, you're now using strawman arguments. I never said they had the same rights, nor did I mean that by calling them all POWs (which I was using in a very general sense anyway).

Remember this

Me:Wow so it's the same is it , same rights under international law for example;yeah sure

You:Yes. It's called the Geneva Conventions, which apply to both groups.

Kaminyu,Now think about the words I have highlighted

Kaminyu TRY AGAIN

: or have you conveniently forgotten

I would certainly know more than you would, roboto.

Heck man you can't even spell my name correctly

And now you're assuming everyone on this forum thinks just like you do, except for me. Placing bets on the correctness of your ignorant assumptions isn't a very smart thing to do Mr. Roboto, since the odds are against you.

Well you knowm theres a level of logic which all rational people relate to, you seem to be having problems

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Remember this

Me:Wow so it's the same is it , same rights under international law for example;yeah sure

You:Yes. It's called the Geneva Conventions, which apply to both groups.

Kaminyu,Now think about the words I have highlighted

Kaminyu TRY AGAIN

: or have you conveniently forgotten

Yeah, the same basic rights (i.e. human rights), not the same legal rights. Not all POWs have the same status under international law. Civilians ("internees"), criminals ("unlawful enemy combatants") and enemy forces ("lawful combatants"), all have different standards that are applied to them. However, they're still entitled to the same basic rights under international law, as per the Geneva Conventions.

Heck man you can't even spell my name correctly

Except I wasn't trying to spell your name at all, as you should've figured out by now, Mr. Roboto. I've also called you Robutt-troll. Do you think that was a "mispelling" as well?

Well you knowm theres a level of logic which all rational people relate to, you seem to be having problems

I'm not the one trying to tell other people what they're really saying, but you are, and there's no universal level of "logic" in that, only extreme arrogance.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6238]

Yeah, the same basic rights (i.e. human rights), not the same legal rights. Not all POWs have the same status under international law. Civilians ("internees"), criminals ("unlawful enemy combatants") and enemy forces ("lawful combatants"), all have different standards that are applied to them. However, they're still entitled to the same basic rights under international law, as per the Geneva Conventions.

Yes but you didn't say basic did you and why are you telling me about the groups, that's information I provided to you to show how wrong you were really you take the biscuit when it comes to being devious.

Except I wasn't trying to spell your name at all, as you should've figured out by now, Mr. Roboto. I've also called you Robutt-troll. Do you think that was a "mispelling" as well?

Hey, as a moderator you really shouldn't be calling me names, that's naughty

I'm not the one trying to tell other people what they're really saying, but you are, and there's no universal level of "logic" in that, only extreme arrogance.

Yes the sort of arrongance when one says 1 plus 2 equals 3, don't worry I'm sure you have some worthwhile attributes

Back to the beginning these guys have no right of residence and if given it they must be watched and that's what will happen.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Yes but you didn't say basic did you and why are you telling me about the groups, that's information I provided to you to show how wrong you were really you take the biscuit when it comes to being devious.

No, I didn't say "basic" (although I was initially going to put it in), but it is what I was referring to. However, you also didn't say "legal" either, so "same rights" can be read either way. However, as I'm sure you're well aware, human rights abuses are by far the biggest complaint about Gitmo, so it shouldn't suprise you that it was what I was referring to, and also why I brought up the Geneva Conventions regarding it.

I'm telling you about the groups, because you gave me the impression that you assumed that I believed all POWs were entitled to all the same rights, regardless of their status. Therefore, I clarified it for you, and I didn't use what you said, since I had already looked it up for myself beforehand. Just because I called them all "POWs", doesn't mean I believed they all had the same legal status in war.

Hey, as a moderator you really shouldn't be calling me names, that's naughty

Yes the sort of arrongance when one says 1 plus 2 equals 3, don't worry I'm sure you have some worthwhile attributes

If I do, that isn't one of them. I'm not going to try and tell you what you really meant when you said something.

Back to the beginning these guys have no right of residence and if given it they must be watched and that's what will happen.

They should not be watched, unless they've actually done something that warrants it. Being caught in some indiscriminate crackdown, doesn't cut it. Them being watched is, as I said before, entirely based on paranoia and fear-mongering.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6386]

No, I didn't say "basic" (although I was initially going to put it in), but it is what I was referring to. However, you also didn't say "legal" either, so "same rights" can be read either way. However, as I'm sure you're well aware, human rights abuses are by far the biggest complaint about Gitmo, so it shouldn't suprise you that it was what I was referring to, and also why I brought up the Geneva Conventions regarding it.

But Bush's defence for the holding of and the conditions pertaining to prisoners in Gitmo was based on the group aspects of the Geneva conventions, it was splashed across the media several times and continues to be discussed, how could you be so poorly informed

I'm telling you about the groups, because you gave me the impression that you assumed that I believed all POWs were entitled to all the same rights, regardless of their status. Therefore, I clarified it for you, and I didn't use what you said, since I had already looked it up for myself beforehand. Just because I called them all "POWs", doesn't mean I believed they all had the same legal status in war.

You fool no one except your self

If I do, that isn't one of them. I'm not going to try and tell you what you really meant when you said something.

Well it isn't necessary is it because I am consistent and precise

They should not be watched, unless they've actually done something that warrants it. Being caught in some indiscriminate crackdown, doesn't cut it. Them being watched is, as I said before, entirely based on paranoia and fear-mongering.

I bet you'd love me to say , they are Muslims isn't that enough, the fact is their behaviour leads to some doubt and in the fight against terror the inhabitants of the uk are beginning to favour "what ever it takes" and, after-all , it is their right to decided who they invite to residence.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

But Bush's defence for the holding of and the conditions pertaining to prisoners in Gitmo was based on the group aspects of the Geneva conventions, it was splashed across the media several times and continues to be discussed, how could you be so poorly informed

Bush is a liar and an idiot. He also said that Iraq had WMD, that they had a hand in 9/11, etc., etc. and we know how true those turned out to be. Anyone who actually understands the Geneva Conventions, also understands that what is being done to prisoners at that gulag, is in violation of them.

You fool no one except your self

Which makes sense, because you don't fool people with the truth.

Well it isn't necessary is it because I am consistent and precise

So am I, but that didn't seem to stop you.

I bet you'd love me to say , they are Muslims isn't that enough, the fact is their behaviour leads to some doubt and in the fight against terror the inhabitants of the uk are beginning to favour "what ever it takes" and, after-all , it is their right to decided who they invite to residence.

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6415]

Bush is a liar and an idiot. He also said that Iraq had WMD, that they had a hand in 9/11, etc., etc. and we know how true those turned out to be. Anyone who actually understands the Geneva Conventions, also understands that what is being done to prisoners at that gulag, is in violation of them.

My comment was to question your ignorance of the various groups under the Geneva convention since it had been used by bush.

Your bluster clearly shows you embarrassment at being caught out

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

The freedom to live is paramount

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

My comment was to question your ignorance of the various groups under the Geneva convention since it had been used by bush.

Your bluster clearly shows you embarrassment at being caught out

No, it as actually your own ignorance that has been expoosed, by you using something that Bush of all people said.

The freedom to live is paramount

And universal.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

No, it as actually your own ignorance that has been expoosed, by you using something that Bush of all people said.



And universal.

I find this prolongling in order to satisfy your MHLW boring