Misunderstandings, understandings, considerations, and our lack thereof
Perfectly. Please note:
-
You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions.
Now, even as I look back a page in our discussion, I do not see that particular association noted in the
boldface above. You've invited your own Arab-on-Arab aspect.
Indeed. Do you really want me to go back and answer the question now? Or have we cleared up my reasons for putting it on hold?
Only constraint (singular) that I've asked for is to leave my daughter out of your posts. Nothing else. Don't flatter yourself that you can make it too tough for me.
And I can respect your insecurity.
You've made a mockery out of the situation from your first post.
That's easily debatable. People making excuses for violations of the Geneva Conventions? Seemed pretty sloppy to me when I arrived. But you don't seem to get it, do you?
When in Rome,
Coldrake. I don't pretend that rationality works in an arena where it has visibly failed to achieve proper consideration. And that invites its own issue, whence we have arrived.
Which citation? You've brought up Ali Baba too many times for me to make the effort to cite them all.
(Free pass.)
Do you really think it is as simple as that last sentence or is that just your own personal spin on the situation?
On at least one level it
is that simple: This treatment is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions because it is humiliating. However, humiliation was the exact point of it. It's all well and fine to treat someone that way, or so it seems for a lot of people, unless of course that person is your own self. Somewhere in this topic is a dualism: it's a better shot than being shot. Are our troops really that stupid that short of this the best they can think of is murder? I mean, the whole thing is a little mind-boggling to me because it
is simple:
What is so hard to figure out?
It may be bad to chase a naked man, but it is not always wrong if it gets a point across short of killing him.
Well, why don't we bring that process of justice back home to the U.S. of A.? If it's good enough for human beings, it's good enough for human beings regardless of nationality, right?
However, it virtually stopped rebel activity among the Moros and saved future loss of life on both sides.
Yep. That licenses it. It certainly is easier than seeking peaceful resolutions. In the abstract, the US has
that in common with other criminals.
And if that was accomplished without loss of life, then great
Well, I think of the IRA and the various Ulster paramilitaries. Ever heard of a six-pack? It didn't
kill anyone. And yes, having your major joints shattered with cinderblocks tends to impress the message greatly, from what I hear.
It's a simple choice:
We can figure out how to do this according to the rules we've prescribed for ourselves (e.g. Geneva Conventions) or we can choose what seems easiest at the time.
Here we are again. I don't see it as a violation. But gain, if the US army sees it as a violation, then they will properly investigate it and prosecute.
The simplest thing to do is wade through the Conventions themselves for you. I really thought you could figure it out, but I've farmed through a lot of your words to no avail; at some point I must acknowledge the economy of simply raiding the damn Conventions, no matter how droll the adventure promises to be. Thus:
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War - Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
From the aforementioned Conventions:
Article 64: he penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.
The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.
Article 65: The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.
And it goes on ... Article 68 even sets the conditions for execution, but that's beside our present purpose. In fact, by the time I get to Article 71 ("No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. ") I get the distinct feeling that Due Process is a presumption of the Conventions. Ah ... here it is:
Article 76: Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.
These Articles are extracted from Section III: Occupied Territories. Now, I would hope you could point out any errors I make in concluding that the treatment of the accused thieves in Iraq, paraded down the street naked, violates the Geneva Conventions. Please. Sincerely. I would like to know where you and I differ because I really do think it's quite simple and fundamental. The only thing complicated about it to me is fishing the words out of the Conventions. It took all of twenty minutes, including the time spent listening to someone bitch at me about ... um ... well, I've managed to forget, but ... it's beside the point. It took all of twenty minutes, including fifteen minutes of unnecessary distractions on the home front. I'm reading through some of the rest to make sure there isn't something glaring I missed, but I'm not seeing anything so far.
No, that had not occurred to me.
Yes, you'll win a Pulitzer. More relevant to the point than sarcasm, though, is the sidebar that comes in wondering whether you expect to communicate
anything with one-liners? You seem to resent implications of poor character, yet you don't appear to wish to do much more than complain about them.
I'll be the first to admit I don't like to write the lengthy responses you prefer, particularly when there appears to be nothing of value in them.
Should I expect someone who sees so little communicative value in a board like Sciforums to see
any value in
any posts? Aside, that is, from your sheer entertainment and the opportunity to play the mocking innocent?
You may be considering them, but you're not arguing them; at least not after your original point. All you've really done is attack my integrity, my reading comprehension, my writing skills, and my honesty, occassionally still mentioning my advocacy of violating the Conventions.
Well that's all you've given me to work with. Give me something more substantial.
I've told you my position on that, numerous times actually.
Yes, and it appears to be based in mistaken assertions of fact.
So now it seems you are merely arguing against me , and I'm responding in kind.
Give me something more. Oh, wait ... that's right. As we see from the Conventions, there's not much more you
can do than sit there and repeat, "It's not a violation, it's not a violation." Right. Just because
you say so.
I mean really, you've brought nothing new to the argument in a while.
How often do I get to say this?
When I am so definitively right, as the Conventions cited above show. what else can I bring to the table but the bare facts? Yes, I'm outraged at your advocacy of criminals. While other Americans seem to be afraid of the terrorists, I'm more afraid of my fellow Americans who are more than willing to keep on cheering for more reasons for strife. Look, the one way I can think of to severely reduce the number of mad imbeciles trying to kill Americans in droves is for American institutions to start treating
human beings with some
dignity abroad. Analogously, I point to Nepal. Yes, American companies were paying children to work long hours in bad conditions. Yes, there is a Maoist insurgency in Nepal now. No, it's not the fault of American corporations,
per se. But if you pay people so little that children have to work in order for families to survive, a Maoist insurgency is about the
best you can hope for. There's something about the way people treat each other, you know.
The fewer Arabs we piss off with the Bush League reconstruction and occupation of Iraq, the better it will be for all Americans--and that includes me, so there's
my vested interest--in the future.
Gee, I don't know, maybe my lack of integrity, my poor reading comprehension, my woeful writing skills, or my lack of honesty? I'm sure you'll tell me.
Well, only
you can tell me the root cause. However, I am not in any way, shape, or form, a licensed therapist, counselor, or otherwise.
He must be before my time.
He used to refer to vague prior points as if they were definitive, as well. We never could figure out if he was lazy, arrogant, or simply angry.
I don't see an "above citation" to know what you're talking about, but my reference to only an expression of mine apparently being a crime is quite simple: this entire thread has been because you considered my expression that I didn't see the 'naked ' incident as a violation of the Geneva Conventions a crime in your eyes. So the less than sublime message from Tiassa is "be careful what you say on here unless it is agreeable to me."
Wow. I didn't realize I carried that much authority here.
It's something to think about.
However, there is something that goes here about your writing skills, as well as about your reading comprehension. Nonetheless, I'm not mapping three generations of posts just to fill you in on your own words. Like I've said before, your economy of words is detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.
Now then: You're as entitled to your opinion that violations of the Geneva Conventions are acceptable as much as I am to mine that it is better for humanity if people who advocate such violations not reproduce. The fewer people we have making excuses for such behavior, the fewer people will get away with it.
Is expression a crime? Try a straight answer.
At any rate, I refer you to your 5.6.2003 post, where you wrote
Who was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?
If we were face to face I suppose we could yell at each other until we were blue in the face.
Now, it even carries back a couple of posts before that, but that's when I asked if expression was a crime. I
could refer you to your earlier post on that same day, where you wrote,
OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.
You've been running a side diversion attempting to equate the lower standards of anger expressed at support for criminal behavior with the lowered standards of supporting criminal behavior. I hope I don't ever catch someone raping
my daughter°; I might have to lower myself to be equal with him by being angry. Of course, I could always take the "high road"° and say, "Eh ... it doesn't look like a crime to me."
You'll have to reference me to the point where I advocated "the hurting of other people."
Humiliation
is harmful. From there, 2 + 2 = 4, but I can see how you might argue with that. After all, you could always say that burning their clothes, scrawling on their chests, and then parading them down the street was an act of
compassion the same way my uncle nearly drowning his own son wasn't bad; throwing a terrified six-year old into 50-degree water "builds character". Maybe that will excuse our soldiers' conduct.
Stop reinforcing anti-American stereotypes.
And look at you . You make up character defamations as you go to suit your agenda.
Yes, yes, you're rubber, I'm glue ... whatever. I'm brought to mind of some advice publicly given Gunny Covarrubius after he expressed his desire to be a police officer. A Las Vegas cop noted that he needed to learn discretion and not talk about those things.
The moral of that reflection is that you might choose to be mocking and have no faith in your own communicative skills, nor the skills of others, but you ought to think twice before admitting it, and thrice before advertising it. Quit playing the role so well, please.
I'd rather hear it from you. You spin it so well.
Well, like I said ... only
you can tell me the root cause. I can only observe the symptoms and speculate. And what the symptoms tell me is that I'm witnessing an all-too-familiar triune conflict that involves a general standard of propriety, a sentimental advocacy against it, and an awareness of the disparity. Those are the basic factors, at least. The question is whether or not you choose to address those factors honestly. I hope to have demonstrated to you that you are, indeed, incorrect in excusing the parading of Iraqis naked through the street as not being a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
And while you probably don't give two shakes about my opinion of you, my whole reason for carrying on this argument goes away when you legitimately recognize or legitimately defeat the assertion that the treatment of those Iraqis violated the Conventions. I'm aware that you'll support the prosecution of violators, so it seems all that's left is to wonder if you intend to hold out on the assertion that American soldiers did not violate the Conventions when they paraded people naked down the street.
If fundamental honesty
is the issue, much can be learned from your considerations on the "Ali Baba" incident in terms of the violations committed by US troops.
Notes:
° my daughter - You see? I didn't have to mention your daughter.
° high road - This phrase is put in "quotation marks" because it's a dubious assertion. However, comparatively, your standard would seem to imply there is some moral question at becoming angry about criminal behavior. If denouncing criminal behavior is somehow immoral, then it stands to reason that advocating criminal behavior is of better moral propriety. And while people might make excuses for American offenders (I admit that I avoid combat zones), I don't think any excuses can be made for the armchair advocates. Rational thought demands better conduct, and demands advocacy of more humane efficiency.
:m:,
Tiassa
