support the Marine acused of murder

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

anyway wasn't this the same survey that we have discussed before that found Sadam was still one of the top 5 most respected polititians and Alawi had absolutely no support?

Nope

is it also the survey that found iraqis felt humiliated by the US invasion?

Nope. Are you just making stuff up?

[TRD2000]

naaa not making stuff up... just remember another survey a month or two back. (after august when this was done) that sounded very similar. and i know it's been discussed in politics.

[mellowboy]

Is the brooklyn bridge up for sale still? i might have a few ppl interested

I dont know anything about that survey but again i dont trust shit coming from Zogby.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

naaa not making stuff up... just remember another survey a month or two back. (after august when this was done) that sounded very similar. and i know it's been discussed in politics.

You're probably right. I forget what I talked about yesterday sometimes.

[kornflakes28546]

someone should put a poll up, im interested to see how many people, regardless of there opinion of iraq, think the marine should be charged with murder.

[YogsVR4]

Put up your own poll if your interested.


The guy is being investigated. A different marine was just convicted of murder in Iraq and nobody is talking about that one. Know why? It wasn't on film.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Schister66]

No one knows what knid of situation this was. He may have heard that other sites were boobytrapped and thought these insurgents were waiting to jump up and shoot them. I say leave him alone. This kind of shit happens and the only reason we know about it is because of the damn media. War isn't pretty and don't punish those who play the game. The Marines have my full support in this war, although i don't believe in its cause entirely.

Kill them before they kill you. Leave them and they live to fight you another day.

[TRD2000]

How About Fuck Off Out Of Their Country And They Won't Try And Kill You.

America started this war, not the Iraqi's. America are the aggressors. I feel for the marines, but if there wasn't support for invading other peoples countries then right now they wouldn't be there, and neither would Bush. Fact is, post election america has shown that they want to be there, and therefore i figure they deserve what they get. however little it is in comparison to what they dish out.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

How About Fuck Off Out Of Their Country And They Won't Try And Kill You.

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....

Telling words those....

I think that excuse would hold very well if, before entering illegally, they lobbed a few bombs in. Then, while entering illegally, they were also shooting people and blowing shit up.

[TRD2000]

haha how far is the bush ranch from the border? would be funny to make him wank for the camera on the way by.... stack up the georges.. that kind of thing.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I wonder if that excuse works if people along the boarder with Mexico start shooting people entering the US illegally....

Well, if the Mexican President decided one day that your leader was a threat to the world,announced that he intended to fly in the face of the UN and enter your country without any mandate, and plamed it all on a handtull of Guatamalans armed with box cutters,i'd say sure,shoot any damn Mexican who comes into your country looking for trouble.The idiot Mexican President would be the most obvious target though.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I don't normally bother to debate finer points with those who just come to this forum to mouth off, but for you I will make an exception.As a former servant of her Majesty in the Royal Navy, with active duty experience,I am fully familiar with the Geneva Convention.If you dont believe that the Marines should be following it in Iraq you are a spineless coward who supports state-sponsored terrorism.Please dont tell me to have a nice day,I'd rather you crawled back under your rock and died slowly.

Apparently active service in the Royal Navy does not in any way assure one has a knowledge of the Geneva convention because the United States (and her allies) are not currently fighting uniformed combatants in Iraq.

According to the Geneva Convention soldiers must be fighting in uniform to be protected by the convention. And, since you apparently are clueless regarding the convention let me mention a few other items in the convention that are interesting regarding the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq.

According to the convention soldiers must not intentionally cause harm to the populace. According to the convention combatants should respect places of worship whenever possible and avoid fighting/ambushing from the same. The insurgents violate these openly and daily so even if they were uniformed they are not observing it and therfore are not protected by it.

The list goes on but the most interesting bit of the convention is that a nation must have previously recognized said convention and undertaken something of an effort to obey it's rules in order to enjoy it's privelages wether in uniform or otherwise.

If we were to follow the convention to the letter we would execute virtually every insurgent we caught in Iraq as a criminal of some sort or another. You imply above that if we do not follow the convention to the letter we are terrorists. So, since we are not executing all of these men as spies, criminals, what-have-you....we are then terrorists? Nice logic Taranaki..lol

It is to our credit that we generally observe the convention in regard to fighting these gangsters even though the convention does not apply to them! And, the rock I crawled out from under would appear to have something yours does not...a copy of the Geneva convention....

So in summation, the U.S. has generally oberved the Geneva convention in a conflict with persons unprotected by the Geneva convention, but according to old Taro and those like him we are still violating it....and are terrorists because of it. And you wonder why we do not care what so many like you think.

[TRD2000]

beautiful. unfortunately only signiataries need to follow the convention. as the fighters in Iraq have not signed it they can fight from whatever mosques and churches they like and they can harm the civilian population. The US does even though they signed so why nobody else?

your not saying that because america signed it everyone has to follow it are you. oh dear.

the uniform thing has been discussed before. define a uniform. even without the uniform, enemy combatants are afforded some protections.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

beautiful. unfortunately only signiataries need to follow the convention. as the fighters in Iraq have not signed it they can fight from whatever mosques and churches they like and they can harm the civilian population. The US does even though they signed so why nobody else?

your not saying that because america signed it everyone has to follow it are you. oh dear.

the uniform thing has been discussed before. define a uniform. even without the uniform, enemy combatants are afforded some protections.

Um, do you even know what you just said? Forgive me my Farsi is a bit rusty. lol

I am glad to know that you have discussed the uniform issue before. Unfortunately it would appear you did not gather much from that conversation as the Convention expressly states that soldiers will not enter into combat dressed as the populace for a variety of reasons
including the danger this presents to the civilian populace. If you did discuss the uniform issue it was apparently without the aide of someone who had actually read it.

The only instance where it has been considered acceptable (and this is a grey area in itself) in the enforcement of the convention for soldiers to be out of uniform is if their uniform was somehow destroyed. Even then if you use this advantage to attempt to hide within the populace or ambush from the same you forfeit any consideration

If you want to delve into the pathetic liberal argument "that depends on what the definition of "is" is more power to you. Just do not expect it to pass anybody elses smell test.

However, should you actually bother to read the Convention it does not bind a country to its rules when fighting a foe that neither obeys or recognizes the Convention. In fact, if you are fighting an enemy that is fighting from religious places, etc. even if that nation is a signee that previously recognized the convention they forfeit their protection under the convention by violating it. Put simply, the convention implies that once a force openly violates and disregards the Convention the golves are off anyway. It is ridiculous (and blatantly untrue) to propose that the Convention requires a signee to observe the sanctity of a mosque while being attacked from it.

In conclusion, as I have said before, it is to America's credit that we generally obey the rules of the Convention against a foe that does not do the same and does not recognize and is therfore not protected by the Convention.