Those Contractors Were Lured Into an Ambush

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: There are ACTUAL afghan policemen being held in GM bay as 'illegal combatents' because they weren't wearing a military uniforms while defending their country. POLICE STATIONS were fired upon by the US during the Afghan war - and policemen were considered legitimate targets then - so why not now?

Yes indeed skunk, why not now?

The issues raised by you just don't hit home like they used to because, to be perfectly honest, your point of view on any given issue seems to be based, not on the action itself, but instead, on which side did it.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by PoleCat: I've got to disagree with you Skunk that these security forces are illegal combatants. These firms must have some way of dealing with US armed forces or the Pentagon wouldn't allow them in Iraq in the first place. Maybe a liason officer or something of the sort....

In the same way that the illegal combatents in afghanistan must have some way of dealing with the Afghan government forces or the Taliban government (which controlled every aspect of afghan life) wouldn't have allowed them to bear arms in the first place too?

Sorry, but that *wasn't* the definitions that the US president provided. He was quite categoric that ANYONE who bears arms in a combat zone who are not wearing military uniforms or who are not displaying military insignia are illegal combatents. He made no exceptions and he was absolutely clear. His definitions - not mine.

For three years many of us have been warning exactly what that new definition would mean to US personnel and private citizens engaged in overseas US operations. Now that it's come back to bite, everyone seems to be milling around mumbling "WTF, I never expected that".

Worse still, the presence of these guys has put every real civilian contractor engaged in real reconstruction work at risk - because now the insurgents have no way of telling who is a combatent and who isn't. And just like the coalition military, they are now following the principle of: "When in doubt, shoot. Don't take risks".

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: There are ACTUAL afghan policemen being held in GM bay as 'illegal combatents' because they weren't wearing a military uniforms while defending their country. POLICE STATIONS were fired upon by the US during the Afghan war - and policemen were considered legitimate targets then - so why not now?

Yes indeed skunk, why not now?

The issues raised by you just don't hit home like they used to because, to be perfectly honest, your point of view on any given issue seems to be based, not on the action itself, but instead, on which side did it. [/QUOTE]Yes, yes I know. If you are not for Bush's policies and way of doing things you are a terrorist, terrorist sympathiser, etc.

"He applys the same rules to both sides! - must be biased then"...

In the end Ronn, I don't actually care what you think. I will continue to be consistent, whether we are talking about Hussein or Gadaffi and hope that others might follow that lead. And I WILL continue to condemn the US for X and the insurgents for doing the same. And I will continue to speak up every time there is an injustice committed by either side.

Because I do believe that everyone should be measured by the same yardstick and that justice should be applied equally. Now I know that there are a lot of people who believe in the concept of "My country, right or wrong, - but I am not one of them. It goes against every principle of democracy and justice that I was raised up to believe in.

And I am not the kind to be intimidated by bullying tactics of labelling, or affected by the kind of aspersions that you are casting in my direction. You see, we had a party like that in Europe who did the very same kind of thing sixty years ago. And people allowed themselves to be intimated into keeping silent about the wrongs that were being committed around them - and Europe ended up in a big mess. Hell, the world ended up in a big mess.

So carry on with the aspersions - it won't silence me. This european has learnt the lessons from the past.

[johnny]

I think you've just been accused of being a Nazi Ronn.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: "He applys the same rules to both sides! - must be biased then"... In the end Ronn, I don't actually care what you think. I will continue to be consistent, whether we are talking about Hussein or Gadaffi and hope that others might follow that lead. And I WILL continue to condemn the US for X and the insurgents for doing the same. And I will continue to speak up every time there is an injustice committed by either side. Because I do believe that everyone should be measured by the same yardstick and that justice should be applied equally. Now I know that there are a lot of people who believe in the concept of "My country, right or wrong, - but I am not one of them. It goes against every principle of democracy and justice that I was raised up to believe in. And I am not the kind to be intimidated by bullying tactics of labelling, or affected by the kind of aspersions that you are casting in my direction. You see, we had a party like that in Europe who did the very same kind of thing sixty years ago. And people allowed themselves to be intimated into keeping silent about the wrongs that were being committed around them - and Europe ended up in a big mess. Hell, the world ended up in a big mess. So carry on with the aspersions - it won't silence me. This european has learnt the lessons from the past.

Please spare me the 'I'm under attack, but I must continue the fight because my cause is just' melodrama, ok?

The issue here isn't that I believe you support terrorists, so please don't insinuate that I'm casting *anything* your way other than a "I wish skunk wasn't so self righteous and didn't think his is the only decent way of thinking" spell.

The point is there's a rub in your arguments. You DO NOT apply the same rules to each side. Not exactly anyway. You do argue the same rules, but you change which side is *just* to suit your POV. Your yardstick would cause a carpenter to build a very flimsy house.

You frequently choose a view of a rule(s) that supports your view of a certain position while choosing the opposite view based on that SAME rule in another similar situation again to suit your position. They WERE NOT illegal combatants in Afghanistan for the exact same reason you say they WERE illegal combatants in Iraq? It seems to me that the only real difference in the situation is the side those killed were on?

You apply do the same rules, but you do not apply them evenly no matter how much you'd like to believe it. You see an inconsistency, so you choose to argue each side as it best suits your POV despite the fact that one argument negates the other. You frequently defend an action that you've also condemned.

I'm glad you don't believe in "My country, right or wrong". Does anyone believe that anymore or was that an aspersion? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Basically skunk, you treat your opinion as fact, but it is not, so try not to feel so threatened when your view is opposed. The fact that you do tells me you haven't learned as much from history as you'd like to think.

PS - You really don't care what I think anymore? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

[ 04-09-2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by johnny: I think you've just been accused of being a Nazi Ronn.

You guys didn't know I was a Nazi?

Of course if you knew what I'd been put through by the WEST, you'd understand why I act as I do. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-09-2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Chewbacca]

Very nice Ronn- You have totally avoided discussing the points and instead decided to discuss the person making the point.

It's a disturbing trend in this forum. In this instance it leads me to believe you cannot make a viable counterpoint to the observation that it is okay for the U.S. to use civilian combatents but it is not okay for the enemy to use civilan combatents.

How do you address the seeming double standard that U.S. civilian combatents are legal and enemy civilian combatents are illegal?

So would you care to address the issues or are you going to continue with unsubstantiated ad hominems?

[ 04-09-2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Actually my response was to skunk, NOT YOU, regarding his statement that he was, through my remarks, being "intimidated by bullying tactics of labelling, or affected by the kind of aspersions that (I was) casting (towards him)". Also that he wasn't *one of those* who went in for the "my country, right or wrong" as if someone *else* involved in the discussion did.

I feel I had a right to respond to that, but thanks Chewie for noticing those items too and not just pointing out my personal references. If you'd done that it would just have seemed so... partisan.

Seems like business as usual here to me.

Unsubstantiated ad hominems? I'll leave that to the experts.

[ 04-09-2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Actually my response was to skunk, NOT YOU, regarding his statement that he was, through my remarks, being "intimidated by bullying tactics of labelling, or affected by the kind of aspersions that (I was) casting (towards him)". Also that he wasn't *one of those* who went in for the "my country, right or wrong" as if someone *else* involved in the discussion did. I feel I had a right to respond to that, but thanks Chewie for noticing those items too and not just pointing out my personal references. If you'd done that it would just have seemed so... partisan. Seems like business as usual here to me. Unsubstantiated ad hominems? I'll leave that to the experts.

Hey don't blame me, you started it. If you want to read a personal attack into skunks words...well I'll leave that between you and skunk. My point being is you have not addressed any of the opinions offered even once in this thread, but nearly every post from the very first one you have taken it upon yourself to discuss a person making opinions. It wouldnt suprise me a bit if someone replied in kind.

Seeing how this is a public forum and all the participants have a stake in the tone of the discussions, I am perfectly within my right to question behavior that pushes the bounds of forum rules and ettiquite. If you don't like me butting in to your personal commentary about another poster or don't like me commenting how you have not addressed the points offered than take it to private message. I promise I won't comment on private messages, no matter how personal you make the discourse.

So you still have not offered a counterpoint to the observation.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Skunk: These Kalashnikov-toting military wannabes *are* members of a private army and therefore illegal combatents.

Well once again you are wrong. These men were all trained former SEALs, Special Forces or Rangers. They have been hired to provide security for, of all people Bremer. They also provide security for the CPA. By hiring physical security out to private companies, we free up the military to do the things they do best. Guard duty isn't their primary duty. They are hired by our government or by our Governmenrt contractors and are therefore not "illegal combatants".

I think Ronn_Bman is also calling a "Spade a Spade", Skunk.

[ 04-09-2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Well once again you are wrong. These men were all trained former SEALs, Special Forces or Rangers. They have been hired to provide security for, of all people Bremer. They also provide security for the CPA. By hiring physical security out to private companies, we free up the military to do the things they do best. Guard duty isn't their primary duty. They are hired by our government or by our Governmenrt contractors and are therefore not "illegal combatants".

But you just proved Skunk's point Taliesin. They are hired fighters (ie: mercenaries) who do not wear military uniforms or insignia. Therefore, by President Bush's own definition, they are illegal combatants. It's all just semantics. But, if you want to change Bush's definition in regards to these 'security personnel', then you're going to have to change it in regards to Afghanistan 'security personnel'-come-illegal combatants as well.

Now, I'm arguing the semantic definitions here, not the morality or necessity of these personnel, nor of alleged Afghani mercenaries/terrorists/. I'm leaving out my judgment on THAT score until I've got more infor on the topic... which could be a while...