Author Topic: Imprisoned combatants set free in Afganistan (Read 235 times)

Fishu · « **on:** November 26, 2007, 04:53:30 AM »

I read from the news today that 5 out of 7 persons involved in IED attacks in Afganistan have been secretly set free after just 3 months in jail. Originally they were sentenced to 20 years in jail, but have been set free "due to ramadan".

In may this year they detonated a remote controlled artillery shell hidden in a barrel, killing a finnish peacekeeper and an afgan interpeter and injuring four norwegian peacekeepers.

Unfortunately I don't have the news article in english. This was originally reported by norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang.

This is outrageous and something that I've been suspecting for a long time now. Jails run by the locals in Iraq and Afganistan cannot be trusted due to the corrupted staff, which have been also infiltrated by the enemy combatants. I doubt this is an isolated case and will severely destabilize the region.

Frostbitee · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2007, 07:13:20 AM »

shows the power the terrorists still have over there. Very scary!

Rich46yo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2007, 07:59:30 AM »

We should have brought them all to Guantanamo, gave them one trial in front of a military commission, and if 50.00001% of the evidence showed they were guilty of terrorist acts against America???

Then the next morning we shoulda forced them to put a diaper on and then hanged them until dead.

Frostbitee · « **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:04:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rich46yo
We should have brought them all to Guantanamo, gave them one trial in front of a military commission, and if 50.00001% of the evidence showed they were guilty of terrorist acts against America???

Then the next morning we shoulda forced them to put a diaper on and then hanged them until dead.

I personally hate feeling that way, but I agree!!!

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:06:45 AM »

why should 'terrorists' not be released?

they are just soldiers that dont have an army.

Swoop · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:42:28 AM »

Exactly.

Are we at war? Are they POWs?
If there were in uniform at the time then an IED can merely be counted as prisoners of war and should, therefore, be held until the war is over.

Um.....

Oh, so they weren't in uniform? They have no uniforms?

Oh.

ok, shoot em as spies.

Frostbitee · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2007, 08:50:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
why should 'terrorists' not be released?

they are just soldiers that dont have an army.

What is a terrorist?
1. One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
2. One who leads an armed group that kills civilians as a means of political intimidation.
3. One who targets civilian airliners and ships.
4. One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder.
5. One who uses rape and murder for political purposes.
6. One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation.
7. One who facilitates a massacre of civilians.

Terrorists are not soldiers of a state, terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

To ask why should 'terrorists' not be released?, then what you should really be asking is, why not release murders, rapists etc. Rather ridiculous question in my opinion.

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2007, 09:24:03 AM »

i never said they were angels, but in their country many see them as freedom fighters, not criminals.

Quote

Originally posted by Frostbitee
What is a terrorist?
1. One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
2. One who leads an armed group that kills civilians as a means of political intimidation.
3. One who targets civilian airliners and ships.
4. One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder.
5. One who uses rape and murder for political purposes.
6. One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation.
7. One who facilitates a massacre of civilians.

1. owning nuclear weapons and basically telling other countries that they cannot own the same weapons is in my mind an act of terrorism in itself. but this is ok, because we are the 'good guys'

2. hiroshima, the blitz, world war 2.

3. Who is going to pretend that our own governments have never targeted civillian airliners or ships?

4. like the CIA? MI5?

5. rape and murder have been counted as the 'spoils of war' for thousands of years. looking back through American or English history, looks like alot of people did murders for political means...and still do today.

6. World War Two again....ring any bells?

7. same again

So, from that list we too are guilty, or have been guilty in the past 100 years, of every single item.

Quote

Terrorists are not soldiers of a state, terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

To ask why should 'terrorists' not be released?, then what you should really be asking is, why not release murders, rapists etc. Rather ridiculous question in my opinion.

Not sure if you noticed, but most of the Arabs don't really give a toss about the United Nations laws.

Rapist and murderers are often released back onto our streets, and often commit further crimes. check the news recently?

Planting a bomb in a shopping mall and using heavy calibre machine guns and military explosives to obliterate the cities and landscape is pretty much equal. lots of civs still get caught in the cross fire.

the only difference is, the terrorists hit the target they aimed for, and the 'good guys' soldiers inflicted these civ casualties by failing to hit their target.

i don't have a point here, i just dont see why it matters.

I hope those released will go and enjoy a quiet ramadan with their families before they go out and blow themselves up in god's name.