It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Cross : Americans must comply with intl humanitarian law

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
This statement--"if shooting unarmed people is what you lot get kicks out of what are we to argue"

is that of a demonic mind, a predatory animal.

Please reconsider [what you sound like].






posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

you really do like twisting things dont you?



Well I just dont have any innocent unarmed people to shoot today and have some time on my hands...LOL




firstly how do you know all wounded are booby traped

or is it kill them first and if then think later?


All of them are not booby trapped thats what makes it fun, but of course if you choose the wrong one than they send you home in a bag, but that doesnt matter, right, as long as some poor scared kid doesnt pull the trigger to soon.



also as showed on some tapes shooting people in the head point blank isnt classed as self deffence as some US forces do ( which is against international laws )


if they dont like us shooting there wounded THAN DONT BOOBY TRAP THEM

Has it occured to any of you that they might be delibertly doing this to make there people fight to the death? But that doesnt matter, right, as long as the insurgents dont share ANY OF THE BLAME. It doesnt matter how many Americans get blown up as long as no terrorist is unjustly harmed

Just on the news a moment ago they found 9 Iraqi prisoners shot in the back of the head, but the insurgents done it so its OK, right.



( i could put both some of the US forces and the rebels in one cat )


Why you would want to put them in a cat is beyond me but go ahead




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
We shouldn't even be there anymore.


I dont think we should have been there to begin with but at this point the question is mote. We are already there and to pull out now would result in a bloodbath worse than we have now. We started this and now have to finish it.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Saerlaith
We shouldn't even be there anymore.


I dont think we should have been there to begin with but at this point the question is mote. We are already there and to pull out now would result in a bloodbath worse than we have now. We started this and now have to finish it.


Like I said, shouldn't we be finishing it by rebuilding the country like we said we would? As for bloodbath, what do you mean? Seems like we are participating in one right now. Do you think maybe if the US just stopped, announced a pull back and brought in negotiators, maybe the Iraqis would stop and try to pull together what's left of their country.

Why does finishing it mean keep on killing to you? That sounds like a war-mongering sound bite from Bush & Co. not a statement regarding the necessity of ending bloodshed. The way too many americans think about finishing anything is with a bullet or a bomb. All hopped up for the Iran invasion, aren't we?


We started this and now have to finish it.


That is moronic. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time to try something new.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
As for bloodbath, what do you mean? Seems like we are participating in one right now. Do you think maybe if the US just stopped, announced a pull back and brought in negotiators, maybe the Iraqis would stop and try to pull together what's left of their country.


If it was just Iraqis they might do it but it is not, like it or not if we pulled out now the country wont go skipping hand in hand into the sunset remember the bloodbath after the LAST gulf war?


Why does finishing it mean keep on killing to you? That sounds like a war-mongering sound bite from Bush & Co. not a statement regarding the necessity of ending bloodshed. The way too many americans think about finishing anything is with a bullet or a bomb. All hopped up for the Iran invasion, aren't we?


You can read right? I stated in the FIRST sentence I was against going into Iraq so trying to label me as a Bush worshiper wont work.




We started this and now have to finish it.


That is moronic. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time to try something new.

--Saerlaith



So know we are name calling? well your mama wears army boots


Now we are even, do you think you can do without the name calling next time Insanity would be pulling out now you know like we did the LAST time and hundreds of thousands of kurds were slaughtered? would you like to see it repeated? Or maybe they will all get togather for a huge group hug aftewr all EVERYONE knows there was NEVER a war or any type of bloodshed till we invaded.

Why dont you pick up a history book instead of getting your history from a Mike Moore film



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk


( i could put both some of the US forces and the rebels in one cat )


Why you would want to put them in a cat is beyond me but go ahead



i just didnt bother to type in the whole word smart ass as* ( catogrey )

[edit on 21-11-2004 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
[i just didnt bother to type in the whole word smart ass as* ( catogrey )


Another name caller

yall done hurt my feelings



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Some discussions are more informative than others. I'm still wondering how the Red Cross is going to enforce this, when obviously our soldiers feel as if they are under siege by even women and children because they ARE even under siege by women and children.

They've been killing too many people, apparently, for those people to placidly accept and give thanks for.

So, the Red Cross does what--shake its finger at them?

How do you "finish a war"--kill EVERYBODY? Is that the natural end of it?

[Looney looney looney.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by bodrul
[i just didnt bother to type in the whole word smart ass as* ( catogrey )


Another name caller

yall done hurt my feelings


hows that name calling?
didnt know calling someone smart as* is name calling



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
hows that name calling?
didn't know calling someone smart as* is name calling


Its name calling if you make me cry
But what should anyone expect from someone that tries to make heroes out of people who videotape there heroic murders of unarmed civilians so they can watch it over and over like some kinda serial killer
and you misspelled category


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
and people can call me all the names they want, I'm still NOT going to participate in genocide.

I'm not going to rationalize it; I'm not going to justify it; and I'm not going to give ONE SCINTILLA OF RESPECT to anybody who does.

And that's final.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
I'm not going to justify it;And that's final.


Neither am I.

If he KNOWINGLY shot an unarmed harmless insurgent that had SURRENDERED than it was wrong, that is what investigations are for. What makes me mad is the people here that refuse to even give him the benefit of the doubt pending the outcome of an investigation but will bend over back words to excuse the beheading of non-combatants and the executions of prisioners by the insurgents. Not to even Mention the Booby trapping of their OWN WOUNDED which causes things like shooting the wounded



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
and people can call me all the names they want, I'm still NOT going to participate in genocide.

And that's final.


Amen to that, sister I agree with you.

US can not take over Iraq by itself, we need international help, or our troops will be relegated to civilian killers and target practice by Insurgents groups.

We will be known by the "nation that invaded and decimated the same people we were to liberated"

Pity.


dh

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


US can not take over Iraq by itself, we need international help, or our troops will be relegated to civilian killers and target practice by Insurgents groups.

We will be known by the "nation that invaded and decimated the same people we were to liberated"

Pity.

The US has no need to take over Iraq by itself, no need for international help.
Just to get out of there and pay suitable reparations for the damage they've caused. If that's the way things were - a couple of Billlion of Carlysle dosh would put them on the road to recovery - if that's the way things were
Of course it's not



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by marg6043


US can not take over Iraq by itself, we need international help, or our troops will be relegated to civilian killers and target practice by Insurgents groups.

We will be known by the "nation that invaded and decimated the same people we were to liberated"

Pity.

The US has no need to take over Iraq by itself, no need for international help.
Just to get out of there and pay suitable reparations for the damage they've caused. If that's the way things were - a couple of Billlion of Carlysle dosh would put them on the road to recovery - if that's the way things were
Of course it's not


A ma'am! Get the troops out and get help in. If the US had really meant to liberate anyone, that is. Now it's a big catch 22. US troops won't stop the invasion, so Iraqi people keep fighting, Iraqi people keep fighting, so US troops won't stop the invasion. Sine the US started it, supposedly to help the Iraqis, seems like it's up to the US to have some class and just get out. Help them get their oil production up & running under the UN or some agreed on neutral party, so they can rebuild their country.

But it looks like there is way too much money to be made on the blood of americans and Iraqis, so entities like Haliburton will continue to siphon anything worthwhile out of the country.

Like I said before - The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
--Benjamin Franklin

So how does repeating the bloodbath of previous military screw ups fix the problems in Iraq? The Kurds were killed after the first pull out because Saddam was still in power. Now he's not. The country is in rubble. If the US leaves, other countries can come be humanitarian without condoning the US pillaging effort. Otherwise this will go on until all the Iraqis are dead and the US has restarted the draft.
Oh wait a minute...I guess that's just what a certain administration might have in mind.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I have my own theory,

Our administration promise the oil field to his own cronies, so leaving Iraq with not set plan for the oil business is what is keeping our no so smart president in the mess he is in Iraq.

He does not want to give in and bribe other countries into helping for a piece of the pie.

And that people is my conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
"For the parties to this conflict, complying with international humanitarian law is an obligation, not an option," said Pierre Krhenbhl, the ICRC's operations director.

www.aljazeera.com...

Despite many attempts by the administration and Bush supporters to find excuses for war crimes, it seems that the watchdog is growling...


Mokuhadzushi dont know who you are or where you come from but all your posts seem to be anti American. Whilst im not a fan of the us army as a fighting force or their tactics. The resistance as you call them are nothing more than foreign terrorists and murders. Do you think the ordinary Iraqi people want this? Try taking your material from independent sources instead of Aljazeera who obviously have their own agenda and have proven very inaccurate with their reports. If you do not agree with what America is doing then for your own creditability try to be more open minded with your accusations and back them up with creditable information.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ginko
The resistance as you call them are nothing more than foreign terrorists and murders.


I thing I have to get you down to earth I am not defending anybody per say but in these one you are wrong.

You have "the foreign fighters" and then you have the Iraqi opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

I am just making sure that not all the fighters in Iraq are foreing.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I am just making sure that not all the fighters in Iraq are foreing.

Yes not all the fighters in Iraq are foreign but a lot of them are. The Iraqi opposition to the invasion of Iraq would these be the same people that are Saddam loyalists who terrorised murdered and tortured the Iraqi people for thirty years who would have a vested interest in getting back into power to repeat the same thing as they did in saddams regime. What would you prefer the chance to vote for your leader or have one imposed on you weather you like it or not and have no say in the way you are treated!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join