spies

[happythoughts 0]

GC

According to the Geneva Convention, spies may be held without communication.

Quote

1.2. Articles' of the Convention, the spy may nevertheless be deprived temporarily of certain rights, particularly the right of communication.

So, if a person is involved in the planning of a hostile act, they are essentially an enemy combatant, but of a different class. They are considered spies because they did it clandestinely (without a uniform or insignia).

[Royd 0]

Works for me!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

GC

According to the Geneva Convention, spies may be held without communication.

Quote

1.2. Articles' of the Convention, the spy may nevertheless be deprived temporarily of certain rights, particularly the right of communication.

So, if a person is involved in the planning of a hostile act, they are essentially an enemy combatant, but of a different class. They are considered spies because they did it clandestinely (without a uniform or insignia).

That has been what I knew to be true for quite some time, and people always want to argue that it isn't

[vortexring 0]

GUARDS!!!!!!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[warpedskydiver 0]

Nooooooo not the ugly boilersuit again!!!

I will tell ya anything just don't make me wear the unfashionable thing!

and don't let the slapper that is supposed to humiliate me by ridiculing my genitals, be really hot ok?

that could be embarrassing

[happythoughts 0]

My essential point is this: Whether you are in a uniform or not, if you are part of a hostile effort, you are a combatant.

Sitting in an office at a computer and transferring money to hostile organizations.
Arranging shipping of weapons or supplies.
Supplying logistical support and planning.
Planning attacks.

A while back, some people were upset about the drone that was used to whack a carload of Al-Queda leaders.
There was one guy in the car who was not "known" to be a terrorist.

If you are riding around with terrorist leaders, you are probably part of that effort also. I don't believe that the AQ leadership is picking up hitchhikers who are foreign nationals.

I read somewhere that only 1 of 7 people is directly in a fight. The other 6 supply support. In a uniform or not, they are combatants.

[Botellines 0]

That is handy, that way the collateral damage will be Zero because everybody somehow is helping the terrorists. After all, who would want to live in the same country than a terrorist like al zarqawi.

Now that i think of it, by your definition the 9/11 was a legal target because they were part of the american effort... Interesting.

Edited to add that the guy who got his head off was also a valid target because if i remember correctly his job was to fix helicopters...

Edited again to add that those 4 guys whose budies were hanged and burned were also valid targets because they were contractors helping the U.S. Army.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

My essential point is this: Whether you are in a uniform or not, if you are part of a hostile effort, you are a combatant.

Sitting in an office at a computer and transferring money to hostile organizations.
Arranging shipping of weapons or supplies.
Supplying logistical support and planning.
Planning attacks.

A while back, some people were upset about the drone that was used to whack a carload of Al-Queda leaders.
There was one guy in the car who was not "known" to be a terrorist.

If you are riding around with terrorist leaders, you are probably part of that effort also. I don't believe that the AQ leadership is picking up hitchhikers who are foreign nationals.

I read somewhere that only 1 of 7 people is directly in a fight. The other 6 supply support. In a uniform or not, they are combatants.

I agree maybe some bankers should make a "deposit" in a cemetary

[kallend 1,660]

Quote

My essential point is this: Whether you are in a uniform or not, if you are part of a hostile effort, you are a combatant.

Sitting in an office at a computer and transferring money to hostile organizations.
Arranging shipping of weapons or supplies.
Supplying logistical support and planning.
Planning attacks.

A while back, some people were upset about the drone that was used to whack a carload of Al-Queda leaders.
There was one guy in the car who was not "known" to be a terrorist.

If you are riding around with terrorist leaders, you are probably part of that effort also. I don't believe that the AQ leadership is picking up hitchhikers who are foreign nationals.

I read somewhere that only 1 of 7 people is directly in a fight. The other 6 supply support. In a uniform or not, they are combatants.

Be careful with that argument - it works in both directions. Practically everyone in Boston and New York is an IRA combatant by your definition.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Be careful with that argument - it works in both directions. Practically everyone in Boston and New York is an IRA combatant by your definition.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Be careful with that argument - it works in both directions. Practically everyone in Boston and New York is an IRA combatant by your definition.

I wonder how proud they are that they helped bomb and assassinate innocent victims.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Be careful with that argument - it works in both directions. Practically everyone in Boston and New York is an IRA combatant by your definition.

I wonder how proud they are that they helped bomb and assassinate innocent victims.

JUST AS WE DO. WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE.......

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Be careful with that argument - it works in both directions. Practically everyone in Boston and New York is an IRA combatant by your definition.

If you give money to the IRA, then you are an IRA supporter and part of their infrastructure.

If someone walks up and says, "My relative was killed by an IRA bomb that was built with your money, so I am going to kill you", that has an element of fairness.

Why do people believe that they should support a war and not be held responsible ?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

That is handy, that way the collateral damage will be Zero because everybody somehow is helping the terrorists. After all, who would want to live in the same country than a terrorist like al zarqawi.

That was in no way what I said. I have no doubt that you understand that.

There are a huge number of people in Iraq that do not support Zarqawi. Only the people who actively support him are part of the war effort.

Do you believe that everyone in Iraq was a Zarqawi supporter? Remember all the innocent people that he has blown up in public markets?

In many cases, there was no military targets in the area.
It was not incidental, or "collateral damage", those people were the target.

If all those Iraqi people supported him, why did he intentionally kill them?