U.S. launches probe into video of U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses

[Wallaby]

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.

[Scott]

We'll leave the movie reviews to Ebert and continue with the topic of the OP.

[wxyz]

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

[flying]

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

[wxyz]

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

[wxyz]

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

[flying]

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

[Scott]

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.

[Wallaby]

Just waiting for the F Troop to be quoted next.

[ludditeman]

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.

[sparebox2]

It mean new meaning to Baptism for the dead

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

[Ulysses G.]

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.

[Scott]

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.

[koheesti]

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

[koheesti]

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.

[wxyz]

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

[wxyz]

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

[wxyz]

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

[koheesti]

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.

[koheesti]

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.

[nurofiend]

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?

[flying]

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

[wxyz]

"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

[Wallaby]

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?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Ulysses G.]

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..

[Wallaby]

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.

[Ulysses G.]

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.

[Wallaby]

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.

[Wallaby]

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?