Australian Politics Forum - Executing prisoners of war

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47472
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #30 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

Quote:

No FD, your argument was based on the logic that executing POWs is a war crime. You ignored the fact that POWs can subsequently be found guilty of treason

Which of the 700 were found guilty of treason?

Quote:

There is no reason to suspect that any of the ~600 fighting men had any objection to the treachery their leaders were committing.

Did every single one of them commit treason?

Quote:

And as we all know, 'just following orders' is not a defense.

What orders did they follow?

Quote:

all combatants present there (and no, they didn't go "tracking down" relatives in far off lands)

They surrounded them and laid siege to them. The Muslims went to the tribe and made war against it.

Quote:

were, by association, guilty of treason

So they were not actually guilty of treason, merely guilty by association? Is that how Islamic justice works?

Quote:

I think I'll start boycotting this debate if you insist on bringing up this ridiculous lie every time.

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond naively assuming that concubinage means nothing more than cohabitation? As luck would have it, there is already a thread on the difference between wives and sex slaves.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/45#45

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #31 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:38pm

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond naively assuming that concubinage means nothing more than cohabitation?

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond the bigotry of assuming that concubinage always, no questions absolutely, means rape (at least in the case of muslims)?

There are numerous orders in islamic texts (both quran and hadeeth) forbidding forced sex on slave girls, as well as rulings by islamic scholars.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #32 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Which of the 700 were found guilty of treason?

All of them.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Did every single one of them commit treason?

Yes. Not one of them came to the Muslims and said that he disagreed with what they were doing. They could have done this at any time.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

The Muslims went to the tribe and made war against it.

It was the Jews who made war by treacherously raiding Muslim positions.

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also provided supplies to the army besieging Madina.

Supplying the enemy is recognised as a crime by the US Military Code of Justice. It is a crime punishable by death.

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also promised the enemy that they would help fight the Muslims. In the US military code just communicating with the enemy is punishable with death.

Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

Quote:

Article 104 (USMCJ)

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

You seem to hold the Muslims to some standard that no other people wold hold themselves to except the fringe pacifist nutters.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

So they were not actually guilty of treason, merely guilty by association? Is that how Islamic justice works?

That is how Australian justice works. Let me explain how: If someone here in Australia commits a crime, and you stood around with him and listened to him plan it, never contacted the authorities, and sat around with him while he executed the crime you would also be charged as either an accessory or an accomplice.

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond naively assuming that concubinage means nothing more than cohabitation? As luck would have it, there is already a thread on the difference between wives and sex slaves [/quote]

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual service, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"

- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

C'mon do you really want to rehash this again, when the Holy Book of Islam forbids it. Surely if you are against rape of slavegirls, then you must commend the Quran for condemning it. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:28pm by True Colours »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47472
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #33 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Which of the 700 were found guilty of treason?

All of them.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Did every single one of them commit treason?

Yes. Not one of them came to the Muslims and said that he disagreed with what they were doing. They could have done this at any time.

So they were guilty of not doing anything at all? All 700 of them deserved to die for this?

Quote:

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also provided supplies to the army besieging Madina.

It is my understanding that they provided supplies to the Muslims, not to their enemies.

Quote:

Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

I don't think it would justify killing all 700 men, stealing all their possessions and taking all the women as sex slaves. Do you? Your attempts at moral equivalency are simply absurd.

Quote:

You seem to hold the Muslims to some standard that no other people wold hold themselves to except the fringe pacifist nutters.

So not engaging in mass executions of POWs under stupid self serving pretexts is a standard that no other people hold themselves up to?

Quote:

That is how Australian justice works.

No it isn't. We don't have guilt by association. We don't rape the wives of people convicted of crimes. We do not kill 700 of their male relatives. We do not enslave their children. Each person who is punished has to be proven guilty of actually committing a crime.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:32pm by freediver »

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #34 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:48pm

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

So they were guilty of not doing anything at all?

Talking with you is like going around in circles.

I just explained to you that they supplied the enemy, promised the enemy to attack the Muslims of Madina, and carried out raids on Muslim women and children.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Quote:

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also provided supplies to the army besieging Madina.

It is my understanding that they provided supplies to the Muslims, not to their enemies.

Yeah? Got a source for that? Because that is not what my sources say.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Quote:

Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

I don't think it would justify killing all 700 men,

I just provided the US military code of justice which says the deah penalty is warranted for lesser crimes than what they did.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

stealing all their possessions

The US took $4 billion in oil revenue and assets from Iraq. Are you campaigning for this to be returned? Perhaps you will also campaign for the reparations that Germany was forced to pay after WWI returned?

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

and taking all the women as sex slaves

You seem obsessed with this matter even though the Quran forbids it:

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual service, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"

- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

Surely you must applaud the Quran for agreeing with you on an issue that is obviously so important to you. If you are not a total hypocrite that is.

Lucky they weren't caught by the US. We know that the US executes Jewish women who commit treachery.:

Quote:

Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 25, 1915[1] – June 19, 1953) were United States citizens convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war, and executed.

- wikipedia

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Your attempts at moral equivalency are simply absurd.

Really? Why? Is it because you know that you hold the Muslims to unreasonable standards?

If Australia was at war with China, and a group of Australians were supplying Chinese soldiers and promising to fight against the Australian army, what would you expect the Australian government to do with such people? Turn the other cheek?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:57pm by True Colours »

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: On Islamic historical sourcing Reply #35 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:58pm freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:26pm: No it isn't. We don't have guilt by association. Actually we do - in our current anti-terror and bikie gang laws.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47472
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #36 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm

Quote:

I just explained to you that they supplied the enemy

With what? As I explained, the evidence i have seen is that they supplied the Muslims. Check the links in the OP.

Quote:

promised the enemy to attack the Muslims of Madina

Again, not according to the story I have seen.

From the article I linked to in the OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Battle_of_the_Trench

It is unclear whether their treaty with Muhammad obliged the Qurayza to help him defend Medina, or merely to remain neutral,[11] according to Ramadan, they had signed an agreement of mutual assistance with Muhammad.[13] The Qurayza did not participate in the fighting - according to David Norcliffe, because they were offended by attacks against Jews in Muhammad's preaching - but lent tools to the town's defenders.[42] According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort of Medina by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench the defenders of Medina had dug in preparation.[30] According to Watt, the Banu Qurayza "seem to have tried to remain neutral" in the battle[43] but later changed their attitude when a Jew from Khaybar persuaded them that Muhammad was sure to be overwhelmed[11] and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad, according to Watt,[4] they entered into negotiations with the invading army.[43]

Quote:

I just provided the US military code of justice which says the deah penalty is warranted for lesser crimes than what they did.

Would you mind pointing out the bit about guilt by association, mass execution of POWs, raping the women, enslaving the children etc?

Quote:

Really? Why? Is it because you know that you hold the Muslims to unreasonable standards?

Not executing 700 POWs is not an unreasonable standard. He basically slaughtered the entire opposing tribe. Even by modern warfare standards that is a big massacre.Not enslaving the children and taking all the women home as sex slaves is not an unreasonable standard. Not pretending that 700 people received a fair trial and were all justly found guilty of the same crime is not an unreasonable standard.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #37 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 4:52pm

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Quote:

I just explained to you that they supplied the enemy

With what?

With food. The pagan army arrived at Madina with little food supplies. The Mandinites had harvested all the food in the area so there was nothing for the invaders to rely on. The Jews then supplied the invaders with food, which meant that the siege lasted much longer than it otherwise would have.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

As I explained, the evidence i have seen is that they supplied the Muslims. Check the links in the OP.

The Jews of the Qurayzah tribe initially gave the Muslims some supplies. However a delegation from the Jewish Nadir tribe arrived in Madina and convinced the Qurayzah Tribe to switch sides and support the pagans.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Quote:

promised the enemy to attack the Muslims of Madina

Again, not according to the story I have seen.

It has been widely recorded by Muslim historians. Even your own wikipedia source suggest this:

Quote:

they entered into negotiations with the invading army.[43]

Quote:

In the midst of these difficult circumstances, plots and intrigues were in fervent action against the Muslims. The chief criminal of [the Jewish] Nadir tribe, Huyai, headed for the habitations of the Jewish] Qurayzah tribe to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a pact with the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptations, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him and managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to break his covenant with the Muslims. The Qurayzah tribe then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims...

...[when a Jewish raider was killed it] had a far-reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on providing the idolaters with supplies in token of their support against the Muslims.

On hearing this bad news, the Messenger despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation...

...Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with Muhammad. The Messenger of God was briefed on this situation, and the Muslims understood their critical position with the horrible danger implied therein. Their back was vulnerable to the attacks of the Qurayzah tribe, and a huge army at the front, while their women and children were unprotected standing in between...

- Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

From the article I linked to in the OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Battle_of_the_Trench

That wikipedia article is written almost entirely without Muslim sources - despite the only primary accounts of the incident being Muslim sources. Odd isn't it?

Quote:

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of the Nadir tribe and the Quraizah tribe fought against the Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) who expelled the Nadir tribe, and allowed the Quraizah tribe to stay on, and granted favour to them until they too fought against him...

- Muslim

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Quote:

I just provided the US military code of justice which says the deah penalty is warranted for lesser crimes than what they did.

Would you mind pointing out the bit about guilt by association

It is not a matter of 'guilt by association' but rather being an accomplice or an accessory.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

mass execution of POWs

They were not POWs but criminal traitors.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

raping the women

Do you not tire of this lie?

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual servitude, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"
- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Not executing 700 POWs is not an unreasonable standard.

Not POWs. Traitors and criminals.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

He basically slaughtered the entire opposing tribe.

Not true. The tribe was comprised of several thousand people, only 600 or so were executed for their treachery

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

by modern warfare standards that is a big massacre.

Yeah right. How many people did Christian Americans kill at Hiroshima?

THe US military slaughtered about 600 civilians in one day at the village of My Lai during the Vietnam War. The victims were mostly women and children who had not made a treaty with the US

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Not pretending that 700 people received a fair trial and were all justly found guilty of the same crime is not an unreasonable standard.

In times of war, summary justice can be executed under martial law

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47472
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #38 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 5:43pm

Quote:

With food. The pagan army arrived at Madina with little food supplies. The Mandinites had harvested all the food in the area so there was nothing for the invaders to rely on. The Jews then supplied the invaders with food, which meant that the siege lasted much longer than it otherwise would have.

Do you have any references for this?

Quote:

The Jews of the Qurayzah tribe initially gave the Muslims some supplies. However a delegation from the Jewish Nadir tribe arrived in Madina and convinced the Qurayzah Tribe to switch sides and support the pagans.

Except they did not actually convince them did they?

Quote:

It has been widely recorded by Muslim historians. Even your own wikipedia source suggest this:

Can you please point out the bit where it says they agreed to attack the Muslims? Is it perhaps this bit?

and though they did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad

Hardly sounds like the sort of thing that justifies the death every able bodied man does it?

Quote:

In the midst of these difficult circumstances, plots and intrigues were in fervent action against the Muslims. The chief criminal of [the Jewish] Nadir tribe

Ah I see, an unbiased source. Is this what you think the wikipedia authors should have blindly accepted?

Quote:

The Qurayzah tribe then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims...

What exactly was the nature of these "war operations"?

Quote:

That wikipedia article is written almost entirely without Muslim sources - despite the only primary accounts of the incident being Muslim sources. Odd isn't it?

Not really. It is supposed to be neutral, not parrot Islamic propaganda.

Quote:

It is not a matter of 'guilt by association' but rather being an accomplice or an accessory.

I see. You should explain that to Gandalf, who seems to think they were guilty of treason by association. If they did not actually attack Muhammed, what were they an accomplice to? Also, given that attacking people is what war is all about, can you explain how being an accomplice to it justifies the mass execution of POWs? Most rational non-Muslims oppose that sort of thing, even for soldiers who were involved in real "war operations".

Quote:

They were not POWs but criminal traitors.

So they were not captured through war or conquest?

Quote:

Do you not tire of this lie?

It is not a lie. Muhammed refused to punish people who raped or beat their wives or sex slaves. Where sex is permitted in Islam, rape is not a punishable offence. Claiming those female concubine slaves were not raped demonstrates nothing beyond your naivete.

Quote:

Not true. The tribe was comprised of several thousand people, only 600 or so were executed for their treachery

What happened to the rest?

Quote:

In times of war, summary justice can be executed under martial law

So you do support mass execution of POWs - but only in times of war?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17506
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #39 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 5:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond naively assuming that concubinage means nothing more than cohabitation?

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond the bigotry of assuming that concubinage always, no questions absolutely, means rape (at least in the case of muslims)?

There are numerous orders in islamic texts (both quran and hadeeth) forbidding forced sex on slave girls, as well as rulings by islamic scholars.

How about we let the good sheik tell us-
Quote:

Is it permissable for a man to force his wife or slave to have intercourse if she refuses?

Praise be to allah.
The woman does not have the right to refuse her husband,rather she must respond to his request every time he calls her.

Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her masters requests.
If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her.
www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597

The good sheik even gives verses from the quran and sunnah to justify this.

The verses you are thinking of prohibit forcing slaves to work as prostitutes, prostitution is halal if it is done in a temporary marriage, the shia call this mutah marriage and the sunni call it misyar nikah.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17506
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #40 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 6:08pm

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

In the US military code just communicating with the enemy is punishable with death

Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

Quote:

Article 104 (USMCJ)

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

You seem to hold the Muslims to some standard that no other people wold hold themselves to except the fringe pacifist nutters.

Would you mind clarifying the issue of raping these women, beyond naively assuming that concubinage means nothing more than cohabitation? As luck would have it, there is already a thread on the difference between wives and sex slaves

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual service, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"

- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

Surely if you are against rape of slavegirls, then you must commend the Quran for condemning it. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

If the USA military code calls for death as you claim then please explain to us why "hanoi Jane Fonda" and John Lindh are still alive.
Hanoi Jane helped the enemy in the Vietnam war.

I will let the good sheik at Islam qa explain why Islam allows a man to rape his wife or slave, he quotes from the quran,hadith and scholars.
Quote:

Is it permissable for a man to force his wife or slave to have intercourse?

The woman does not have the right to refuse her husband,rather she must respond to his request every time he calls her.
A slave woman does not have the right to refuse her masters request.
www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597

Quote:

Praise be to allah
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or is not married.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10382

You are a munafiq, do you think a rational person will believe your lies?

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47472 At my desk.	Re: On Islamic historical sourcing Reply #41 - Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:29pm polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 7:15pm: If islam is crystal clear about one thing - it is on the rules of warfare, and to not commit what we would term today war crimes.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47472
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #42 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 12:51pm

Q: When is a POW not a POW?

A: When Muslims need an excuse for Muhammed slaughtering 700 of them, so they can pretend Muhammed raised standards on a 'revolutionary' scale, or that he was the first to institute a legal code for the lawful conduct of warfare.

True Colours wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

Banu Qurayza were not POWs by any modern definition. They were criminal traitors.

Aiding the enemy is punishable by death in US law.

True Colours wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Executing traitors is legal in many jurisdictions including the US.

Go find out what a POW actually is before you troll.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:

According to FD, a country can't try and punish their citizens for treason that they had captured during conflict - because ... err.. they had been captured during conflict. Cheesy

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #43 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:02pm

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

[

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also promised the enemy that they would help fight the Muslims. In the US military code just communicating with the enemy is punishable with death.
Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

Quote:

Article 104 (USMCJ)

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Now either the US military kills a heap of their own interpreters and interogators or you are deliberately misrepresenting the USMCJ, god I hope you are and you don't truly believe what you just said.

Here's a hint you don't get executed for "just talking" with the enemy.

Back to top

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #44 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:34pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:02pm:

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

[

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also promised the enemy that they would help fight the Muslims. In the US military code just communicating with the enemy is punishable with death.
Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

Quote:

Article 104 (USMCJ)

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Now either the US military kills a heap of their own interpreters and interogators or you are deliberately misrepresenting the USMCJ, god I hope you are and you don't truly believe what you just said.

Here's a hint you don't get executed for "just talking" with the enemy.

There are a number of differences between US military interpreters/interrogators and the Qurayzas.

For example, they interrogators and interpreters are usually authorised to communicate with the enemy - it is their job.

Also, you would not normally expect an interpreter or interrogator to promise the enemy to attack their own country.

Similarly, you would not expect an interpreter or interrogator to clandestinely provide supplies to the enemy.

Back to top

IP Logged