new wikileaks Report, Shock and Horror, u.s. troops assassinated children

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

So then, if an individual Iraqi kicks my door in and shoots at me, and is NOT acting on behalf of a nation, then my own state or national laws apply to the situation. If, however, he is acting on behalf of Iraq in an act of war, international law applies, since that takes the action to the level of a conflict between nations. This is why your analogy is flawed, and breaks completely down.


My analogy is not flawed.


In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.


The US illegally invaded and occupied a country.
Period.




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


A "false flag" is an extraordinarily broad and generalized term, which covers a great many potetential scenarios. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very, very specific, and so can be tested by the evidence presented. You contend below that it is based upon "precedent". I'm open to being educated in the matter, and so await your evidence that there is a precendent for the scenario you present: i.e. special "Black Ops" and/or "mercenary" groups are kidnapping kids and somehow convincing them to stand in traffic solely to be run over. That is a testable hypothesis - all you have to do is present the instances where that precedent has been set. So far, although claiming at one point that there is "precedent" for such action, and at another saying "I imagine" in relation to the scenario, no evidence to back the very specifically worded statement up has been presented whatsoever.

THAT is "how so no evidence".


Where is the evidence that parents are putting their kids in the streets to stop Americans conveys for EID attacks?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Moon tells me of a soldier in his tent who used to boast of swerving intentionally to hit the kids that rushed to pick the food tossed by patrol members and to run over the food so the kids couldn’t get it. “It was a game,” Moon said. “When the soldier who had thrown the food asked him why he had done it he said, ‘Yeah, I want to hit one of them. I want to kill one of those kids.’ ”



“An Iraqi was once selling soda out of a motorcycle to soldiers in a waiting convoy,” says Moon. “In the side-car was his seven-to-eight-year-old child. When the man refused to go away, the MP on patrol put him to the ground with a gun to his head and started stripping his vehicle and searching it. They then took the child, picked it up into the air, and threw it full force onto the ground. I didn’t see the child get up.”



Moon says soldiers devised cruel tricks to play on Iraqi kids. “Whenever we arrived in an area, we did so along with support vehicles with the radios, tractor trailers, bulldozers, and graters,” he says. “So we would park those in a circle with yellow police tape around. Iraqis had to stand outside that tape as we stood inside the tape, armed and ready. That was our little base of operations. Soldiers would place a $20 bill in the sand with a little bit showing and walk over to the other side of the vehicles and wait for a kid to charge under the tape to try to get the bill, which was equal to an average monthly salary there. If some kid was stupid enough to take the bait they would chase him, trying to hit him with the end of their bayonet or the butt of their rifle.”


Sounds like to me its the US Soldiers who have no respect for the kids in Iraq. Not the Iraqi people.



Anderson Cooper of CNN showed this video of snipers killing U.S. troops in Iraq on his October 18, 2006 show. CNN says it obtained the video from a "representative" of an unnamed "insurgent leader." Bear in mind that Anderson Cooper used to work for the CIA.


Richard Wilson's hypothesis: Israeli soldiers and/or Mossad agents are killing our soldiers in Iraq in order to enrage American troops so that the slaughter continues.

According to Richard Wilson, Israeli sniping and IEDs are false flag operations. He says that on March 28, 2005, Americans arrested 19 Mossad agents who fired twice on a US Marine checkpoint. The Marines beat up the Mossad agents and tore off their Star-of-David necklaces. (The US media incorrectly said the agents were Americans.) The Mossad agents said they were employees of Zapata Engineering, which helps the CIA conduct interrogations, and also manages US ammo dumps and US motor pools in Iraq.


IEDs in Iraq are powerful enough to flip over a 70-ton tank. Some of the models shoot depleted-uranium projectiles, and are triggered by electronic devices surreptitiously planted on US armored vehicles. Zapata Engineering (which employs Mossad agents) makes this exact kind of trigger, and oversees some of the US motor pools.


Rumsfeld says the IEDs come from Iran, but Richard says they come from Mossad, and are not "improvised" at all. The Israeli company, Rafael (see above), makes IEDS, which are buried in the middle of a road. Beside the road is a device which emits a laser or radio signal. This device is manufactured by firms like Zapata Engineering, which is controlled by Zionist Jews. The IED mine, manufactured by Israel, is inert until a US vehicle (secretly planted with a triggering device) rolls over it.


Whenever Mossad carries out these false-flag operations they produce a videotape or a recording from an "unnamed source" that is "close to al-Qaeda." Sometimes they say "the claim was posted on an Internet website, but its authenticity could not be verified."


www.progressive.org...
www.rense.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu


Laws come from legislation, not Ms Manners Big Book O' Morals. Therefore, THAT'S where I think laws come from. Furthermore, until they are made "law" via that codification by legislation, they are NOT law. "Morality" and "Law" are not the same thing - not even close. If you would rather society be ruled by "morals" than by "laws", which groups morals should we run it by?



Oh so only countries, or peoples, that use a legislative body can make laws.


No. Only legislative bodies themselves make up "laws". That's what the term "legislative" means. law-making. Neither the country nor the people have much to do with it. THEY don't make "law", the legislature does.



I guess you would say that the 10 commandments were not laws.


That is correct - they were not "laws", they were "commandments". That's probably why they were not called "The 10 Laws".



They were what, advice?


They were commandments. religious rules, formulated by a deity. They really have no bearing on this discussion, since they were not made by a legislative body, nor were they promoted by the UN, nor do they have anything to do with the conduct of war, nor are they international - i.e. between nations. They are religious in nature.



And I guess legislative bodies just make up laws, and they are not based on any moral or ethical situations of the people.


In most cases, that is entirely correct. Legislative bodies don't deal in morality. There is "right and wrong", and there is "legal and illegal", and these do not overlap to any significant degree.

In some cases, laws may be influenced by what is LOCALLY perceived to be "moral", but they do not dictate morality, nor does morality dictate law. Note the use of the term "locally". Sharia "law", influenced by islamic morality, is incompatible with US law, which, when influenced by morality at all, is influenced by US morality and custom, not the islamic version of what is "moral".

This is why international law cannot admit as much "moral" influence as national law. the various moralities involved are too diverse to be reconciled.

"Morality" has nothing at all to do with the Law of War. What is it about war you think is moral?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu

So then, if an individual Iraqi kicks my door in and shoots at me, and is NOT acting on behalf of a nation, then my own state or national laws apply to the situation. If, however, he is acting on behalf of Iraq in an act of war, international law applies, since that takes the action to the level of a conflict between nations. This is why your analogy is flawed, and breaks completely down.


My analogy is not flawed.


In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.


The US illegally invaded and occupied a country.
Period.



I'm still waiting on you to cite a LAW that makes the invasion "illegal". Is there any danger of that happening any time soon? What you cite here is not "law", it's a legal opinion, apparently pronounced by someone ashamed to attach their name to it. Further, that opinion itself pronounced the invasion legal - it was sanctioned by the UN.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu


A "false flag" is an extraordinarily broad and generalized term, which covers a great many potetential scenarios. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very, very specific, and so can be tested by the evidence presented. You contend below that it is based upon "precedent". I'm open to being educated in the matter, and so await your evidence that there is a precendent for the scenario you present: i.e. special "Black Ops" and/or "mercenary" groups are kidnapping kids and somehow convincing them to stand in traffic solely to be run over. That is a testable hypothesis - all you have to do is present the instances where that precedent has been set. So far, although claiming at one point that there is "precedent" for such action, and at another saying "I imagine" in relation to the scenario, no evidence to back the very specifically worded statement up has been presented whatsoever.

THAT is "how so no evidence".


Where is the evidence that parents are putting their kids in the streets to stop Americans conveys for EID attacks?


1) Occam's razor. The children are there, their parents are there, and the attacks are there. So far, no evidence has been presented for a "false flag" (my god how that phrase is abused and over-used!) to show any "kidnappings" by "Black Ops" or "mercenaries". I have been a "mercenary", and can tell you that we never had time to waste on kidnapping kids to promote elaborate, secret plots that had no end purpose, other than to kill our own people and thereby make us LESS secure. We had no logical reason whatsoever to kill off our own people, who were guarding OUR OWN backs.

2) Precedent. This sort of thing has been going on forever. Good examples of the tactic have been presented in this very thread from the Vietnam war. I personally have seen 10 year olds carrying arms through the jungle in a war. Further, and more specifically, look to the Palestinians who train their children from the ground up to be "martyrs", and you will see a cultural propensity to use that very tactic.

BTW, It's IED attacks, not EID attacks. An "IED" is an "improvised explosive device". Eid is short for "Eid al Fitr", the islamic celebration of the end of Ramadan.







edit on 2011/9/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
49
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join