Is killing POWs standard Muslim practice?

[Kamal35]

Mad Mac: I see the point of Biko here, and I see yours too.

The main thing is a that a country which speaks of freedom and democracy can't behave like a unlawful combatant all over the world. Freedom and democracy mean, exactly, that you respect the international law, the human rights, the civil rights, the rights of everyone.

USA has been behaving (and I hate the world) like the Roman Empire ("the rights are for me; the rest of them are slaves; the richness are mine, even if they're in your land"). That's not a democracy, that's an imperialistic State. I find no difference between the nazi Germany when it invaded Poland and The United States invading Iraq. If you want to bring democracy to somewhere, you have to bring laws, rights, not war and destruction, because that way (and that's what happening right now all over the Arab world) people will hate democracy and everything related to it. Democracy must be born from the deepest roots of the people, not to come from outside. And what USA is doing with that illegal, illegitimate war is giving no room to the democratic people who are living in the Arab countries, and justifying the fanatics. Abu Ghraib could be an isolated, individual act, but it was a metaphore of the behaviour of the USA all over the world, and Arab people perceived it like that, like a humilliation not to some guys, but to a civilization, THEIR civilization.

Guantanamo is not, by far, an example of how a democracy, a good democracy works: no rights, no human rights, no civil rights, even tortures. It's the easy way for the submission of others. But if you want to act like this, don't call yourself a democracy. Call yourself a nazi State or whatever. You name it. But never a democracy.

I concur with you that the "Islamic insurgency" are just a bunch of unlawful combatants. But, are they iraqis? I'm afraid not. What USA did when it started the ocupation of Iraq was kicking a hornet's net, and I told you so some years ago. USA was like saying: "Hey, muslim fanatics from all over the world, come here and fight us!" And that was what they did. I don't remember exactly the words by Bush, but they were in the kind: "Bring 'em on" or something.

You must keep in mind that Al Qaeda is not a regular army. It's an entity which is spreaded all over the world. There's no hierarchy, no captains, no soldiers, not coronels to obbey. Every single guy is free to do what he wants. Every psycho guy who wants to blow himself in some train or some bus even doesn't need to inform. Just blowing himself and Al Qaeda will say: "We did it". Al Qaeda can claim for every single violent act all over the world. So you can't fight it with the conventional weapons or conventional war.

The best way to end with what we know as 'Al Qaeda' is giving the terrorists no justifications for their actions, is making that muslims themselves don't find any reason to support them. Nobody wants a fanatic at home. Until now, USA has giving more and more oxygen balloons to Al Qaeda.

But you know me, I'm lefty.

[avowedly-agnostic]

Kamal

You make the mistake of conjoining two seperate and unrelated concepts: democracy and human rights. The two aren't necessarily one of the same thing. It's true that most countries that are democracies have respect for human rights, but it's theoritically possible to have a democracy with no human rights.

Democracy is concerned with the electorate choosing their government through the process of the ballot box. That's all. If the citizens of a country think that a particular war is lawful, then that doesn't nullify the democracy of that country. If Americans think the detention of men at Gitmo is legitimate in order to obtain information from "terrorists" that seek to harm them, then that doesn't at all nullify or make void the democracy of the US.

The two issues of democracy and human rights are unrelated. One can have a democracy which doesn't respect human or civil rights.

P.S. don't refer from this that I support US forign policy, I just thought I'd clear that up. I agree with everything else you've said.

[Freakishly_Free]

MAD-MAC

You picked the wrong to talk about POW right and rules of engagement. Today, 6 marines and 1 sailor were indicted for killing civilians, not insurgents or terrorists. Also, Bush refused to close the U.S Gulag in Guantanamo Bay at the EU summit.

Let me ask you something as a soldier. Is it ok for U.S soldiers to kill civilians and torture POWS? If yes, then you should delete everything you said in this thread. If no, then why do they do it?

[The rebel]

I did not read all these pages. But I will try to explain how Islamic Law works (The theory one atleast).

Quran mentionned two choices when it comes to deal with POWs.

1. To capture them untill the war finishes.
2. Then either let them ransome themselves either pay money or exchange Muslim prisoners if there was Muslims whom are captured by their enemy.

Qur'an did not mention any other choices including enslavement. Prophet avoided enslavement. Yes his Sahabah did and took some and turn them to slaves. Simply because Persian and Byzantines turned Muslim POWs into slaves. So that was fair game in that age and time.

In Surat Baqarah Aayah 194 Allah says :

“If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.”

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Gedo Boy
I don't think you really understand what motivates the US Army. We are a professional Army. For us it is not about the cause. That's all glorified talk. For us it's about the work. I am a professional soldier who goes where he's ordered to go and fights who he's ordered to fight. I seldom concern myself with the why except in so far as it impacts on how I accomplish it. We might well sit around and discuss it amongst ourselves. But we would NEVER say "Well, this war is stupid. I'm not supporting it." There are a FEW individuals who might go that route, particularly in the reserves. But among the active component it is not about the why.

Kamal
Agnostic is absoluotely correct. Human rights and democracy are not synonomous. They are unconnected.

I do agree (and you will recall agreed way back when) that invading Iraq was not a good call. Consumed way too much in the way of assets and costs. BUT, now that we did it, there is no choice but to keep going until Iraq has a stable government. If we don't, then the Islamists will interpret that as weakness. Just as when the Israelis pulled out of Southern Lebanon and when we pulled out of Somalia. Every time we yield, they do not view that as being reasonable or reaching compromise, they view it as weakness. They believe we are a paper tiger. Therefore, even though the initial campaign was a mistake, we are going to have to push on. What choice is there? Ask Arabman how he would view a US withdrawal from Iraq. He'll tell you I am right.

Now, personally, I think Al Qaeda is losing momentum and is overmatched. We get a government working in Iraq and get the hell out, claim victory, go home, and I believe the Islamic world will right itself. BUT, there is the possibility that it won't be able to master it's extremist elements. There is a possibility that this will end in what the Germans call a "Vernichtungskrieg". Europeans like to believe that those days are over. But I am not so sure. If it comes down to an "us or them" scenerio, well, you can be sure our survival is going to trump theirs.

[same]

They were not POW's. The insurgents have no prisons, and no one will negotiate them.
Keeping them in a house for long time is risk to the kidnappers, especially after killing al-Zarqawi. I think thatÂ’s why they killed them immediately.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Same
Alas, they were, by definition, POWs. Unless the insurgents claim they are criminals and not engaged in armed conflict. It is either organized armed conflict or criminal activity. There isn't a third cateory where you can catch people and execute them because its convenient.

You know the troops who were just charged with murdering an Irai guy I'm sure had reasons to do it, but that doesn't mean it's OK. I captured Somali members of the SNA fighting us, and even though I had reason, I didn't just shoot them. I handled them in accordance with the laws of land warfare.

[same]

Mac,
You understand the situation. What did you expect them to do?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

You either move them to a safe house, or release them. That is in accordance with the laws of land warfare.

Not that I expect them to do that - because they're animals. They plant bombs in market places and mosques, so killing a couple of prisoners won't phase them. I expect them to act like animals. Of course, I expect the Ummah to behave like humans, only to be disappointed time and again.

[Freakishly_Free]

MAD-MAC

You picked the wrong to talk about POW right and rules of engagement. Today, 6 marines and 1 sailor were indicted for killing civilians, not insurgents or terrorists. Also, Bush refused to close the U.S Gulag in Guantanamo Bay at the EU summit.

Let me ask you something as a soldier. Is it ok for U.S soldiers to kill civilians and torture POWS? If yes, then you should delete everything you said in this thread. If no, then why do they do it?




NOTE: Ignoring posts will not make your point look stronger in the public view.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Sorry freak, I didn't mean to blow you off.

But this case underscores my argument (not undermines). Let's examine these two cases. We have a case wher US soldiers apparently (jury still out) have killed an unarmed man for reasons unknown. The US reaction is to try the accussed.

Now we have a case where AQ or insurgent members killed two unarmed men they had captured. Where is the trial? Where is the denunciation? Does anyone in the Islamic Ummah say "whoa, that ain't right"? No one is held accountable. In fact, not only is no one held accountable nor the deplorable act condemned, but instead we see a bunch of excuse making for it.

[Freakishly_Free]

MAD MAC...Everyone knows these terrorists who blow up themselves inside mosques and hospitals dont have any ethics and aren't bound by any rules of engagement. I personally don't care what the U.S does to them as they are savages themselves. But what i find dificult to stomach is when the U.S. toots its own horn by calling itself the beacon of democracy and the champion of human rights while their troops torture and humiliate prisoners (many of them who are innocent people dragged off the streets) and killing indiscriminately after one of their own is killed. I mean, these are not isolated incidents. Watching american news you won't hear about it, but the whole world is talking about CIA renditions in which innocent people are tortured, Afghan civilians massacred, Iraqi families killed. The U.S only arrested this soldiers after the stories/pictures were leaked to the press.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Freakish
They are isolated incidence. You hear every bad thing that goes down. We are running HUNDREDS of CMO ops every day. How much do you hear about those?

And let's face it, you are poor representation of the Ummah. If we took a poll here, you would find large swath of support for the animals.

I'm not saying we're always right, but the Ummah as a whole are totally biased in their interpretation of all events.

If I had not made the post on this issue there either would not have been one, or there would have been one heralding this fockers as heros. But make a cartoon with a parody of the Prophet, and all hell breaks lose. Let's face, Muslims just are not rational human beings.

[Freakishly_Free]

MAD MAC,



And this whole time you thought i was a Muslim? Honey, read my posts again.