Wallaby Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 i wouldn't care if they were a dozen convicted murderers, as long as they are killing the enemy "The Dirty Dozen" (1967) A US Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission of German officers in World War II. War Crime! They killed not only the German officers, but their wives and girlfriends too. A nasty death - soaked with gasoline and having grenades dropped on them. I wonder if they would make a movie like that today? I didn't think The Dirty Dozen was a true story - surely a work of fiction is not being used to justify what these idiots did??? In his fantasy land I'm sure he thinks its all true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 We'll leave the movie reviews to Ebert and continue with the topic of the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) i wouldn't care if they were a dozen convicted murderers, as long as they are killing the enemy "The Dirty Dozen" (1967) A US Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission of German officers in World War II. War Crime! They killed not only the German officers, but their wives and girlfriends too. A nasty death - soaked with gasoline and having grenades dropped on them. I wonder if they would make a movie like that today? in a fight to the death in which the enemy has already ignored your beloved geneva convention and are slaughtering men women and children, it is better to win, than to sit in the enemies death camp and you and your family's only comfort is your moral indignation, good one the greater crime is to lose the war to such totalitarian thugs, as was cited in ww2 jaywalking to save the world may be a crime, but it is something that can be tolerated over the loss of the world to totalitarian thugs but you knew that already Just a couple of quick questions that I'm sure you won't answer, as usual. How does pissing on a dead body help you to win a war? Are you saying there should be no Geneva Convention? No rules of engagement? No code of honor? I won't hold my breath waiting for any enlightened response. the geneva conventions only apply when both sides are signatories to it, of which the taliban are not "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions." of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc Edited January 18, 2012 by wxyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Just a couple of quick questions that I'm sure you won't answer, as usual. How does pissing on a dead body help you to win a war? Are you saying there should be no Geneva Convention? No rules of engagement? No code of honor? I won't hold my breath waiting for any enlightened response. I don't think you would survive Because movies aside the reality is often not as depicted. As for disregard for the Geneva convention most citizens of the USA are more than upset with its Military Industrial Complex ignoring it. After all names like ... Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay are synonymous with being anti Geneva Convention Regardless of signatories...common sense & basic humanity should prevail in a so called modern society Many are disgusted with the weak excuse that the current enemy that has been fought for over a decade now is instead termed enemy combatants so the the Geneva Convention can be (so-called legally) sidestepped All based on a silly notion that this enemy does not wear/afford a proper uniform so the Geneva Convention does not pertain to them. Nor does it protect them from torture...even if they are just *suspected* to be enemy combatants Yet we (USA) hung Japanese prisoners of war convicted of using waterboarding on American prisoners.... Yet we now use waterboarding ourselves....again on *suspects* as well as claimed/known terrorist. a slippery slope for sure & one that the majority of American citizens do not agree with As for "slaughtering men women and children" Again some should check that they are not in fact describing the team they think they root for. Because the numbers of dead in Iraq is now close to 1.5 million this is the Iraqi dead not the invasion forces which stands at less than 5000 all according to justforeignpolicy.org iraqbodycount.org puts it much lower at 114,000 dead civilians I would guess the number may be somewhere in between In any case............... Makes one wonder then eh? Was there that many terrorist? Or perhaps some innocent men, women & children in that number? Of course there was/is So as to who is the totalitarian thugs it is sometimes not as easy as comparing to a Hollywood movie. Edited January 18, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) i wouldn't care if they were a dozen convicted murderers, as long as they are killing the enemy "The Dirty Dozen" (1967) A US Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission of German officers in World War II. War Crime! They killed not only the German officers, but their wives and girlfriends too. A nasty death - soaked with gasoline and having grenades dropped on them. I wonder if they would make a movie like that today? I didn't think The Dirty Dozen was a true story - surely a work of fiction is not being used to justify what these idiots did??? In his fantasy land I'm sure he thinks its all true. and where did i even infer it was a true story? i was merely making a point, that is obviously over your head btw "Jack Agnew, member of the real 'Dirty Dozen,' dies at 88" http://www.macombdai...00008026940.txt "The Filthy Thirteen: The True Story of the Dirty Dozen" http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1932033122 Edited January 18, 2012 by wxyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So as to who is the totalitarian thugs it is sometimes not as easy as comparing to a Hollywood movie. way easier than you seem to be equivocating about are you implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter, an obviously unsubstantiated number, 1.5 million iraqis? you have proof of this? didn't think so why would they stop at only 1.5 million? why not all the iraqis? you have proof that coalition troops were suicide murderers, blowing themselves up while yelling allah akbar? didn't think so you have proof that coalition troops are still in iraq slaughtering iraqis as is currently happening now? didn't think so nice conspiracy try, but it fails on so many levels, the perps were muslims killing muslims, what ever the true number is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) way easier than you seem to be equivocating about are you implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter, an obviously unsubstantiated number, 1.5 million iraqis? you have proof of this? didn't think so Start with the links provided in the post you replied to then use that wonderful tool called google In it type Iraqi deaths due to Iraq war Let me help with just one more http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/ As for the 1.5 million......... Also comprehend the last post before typing........... In it was 2 numbers given to which I gave an opinion saying I would guess that the truth probably lay somewhere in between after that you might take a peek at Afghanistan & Pakistan Edited January 18, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 An off-topic post has been deleted. There are a number of posts which are moving off-topic, so if you wish for the thread to continue, stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just waiting for the F Troop to be quoted next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludditeman Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 in a fight to the death in which the enemy has already ignored your beloved geneva convention and are slaughtering men women and children, The Geneva Convention is a gentlemans agreement between signatory countries. Freedom fighters and terrorists are not invited to be parties to that agreement. Soldiers working for the US government and NATO are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparebox2 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It mean new meaning to Baptism for the dead en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 the geneva conventions only apply when both sides are signatories to it, of which the taliban are not "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions." of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc Of course. Terrorists will not sign the Geneva Convention and are not protected by it. They do not wear uniforms and should be executed as spies rather than enjoying the luxurious comforts of Guantanamo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This post has been set visible after a request from the poster: Please stay on the topic of the thread. It is starting to veer too far off course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) i wouldn't care if they were a dozen convicted murderers, as long as they are killing the enemy "The Dirty Dozen" (1967) A US Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission of German officers in World War II. War Crime! They killed not only the German officers, but their wives and girlfriends too. A nasty death - soaked with gasoline and having grenades dropped on them. I wonder if they would make a movie like that today? in a fight to the death in which the enemy has already ignored your beloved geneva convention and are slaughtering men women and children, it is better to win, than to sit in the enemies death camp and you and your family's only comfort is your moral indignation, good one the greater crime is to lose the war to such totalitarian thugs, as was cited in ww2 jaywalking to save the world may be a crime, but it is something that can be tolerated over the loss of the world to totalitarian thugs but you knew that already Of course I did. I just pointed out that what was acceptable (at least to the movie audience) 40-50 years ago would be thought of as a war crime by some today. It was a great action flick all the same. A lot of things done in war are nasty. Nasty things have happened and always will happen. Not excusing it, just saying it is a fact of war. The diff today is that in the past soldiers weren't carrying around little video cameras that would lead to those nasty things being shown to both friend and foe across the globe. Cameras should either be off limits, restricted or the soldiers taught some more common sense. Edited January 18, 2012 by koheesti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 As for disregard for the Geneva convention most citizens of the USA are more than upset with its Military Industrial Complex ignoring it. What? So manufacturers of military equipment and hardware are ignoring the Geneva Conventions? How so? Their part of the MIC is to make things, they have no say in how the things are used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 way easier than you seem to be equivocating about are you implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter, an obviously unsubstantiated number, 1.5 million iraqis? you have proof of this? didn't think so Start with the links provided in the post you replied to then use that wonderful tool called google In it type Iraqi deaths due to Iraq war Let me help with just one more http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/ As for the 1.5 million......... Also comprehend the last post before typing........... In it was 2 numbers given to which I gave an opinion saying I would guess that the truth probably lay somewhere in between after that you might take a peek at Afghanistan & Pakistan i know you included that caveat and had you not included this link "iraqbodycount.org" i would have the precise actual number is not important, implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqi citizens is important implying that all the deaths by muslim suicide murderers of iraqis were done by coalition troops is fantasy none of your links shows that coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqis it is highly doubtful, the coalition troops would have trained iraqi police and military units to take charge, had they been ordered to just kill them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 in a fight to the death in which the enemy has already ignored your beloved geneva convention and are slaughtering men women and children, The Geneva Convention is a gentlemans agreement between signatory countries. Freedom fighters and terrorists are not invited to be parties to that agreement. Soldiers working for the US government and NATO are. "Soldiers working for the US government and NATO are" only when they are fighting other signatories to it. the geneva conventions only apply when both sides are signatories to it, of which the taliban are not "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions." of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 i wouldn't care if they were a dozen convicted murderers, as long as they are killing the enemy "The Dirty Dozen" (1967) A US Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission of German officers in World War II. War Crime! They killed not only the German officers, but their wives and girlfriends too. A nasty death - soaked with gasoline and having grenades dropped on them. I wonder if they would make a movie like that today? in a fight to the death in which the enemy has already ignored your beloved geneva convention and are slaughtering men women and children, it is better to win, than to sit in the enemies death camp and you and your family's only comfort is your moral indignation, good one the greater crime is to lose the war to such totalitarian thugs, as was cited in ww2 jaywalking to save the world may be a crime, but it is something that can be tolerated over the loss of the world to totalitarian thugs but you knew that already Of course I did. I just pointed out that what was acceptable (at least to the movie audience) 40-50 years ago would be thought of as a war crime by some today. It was a great action flick all the same. A lot of things done in war are nasty. Nasty things have happened and always will happen. Not excusing it, just saying it is a fact of war. The diff today is that in the past soldiers weren't carrying around little video cameras that would lead to those nasty things being shown to both friend and foe across the globe. Cameras should either be off limits, restricted or the soldiers taught some more common sense. true, but it was also a war crime during WW2, but the bigger crime would be to lose to the nazi totalitarian war criminals when the usa entered the war, the british were already bombing cities, not military targets, a war crime? the nazi was doing it to them, when the other side is not following the geneva convention contract, that contract is no longer valid the usa refused and would only bomb military targets, the usa eventually came around to doing city bombings as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 way easier than you seem to be equivocating about are you implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter, an obviously unsubstantiated number, 1.5 million iraqis? you have proof of this? didn't think so Start with the links provided in the post you replied to then use that wonderful tool called google In it type Iraqi deaths due to Iraq war Let me help with just one more http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/ As for the 1.5 million......... Also comprehend the last post before typing........... In it was 2 numbers given to which I gave an opinion saying I would guess that the truth probably lay somewhere in between after that you might take a peek at Afghanistan & Pakistan i know you included that caveat and had you not included this link "iraqbodycount.org" i would have the precise actual number is not important, implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqi citizens is important implying that all the deaths by muslim suicide murderers of iraqis were done by coalition troops is fantasy none of your links shows that coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqis it is highly doubtful, the coalition troops would have trained iraqi police and military units to take charge, had they been ordered to just kill them It's widely accepted that since 2005 well over 90% of deaths in Iraq were at the hand of Iraqis and foreign insurgents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 true, but it was also a war crime during WW2, but the bigger crime would be to lose to the nazi totalitarian war criminals when the usa entered the war, the british were already bombing cities, not military targets, a war crime? the nazi was doing it to them, when the other side is not following the geneva convention contract, that contract is no longer valid the usa refused and would only bomb military targets, the usa eventually came around to doing city bombings as well Factory workers who were keeping the Nazis supplied with weapons lived in the cities. They were legit targets. Also, back in those days you won a war by making the other side give up. That never would have happened if they had today's sensibilities of trying to avoid collateral damage. I remember reading somewhere that during the D-Day operation in 1944 around 15,000 French civilians were killed. I'm not sure if anyone made a big deal of it back then or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 way easier than you seem to be equivocating about are you implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter, an obviously unsubstantiated number, 1.5 million iraqis? you have proof of this? didn't think so Start with the links provided in the post you replied to then use that wonderful tool called google In it type Iraqi deaths due to Iraq war Let me help with just one more http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/ As for the 1.5 million......... Also comprehend the last post before typing........... In it was 2 numbers given to which I gave an opinion saying I would guess that the truth probably lay somewhere in between after that you might take a peek at Afghanistan & Pakistan i know you included that caveat and had you not included this link "iraqbodycount.org" i would have the precise actual number is not important, implying that the coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqi citizens is important implying that all the deaths by muslim suicide murderers of iraqis were done by coalition troops is fantasy none of your links shows that coalition troops were ordered to slaughter iraqis it is highly doubtful, the coalition troops would have trained iraqi police and military units to take charge, had they been ordered to just kill them It's widely accepted that since 2005 well over 90% of deaths in Iraq were at the hand of Iraqis and foreign insurgents. i ask out of ignorance and not as an argument - where is this widely accepted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) In keeping with Scott's instructions to stay on topic I will not make any further replies to the off topic direction this thread has taken. But I will state one final opinion to those who replied to my reply. In regards to the Geneva Convention..... This article was founded & based on humanitarianism & morals. For any signatory to ignore basic principles set forth within because the other side happens to not be a properly organized army but instead a force defending *their* lands/resources/ways of life ......Even if those ways are not our own...Or against what we deem right....Is what I call situational ethics/morals When one does not believe in torture etc. it is not a belief that can or should be turned off & on depending on the situation period. Either you have such morals or you don't. As for body counts + causes/reasons the information is there for those who care to look. As I said last post on this side section we drifted into. Do not think me rude ... Off Topic Replies will not be answered in keeping with Scott's instruction to stay on topic. Thanks Edited January 18, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxyz Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) "Either you have such morals or you don't." tell it to the totalitarian theocracy, that are targeting civilians globally, as they did in iraq Edited January 18, 2012 by wxyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 the geneva conventions only apply when both sides are signatories to it, of which the taliban are not "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions." of which the taliban has not, nor has al qaeda, nor has hezbullah, nor has hamas, etc etc etc Of course. Terrorists will not sign the Geneva Convention and are not protected by it. They do not wear uniforms and should be executed as spies rather than enjoying the luxurious comforts of Guantanamo. Can you be arrested for spying in your own country for your own country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 An off-topic post has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Can you be arrested for spying in your own country for your own country? Yes, but the Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country. They are spying and commiting terrorists acts for the Taliban who have no protections under the Conventions anyway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Can you be arrested for spying in your own country for your own country? Yes, but the Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country. They are spying and commiting terrorists acts for the Taliban who have no protections under the Conventions anyway.. Of course they have protections, everyone in war has protections. Just because the US has decided that they want to disregard those protections doesn't mean they don't exist. Taliban fighting an invading force are not terrorists, unless of course you label the French Resistance as terrorists as well. Aren't the coalition forces trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, we all know that the war is unwinnable anyway. Some on here like the use of drones and say that some collateral damage is acceptable. Why is that not also the case for Taliban, why can't they blow things up hoping to kill value targets and if some others are killed whilst doing it then that is just acceptable collateral damage. If you accept one side doing it you must accept the other side doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions. Edited January 19, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions. A point you would do well to remember. If the Taliban are not spying for their own country then who are they spying for? You say they should be treated as spies......for who? The Taliban are protected under the Geneva Convention, it is just that the US won't recognise it, every other country does. The US has only used semantics to get around doing the right thing. That doesn't make it right. Just because you think you can do something doesn't mean that you should. The US has sidestepped it's responsibility and has no moral ground to stand on when the Taliban does the same thing. What is good enough for the US to do is good enough for the Taliban to do. Can't go sooking when US soldiers are treated horribly. What makes you think that those urinated on were terrorists? I haven't seen any proof of that so you are right, biased opinions are not facts. Or are all Taliban terrorists, just like all US soldiers are torturers and murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Sorry, but biased opinions are not facts no matter how many times they are repeated. The Taliban terrorists are not "spying for their own country" which is lead by Hamid Karzai. They are committing terrorists acts for the Taliban who are unlawful combatants that have no protections under the Geneva conventions. Prisoners of war have rights under the convention. Why would the military be so keen to make sure they act within the convention if they weren't protected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts