# Kidnappers say British hostage commits suicide



## Manuel (Jul 20, 2008)

Kidnappers claim British hostage in Iraq has killed himself - Times Online



> The kidnappers of five British hostages seized in Baghdad last year have claimed in a videotaped statement that one of the men has killed himself.
> 
> According to the statement, the hostage  named only as Jason  died on May 25, four days before the first anniversary of the abduction.
> 
> The claim is made in a video passed to The Sunday Times in Baghdad last week. Another hostage is shown appealing for the British government to hasten the mens release.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

yeah sure he did


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 20, 2008)

Well, he either did or they killed him accidentally.

A dead hostage is pretty goddamned useless.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Well, he either did or they killed him accidentally.
> 
> A dead hostage is pretty goddamned useless.



Yep, but even if he did kill himself, his blood is on the kidnappers hands.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

Yep, just like it's on our hands if any innocent person committed suicide in gitmo.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yep, just like it's on our hands if any innocent person committed suicide in gitmo.



hostages are the same as people captured in battle ?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> hostages are the same as people captured in battle ?



You missed the word innocent in my post.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> You missed the word innocent in my post.



uh no-- I guess I should have asked " What innocent people at Gitmo"?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> uh no-- I guess I should have asked " What innocent people at Gitmo"?


I have no way of knowing if any of them are innocent or not...do you?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I have no way of knowing if any of them are innocent or not...do you?



thats correct--you dont. So assuming they are simply to imply that Americans are just like Iraqi hostage takers is silly.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> thats correct--you dont. So assuming they are simply to imply that Americans are just like Iraqi hostage takers is silly.



I'm not assuming that at all.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I'm not assuming that at all.



oh I get it ---you are just educating us with a little reminder that if you are keeping someone against their will, you are responsible for them. gee thanks !


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> oh I get it ---you are just educating us with a little reminder that if you are keeping someone against their will, you are responsible for them. gee thanks !


dillo, I think you have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## Glori.B (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> dillo, I think you have a reading comprehension problem.



his comment made me laugh out loud...you were sorta asking for it with that comparison, no?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Glori.B said:


> his comment made me laugh out loud...you were sorta asking for it with that comparison, no?



No shit, at least have the balls to stand by what you were implying Ravi.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

I wasn't implying anything of the sort.

Do you disagree with my statement?

_Yep, just like it's on our hands if any innocent person committed suicide in gitmo._

If not, why not?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> No shit, at least have the balls to stand by what you were implying Ravi.



She never does, why start now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I wasn't implying anything of the sort.
> 
> Do you disagree with my statement?
> 
> ...



You are such a tard. You imply that there ARE innocent people at Gitmo  with that statement and you know it.

What next?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

Maybe you people have a guilty conscience, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

There have been innocent people in Gitmo, according to our government at least. Even Dubya will back me up on this one.

But that's beside the point. How can you blame one group for killing innocents and not another? Innocents, mind you.

That in no way implies that I think the terrorists are good people and not responsible for any killings they make, but please keep acting like an idiot.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are such a tard. You imply that there ARE innocent people at Gitmo  with that statement and you know it.
> 
> What next?



Actually I would go further than that, Ravi is implying not only that there are innocent people in Gitmo, but that our putting a few innocent people there is the same as a terrorist group which deliberately kidnaps an innocent person.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Actually I would go further than that, Ravi is implying not only that there are innocent people in Gitmo, but that our putting a few innocent people there is the same as a terrorist group which deliberately kidnaps an innocent person.



And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.



sure Ravi, I state my opinion on what you are implying with your comparison and you call it a lie  so then if I am wrong, tell me what you did mean by your comment again? If not that we were the same as them then what? Or you could just call me some names again, you seem to be very good at least at that.


----------



## Wow (Jul 20, 2008)

Terrorists illegally torture and murder a British POW and violate International law.


----------



## Glori.B (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Maybe you people have a guilty conscience, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
> 
> There have been innocent people in Gitmo, according to our government at least. Even Dubya will back me up on this one.
> 
> ...



you're right, your statement didn't say all that these others are now attempting to draw out of it...which is what made dillo's statement funny to me...funny cuz it's truuuuuue. 



dilloduck said:


> oh I get it ---you are just educating us with a little reminder that if you are keeping someone against their will, you are responsible for them. gee thanks !


----------



## Wow (Jul 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And you call me a liar. You're as big of an asshole as Wuh.


He did not call you a liar!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, but even if he did kill himself, his blood is on the kidnappers hands.



Yep, no question about that. 



			
				Ravi said:
			
		

> thats correct--you dont. So assuming they are simply to imply that Americans are just like Iraqi hostage takers is silly.



I guess it isn't a very correct assumption, but it does raise a good point- nobody knows if anyone there is innocent or guilty of anything. That's why it's usually illegal to keep someone locked up indefinitely with no trial and no evidence. If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I guess it isn't a very correct assumption, but it does raise a good point- nobody knows if anyone there is innocent or guilty of anything. That's why it's usually illegal to keep someone locked up indefinitely with no trial and no evidence. If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.



I think when terrorist randomly kidnap a civilian off the street, they can be pretty sure they are kidnapping an innocent person. Maybe I was a but harsh on  ravi, but it sure sounded to me like he/she was pulling the old moral equivalence argument. That gets me pretty mad when I here it. I see no comparison between the US possibly picking up a few Innocent people and sending them to gitmo(remember nearly all of them were picked up on a battle field) and terrorist simply picking up a random civilian on the street. Even if the street was in Iraq.



> If it's an innocent person who kills himself in Guantanamo, there isn't much of a difference between that person and the hostage.



The difference is we picked them up in good faith, believing them to be an enemy combatant, when the terrorist picked up this guy exactly because he was a civilian, and an easy target.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 21, 2008)

One death is no less traumatic than the other. Would you be consoled if you got imprisoned for life (and innocent), for example, if the people who were doing it _really_ thought you were guilty? I wouldn't.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> One death is no less traumatic than the other. Would you be consoled if you got imprisoned for life (and innocent), for example, if the people who were doing it _really_ thought you were guilty? I wouldn't.



No I can't say that I would, but when looking at the 2 cases side by side as we are. I can see a clear difference between them, can't you?

not to mention that the case of the Dead Brit is a real life case, and the case of an innocent in Gitmo committing suicide is pure speculation, as we have no proof that anyone who is in Gitmo is Innocent, nor that any Innocent person in Gitmo has committed suicide. which is a big part of why Ravi's comment irked me so.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 21, 2008)

No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity. 

The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion. 

BBC NEWS | Americas | Guantanamo suicides 'acts of war' 

^ Suicides at Guantanamo Bay. Not mention a very skilled exercise in doublethink.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 21, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity.
> 
> The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Flawed logic all round. There is NO court required, no trial and pressumption of innocence for people caught under arms fighting us. In fact one can hold Prisoners of War indefinately until the war ends. Remind me? Has the War ended? Further in war one can execute spy's, a spy being any person under arms or working for the enemy that is not identifiable as a member of the enemies armed forces. Personally I think once we are done with them we should line them up and shoot their asses. We already have proof releasing them only puts them back under arms against us.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> No, believe me, there is a difference, in one you know they were innocent, in the other one, nobody's got a clue. As far as I recall, in liberal democracies like the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody's got a clue, I don't see any reason to believe they were guilty of anything. Had they been tried in a court of law, at least you could remove some of the doubt, but since they never were, then there's no difference, between one innocent man being killing himself in captivity and another innocent man killing himself in captivity.
> 
> The big difference is that when the American army is the captor, it's ok. If it's not, it's not ok. Both are bad, in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Ahh so you are one of those who wants to extend our constitutional rights to enemies taken on a foreign field of battle simply because they are held on a US military base. I see, Total BS, but at least I know where you are coming from now. 

Enemy combatants are not innocent until proven Guilty bud, never have been never will. That is just an insane way to look at it, but to each his own I guess.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 21, 2008)

OH my god, dude.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

The Geneva Conventions: the core of international humanitarian law

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's called the GENEVA CONVENTION.

Edit: Well, yeah, what the Sgt. says is right, there is none of that until the war is over. It still holds that they should be declared prisoners of war and held to Geneva Convention standards.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 21, 2008)

Epsilon, thank you. It's also true that we haven't declared a war, so these people aren't technically prisoners of war. And it is also true that according to our government, quite a few of them were rounded up in sweeps and were guilty of nothing.

An innocent person is no less innocent because we are the ones doing the imprisoning, no matter how pure our motives are.


----------



## editec (Jul 21, 2008)

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in GITMO, they are not innocent.

In the minds of the people holding prisoners in Iraq, they are not innocent, either.

One man's prisoner is another man's hostage, folks.  

Isn't that obvious?


----------



## Wow (Jul 21, 2008)

editec said:


> In the minds of the people holding prisoners in GITMO, they are not innocent.
> 
> In the minds of the people holding prisoners in Iraq, they are not innocent, either.
> 
> ...


*The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shiite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.*
This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.


----------



## Rhys (Jul 21, 2008)

Wow said:


> *The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shiite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.*
> This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
> Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.



All the prisoners in the Guatanamo concentration camp are innocent, obviously, since they have never been tried in a legal court for any offence.   They are not prisoners of war, obviously, because they do not belong to a belligerent state.
Like the other kidnap victims they are being held by fundamentalist madmen who care nothing for justice or human rights and who should be hanged.


----------



## editec (Jul 21, 2008)

Wow said:


> *The hostages, an IT consultant named Peter Moore and four bodyguards, were kidnapped almost 14 months ago from the Iraqi finance ministry by a Shiite group. They are seeking the release of nine prisoners in American detention.*
> This would be an act of terrorism committed by Muslim terrorists.
> Terrorists are torturing innocent civilians.


 

Yeah, right...and what does that have to do with my post?

You disagree with the terrorists who think that those guys were not innocent?

Sorta proves my point, doesn't it?


----------



## Wow (Jul 21, 2008)

Rhys said:


> All the prisoners in the Guatanamo concentration camp are innocent, obviously, since they have never been tried in a legal court for any offence.   They are not prisoners of war, obviously, because they do not belong to a belligerent state.
> Like the other kidnap victims they are being held by fundamentalist madmen who care nothing for justice or human rights and who should be hanged.


Terrorists have violated International law by torturing and murdering civilians.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

So where does the geneva convention say we must extend US constitutional rights to them? Maybe I am just a moron, but I do not see it anywhere. In fact I see a clause in the GC that says enemies taken out of uniform can be treated as spies and shot. 

Still sure you want us to follow the GC?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 21, 2008)

A lot of people will argue that the US constitution extends rights to anyone in our country, which is a big reason Gitmo exists.

Bad guys are expected to be bad guys. Good guys are expected to be good guys. Things get pretty fuzzy when the good guys do bad things.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 21, 2008)

Ravi said:


> A lot of people will argue that the US constitution extends rights to anyone in our country, which is a big reason Gitmo exists.
> 
> Bad guys are expected to be bad guys. Good guys are expected to be good guys. Things get pretty fuzzy when the good guys do bad things.



Yes, I have heard those arguments, however I tend to not agree with them. I see the constitution as guaranteeing the rights of US citizens. However I could see the idea of extending it to people in the US, but I hardly see how it makes sense to extend it to enemy combatants taken on a foreign field of battle. 

now that said, I am sure there could be some people in Gitmo who should not be there. I would support a system for weeding these people out, and putting them into the court system. However the ones who were taken on the field of battle in Afghan and Iraq should never be given Us constitutional rights. IMO anyways.

To me the idea is patently insane.


----------



## Wow (Jul 21, 2008)

Ravi said:


> A lot of people will argue that the US constitution extends rights to anyone in our country, which is a big reason Gitmo exists.
> 
> Bad guys are expected to be bad guys. Good guys are expected to be good guys. Things get pretty fuzzy when the good guys do bad things.


This is code for "The good guys should not harm the bad guys, it ain't fair" Hahahahaha


----------



## Ravi (Jul 21, 2008)

Wow said:


> This is code for "The good guys should not harm the bad guys, it ain't fair" Hahahahaha


No, it's code for we shouldn't become like terrorists.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Actually I think we are showing considerable restraint with all the ones who were *actually* picked up On battle fields in Iraq and Afghanistan, who were *taking up arms against us, and not wearing uniforms. *

The GC is very clear on that, We could have shot every one of them if we wanted. Before we ever sent them to Gitmo or anywhere else. 

Maybe I am reading the GC wrong but it sure seems to say that to me.


----------



## Rhys (Jul 26, 2008)

Wow said:


> Terrorists have violated International law by torturing and murdering civilians.



Criminals should be tried by a legal court, not by general rant.   Blair, for instance, is to my mind a war criminal, but he must be considered innocent until _tried_.   The American authorities have very evidently violated international law by torturing and murdering civilians, and the zionist 'authorities' make it their normal custom - but until they can be brought before a court it is difficult to pinpoint individual guilt.   I can't for the life of me see, though, why we should take the word of these apparent criminals that _other_ people are to be treated as criminals without trial.


----------



## Rhys (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Actually I think we are showing considerable restraint with all the ones who were *actually* picked up On battle fields in Iraq and Afghanistan, who were *taking up arms against us, and not wearing uniforms. *
> 
> The GC is very clear on that, We could have shot every one of them if we wanted. Before we ever sent them to Gitmo or anywhere else.
> 
> Maybe I am reading the GC wrong but it sure seems to say that to me.



What uniform were you proposing they should have worn, and what was the uniform worn by the French Resistance?   All populations have the right to use arms against criminals waging aggressive war, surely?   And how much evidence do we have that the people illegally locked up were even bearing arms?   In many cases, people just seem to have been grabbed to make up numbers.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 26, 2008)

Rhys said:


> Criminals should be tried by a legal court, not by general rant.   Blair, for instance, is to my mind a war criminal, but he must be considered innocent until _tried_.   The American authorities have very evidently violated international law by torturing and murdering civilians, and the zionist 'authorities' make it their normal custom - but until they can be brought before a court it is difficult to pinpoint individual guilt.   I can't for the life of me see, though, why we should take the word of these apparent criminals that _other_ people are to be treated as criminals without trial.



Are you for real?


----------



## Rhys (Jul 26, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> Are you for real?



What's your problem?   Read too many papers, do you?  Want to go back on the whole of decent history?   Long for lynching?  Who are you, Doctor Death?   Aim at CLARITY, do.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Rhys said:


> What uniform were you proposing they should have worn, and what was the uniform worn by the French Resistance?


 What do you think the Germans did with French resistance fighters they captured Brainiac?




Rhys said:


> All populations have the right to use arms against criminals waging aggressive war, surely?   And how much evidence do we have that the people illegally locked up were even bearing arms?


Where does the GC say you need evidence?




Rhys said:


> In many cases, people just seem to have been grabbed to make up numbers.


Sure and that is why I said Actually picked up on a battlefield. I guess you just skipped over that part.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Actually I think we are showing considerable restraint with all the ones who were *actually* picked up On battle fields in Iraq and Afghanistan, who were *taking up arms against us, and not wearing uniforms. *
> 
> The GC is very clear on that, We could have shot every one of them if we wanted. Before we ever sent them to Gitmo or anywhere else.
> 
> Maybe I am reading the GC wrong but it sure seems to say that to me.


Problem being we don't know if they were picked up on the battlefield taking up arms against us...IMO, if we don't KNOW then we are no better than them. A nation of laws is an important concept.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 26, 2008)

Ravi said:


> A nation of laws is an important concept.




It is far more important than a concept.  It basically seperates us from the unsavory barbarians we are battling.  That distinction has been rather clouded for the past few years.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Ravi
> A nation of laws is an important concept.



This from someone who does not care about the lack of enforcement of Immigration laws.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> It is far more important than a concept.  It basically seperates us from the unsavory barbarians we are battling.  That distinction has been rather clouded for the past few years.



yep, thank god Neither Obama or McCain will continue that trend.


----------



## roomy (Jul 27, 2008)

Rhys said:


> Criminals should be tried by a legal court, not by general rant.   Blair, for instance, is to my mind a war criminal, but he must be considered innocent until _tried_.   The American authorities have very evidently violated international law by torturing and murdering civilians, and the zionist 'authorities' make it their normal custom - but until they can be brought before a court it is difficult to pinpoint individual guilt.   I can't for the life of me see, though, why we should take the word of these apparent criminals that _other_ people are to be treated as criminals without trial.



What a fucking wanker you are, it is arseholes like you trying to give credence to terrorists that is prolonging the war against terror.I believe you are a traitor and as such should be executed.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> This from someone who does not care about the lack of enforcement of Immigration laws.


If you kept up with that thread you'd have discovered that not only are cities not required to enforce federal immigration law, but also they aren't allowed to in some cases. Only recently has Congress passed legislation to allow them to assist the Feds, but it does not compel them to...a different case all together.


----------



## Rhys (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> What do you think the Germans did with French resistance fighters they captured Brainiac?



And how do civilized people now regard their actions?




> Where does the GC say you need evidence?



The Geneva convention concerns Prisoners of War, not  persons grabbed at random by Occupation troops.   




> Sure and that is why I said Actually picked up on a battlefield. I guess you just skipped over that part.



No - it was not what I meant.   Lots of people are in your concentration camp simply because someone with power didn't like them.   If you doubt this, see them charged before a proper court or release them.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Ravi said:


> If you kept up with that thread you'd have discovered that not only are cities not required to enforce federal immigration law, but also they aren't allowed to in some cases. Only recently has Congress passed legislation to allow them to assist the Feds, but it does not compel them to...a different case all together.



Have you not argued against deportation, and border control? 

LOL


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Rhys said:


> No - it was not what I meant.   Lots of people are in your concentration camp simply because someone with power didn't like them.   If you doubt this, see them charged before a proper court or release them.



That is perfectly reasonable, If they were indeed not taking up arms against our troops, anyways.


----------

