RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

slaveboyforyou -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:09:00 AM)

quote:

That is an outrage,let the invasions start.

Let`s toss the Geneva Convention,Constitution,our good judgment out,while we torture guys into saying what we want,while we`re at it.


C`mon slaveboy.You know this looks bad and why.It`s not you(or me) that matters though.It`s how they (our hosts)view this,that matters.


I know it looks bad owner, but read the articles.  The Iraqis are saying he should "get the most severe" punishment possible, and for what?  For shooting a book. He's a young guy for fuck's sake, and they want to ruin his life for making a bad joke.  He fucked up, but I don't think there is any danger of there being a shortage of Qurans.  I frankly get a little sick of getting tolerance lessons from people that believe homosexuality and adultury warrants the death penalty. 



Justme696 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:11:19 AM)

agree.... we don't need lecturing from those . But I guess our great white leaders...kneel for oil ;)



Justme696 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:13:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Quoi [:-]?

reallyyy..is true is true..they didn't tell you?



popeye1250 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:13:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Depends which treaty you're talking about. The fourth Geneva Convention states:

quote:



Part I. General Provisions
This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:
  • Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.





Kittin, and there-in lies the problem, al qeada and the other terrorists are not "signatories" to it.
It's not a one way street.
You have to be a "signatory" to it to "benefit" from it.
That's the incentive.
The "carrot and the stick."



kittinSol -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:16:58 AM)

There was no Al Quaida in Iraq. What are you talking about? The treaty I mentioned is the IV GC - which concerns the rights of civilians under occupation by a foreign power. 

Couldn't be more fitting than this.

PS: and by the way, Iraq is a signatory of these treaties (ratified: 1956). As are the United States, of course (ratified: 1955). But let's not a contract be binding.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P



Justme696 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:18:32 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

the Iraq branch of El thingy was formed in 2003
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda_in_iraq.htm



calamitysandra -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:22:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

And there lies the problem.


How is that a problem?  He didn't rape anyone, he didn't murder anyone.  He didn't seize the book from some Iraqi than play keep away with it before shooting it.  He shot a copy of the Quran.  Like I said, not too bright and he deserved an ass chewing over it.  But a court martial?  Give me a fucking break. 


I meant that the problem lies in what you assumed about this guy. If he really is like you think he is,

quote:


...probably 19-23 years old, and I don't expect guys that age to make the wisest decisions with their idle time.  I especially don't expect them to be the most sensitive people...


should he be over there, wielding a gun?



LadyEllen -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:23:19 AM)

Ah, but Kittin - the state of Iraq which may have signed the Convention, ended when the occupation started - at the defeat and disincorporation of that state.

Its the same kind of legal thinking that says that torture is permissible, since torture is not a punishment and so not forbidden by the US Constitution.

Laws, Conventions, Agreements and so on are rarely interpreted to be more than what suits at the time. And that sort of pragmatism requires the wholesale discarding of any claim to a moral high ground.

E




popeye1250 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:23:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

There was no Al Quaida in Iraq. What are you talking about? The treaty I mentioned is the IV GC - which concerns the rights of civilians under occupation by a foreign power. 

Couldn't be more fitting than this.


Of course there is al qeada in Iraq.
Also "foreigners" from Iran, Syria and other countries! Quite a few from Suadi-Arabia on a "ji-had holiday."
Bush said two years ago that we need to secure Iraq's borders! lol
Meanwhile in his ***OWN*** country.....



kittinSol -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:25:02 AM)

Call me naive, but I believe in respecting international treaties.



calamitysandra -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:26:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Depends which treaty you're talking about. The fourth Geneva Convention states:

quote:



Part I. General Provisions
This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:
  • Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.






Kittin, and there-in lies the problem, al qeada and the other terrorists are not "signatories" to it.
It's not a one way street.
You have to be a "signatory" to it to "benefit" from it.
That's the incentive.
The "carrot and the stick."


And were, please point it out to me, does it state that? It says that you have to abide by the rules if you are a signatory. It does not state anywhere, that the other party has to be a signtory too, for the convention to apply.
Signatorys are bound, not signatories are bound if.



LadyEllen -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:28:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Call me naive, but I believe in respecting international treaties.


and so do our glorious leaders. But they believe far more in respecting how they might interpret such treaties for advantage.

And we also have to factor in, that every last letter of such treaties is enforceable only by violence, and he who has the greatest capacity for violence is therefore also the one whose interpretation will carry.

For right or for wrong.

E



kittinSol -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:28:59 AM)

The link you attached shows that the 'Iraqi' operation was actually based in Egypt in 2003. Let's be serious here, please [:D] : Al Quaida was absent from Iraq until the Americans arrived. It is a by-product of American policy.



Justme696 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:31:19 AM)

quote:

Ah, but Kittin - the state of Iraq which may have signed the Convention, ended when the occupation started - at the defeat and disincorporation of that state.


lol so if you conquer a country..all rules disappear? Well then we have no problems in Iraq anymore ;) we can all do what we want...and next week we go home

ok..that seriouly again. The one occupying Iraq signed the treaty too..so it counts. Besides that the US is a member of the security council. I suspect they have an example function in the world. (lots of guessing with Mr Bush leadin)
(although they have a rule in the US that the can invade The Netherlands when we arrest US war criminals to court......funny)



kittinSol -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:32:15 AM)

It looks as though you believe in nothing, LadyE. Please tell me you're not that cynical? I stick to my guns (haha!) : human rights rock my boat more than war and the murder of civilians.



slaveboyforyou -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:33:36 AM)

quote:

I meant that the problem lies in what you assumed about this guy. If he really is like you think he is,


I assume this because of what I read.  He's a staff Seargent, which is an E-6.  He's a sniper, so I imagine he's in a combat arms unit.  If he joined when he was 18 or 19, it shouldn't have been hard for him to make E-6 in a short time span in combat. 

quote:

should he be over there, wielding a gun? 


I didn't say he was stupid.  I said he did something stupid.  You never did anything stupid before?  People do things like this when they are in stressful situations.  My father told me a story about Vietnam once.  They had these annoying monkies over there that would steal things and jump out of trees and attack people.  So it was not uncommon for soldiers to open up and completely destroy a tree these monkeys were in.  Shit like that happens in war.  As long as it's not criminal behavior, I really don't care.  It's not a big deal, and could have been handled quietly without all of this controversy. 



Justme696 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:34:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The link you attached shows that the 'Iraqi' operation was actually based in Egypt in 2003. Let's be serious here, please [:D] : Al Quaida was absent from Iraq until the Americans arrived. It is a by-product of American policy.


you had to read all ;)
yes there origin of their leaders is from several countries. And I agree with you..before the war they were hardly mentioned beeing from Iraq or beeing involved.
But that will be the next step of our sight seeing trip...Iran



kittinSol -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:35:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

There was no Al Quaida in Iraq.



Of course there is al qeada in Iraq.



It's amazing the difference a little tense will make :-) .



LadyEllen -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:35:37 AM)

I'm saying Justme, that we can puff and blow and stamp our feet all we want and it will be to no avail whatever.

All of these rules, laws and regulations, agreements and treaties, conventions and so on are regularly interpreted to be whatever those in power wish them to be for their ends. We've seen it time and again - and it will ever be the same.

"Might maketh Right"

E



popeye1250 -> RE: US soldier shoots at Quran for target practice (5/20/2008 8:37:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Call me naive, but I believe in respecting international treaties.


Well that's nice to know but a lot of people don't.
You can't go into wars, military actions, with your hands tied behind your back while the other guy doesn't have any restrictions.
And what ever happend to "shoot on site" for al qeada?
Now they,...."arrest"....them?
You can't ever let those people go.
When they get done questioning them they should be executed.
I don't agree with "International" treaties.
Look at that standing joke called the "U.N."
Look at NATO, it should have been disbanded 15 years ago.
When it's time to get out of these things there's always some type of "problem."
The State Dept never met a "treaty", "deal" or "organisation" that they didn't like!



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125