REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Prison inmates committing suicide now an act of warfare on the US

POSTED BY: KHYRON
UPDATED: Friday, June 23, 2006 00:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6322
PAGE 1 of 3

Saturday, June 10, 2006 10:08 PM

KHYRON


Yes indeed it is, according to the military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm

The article can basically be summed up by: "The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us"."

I personally fail to see the logic, but then again I'm not as highly intelligent as the US military. Anybody care to explain?



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:35 AM

CITIZEN


People were murdered on a US base by terrorists...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:03 AM

CHRISISALL


They realized that they couldn't kill anyone else, so to demoralize the sensitive, fluffy peeps at Gitmo, they murdered themselves!

Who knows at this point, could be a 'statement', or maybe some more foul play. Time and loose lips will tell.

Frequent diner at the Gitmo Bistro Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:23 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


I think they just had enough...

They are being held.... indefinately

They may or may not be guilty of anything

The treatment they face is questionable at best

I suppose taking out a guard is impossible... so what else does that leave


I remember the outrage Americans showed over Vietnam POWs ( sorry illegal combatants... depends who you talk to right ? ) and look at this going on ?

I personally feel that those who fought US forces in the process of invading Afganistan and Iraq are not guilty of anything but fighting for their respective countries... funny how the US is casting themselves as the Russians from Red Dawn

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/






" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:40 AM

CITIZEN


I would have liked to write the tabloid headlines:

Three men brutely murdered by terrorists at US base!



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:46 AM

SIMONF


It's also a "good PR move to draw attention" according to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. I can't help but think phrases like these will not endear themselves to moderates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5069230.stm

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:35 AM

SIMONWHO


"an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us" - Rear Admiral Harris.

Well, for the safety of the free world, I hope that the US restores the symmetry by retaliating in kind with the suicide of the Commander in Chief, his deputy and Rear Admiral Harris.

Has there ever been a more heartless reaction to a suicde than this?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:56 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Has there ever been a more heartless reaction to a suicde than this?


I'm sure there has been, but I don't know what it is.

-

In one thing in relation to this Bush said he wanted detainees to be tried in the US (military tribunals though) and I'm all for that, or anything that at least lets them hear why they're being held and a shot, even if not the best one, at justice.

Anyone remember when someone was convicted based on charges in a sealed envelope? It was during the McCarthy era, meaning I wasn’t there for it, and once upon a time I thought that could never happen again. Some people still suffer from that delusion, for example when Good Night, and Good Luck came out some people thought it wasn't current.

There are few things more current.

"We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason."

"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

"And who's fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassus was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

-

And of course the final words of the movie, which came not from an actor but from the President of the United States:
"Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:58 AM

KHYRON


"good PR move to draw attention"

Assuming it is just a PR move, does that mean that now the military considers PR moves to be acts of warfare?



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:16 AM

CAUSAL


I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.



________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:39 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.


So we all have to suffer from not hearing what you have to say?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:58 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.


C'mon, Causal, what is it? For God's sake, SPIT IT OUT!

Sorry, I sounded like the sherriff from First Blood just then...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:35 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm afraid to post in this thread. PirateJenny might post some half-coherent rant about my lack of mental acuity.


C'mon, Causal, what is it? For God's sake, SPIT IT OUT!



Oh fine. What they mean when they say, "An act of assymetric warfare" is that the prisoners offed themselves (double points for the horrible grammar!) because they knew that it would attract media attention on the "plight" of the detainees at Gitmo--and hey, it worked!

Note: not making any statements about the legitimacy of Guantanamo Bay or anything like that, nor am I making statements about whether I buy the whole "assymetric warfare" thing.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:02 AM

RHODRI


Personally, I beleive these inmates had just had enough.

These people have been taken from the Afghanistan area and locked up in a cage in Cuba.

They've been there for 5 years.

There has been no trial for a single detainee.

There is inadequate proof to try a single detainee.

They are unlikely to be released to thier home states.

Is anyone surprised that 3 guys topped themselves? The real miracle is that there haven't been any more reported suicides there!

Let's face it, Camp X-Ray is one bad joke, a mistake from the outset and they don't know how to get out of the mire!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

Oh fine. What they mean when they say, "An act of assymetric warfare" is that the prisoners offed themselves (double points for the horrible grammar!) because they knew that it would attract media attention on the "plight" of the detainees at Gitmo--and hey, it worked!


I agree, Causal.
And those Buddhist monks that torched themselves during the Vietnam War started the 'Assymetric Warfare' thing, I blame them!

And the Bush Administration is forcing through it's Oblique Warfare!
And those Terrorists, with their stinking Quantum Warfare!!!

These new ways are making a mockery of the good old Scorched Earth thing, Damn it all!

War should be pure (Purity Of War; aka POW)Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:42 AM

KHYRON


For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

I ask because the Geneva conventions don't seem to care about enemy combatants but take the welfare of POWs very seriously, and to a layperson such as myself the two seem to be the same (assuming the enemy combatant has been caught and is held as a prisoner).



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:20 AM

TAYEATRA


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?





A 'prisoner of war' must be a registered member of the armed forces (i.e. protected by the 'following orders' defence). Thus, terrorists or any who fight against legitimised government are considered enemy combatants.

*****
Taya
*****
I'm going to S3!!!
(*Insert hysterical celebration dance here*)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?

I ask because the Geneva conventions don't seem to care about enemy combatants but take the welfare of POWs very seriously, and to a layperson such as myself the two seem to be the same (assuming the enemy combatant has been caught and is held as a prisoner).



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.



It gets even more complicated when you have to determine whether a combatant is a "lawful" or "unlawful" combatant. Lawful combatants get the Geneva convention treatment if captured. Unlawful is not so clear.

In your old-fashioned war between uniformed national armies, it was pretty easy to figure that uniformed enemy soldiers you captured were lawful combatants and entitled to POW treatment. Spies and saboteurs you caught outside their own country were unlawful combatants and could go to the wall. Resistance fighters fighting against occupation of their country were supposed to be treated as lawful, but that was open to interpretation.

If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?

Just to make it more complex, the three Guantanamo suicides were Saudi and Yemeni. One of the Saudis was described as part of a militant Saudi group. Sadly, he was scheduled to be released as soon as it could be decided where he could be released to, but hadn't been told, pending the decision on where he'd go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

The other Saudi was described as a mid-to-high-level al-Qaeda operative and the Yemeni as a "front-line" Taliban fighter. Would these two be considered legal resistance fighters even though they weren't in their own country, or agents provocateurs who should be treated the same as spies?

Lawyers will be buying Benzes and Yachts for years off the fees that are paid before that is decided.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:48 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
For somebody who's somewhat military-illiterate, what exactly is the difference between an "enemy combatant" and a POW? What is it in a conventional war and what is it in the war on terror (where even somebody's apartment can be seen as part of the battlefield)?


Quote:

Source: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/after_911/PDF/Enemy%20Combatant
s.pdf

The largest category of individuals in detention comprises the so-called “enemy
combatants.” These are individuals being treated not as civilians (as in INS and criminal
cases), but as members of a military force, either al Qaeda or the Taliban, and as
participants in an armed conflict pitting those forces against the United States. The
administration has designated these men as “unlawful combatants,” or “enemy
combatants,”1 rather than as “prisoners of war,” for the express purpose of denying them
the rights that combatants normally receive. At the same time, by considering these
detainees as “combatants,” the administration in effect asserts the right to detain them
indefinitely and without trial. Under international humanitarian law, combatants in
armed conflict who are captured by the enemy may be held in detention until the
“cessation of active hostilities.” 2 In this instance, the administration construes this term
to mean the end of the “war against terrorism.”


People protected under the Geneva Convention are outlined in Articles 3 - 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What's the difference between an illegal combatant and an innocent detainee?

The Pentagon's say-so.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:09 PM

SIMONWHO


What's the difference between an illegal combatant and an innocent detainee?

Well, according to Pentagon officials asked this question, you better hope never to find out. And stop being unpatriotic, asking questions about the way they do things. If you're not for us, you're against us. Bring them on. Mission accomplished. Help, vision impaired, I can not see. Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate...

... said the Pentagon spokesman.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:15 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
And of course the final words of the movie, which came not from an actor but from the President of the United States:
"Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it."


I thought that was such a great quote, right from Ike, but no one else liked it I guess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 3:01 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Or it was retaliation from the guards for the prisoners staging an attack last month. Guards go psycho just as much as the prisoners. Homicidal "hangings" are the most popular method of faking suicides in US prisons.

Caught on Tape - US Copsters Torture US Citizen to Sign Consent Form in USA:
http://wms.scripps.com/knoxville/siler/siler.mp3
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/9797.php
http://piratenews.org/KnoxNews-com-torture-archive.html
http://piratenews.org/tortured-by-copsters-in-tn.html
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/247

Note that these 5 copsters punched him, kicked him, beat him with a baseball bat, burned him with cigarettes, threatened to rape his wife, put a loaded gun to his head and threatened to shoot him dead, and if that weren't enough they hooked a battery charger to his genitals. This guy was tortured in his own home, no arrest, no trial, no appeal. The copsters said they were going to kill him, plant a gun on him, and testilie that they shot him trying to escape.

What they do in Gitmo is far worse, with dozens of deaths of people with no criminal charges filed against them, no lawyers, no trials, no appeals. Citizens from over 50 nations are in Gitmo.

And Islam forbids suicide. Just because the Pentagon says something you automatically believe it's true?

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:47 PM

KHYRON


Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?


This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions. So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)? And who defines a valid resistance? In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid. Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".

You're absolutely right, Geezer, lawyers will be loving this.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:20 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Khyron wrote:

Quote:

So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)?


I think you've hit the nail on the head. And now, because you're so astute, you've actually become a threat to the war effort, and will be thusly treated as an enemy combatant. Please turn yourself in at the nearest "guest camp". :)

The problem with declaring war on an *idea* or concept is that it pretty much does away with all the established rules of warfare. Of course, that's only a problem if you're not on the "right" side, right?

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."
- Laurens van der Post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?

The Bush Administration likes to cherry pick. They take the 'enemy Combatant' thing as if they were fighting a conventional war but then excuse their own actions that break the Geneva Convention because those actions don't really break the convention because they aren't fighting a conventional war.

When it suits them the war on terror is conventional, with the enemy being some undefined nations regular military, uniforms and all. When it doesn't suit them, it isn't.

Of course when these Unlawful Combatants capture American Soldiers and mistreat them it's a terrible thing, but since they are unlawful combatants and they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, they aren't bound by it either. So surely it's okay for them to mistreat American Soldiers for the same reasons its okay for American Soldiers to mistreat unlawful combatants?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?...This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions.


The Geneva conventions apply to war between nations and in some cases intra-national civil war. They weren't written considering war against a stateless, violent, multi-branched organization attempting to impose its political ideas by terror.

The Geneva conventions were also written (I believe) with the implied understanding that everyone would at least pay lip-service to the rules. I'm not sure that when they were created, that anyone would have considered the possibility of al-Qieda as a major world-wide player.

Quote:

So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)?


Oh, a lot more complex than that.

Lets say Ali is a ben-Laden lieutenant who taught the 9/11 hijackers how to cut throats with box-cutters and sent them off to die. When the US invades Afghanistan, he picks up his AK, goes to kill the infidel, and gets captured. Right next to him is Jalil, a simple farmer who also picked up his AK and went to fight the infidel.

We know that the area where they were captured is rife with al-Qieda terrorists, so it's a good chance they are. When questioned, they both respond "I'm a simple farmer, infidel dog." If no more evidence is available, what do we do - charge them both with terrorism, let them both go, or hold them until we can develop more info? Considering the number of Afghan and Iraqi combatants we captured, the 800 or so sent to Guantanamo because we either knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure doesn't seem that excessive.

Quote:

And who defines a valid resistance?


In the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's the duly elected governments of those countries.

Quote:

In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid.


Possibly, but they could still consider the resistance to be lawful combatants, as Jalil, above, would be. Iraqi regular army forces were treated as lawful combatants, even though they sometimes broke the Geneva rules by such acts as using civilians as human shields.

Quote:

Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".


That would be a pretty unlikely statement for anyone to actually make (unless they were just trying to start an argument), but as to the Conventions expectations, I doubt it.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Of course when these Unlawful Combatants capture American Soldiers and mistreat them it's a terrible thing, but since they are unlawful combatants and they are not protected by the Geneva Convention, they aren't bound by it either. So surely it's okay for them to mistreat American Soldiers for the same reasons its okay for American Soldiers to mistreat unlawful combatants?



Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Tell you what- I'll roll you around and sit on you while you're stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag until you suffocate. That will end the discussion nicely.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:47 AM

AMITON


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Thanks for the helpful answers. The difference between the two in a conventional war is now clear to me, but when it comes to the so-called war on terror, aren't terrorists the enemy? So if somebody is accused of being a terrorist, then that makes him a (lawful) enemy combatant, one targetted by the war and thereby upon capture he's a POW. Right? Unless the war on terror is against not people but the idea of terror, in which case, wtf?



Well, kind of. I can't claim to be up on all of the GC legalities, and honestly that can be a problem some day since I'm responsible for acting in accordance with them. That could be part of the problem on a small scale, but I'll promise you that the White House legal team isn't as underinformed as I am.

If I understand the scenario correctly, however, the terrorists are not lawful combatants because of the nature of the application of "assymetric" warfare techniques by and large. They are staying in civilian homes and running operations disguised as civilians. It's absolutely critical to the success of their objectives. As such, they are pursuing the "war" from an unlawful standpoint.

Somebody made mention of spies and espionage earlier in the thread, and their activities strip them from the protections of the GC and they become unlawful combatants if memory serves. Similiar situation.


Quote:


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
If most of the world recognizes the current Afgani or Iraqi governments as legitimate, and those governments declare the insurgents do not represent a valid resistance, are they then unlawful combatants, due no POW rights under the Geneva Convention?


This seems to be a pretty big loophole in the Geneva Conventions. So all a country has to do to be able to do with the combatants it captures as it wishes is to declare war on an idea or an act (such as terrorism), and not on the carnal manifestation of that idea (i.e. terrorists)? And who defines a valid resistance? In the eyes of the invader, no resistance is valid. Or do the Conventions expect the leader of the invading forces to respond along the lines of "Oh well, they do have a good point for resisting. After all, we did murder their mothers and rape their children, so what the hell, we'll be nice and let the Geneva Conventions apply by acknowledging their resistance as being valid".

You're absolutely right, Geezer, lawyers will be loving this.



The international legal system is a political game from the get-go. It's all about power and popular opinion. I can assure you that the Nazis would not have been tried for War Crimes if they had won, and I don't think Melsovic would have been either if he hadn't pissed so many people off. Of course they deserved it, and yes those were bad people. If they ran in the right circles and kept their noses clean, however, we never would have heard about the things that had been done, even though I will assure you that state governments and intelligence agencies would have known all about them.

Kind of a parallel scenario. Israel and Taiwan are both States that aren't officially recognized by their neighbors. If wars broke out involving them then I'm sure the court of popular opinion would rule that they had to be treated as normalized and lawful opposition regardless of what the rest of the middle east or China had to say about it respectively. Palestine just recently jumped into that category in the last couple of decades as well. The US confederacy established a government and drafted formal notifications of succession and all the political stuff that goes over my head most of the time. Hell, the American Revolution was pretty much the same thing for that matter.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the difference is contextual, and not as fluidly subjective as is being illustrated. It is subjective to a degree, and it's definitely a slippery slope to be on. There's definitely enough room for the lawyers to argue about the semantics of it all, though, which is going to make it confusing for those of us that consider ourselves the laypeople and armchair consultants of law.

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell you what- I'll roll you around and sit on you while you're stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag until you suffocate. That will end the discussion nicely.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.



Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.

But anyway. Let's step back a bit and look at the large scale picture.

Almost all lawful combatants in both Afghanistan and Iraq captured by coalition forces (that would be uniformed regular forces and resistance fighters engaged in regular combat) have been released and are back home. Some who are suspected or identified terrorists are being held. In cases where captives were mistreated, folks have gone to jail.

Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.

Do you see any difference at all between these two scenarios? A simple Yes or No will do.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No.

Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:29 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed.

Like you said Mal tortured and killed the henchman when he kicked him through the engine on the other thread, huh?
That guy was going to kill Mal & crew as soon as he could, by his own free admission!

Defense does not equal torture.
Um...unless you defend yourself, then torture...then you're torturing.


You make it so complicated, Geezer! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No.

Please explain the difference.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.



Sure. Scenario one is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I then let you go. If I don't release you my forces are required to treat you in a relatively humane manner. If they don't they go to jail.

Scenario two is...We don't agree and I take you prisoner. 999 times out of 1000 I torture you and cut your head off with a dull knife. My boss says "Good job. Keep it up." I do.

Any clearer now?

I'm afraid that if you can't differentiate between these two scenarios, I can do nothing but suggest that you seek medical attention, 'cause you're one sick puppy.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.

How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?
Quote:

Hmm. I thought I was discussing this with Citizen. Let me check... Yep.
Yeah Signy, this IS NOT a public forum and YOU have no rights to speak in it, so shut the hell up. .
Quote:

Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.
So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?

If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Most coalition armed forces captured as lawful combatants (and yes, they're lawful combatants regardless of their nation's actions, just like individual German soldiers in WWII were lawful combatants)have been tortured and executed. Since the establishment of the new Iraqi army, most Iraqi soldiers captured have also been tortured and executed. This is not isolated cases, it is policy.

So you want the 'unlawful combatants' to be bound by the Geneva Convention but not protected by it?

If someone is bound by the Geneva Convention they're also protected by it, so I'd of thought that's the last thing the Bush administration wants.



No. My remark, which you took out of context, was not meant to propose anything relating to the Geneva convention, as you know very well. It was part of a "compare and contrast" set of scenarios reflecting Coalition and insurgent tactics and policies.

Since that's come up, do you see any difference between scenarios One and Two that I described above?

BTW. I'm having trouble linking with FFF.net (maybe you are too?) so I'm gonna drop out for a while and pick this up later.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Trouble here too. But I'm patient.

First of all, I question your scenario. Just out of curiosity Geezer: Have we ever taken "lawful combatants" prisoner in our war on terrorists? Considering that the Taliban was not recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan (except by the UAE, to which we almost entrusted our port security... but that's another story) by definition I don't think there were any lawful combatants in that war. And while I suppose that Saddam's army consisted of lawful combatants, I'm not aware that we took any of them prisoner. It seems to me that all of our prisoners in Gitmo and most of them in Abu Ghraib are either "unlawful combatants", innocent bystanders (oops), and petty criminals. So feel free to let me know how we treated that minor percentage (if any) of our lawful combatant prisoners.

As far as I know, according to you the rest are fair game.

www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444




---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:25 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Considering the number of Afghan and Iraqi combatants we captured, the 800 or so sent to Guantanamo because we either knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure doesn't seem that excessive.


Ok, so here's what I'm reading, tell me if I'm wrong:

These people were picked up and according to the US government (which you can call liars if you'd like) in the five years since then they have not even been told why.

So they're being held without trial, as we all know, but they are not, however, guilty by suspicion since that would imply that they are suspected of something, which as far as we know isn't true. They have not been accused of being terrorists, they have not been accused of being ANYTHING, they have not been accused of acting against this counrty or breaking any law, they have not been accused, charged, or even given subtle hints as to why they are there.

As far as they or the American people know they are not even suspected of doing anything, because then they would have been charged with that thing, they are instead suspected of being the kind of person who might have done something or might do something.

-

You say that we knew they were terrorists or needed to make sure, if we knew why won’t we tell how we knew, and if we needed to make sure exactly how long does that take?

Will we be sure when they die of old age perhaps, because if we make as much progress in the next five as we have in the last five those who don't kill themselves will still be there, and by that point there probably won't be to much evidence to convict or exonerate them left around.

If we don't have enough evidence to even charge them with anything after five years of searching for it how long do we wait before we stop looking?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:28 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Tell you what. You let your big dog bark at me, and then I'll cut your head off with a dull knife, and then we'll talk equivalancies.

How about I kill your entire family in a bombing raid first?


You know what the defense lawyers said about the US soldiers who killed unarmed civilians? They said that the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.

I wonder if the terrorists should be let off every time they didn't know who was in the building they bombed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:38 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
the soldiers did not know they were killing civilians because they simply went door to door throwing grenades in houses, since they didn't bother to find out who was in the houses, the defense argues, they can't be blamed for the fact that the people living in the houses, whom they killed, were unarmed civilians.


We're back to: What we do-good.
What they do-bad.

War is so simple.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:58 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
No. My remark, which you took out of context, was not meant to propose anything relating to the Geneva convention, as you know very well. It was part of a "compare and contrast" set of scenarios reflecting Coalition and insurgent tactics and policies.

Erm since my original comment which you replied to was essentially “people who are not protected by the Geneva Convention aren't bound by it” I knew nothing of the sort. So why should we expect people who we've decided aren't allowed the protection of the GC to be bound by it? Why are you surprised they don't respect the rights of our soldiers when we don't respect their rights? Why's it okay for us to break the GC but not them?
Quote:

Since that's come up, do you see any difference between scenarios One and Two that I described above?
Erm I see you taking specific scenarios at two extremes.

What's the difference between these two?

An American Marine shooting an unarmed civilian at point blank range.

An insurgent shooting an armed Marine in a conflict.

I don't expect an answer because we're both taking extreme specific examples of what's really happening to paint the picture we want to paint and hoping to get a concession from the other side.

Like a line of questioning in a court case:
"What fits the defendant better: A psychotic manic murderer or a Small Venezuelan potted plant?"
"Well the murderer, but the other one isn't even a person..."
"Thank you that's all I needed to know."
Quote:

BTW. I'm having trouble linking with FFF.net (maybe you are too?) so I'm gonna drop out for a while and pick this up later.
Yeah me to, it's happening every now and again.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:58 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
War is so simple.


Mark Twain had a whole thing on it. It was very accurate if I remember correctly.

It never changes you know, the weapons change, the nations change, the people change, but the thing remains the same.

We are good and they are bad, god is with us, they are the infidel, we protect freedom they fight it, we create safety they create death. So on and so forth, all while the other side says the exact same thing.

Nothing is new really, this whole semantic battle over who has what rights reminds me of Cicero, he couldn't change the laws so he tried to change what the words meant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:05 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Nothing is new really, this whole semantic battle over who has what rights reminds me of Cicero, he couldn't change the laws so he tried to change what the words meant.

War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:28 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Now this is not an endorsment for Gitmo or any other 'secret' U.S. prison camps. In all fairness, if a case has not been made in several years, perhaps there is no case to be made. But it is really hard to prosecute intent.
With the exception of the three gentlemen from the above article, the remaining prisoners are alive. This can not be said about the victims of 9/11. This brings into question the rights of an enemy combatant or alledged terrorist as opposed to the rights of the average citizen to remain breathing.
Do not mistake me, I am not advocating rounding up persons of interest and locking them away. But people get sent to jail all the time for crimes they did not commit. Until us humans remove ourselves from the equation, all things are tempered with human fallacy. Besides, if the current residents of Gitmo can hold out, they will probably hire a lawyer, sue for wrongful imprisonment, win, then buy an island and try to make up for the lost years.
My point is if, god forbid, there was another terror attack on U.S. soil, would the same people who are now speaking out about Gitmo et al change their tune? Would these same people begin to chastise the Government for not doing enough to ensure the security of the people?

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:37 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

My point is if, god forbid, there was another terror attack on U.S. soil, would the same people who are now speaking out about Gitmo et al change their tune? Would these same people begin to chastise the Government for not doing enough to ensure the security of the people?


No.

Because it's NOT that they weren't doing enough before, they were doing TOO MUCH- of the wrong ass things. Our Government is a corporation now, and corporate style management is great for the short term, and terrible for the long. Keep your boss happy, that's all it is, now more than ever.

Look left, look right, look up, look down.
JAFB.


Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The answer to your question is... no.

And it's not because I'm a naive happy camper. I was probably one of the few people who wasn't shocked by 9-11. Even before the Cole and the US Emnbassies I was waiting for the oterh shoe to drop. I was just glad it wasn't worse because the scenarios in my head were much, much more horrific.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:00 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


People get thrown into jail for crimes they do not commit all the time, and those people get a trial which is as fair as we can manage with the world we have to work with in a timely fashion.

They get to hear the accusations against them and they get to challenge those things and try to prove their innocence.

Also their loved ones know where they are right from day one.

-

As for would I change my mind? No. If I wanted to live in a safe world I would go to work on a way to kill off every single person who has the potential to maybe dislike me at some point in their lives, for one thing it would be a hell of a lot more polite than the way we're doing things now, and for another it would actually stand a slim chance of working.

However,

There is a reason that Habeas Corpus is in the constitution, and not the bill of rights. Before the people who founded this country even thought about religion, search and seizure, or anything else mentioned in the Bill of Rights they thought about how pissed off we were that some bastards from overseas were throwing them in jail and not even telling them why.

I mean President Bush said it, this would be so much easier if it were a dictatorship, it would also work so much better if we stopped caring about morality, a camera in every bathroom and an electric prod in every cell and soon enough things will start to be safer. If we were to start executing people for anything equal to or worse than litter we'd probably have a safer nation then too.

Of course the people there are foreigners. (As far as I know they only ever had one American held there, for two years I believe, after investigating for all of that time they finally turned up one piece of information on him: he was an American, so on the agreement that he would not press charges they released him.)

But if individual rights really mean so little that we'd take them away from others just so we're a little bit safer there's no reason we should give them to ourselves. They simply don't matter that much. We certainly shouldn't go on about inalienable rights because that would be total bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:10 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was just glad it wasn't worse because the scenarios in my head were much, much more horrific.


That's what surprised me. People had been saying that terrorists would crash planes into the World Trade Center since they upped the security on their basement in response to the bombing.

What amazed me was that that is all that happened. Two planes in New York, one we think was meant for the White House, one at The Pentagon, and possibly one more target unknown that never lifted off that day.

Five planes out of something like 4,000 over the US. It's a blessing really, I wasn't expecting anything less than ten, and really I thought that was such a low estimate.

September 11th was sloppy, and for that I am grateful. Considering the state of our air security at the time it was incredibly minor, and for that I am grateful.

It was also preventable and what's more it could have been stopped without throwing people in jail for years without even telling them why.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:42 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Trouble here too. But I'm patient.

First of all, I question your scenario.


Or, first of all you dodge the question.

Quote:

Just out of curiosity Geezer: Have we ever taken "lawful combatants" prisoner in our war on terrorists? Considering that the Taliban was not recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan (except by the UAE, to which we almost entrusted our port security... but that's another story) by definition I don't think there were any lawful combatants in that war. And while I suppose that Saddam's army consisted of lawful combatants, I'm not aware that we took any of them prisoner.


Sorry you're so uninformed about an issue you argue so passionately.

30 days into the Iraq war we had captured around 7,500 POWS, had released 1000 Iraqi soldiers that had been taken prisoner, and were releasing prisoners at a rate of 200 to 300 a day.

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive_Index/leaders_captured.html

Quote:

It seems to me that all of our prisoners in Gitmo and most of them in Abu Ghraib are either "unlawful combatants", innocent bystanders (oops), and petty criminals.
Hey. we're about to release 120 or so of them, as soon as we find some place that will take them.

Quote:

Feel free to let me know how we treated that minor percentage (if any) of our lawful combatant prisoners.

As noted above, we were letting them go.

Quote:

As far as I know, according to you the rest are fair game.

Oh, come on. You must know that I have applauded the convictions of US forces who exceeded priosner treatment guidelines (unless you conviently forgot.)

So come on. Can you see any difference between letting most POWs go and killing most of them?

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ah, becasue WE are "lawful combatants" (who just happened to unlawfully invade a nation) and therefore deserve GC treatment.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 15:41 - 7 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL