Where is Khalid Rashid?

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
Xarog said:
I don't find that particularly funny. :mad: America has been known to export suspected terrorists to places where torture is legal. In one particularly gruesome case, I saw the corpse of a man who'd been boiled to death - there was nice line to show how deep in the water he'd been; everything below that line had actually been boiled to such a degree that if it was meat from a cow it would be considered medium to well-done.
Good treatment for a terrorist. Not as bad as or worse than the necklace murders we had locally is it?
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
supersunbird said:
So what did we have in ths old SA?
Dunno - I wasnt here - you tell me.

The way I see it is the struggle was internal and against an oppressive government - freedom fighters that at times utilised Guerrilla tactics?
 

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
48,393
bwana v.12 said:
Dunno - I wasnt here - you tell me.

The way I see it is the struggle was internal and against an oppressive government - freedom fighters that at times utilised Guerrilla tactics?
The government called them communist terrorists, and under the current situation, well, an Apartheid government would have had a very sympethetic ear from US govenrment...
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
milano said:
The fuss over Khalid Rashid is a waste of state resources. Khalid Rashid was an illegal foreigner. Over 100 000 of them are deported every year and it is simply not viable to track their whereabouts once deported.
Hell - SA tried deporting me and I'm here legally. :D
supersunbird said:
The government called them communist terrorists, and under the current situation, well, an Apartheid government would have had a very sympethetic ear from US govenrment...
I was under the impression that the US government enforced sanctions against SA during apartheid :confused: To be honest I wasnt paying much attention to SA back in the 80's - I was a teenager pre-occupied with trying to get laid.
 
Last edited:

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
bwana said:
The Geneva convention pertains to treatment of soldiers and that is the aspect I am questioning - not if they should be denied their basic human rights.

I doubt the aforementioned terrorists recognise the Geneva Convention.
I find it hard to believe that a start which claims that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, is truly interested in making sure it does not violate the suspected terrorist's rights.

pupa said:
Good treatment for a terrorist. Not as bad as or worse than the necklace murders we had locally is it?
I'm sorry, but you could you please tell me HOW you know the guy in question was a terrorist? I said he was a suspected terrorist, not a terrorist. By your standard of logic, I could claim you're a suspected terrorist, boil you alive until the skin peels off of your flesh, and then claim my actions were reasonable, because, afterall, you were a terrorist. Now how stupid is that?
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
Xarog said:
I find it hard to believe that a start which claims that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, is truly interested in making sure it does not violate the suspected terrorist's rights.
I'll explain it slowly then - the Geneva convention deals with prisoners or war.

This does not mean that only POWs should be afforded basic human rights.

Geneva Conventions = soldiers
Human Rights = everyone

My assertion is that terrorists are not soldiers

EDIT - Do you perhaps think that only people covered by the G.C. should be afforded basic human rights? :eek:
 
Last edited:

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
48,393
bwana v.12 said:
I was under the impression that the US government enforced sanctions against SA during apartheid :confused: To be honest I wasnt paying much attention to SA back in the 80's - I was a teenager pre-occupied with trying to get laid.
I meant that if a Apartheid government was still in power (no 1994 elections) and they were fighting the evil communist "terrorists" (which is what they called them), then the US would probably have helped them. But actually they woudl have been fighting soldiers of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA) and Um****u'wesizwe (Spelling?).
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
supersunbird said:
I meant that if a Apartheid government was still in power (no 1994 elections) and they were fighting the evil communist "terrorists" (which is what they called them), then the US would probably have helped them. But actually they woudl have been fighting soldiers of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA) and Um****u'wesizwe (Spelling?).
Honestly - who knows - with Bush in the whitehouse anything is possible.
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Dont worry about Khalid Rashid,some one is taking good care of him:D
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
14,920
He's probably sleeping at icasa and eating donuts with ivy. :)
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
bwana v.12 said:
I'll explain it slowly then - the Geneva convention deals with prisoners or war.

This does not mean that only POWs should be afforded basic human rights.

Geneva Conventions = soldiers
Human Rights = everyone

My assertion is that terrorists are not soldiers

EDIT - Do you perhaps think that only people covered by the G.C. should be afforded basic human rights? :eek:
No, I think everyone deserves to be treated with human rights. But the US has refused to sign anything which would make their soldiers subject to the ICC, which allows suspected terrorists some kind of process outside the US legal system in order to ensure their rights are being upheld. As I said, current practice in the US today is to ship these suspected pepople off to middle-eastern countries where torture is OK, and human rights are ignored. The US signed the geneva conventions. As far as I am aware, it is the only piece of law that the US has ratified regarding the human rights of prisoners in general.

So until there's an alternative legal option, which the US seems honestly intent on trying to persue (rather than just pay lipservice to), I support the idea that suspected terrorists should be covered under the Geneva conventions, because the alternative is to simply turn your back on the fact that the conventions is a suspected terrorist's ONLY hope in hell of being treated decently.
 

neio

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
4,889
Well, why dont you do something to change the human rights laws in these Middle eastern countries, I'm sure they would listen to reason. :)
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
(without looking at reference)

By definition terrorist is a dirty war/people who feel they have no other recourse (usually a correct assumption.) They are the soldiers - because by definition no other soldiers are allowed - therefore they have to be terrorists. ANC was a terrorist organisation/they set off bombs/they killed civilians: IRA used to have a saying - there are no innocent people. Your payment of taxes, your presence - is implicit approval of the rule of the land - even if that means bombing cities; untold civilian deaths - in the name of 'legitimate government.' Beheading is untenable - necklacing was done by the anc. Desperate people, desperate times call for desperate measures. Legitimate governments have killed more people than all the terrorist organisations combined.

I think what some of us fail to understand - is that george bush/911 was the start of WW 3 - now running and ongoing. War measures apply. Guantanomo are prisoners of war - and can/should be held as long as that war is ongoing - but torture, denial of human rights makes the west the beast and the war more intense and ongoing.

War, what war? Their war, our war - new ECT bill is not for nothing.

Beheading, hostage taking, necklacing is sickening - cruise missiles perform similar actions more remotely - different tools. And there are many 'civilian' casualties -.

There are other ways to solve the worlds problems; the big stick is no longer one of them.
 
Top