Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: Classifying them as soldiers wouldn't afford them much rights as far as I know, the Geneva Convention talks about the treatment of civilians in war, but it doesn't say much about the treatment of soldiers from non-signatory nations. I could be wrong though, I haven't read the whole thing.
my bad, I wasn't trying to suggest there are more rights given to POWs, just that a nation wouldn't subject themselves to international scrutiny under POW laws if they could just use domestic charges
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know anyone who doesn't think Extremist Muslims are dangerous. That's a valence position--the debate is between people who see a distinction between extremist and non-extremist Muslims and those who don't, and also whether combating Islamic terrorism necessitates voiding our own principles..
One has to wonder why the "non extremist" muslims aren't outraged and protesting everytime something like this happens.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
They did. As I recall, there have been a number of public condemnationions of extremists by the muslim community.
Originally posted by Oliver North
since 9-11, mainstream Muslim groups have done nothing but condemn violence in their community. the press rarely shows up
It's not the duty of the ignorant bigot to do his research, okay?
Originally posted by ArchaeopteryxThe first groups to respond to these kinds of incidents are moderate Muslim organizations, and with good reason: they have to work extra hard to keep from getting scapegoated in a nation where lots of people believe Sikhs are Muslims.
One has to wonder why the "non extremist" muslims aren't outraged and protesting everytime something like this happens.
Originally posted by Bardock42
However this particular incident imo raises the question, since the UK is currently, by its own standards, at war in Afghanistan (and has been with other places recently) could this be considered an act of war?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
they have to work extra hard to keep from getting scapegoated in a nation where lots of people believe Sikhs are Muslims.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
From a purely technical point of view, they don't have to worry about being scapegoated at all then. Since it's the Sikhs, who, semi-literally and semi-metaphorically speaking, get "scapegoated" as Muslims.
The most shocking thing about this incident was that it took the Metropolitan Police half an hour to get an armed response unit to the scene. The only reason the perps didn't escape or kill more people is that they chose not to.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I know why you referred Sikhs in particular(and South Asians in general, if my guess of your intent is correct here).
Originally posted by Oliver North
in a major city, 13 minutes is embarrassing for an assault call...
13 minutes for armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
13 minutes for [b]armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage. [/B]
ah, my bad