quote:

Originally posted by Dervish To be honest I don't care if someones wearing a uniform or not. Killing unarmed people is murder. But in this case it is hard to know if the guy in question pulled the trigger for the right reasons (that is he belived the guy had a bomb strapped to him). And it looks as though he didn't. You can't just go around killing people left and right esp unarmed people. I mean what next a man carrying a white flag with half his leg missing.... double tap him just in case? Just incase........ think about it. Why not give them a chance? Why not act in a professional manner?

Can't go by the white flag nowadays either. Just today the insurgents had white flags raised and when soldiers got close they opened fire injuring a few soldiers. This has happened numerous times. Typical rules don't always apply.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish To be honest I don't care if someones wearing a uniform or not. Killing unarmed people is murder.

You realized you just contradicted your morality right there in two sentance?? First sentance you are saying, you don't give a shit if civilians die, then you go say killing civilians is murder (in war).

So which is it? Do you give a shit or not?



You know why soldiers are supposed to wear uniforms right?
Its not for their protection. Nope, who cares, they are there to die and they know what they are there for. The reason soldiers are supposed to wear uniforms is so innocent civilians are not easily mistaken for combatants.

THE REASON THAT WEARING A UNIFORM IS A LAW OF WAR IS SO TROOPS WON'T MURDER CIVILAINS!

Seesh, just an ounce of thought...

quote:

You can't just go around killing people left and right esp unarmed people.

If the soldiers in this case were killing people left and right just because, then why did they stop and not kill the guy who surrendered to them at the end of the video footage?



Look the laws of war are there for a reason. It makes war less like hell and a better opprotunity to reconcile after the war is over. BUT you can't expect people to obey any laws of war when the otherside has not only thrown the rule book out the window, but is using tactics that are a complete insult to the cocievement of the rules initially.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You realized you just contradicted your morality right there in two sentance?? First sentance you are saying, you don't give a shit if civilians die, then you go say killing civilians is murder (in war). So which is it? Do you give a shit or not?

I think he is saying it does not matter what they are wearing because killing anyone who is unarmed is murder.

The reason I was focusing on the details of the uniform and if whether or not they were POW is because the orginal question was about war crimes. Just as with normal cime, war crimes only happen when specific things are true (namely the Geneva Convention is violated).

While I am agianst the war over ther and know that Bush is a tool, people have to realize that bad things happen and for the most part they are unavoidable. From the evidence I have seen, I don't think this is anything like the prison torturing from last year (an obvious war crime), rather it is the sad result of being on a battlefield.

___________________
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch

Major Johnson - February Progressive Mix

Download Other Mixes

quote:

Originally posted by auujay I think he is saying it does not matter what they are wearing because killing anyone who is unarmed is murder.

And I'm saying that it does matter, because if you care about the murder of anyone who is an innocent civilian, you better make sure the combatants are wearing their team's shirt, otherwise you are a hypocrtie.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by auujay Are animals protected under the Geneva Convention? It would not surprise me if some were (horses, live stock, etc.)

Personal property and art (under Hague) are covered by International law.

I believe you could make a case of personal property/civilian provisions (i.e. animals) falling under Geneva. The clauses focusing on it where introduced to prevent scourched earth tactics.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I don't believe in war crimes. The only crime in war is losing, and it's punishable by whatever the winner wants.

quote:

Originally posted by JM kill or be killed. your post "suggests" to me that you're not the brightest star in the sky. >JM<

OOPS, I never said my view was solid. But by hearing "he's playing f3cking dead" in the video. And hearing other reports that they were already captured/treated & interogated, My opinion is swayed. Relax fool.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil If it was iraqi insurgents coming into a room with an american soldier they would have tortured him and then beheaded him on tv. I don't see the problem with this at all, perhaps they should have just let the guy starve to death.

Nice argument. You can't clean yourself up using other people's dirt. And, come to think of it, what stories have you heard of american soldiers being tortured by insurgents, that would allow you to write what you wrote?


I think this case is not really clear cut, which is also hinted by the fact that a formal investigation is being carried out. Personally, I feel that the case is being blown out of proportion, but I guess that according to political correctness this *is* a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Personally, I feel that the case is being blown out of proportion, but I guess that according to political correctness this *is* a crime.

I agree, I think people are trying to make it a huge deal, like the next Abu Ghraib....

___________________
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch

Major Johnson - February Progressive Mix

Download Other Mixes

Whatever the marine did, he is in a bad position, whether he did it or not.

1) If he didnt shoot him, and he was booby trapped, his whole squad could have died.

2)He shot him, and potentially saved his squad, and hes getting investigated now.

Now, maybe he wasnt booby trapped at the time, but the squad lost one man to one of those tricksters a few days ago.

quote:

Originally posted by JM with all the shit going on, that would probably be a good idea. what motivation does that one legged man have to keep living? he already dedicated himself to the cause of fighting, and doesn't care if he dies. chances ARE he will drop the flag, and pull out a weapon... i say drop him then and there. kill or be killed. you've gotta be kidding me man?? its a WAR!!! and not a community Chamber of Commerce meeting. >JM<

Look your not focusing on what I'm saying the fact that the guy in my example only had one leg had nothing to do with my point. And to be honest I'm getting sick of the completely foolish comments of people on this board. So are you saying every iraqi with or without a white flag with or without a gun is open game (yeah that'll mean theres less insurgents... wars get personal and thats whn they last and last, this policy will only lead to a longer war and o more deaths)? If not what the fuck are you saying. "I say drop him then and there" to a fucking example....... yeah you have so much fucking info don't you.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on Nov-21-2004 at 16:14

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Look the laws of war are there for a reason. It makes war less like hell and a better opprotunity to reconcile after the war is over. BUT you can't expect people to obey any laws of war when the otherside has not only thrown the rule book out the window, but is using tactics that are a complete insult to the cocievement of the rules initially.

Look I do understand what your saying. BUT we as a western socity must adhere to our laws otherwise we are compromising ourselfs and doing their job for them. And I stand by my statement. Killing unarmed men is murder. But like the bit I put in bold was ment to say. In this case it's a bit foggy as to wether the killing was or was not justifyed.

Don't get me wrong I understand there will be acidents where it is thought someone is armed but is not. However in every instance due care and attention needs to be taken.

I mean think about it 1) They all just wandered up to the other one at the end no worries there.... 2) They let a camera crew in (they really going to do that if these guys are highest risk?).

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.