What about the grief of the children?

[TRD2000]

as far as not wearing a uniform goes.... if publishing your uniform and having it accepted by your enemy is the standard by which to judge, what would you describe the americans who faught for liberation from the British as? if they didn't have a uniform they weren't an army.
the uniform of terrorists is plain clothes... now you say that is not a uniform, but as i said, just because you dont like their uniform doesn't mean that its not one. too hard to see who to shoot? set a standard, lobby for the US to stop using camoflague! those standards are getting further and further apart!

[-Josh-]

Yeah that was over 200 years ago to... We were colonies of farmers and small business owners, what's their excuse for not having uniforms?

They dont wear uniforms to blend in with the civilians, why? Because we're not SUPPOSED to fire on civilians....

[Murco]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Murco, the fact that you know there will be comments reflects the fact that you aknowlege the similarities.

Or that your responses are so predictable...

[Murco]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

where is the line drawn between murder and state sponsored execution? eg. Bush killed 153 as governor, and more as President... was that murder? the standards are multiplying.....
....

Apples and oranges, again...

Originally Posted by TRD2000

it really doesn't matter what you see, they are protected at LEAST as enemy combatants, and SHOULD be protected as POW's under the geoneva convention. WHICH i might add is a voluntary set of standards for the signiataries to adhere to, NOT a standard that must be followed by non-member nations.unfortunately, they signed the geoneva convention, perhaps they were more humane then and didn't see where their nation was headed, and so now they make excuses not to follow it.

I'll concede that we are bound by the convention, which we agreed to, and there are certain protections afforded the Iraqi rebels. In the vast majority of situations we follow those standards to a tee but there are occasional situations, like this one, that defy standards set forth in that agreement...

[aloharocky]

An Al Queda "freedom fighter" took an Iraqi officer's wife hostage, and ended up killing her. Guess he didn't read the Geneva Convention, huh? Those Al Queda are so brave, they kill women and children intentionally, all day, every day. No wonder the libs are so in awe of them.

[DGB454]

Margaret Hassan. Nuff said.

[TRD2000]

Originally Posted by Z28Josh

Yeah that was over 200 years ago to... We were colonies of farmers and small business owners, what's their excuse for not having uniforms?

They dont wear uniforms to blend in with the civilians, why? Because we're not SUPPOSED to fire on civilians....

doesn't seem to stop you though does it.

perhaps they would rather spend their money on weapons ammunition so they can kill the imperialist pigs that invade their country. food or perhaps medicine since the US army (said pigs) are refusing the red cresent access to the civilians.

why do they need to wear uniforms? just cause you don't like it doesn't mean that they should make it easy. if your so obsessed with a fair fight... get your tanks and aircraft out of the country. I seriously doubt that the us would be so hasty in picking fights and unlawfully invading another country if they had to fight on equal footing. you don't make it easy for them, i fail to see why you expect them to do the same for you. Next you'll be bitching cause they keep ducking. perhaps that will be the excuse for killing civilians as they sleep... they kept ducking during the day!

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

US army (said pigs)

Is this a NZ thing?
I swear between you taranaki you guys have cornered the market on hate America rhetoric.

To each his own I suppose. You guys have sure changed my opinion of NZ'rs though.

[TRD2000]

i was trying to look at it from an iraqi perspective....
to say they aren't prisoners of war because they don't wear the same uniforms is rediculous. I wonder whether that argument was brought up when people stopped wearing red in battle, or again when people started using camo?

I don't hate america, but i hate what america does, and increasingly rather than america representing the west... america is representing america, drawing its own new category. When i was younger i hated the british for the same sort of things historically, now america is having its own little colonial reich today in front of the world, and i am meant to draw some sort of double standard and suddenly like it?

and again you show your ignorance rocky, as i have said previously, countries that are not signiataries, (or groups in this case) do not have to follow it. When america refuses to be held accountable for its actions, refuses to acknowlege the world court or war crimes tribunal, or the kyoto protocol, and so doesn't sign them, it would be completely double standards to expect another body to follow something they did not sign up for.

[TRD2000]

Originally Posted by Murco

Apples and oranges, again...

"In February 1998, 400 prisoners at Abu Gharaib prison were executed summarily. Two months later, 100 detainees from Radwaniyah Prison were buried alive in a pit in Ramadi province. These killings were supposed to "clean out" the prisons....."

apples and oranges.... i agree though. There is a definate difference between state executions (right or wrong) and acts of murder. You brought up the executions in iraq so i thought it was worth looking at the fact that is accepted in the US, it would be a double standard to say "we can do it but you are evil if you do". it's important to look at whether actions were taken in accordance with any legislation in effect in that juristiction.

[fredjacksonsan]

So by that argument, what is the law in Iraq? Do we go by the Islamic law, the regime law that Saddam had in effect, US Martial law, the law as seen by the Geneva Convention, or the law of survival? It's just a bunged up confusing situation, and one young Marine did something in the heat of the moment.

I haven't seen any reports from media that is with the Iraqi forces, even back when it was army vs army.

[TRD2000]

well back in 1998 it was sadams law... like its bush's law in america (ok so not ALL bush's law)

in iraq the US troops are required to follow the geneva convention as a start. Supplemental to that i am sure that there are laws regarding murder in place in Iraq, there is probably even parking fines! IF this is not an army, and if there is no law against murder, then they could kill as many marines as they want.

as far as marines go, i think their rules of engagement would have something about shooting unarmed wounded people. I was always taught that going against rules of engagement like that would have me on a murder charge.... but i guess americans are immune to that sort of thing.

[aloharocky]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

well back in 1998 it was sadams law... like its bush's law in america (ok so not ALL bush's law)


as far as marines go, i think their rules of engagement would have something about shooting unarmed wounded people. I was always taught that going against rules of engagement like that would have me on a murder charge.....

The reality is you take prisoners IF YOU CAN. If you do not have men or time to spare, you just don't leave them to shoot the next man in the back. My only regret to this story is that the ranking Marine in that room did not have the experience or foresight to make sure that tape didn't leave the room. I bet it won't happen next time. That marine is worth a hundred reporters any day, at least to me..

[TRD2000]

I'm Not Sure If I Want You To Sign Up And Go Over There To Get Shot Or Whether I Think You Should Not Be Allowed Out Of America. You Honestly Confuse Me.

[aloharocky]

LOL, get unconfused. Go sign up and you'll be a changed man, I assure you. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Right now you're talking from a know-nothing position, and it's truly sad, but at the same time, amusing.