|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 4:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Underachieving track record Yes. Just because they believe in Islam No. |
Islam is of course not the only problem, but it certainly doesn't help. In addition to cousin marriage, honour killings, and an unwillingness to integrate, such immigrants also bring with them a deeply intolerant, militant religion that turns young men into violent fanatics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
Totally doable if you want to ignore laws. Oh, and haven't both Korea and Japan accepted some asylum seekers? Yes, I know that the numbers are pathetically low compared to other countries. |
Pathetically low? More like awesome. |
Well, maybe not "awesome," but certainly wise in the long term. The current system of asylum, although founded on humane principles, is completely irrational, and actually punishes the most compassionate and humane nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TT: This is a very murky area in International law. Chinese soldiers in the Korean war were treated as P.O.Ws.
The argument is that if you belong to a religion that would give you the status of a "legal" combatant any time a country was attacked that had citizens that were members of your religion.
So if Canada attacked the U.S. I as a Methodist could kill any Canadian anywhere in the world and not be subject to prosecution but would be afforded the protection of POW status. I would have to be released as soon as combat ceased. So if the war ended the day after I butchered a daycare center I would be free. Of course I might then be charged as a war criminal and tried at the Hague by an international court. Maybe!!! I could then claim that as a lawful combatant I was only following orders and then I could tie up the proceedings indefinitely.
For a very long time , people who claimed to act as soldiers but belong to no national army, have been treated as criminals. Marauders in the U.S. civil war who often claimed to be fighting as soldiers but who were often more interested in robbery and rape than any military activities. Same in the English civil war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Underachieving track record Yes. Just because they believe in Islam No. |
Islam is of course not the only problem, but it certainly doesn't help. In addition to cousin marriage, honour killings, and an unwillingness to integrate, such immigrants also bring with them a deeply intolerant, militant religion that turns young men into violent fanatics. |
We live in a world where a big part of the human population believes in the talking snake and invisible angels.
With a foundation like that - it's really hard to say who is more correct in respect to the other minor details.
We talk about intolerance - but as I recall, G. W. Bush has actually started a crusade into the Middle East - he has said as much.
In the end, the fact that majority of human kind still believes in fairy tales is yet another sign that despite the vast advances in technology, its progress on the mental level has been rather minimal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
TT: This is a very murky area in International law. Chinese soldiers in the Korean war were treated as P.O.Ws.
The argument is that if you belong to a religion that would give you the status of a "legal" combatant any time a country was attacked that had citizens that were members of your religion.
So if Canada attacked the U.S. I as a Methodist could kill any Canadian anywhere in the world and not be subject to prosecution but would be afforded the protection of POW status. I would have to be released as soon as combat ceased. So if the war ended the day after I butchered a daycare center I would be free. Of course I might then be charged as a war criminal and tried at the Hague by an international court. Maybe!!! I could then claim that as a lawful combatant I was only following orders and then I could tie up the proceedings indefinitely.
For a very long time , people who claimed to act as soldiers but belong to no national army, have been treated as criminals. Marauders in the U.S. civil war who often claimed to be fighting as soldiers but who were often more interested in robbery and rape than any military activities. Same in the English civil war. |
To use your analogy, it would be Canada against the Methodists, not Canada against the US (unless Methodists were a very large majority of the population and were specific targets in said war. If it was Canada against the Methodists then Methodists all over the world could (and should) be considered to be "soldiers" in a holy war.
According to some (including the government of Afghanistan when war was declared on the Taliban (an Islamic fundamentalist political movement) and Afghanistan) it is a jihad (holy war) because the target of the war declaration was a religious party - sort of like a country or coalition declaring war on the Methodists.
It was that way in the 80s when the US supported the war in Afghanistan (Jihad) against the Soviet Union. Why is it somehow different now when the US and UK are fighting against the Afghans?
How about solders massacring civilian populations to instill fear?
Criminal act, war crime or terrorism?
| wrote: |
| US soldier to plead guilty to Afghan massacre - Lawyer says the soldier, accused for killing 16 civilians in Kandahar in 2012, will plead guilty to avoid death penalty. |
And back to the original argument I made, If the Chinese were considered to be POWs in the Korean war (even though China itself was not at war with the UN or US) they why are radical Islamists (the target of the (declared) war on terror) somehow not soldiers?
Ah, yes. It is indeed a slippery slope when you play both sides against the middle.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
And back to the original argument I made, If the Chinese were considered to be POWs in the Korean war (even though China itself was not at war with the UN or US) they why are radical Islamists (the target of the (declared) war on terror) somehow not soldiers?
Ah, yes. It is indeed a slippery slope when you play both sides against the middle.
. |
Chinese soldiers in the Korean War were agents of the Chinese government and therefore were acting in capacity of civil and/or military operations which are covered by the Geneva Convention, even though China was not a member of the Geneva Convention at the time, nor was it a war.
Islam, however, is not a country (and therefore any claims to the GC on behalf of Islam are murky at best) and has no central leadership so people can only make claims to representing Islam.
Also, a person engaging in an act of terrorism (like the op) is already in violation of the Geneva Convention because they are attacking people not currently engaging in hostile activities. It doesn't matter that the person they attacked was an active service member. This is contrasted with Chinese soldiers during the Korean War who were participating in mutual hostile activities and then withdrew their force and became POWs.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basically TT supports murdering any civilian in the name of some attack against a mythical nation called islam.
REally as long as commonwealthers support bloody attacks against civilians they should be forbidden to travel to civilized countrys.
The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. War was not declared it was a U.N action and the vote to take action was unanimous.
Some commonwealth countrties are havens for terrorist. They can buy citizen ship get welfare and then go bomb rape behead to their hearrts content knowing they can flee back to the protecting arms of their new home.
Canada fits that description. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't have it both ways.
If the war is formally declared on "terror" then the "terrorists" are the enemy combatants in the war. When captured they are then POWs.
(point make clear by the US Supreme Court in 2006 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ). Country of origin is not relevant to their status.
If they are NOT UK nationals and are treated as criminals then there can be no declared "War on Terror" and the actions of the governments involved in the "War on Terror" are nothing more than criminal actions in foreign countries making the leaders of the UK (and US - I didn't bring the US into this conversation, rollo did) nothing more than war criminals guilty of murder and ethnic cleansing (point made clear by the Prime Minister's findings at the tribunal in Malaysia (a Commonwealth member in good standing).
In the specific case in the UK, combatants (by their own admission) against a soldier would fall into either of:
- enemy combatants (not dissimilar to the French Maquis) / POWs or
- treason - punishable by death in the UK in times of war (if the "terrorists" were UK citizens).
| rollo wrote: |
| Basically TT supports murdering any civilian in the name of some attack against a mythical nation called islam. |
Nope. Very early in this thread I said murder, plain and simple. Life as guests of her Majesty should be there due.
Others insist that is was terrorism. If it was it wasn't murder.
.
Last edited by ttompatz on Thu May 30, 2013 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
Islam, however, is not a country (and therefore any claims to the GC on behalf of Islam are murky at best) and has no central leadership so people can only make claims to representing Islam.
Also, a person engaging in an act of terrorism (like the op) is already in violation of the Geneva Convention because they are attacking people not currently engaging in hostile activities. It doesn't matter that the person they attacked was an active service member. This is contrasted with Chinese soldiers during the Korean War who were participating in mutual hostile activities and then withdrew their force and became POWs.
|
Very good! Enough of this superficial logical stuff. The Taliban aided Al Qaeda after it was involved in the terrorist attacks attacking the twin towers. Al Qaeda is not a nation but a terrorist group. They were one adherent of an Islamic philosophy helping another adherent It's doubtful if the Taliban could really be considered the legitimate government of Afghanistan. There main purpose was to force Afghanis to Wahabism. A lot of Taliban insurgents are not even from Afghanistan and also are fighting again for the Wahabi cause not for Afghanistan freedom.
Also the United States has been a lot nicer to the Taliban insurgents than they would be to any other soldiers fighting against them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
terrorism vs. liberation struggle
It really depends on which side of the spectrum you are looking at things.
In the end, it could all be branded as one massive war of Christianity vs. Islam, much like in the past there was a major communism vs capitalism war on many fronts (Korean war included).
The word terrorism though is a mere gimmick -
If we attack them, we're liberation troops, and any local support troops are freedom fighters. If they attack us, they are terrorists. The acts are the same - it's a murder on both sides, but the perceptions are different -
By the way, their media covers it the same way, so it's not as if the western media is the only guilty party in this type of bias. In the end, however, one has to be blind not to understand that terrorism for one side is liberation struggle for the other side. You really need to look at things from a neutral standpoint of view to realize this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Can't have it both ways.
If the war is formally declared on "terror" then the "terrorists" are the enemy combatants in the war. When captured they are then POWs.
(point make clear by the US Supreme Court in 2006 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ). Country of origin is not relevant to their status.
|
There isn't a formal war on terror. It's just a term. There is also a "War on Christmas" but an atheist cannot kill a person dressed as Santa and be labeled a POW, nor can I, an non-drug user, shoot someone on drugs and become a POW due to the "War on Drugs."
Your comparison to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is not warranted because Hamdan was:
1. Engaged in hostile activities in hostile surroundings when captured
2. identified as a member of a military or militia
The people in the original story fit neither of these conditions and therefore are not an analogous case to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
| ttompatz wrote: |
If they are NOT UK nationals and are treated as criminals then there can be no declared "War on Terror" and the actions of the governments involved in the "War on Terror" are nothing more than criminal actions in foreign countries making the leaders of the UK (and US - I didn't bring the US into this conversation, rollo did) nothing more than war criminals guilty of murder and ethnic cleansing (point made clear by the Prime Minister's findings at the tribunal in Malaysia (a Commonwealth member in good standing). |
As far as trying the leaders of countries for crimes against humanity, I think it is irrelevant in this conversation, though I would be in favor of seeing such a trial.
| ttompatz wrote: |
In the specific case in the UK, combatants (by their own admission) against a soldier would fall into either of:
- enemy combatants (not dissimilar to the French Maquis) / POWs or
- treason - punishable by death in the UK in times of war (if the "terrorists" were UK citizens). |
Completely dissimilar from the French Maquis.
It doesn't matter how they self identify, it matters if they fit the criteria laid out in the Geneva Convention detailing what constitutes a POW (they don't).
And finally, as I already mentioned, per the Geneva Convention, even though the person they killed was an active duty soldier, he was not engaged in hostile activities at the time of his murder. That is a distinct point made in the Geneva Convention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
There isn't a formal war on terror. It's just a term. There is also a "War on Christmas" but an atheist cannot kill a person dressed as Santa and be labeled a POW, nor can I, an non-drug user, shoot someone on drugs and become a POW due to the "War on Drugs." |
Admittedly the UK did not make a formal declaration when it went to war in conjunction with its ally but went under the auspices of various bilateral treaties for mutual self defense but the US on the other hand did.
So if S.J. Res. 23 does not constitute a declaration of war (what else would you call an armed conflict?) then what would?.
war /w�r/ Noun
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>
So it would appear that there is a "formal" war on terror and it is not just a catch phrase.
And as to POW status...
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated.
However this moot since he was a UK citizen and is guilty of felony treason
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty�s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ...
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
So if S.J. Res. 23 does not constitute a declaration of war (what else would you call an armed conflict?) then what would?. |
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/declare.htm
The amount of power the US President is currently allowed to wield that for all intents and purposes resembles a war is a matter of strong contention in the US. However, it's not a formal declaration of war.
| ttompatz wrote: |
war /w�r/ Noun
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. |
Terror is none of those things.
| ttompatz wrote: |
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>
So it would appear that there is a "formal" war on terror and it is not just a catch phrase. |
Ok? What's your point? When did I say the US was not involved militarily combating what it perceives as threats to its own security? How is that relevant?
| ttompatz wrote: |
And as to POW status...
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. |
That's great, but these men were not guerrilla fighters. As I've said before, these men attacked a civilian (again, per the Geneva Convention it doesn't matter that he was an active member of the military because he was not engaged in hostilities at the time) in a non-hostile situation. Therefore in no way can they be perceived as POW's.
| ttompatz wrote: |
However this moot since he was a UK citizen and is guilty of felony treason
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty�s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ...
. |
Good, fine. Yet another reason why they cannot be POW's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So back to the start of this discourse... POWs or Traitors.... not "terrorists". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does not matter what you wsnt to call it to a large extent. You deal with it the same. Root it out, kick ass and take names.
I also believe there is room for introspection. No one does these things without feeling they are morally right to do so. Criminals know its wrong to rob someobe.
These folkd feel justified. Lets not pretend we helped create our own mess. Resolve that part of the equation. Our involvement and strategy in the middle east needs to change and by we I mainly mean America snd Britain. Especially America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
