No Limits To U.S. War Crimes

Absolutely. Thank god in this day and age the general public can be made aware of these things so changes can be made and the human-rights and freedom we pretend are part of our ideals will be shown in both our speech and actions. I hate that people would defend these actions or say they don't care what happens to muslims - yet claim to be in support of the war to "liberate" them.

 

i would certainly hope that all troops that come in contact with muslims are properly informed about islam and the local cultures so as not to offend them. I dont take much credence that it was "so intricate." They pointed em towards mecca, burned em and called em pussies for not coming to get their bodies. That is not exactly super duper intricate.

 

i was rereading the article and i came across this..

Were they not saying that stuff WHILE burning the bodies? It came across as if they burned them..turned towards the mountains and were screaming this to taunt taliban fighters while the guy was burning.

 

I don't believe any of the Pentagon's alibi regarding Abu Ghraib. There were simply too many things going on capitalizing off of Muslim beliefs.

.

 

Thank goodness they didn't say it while the bodies actually burned. I feel much better now.

.

 

It changes thing a bit. The soldiers could have burned the bodies for hygenic reasons(as they claim) and taken advantage of that with broadcasts.

That is very different then if they did it maliciously.

 

For the troops, but not for the higher ups.

So how are the higher ups going to blame this one on the troops?

.

 

well, the questions is..if what i proposed above is true..is that a violation of any international law? Burning it for hygenic reasons is not against international law.

It does however, come across very poorly in the eyes of the muslim world.

 

As Bush said sarcastically a while back, "International law? What's that? I better go talk with my lawyer."

It's a moot issue as far as the Bush administration is concerned as they consider them illegal combatants and their treatment not subject to the international laws.

.

 

That brings up another point. What is the normal procedure U.S. troops use for disposing of bodies of the enemy?

.

 

i was actually wondering that too

 

This was a couple of wars ago but mostly I saw them piled up and burned. None of the villagers would claim the bodies because they were afraid we would think they were VC. In addition, many of the bodies were NVA so they were a long away form home. All US dead were med evaced out. I don't think you could have got US troops to bury enemy dead. It was hard enough to get them to pile them up.

 

Ok, I'll bite. Are you saying that it's OK to do inhuman things on the simple pretext that the other guys can't afford a uniform? If so, then you perpetuate the mentality that breeds inhuman atrocities.

 

I wasn't over there but I've seen the footage of them piling up a large number of bodies and burning them.

.

 

You're telling me they can't afford a uniform? That is a poor excuse because it is not true. If we went in there dressed as muslims we would catch flak from all angles. If they can't follow the simple rules of war, if they want to play dirty, it is not a war and they are terrorists. Terrorists don't deserve the same respect that a legitimate foe would deserve.

 

Oh yeah, they can afford, AKs, explosives with cars to blow up, and RPGs but they can't buy some cloth to be following the rules of war...?

 

I wonder if you could list for me a few countries that have followed the rules of war and please do not include the US we use flame warfare remember.

 

protacol 1 of the geneva conventions covers those situations where the enemy does not have a uniform and puts them back to the status of a combatant. the u.s. did not sign protacol one, but most of the other developed countries did.

 

the flying spaghetti monster , huh , knows that war is criminal
and habitual and orgasmic by design of impotents .

 

Really? I don't think we did in Iraq.