Friday, February 22, 2008
Americans outdone by the britts
For example, quite how so many of the Iraqis sustained single gunshots to the head and from seemingly at close quarter, how did two of them end with their eyes gouged out, how did one have his penis cut off [and] some have torture wounds?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Poor little terrorists. We need the ACLU to investiate. Meanwhile, I'll prepare my Amatriciana sauce...
Giving troops leeway for being in a war-zone or brushing aside possible executions of innocent people due to a lack of sympathy?
Hey, dlb! Did you check your hotmail acct?
I am confused - who are the terrorists in this story?
Hint to Pepe: terrorists are unlawful combatants, not wearing the uniform of a country. Brush up on the Geneva Conventions before blowing standard-issue pinko smoke, willya?
You people are as quick to point to the barbarism of islamic fundamentalists as you are to excuse your own. They didn't have a uniform for chrissakes! Clearly a compelling reason to gouge their eyes out.
A seminal fcp moment.
Hey, Mr Straman -- I didn't say anything about "gouging eyes". You asked who the terrorists are, and I answered your question. They are the unlawful combatants, who sneak up on civilians to blow them up or cut their throats. Too difficult to grasp basic definitions, eh? Maybe a refresher course in Logic 101 would help.
I see. And the uniformed britts cutting the penises off of the hapless un-uniformed are what? Christian soldiers?
So lemme get this straight - terror has nothing to do with actions. It's got to do with being a bad boy without a uniform.
Bad boy with uniform - sheesh. Call the aclu, willya?
Bad boy without uniform - bring back the enola gay.
Maybe Paris Hilton is right: in the end, it's all about what you wear.
That's your allegation. Note that "All claims of any kind of abuse by British troops have been strongly denied by the Ministry of Defence." But of course, as a dyed-in-the-wool-hater-of-western-civilization (an oxymoron when it comes to pinkos), you immediately jump to the conclusion that Brits (btw, that takes caps, and only one t) are evil, etc, while of course closing your eyes to real evil. Par for the course, Pepe.
terrorists are unlawful combatants, not wearing the uniform of a country.
I agree (as well with the caps and one t ;) ) with the above statement. I would, however, wonder about who, when, how, and where we determine the meaning of "unlawful comabatants" and whether or not we have any actual standards or reasons for determing precisely who is an "enemy combatant." Anyone in a war zone without a uniform is certainly not therefore a combatant, and I'm not saying this has been implied or argued by you, but I think that's the crux of the disagreement here; who decides that, and by what process.
OK, let's proceed by concrete examples, otherwise we won't get anywhere. Would you say that Atta boy was an unlawful combatant, when he boarded AA Flight 11 on a September morn at Logan Airport, a few years back?
Post a Comment