Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by diamount
Using the OP's logic, let's charge all surviivng WW2 resitance fighters for having the balls to fight against a brutal occupation.

So you think that insurgents in Iraq are "resistant fighters"?

Tell me, when one of these "resistance fighters" blow up a marketplace with women and children, how is that "freeing your country from oppression"?

The OP is about an insurgent that shot two American soldiers. Not a guy that blew up a marketplace. If they had released a guy that blew up a marketplace, the reactions would have been different.

Don´t add things that are irrelevant in this case.

An American insurgent sniper who killed (hypothetical) invaders would probably be honoured as a war hero in...America. The (hypothetical) invader would probably jail him though.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
The OP is about an insurgent that shot two American soldiers. Not a guy that blew up a marketplace. If they had released a guy that blew up a marketplace, the reactions would have been different.

Don´t add things that are irrelevant in this case.

Hmmmm....the individual I was quoting was the one bringing up WW2 resistance fighters. I guess that was someone relevant in your eyes, huh?

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
The OP is about an insurgent that shot two American soldiers. Not a guy that blew up a marketplace. If they had released a guy that blew up a marketplace, the reactions would have been different.

Don´t add things that are irrelevant in this case.

Hmmmm....the individual I was quoting was the one bringing up WW2 resistance fighters. I guess that was someone relevant in your eyes, huh?

As a matter of fact it is. WW2 resistance fighters were also fighting the invader, just like the guy that was released.

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
As a matter of fact it is. WW2 resistance fighters were also fighting the invader, just like the guy that was released.

Sorry, Homeslice, but comparing insurgents to WW2 resistance fighters is nonsense.

As Signal2noise said, how is a "resistance fighter" killing his own people "freeing them"? Because that seems to be what most of the insurgents enjoy doing; blowing up their own civilians rather than fighting the US military.

Originally posted by David291
I know what we could do, I suppose we could count the number of deaths from terrorist attacks around the world and then compare it to the amount of people dead by US/UK hands in all the countries we are currently in.

Which would out weigh the other I wonder?

Edit to add: By that I am not saying it's ok to let terrorist attacks continue, by that I'm saying the way our goverments are dealing with it, is completely wrong.

edit on 24/8/11 by David291 because: (no reason given)

Terrorist attacks have killed thousands of people in the last few years. American forces have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq alone in the same period.

Originally posted by RedGod
When did anyone say this sniper blew up anybody? He killed two invaders. Just because some set off bombs in crowded areas, doesn't mean all (or even most) do.

Keep that line of thinking in mind next time someone starts painting the entire US Military with a broad brush.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
At least we take prisoners and give them fair trial. They don't take prisoners or if they do, they'll kill them without hesitation.

Well regardless of the perceptions on what the other side may or may not do to POW's,we are signatories of and bound by the Geneva convention,though in certain combat situations it can take all ones willpower to exercise restraint when dealing with captured enemy combatants,however,we are only taking one more step towards the abyss
if we don't apply the conditions of the appropriate treaty/convention in these circumstances.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
It's horrible that those young men were killed, but it's war. American soldiers are not being imprisoned for killing Iraqis.

ETA: Though I have to say, I think the second killing of the soldier rescuing his buddy may have been a war crime, but I'm not expert.

It's not a war crime. It's actually just frowned upon to target a medical unit in the field. This was a custom that started in the first world war when medics would need to go into no mans land to recover bodies and victims. Snipers wouldn't target medics as they worked on or removed bodies.


But if the sniper was shooting from a civilian building wearing civilian cloths, that'd be considered a war crime..... Check on the Geneva conventions for more information.

Originally posted by LibertarianExpress
It's not a war crime. It's actually just frowned upon to target a medical unit in the field. This was a custom that started in the first world war when medics would need to go into no mans land to recover bodies and victims. Snipers wouldn't target medics as they worked on or removed bodies.


But if the sniper was shooting from a civilian building wearing civilian cloths, that'd be considered a war crime..... Check on the Geneva conventions for more information.

It's against the Geneva Conventions to fire on anyone wearing a Red Cross, Cresent, or Red Lion.