Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
The dead terrorists thank you for your blind support, but regret to inform you they're dead because they were illegal combatants in a combat zone.
Dood. You couldn't be any more blatant if you just came out and said, "I fully support terrorists killing US troops".
Zionists?Wow. Just...wow.Uh, there was no indication that they were going to shoot at the troops. in fact, this helicopter circled these guys several times and not one raised his weapon.
Has it occurred to you that after killing so many of the other guys and breaking so much of their stuff (again, Limbaugh and his anal cyst say the same thing), we are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2001?
The reason none of the bad guys (who were blocks away from a firefight, and so were NOT just innocently strolling about, as you ludicrously suggest) fired at the choppers was the choppers were so far away.
Wait...you really think they were flying just a few yards away?
Yes, you've made it quite clear whose side your on.
Yeah, it's not the side of the Zionists and the Oil Companies, the only people who benefitted from this clusterfuck in Iraq.
Iraq was a complete clusterfuck. It was the worst thing we ever did as a country. You do get that, right?
Zionists?Wow. Just...wow.
The reason none of the bad guys (who were blocks away from a firefight, and so were NOT just innocently strolling about, as you ludicrously suggest) fired at the choppers was the choppers were so far away.
Wait...you really think they were flying just a few yards away?
Yes, you've made it quite clear whose side your on.
Yeah, it's not the side of the Zionists and the Oil Companies, the only people who benefitted from this clusterfuck in Iraq.
Iraq was a complete clusterfuck. It was the worst thing we ever did as a country. You do get that, right?
You're dismissed, Jew-hater. You have zero credibility, on this or any other subject.
Unfortunately for this argument, that assertion is FALSE. The Geneva conventions are applicable in all war even when one side ignores them. It sucks for the ones that are trying to uphold the laws but it is fact.Not exactly. Positive identification IS a requirement for targeting individuals. TASB posted a very relevant section of the Geneva code.
Geneva code is not applicable since identification is made impossible by one of the sides in the conflict - on purpose.
No, it is not. it is not applicable, not because one side ignores them, but because there is no subject matter for those articles to apply to
We are not allowed to ignore the conventions even when others do. Just because your enemy is a dirt bag does not mean that you get to be one as well.
the adjectives do not matter. If the enemy is indistinguishable from not enemy, there are no codes to apply, because there is no applicable subject.
Because this particular part of the law covers the fact that those vehicles so marked are protected. That does NOT mean that those protections are EXCLUSIVE to vehicles so marked. It is an easy and international way to mark a vehicle and ensure that such rescue operations are given the best chance for not being accidentally shot at. Had that vehicle has those markings, it is likely that such an incident would have been averted. That does not change the facts of the cited code earlier though EVEN CIVILIANS that are responding to wounded are afforded protections. In such times, the vehicles will never be marked by their very definition but they STILL get protections.
if the vehicles are not marked - the Geneva code for protective vehicles does not apply. Period.
Yes, it DOES as long as that vehicle has not made itself a threat by having ANY weapons or nay active engagement. If they had shot at them, shown arme or shown threat in any other way they become a legal target. As long as they do not, they are not a legal target.there is no ambiguity where the wounded are supposed to be and which vehicles are untouched for that matter.
loading a wounded person to undistinguished vehicle does not make it untouchable.
and yes, with the terrorists being undistinguished from the general population, the battlefield IS everywhere.
No, it does not. If the vehicle is not marked as a medical vehicle - it's an enemy vehicle and Geneva protection does not apply
It seems to me that you simply do not understand how this is supposed to work or what a legal target consists of.
I can say the same about your approach. However, MY approach has a substantiation in a form of absence of any lcourt convictions, so my approach is a CORRECT ONE
It shouldnt. There is no reason that we should hesitate to identify where we are wrong. I can guarantee that there were a LOT more illegal actions taken in this war than that one many have even been prosecuted. It comes with the territory. Bad shit happens when you go in and kill people. Nothing less is to be expected even if we do shoot for perfection and the highest moral standards even if the goal is not entirely possible.It's killing me to say this, but I don't see how Shoot Sequence No. 2 could be called Righteous by any reasonable benchmark, without abandoning ALL obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War...
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...gif[/IMG]
I posted a video in some thread that was the one the service had that hadn't been doctored up by Manning or Wikileaks that conveniently omitted the guy who had the rocket launcher, and it wasn't the guy with the camera sachel, either. Even I knew what it was when he was rounding a corner (alone, to get a better shot at the helicopter) when the helicopter did an evasive move and came back to get rid of the threat that group was to truly innocent Iraqis. Them putting a couple of their women in harm's way was beneath the pale, and that is against international law, which states that those who use human shields are culpable in any harm done them in combat.I can't stand alongside you guys with regard to Shoot No. 2, Becki, as much as it bothers-the-hell-outta me, but I hear what you're saying, and respect it.
I cannot stand by and allow people who missed the footage that shows the truth but was omitted pretend it is irrelevant, because a rocket launcher operator trying to get a better shot at a helicopter was the smoking gun that showed any condemnation of our troops was unwarranted.
They did what they had to do to clean up terrorists off the streets so everyday people can someday walk unafraid of people so brainwashed to murder them they're not safe in that country.
We have people here who persist in the myths their minds have already accepted since it suits their political outlook.
I'm completely unable to help with such prejudice before the fact, since the video I found showed our troops had a case and were responding to complaints in the area of loitering gunmen killing specific ethnic groups they were hell bent on killing on account of religion or the family they were born into.
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...
if you scratch a libtard long enough on ANY matter, the antisemitism will eventually suffice
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...gif[/IMG]
That only shows your brain is tiny. Okay, walk you through it. The Zionists were really, really, really scared of Saddam, but couldn't take him out themselves. So a bunch of their tools in the Pentagon decided to take advantage of 9-11 to get us to take him out for them. And Bradley Manning exposed what a farce this war turned into. Thanks for playing.
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...gif[/IMG]
That only shows your brain is tiny. Okay, walk you through it. The Zionists were really, really, really scared of Saddam, but couldn't take him out themselves. So a bunch of their tools in the Pentagon decided to take advantage of 9-11 to get us to take him out for them. And Bradley Manning exposed what a farce this war turned into. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, that's me, tiny-brain; still, better an ounce of brains, wired correctly, and anchored in reality, then a pound of brains, hopelessly short-circuited, anchored in dogmatic delusion, selling really shabby segues.
"...Apparently, quality of wits is more important than quantity of wits..."
They did not have any weapons and they did not make any hostile gestures towards the Apache.Innocent Iraqis don't carry around hand-held rocket launchers and target a heliocopter of forces there to remove the world's worst mass murderer from power and stick around long enough to see to it the new country doesn't fall into the same rut Saddam Hussein was in.
Yes there is and he's full of shit regarding IHL.Vox made his case with reference to international law that is correct. There is nothing inhuman about his argument.
They didn't threaten the helicopter.In this war, if you do not counter someone who threatens to take out a helicopter that is preventing armed terrorists from murdering other Iraqis, you'd be the weak link responsible for your soldiers getting killed by them, and they'd continue their work of woe on killing other Iraqis, which is why our troops were in there in the first place--to stop them from doing more ethnic cleansings.
They're not innocent.Manning and his friends went to a lot of trouble to frame innocent American troops doing their job by omitting the footage of the hand-held rocket launcher pointed in the general direction of the helicopter, and the "helpers" being seen in the same vehicle they "helped" load their clandestine killers in, most likely to prevent identification and questioning survivors as they healed in an American hospital.
How we got from Bradley Manning and his infractions and trial and sentencing, all the way to a Bash-the-Zionist-Jews Fest, is abso-friggin-lutely beyond the ability of my tiny little brain to fathom...
if you scratch a libtard long enough on ANY matter, the antisemitism will eventually suffice
A five year old screams "Why do you hate me?" when you correct him.
An Aparthied abuser of human rights screams, "Why are you an anti-Semite" when you point out their bad behavior.
If you can't get your game up, back out of the thread!what does this blubber supposed to mean
if you scratch a libtard long enough on ANY matter, the antisemitism will eventually suffice
A five year old screams "Why do you hate me?" when you correct him.
An Aparthied abuser of human rights screams, "Why are you an anti-Semite" when you point out their bad behavior.
what does this blubber supposed to mean
They did not have any weapons and they did not make any hostile gestures towards the Apache.Innocent Iraqis don't carry around hand-held rocket launchers and target a heliocopter of forces there to remove the world's worst mass murderer from power and stick around long enough to see to it the new country doesn't fall into the same rut Saddam Hussein was in.
the ones which were were cut off from the video by your lying god assange
They were just standing around talking.
which does not mean nobody was doing anything.
Yes there is and he's full of shit regarding IHL.Vox made his case with reference to international law that is correct. There is nothing inhuman about his argument.
Targeting civilians is a war crime. In any war. From anybody. And targeting people who take no part in hostilities, is inhuman.
Civilians - yes. Those were not civilians. Or maybe they were. Nobody knows. And nobody has to distinguish - if the enemy does not distinguish themselves from civilians - there are no civilians
They didn't threaten the helicopter.In this war, if you do not counter someone who threatens to take out a helicopter that is preventing armed terrorists from murdering other Iraqis, you'd be the weak link responsible for your soldiers getting killed by them, and they'd continue their work of woe on killing other Iraqis, which is why our troops were in there in the first place--to stop them from doing more ethnic cleansings.
That is more than obvious in the video.
no it is not. the video is doctored. the part which is cut off demonstrates clearly there was threat to the helicopter. That is why it was cut.
They're not innocent.Manning and his friends went to a lot of trouble to frame innocent American troops doing their job by omitting the footage of the hand-held rocket launcher pointed in the general direction of the helicopter, and the "helpers" being seen in the same vehicle they "helped" load their clandestine killers in, most likely to prevent identification and questioning survivors as they healed in an American hospital.
yes they ARE. Until proven guilty.
What court riued them guilty? ah, none... that's what I thought
BTW, the guy who was piloting that Apache, is on my side, not yours.
In a nutshell, shithead, the GC apply's to the Iraq war.Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
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.
***yawning***A five year old screams "Why do you hate me?" when you correct him.
An Aparthied abuser of human rights screams, "Why are you an anti-Semite" when you point out their bad behavior.
what does this blubber supposed to mean
Did I need to use smaller words.
Okay, the Zionists reaction to the Nazis was to become Nazis themselves.
Simple enough for you?
The Geneva Conventions apply to all wars!
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict,[/B] where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations.[/B] This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. [/B]This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
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.In a nutshell, shithead, the GC apply's to the Iraq war.
***yawning***what does this blubber supposed to mean
Did I need to use smaller words.
Okay, the Zionists reaction to the Nazis was to become Nazis themselves.
Simple enough for you?
bohemian grove apologist much?
