that shows your stupidity...the CFR is not a stupid blog, it is a legit organization that has more influence than your "hate america" campaign ever will....face it, you can't stand to be proved wrong, day after day after day after day....
It is still a blog, why should you avoid the original Texts of the law and treaties such as Geneva convention for wacky interpretation of some ass writing a blog, if you don't have anything to hide? He doesn't even present any logic for his BS, he justs says that president said so, there fore must be right. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention.
so if the CFR is a blog, as you say it is, that means that blogging has been around since 1921? If thats the case, since blogging only happens online (hence the name blog (short for web log)), does that mean the internet has been around since then as well? Golly, who would have known? Gwhirled, you are a sad excuse for someone who really tries to prove the facts....but you are a great example of someone who really has no common sense and has no real concept of anything that happens in the real world....let me guess, AGS sold you a tinfoil hat to wear, didn't he?
Does anyone knows d16boy is talking about? It is not about blog is good or bad, it is about the fact that the blog that you quoted, represents the view of another ass like your self while I refer to original text of Geneva convention and Department of Defense material. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention. No wonder USA has to refuse the extradition of it's agents to other countries courts such as Italy.
its a waste of time Gworld , what ever you do they will run away , change topic or do what they can to not say they were wrong . You smashed him and it's clear .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant Terrorists fail on all the above except possibly 1. It's nothing new.
You guys are not normal . Gworld pointed a source in the Geneva convention and Department of Defense . Wikipedia is now your sources ?
gworld and I do not share tinfoil hats and such, my main aim in this P&R forum is to wake you dumbasses up to all the lies that you swallow every day from these corrupt bastards in charge of us all, I am sure gworld has similar ideals to me but we are not bum chums like you, GTech, lorien, Two-Pack, latehorn and the rest of the crazy gang are. Also, gworld and I don't even need to communicate because we can easily see just how brainwashed you all are by your continual support of proven lying bastards.
gworld has yet to provide any links to his definitions and in fact has failed to define "unlawful combatant" You just assume he's getting his interpretations of the law from a valid source: Google says he's not. So he's proven nothing. No I remember why I keep him on my ignore list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare It's not surprising that gworld failed to mention that last part.
Actually, we're quite normal. Previously covered here, in great detail. The "not normal" part comes from people like gworld, who demand special treatment for his buds and refers the geneva convention that "WE" use, but his buds do not. His buds in Iraq do not wear uniforms, they do not abide by the convention and are actually using children now, because the US is gaining greater control. You don't see him whining about his buds not abiding by the geneva conventions. Only when he perceives it affects his friends. nuff said, read it and weep!
He's never cared about anyone but terrorists and their rights. Hell, last year, he even started a post seeking sympathy and compassion for an al qaida terrorist. How much more "terrorist supporter" can you get?
At Abu Ghraib, you can do it all: Engage in male bonding, have a mud bath, practice yoga with dedicated instructors, have a cold one with the ladies, and yes--have panty parties!
I normally charge money to take other's credibility, but since you are giving it away, I'll take two slices! Not an ounce of honesty or integity.
Does it not matter if it's gitmo or not as long as it's anti USA? I thought the thread was gitmo related until Abu Ghraib came up
Ok, your correct & so was i ... I would make another but since i already have the best picture you should try to beat that first