Skip to comments.
Film rolls as troops burn dead
Sydney Morning Herald ^
| October 19, 2005
| Tom Allard
Posted on 10/19/2005 8:54:52 AM PDT by Rebelbase
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-137 next last
To: michaelbfree
oh, did we offend the little taliban ragheads, good....offend them some more, bury the next ones in pig carcasses"This is a REV-O-LU-TION, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!" -- John Adams, "1776."
81
posted on
10/19/2005 9:46:35 AM PDT
by
mwyounce
To: vrwc0915
Ever think being compared to a Muslim might be offensive to the dogs?
82
posted on
10/19/2005 9:46:45 AM PDT
by
nonliberal
(Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
To: Rebelbase
I suppose they don't count the 3000 people that perished in the flames on 9/11/01.
83
posted on
10/19/2005 9:48:31 AM PDT
by
SueRae
To: MNJohnnie
"Note to extremly hysteric Leftist world wide. Taliban are ILLEGAL combatants. Under the Geneva conventions they have NO protection."
But when I explained this to an extremely hysterical Leftist acquaintance, she explained that she understood that, but that the West had a "moral obligation" to observe the GC, because we're supposed to be the civilized ones. Yeah, that's how they see things.
To: Billthedrill
Sounds more like they're FROM an alternate universe.
85
posted on
10/19/2005 9:52:56 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Rebelbase
US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions. THE GENEVA CONVENTION DOESN'T APPLY TO TERRORISTS AND SPIES..... The taliban are not an organized militia with a sponsor state, they are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention...... DOLTS!
Personally I'd make standard issue bullets required to be coated in pigs blood before being fired at the enemy... but that's just me.
To: Frank_Discussion
War is should be hell. What are we supposed to do, sing Kumbaya after we bury enemy dead????????
The problem with war today is too may want it clean and sanitized, and that in turn makes war palatable--war should be mean and nasty so people don't want war.
Screw 'em.
87
posted on
10/19/2005 9:55:09 AM PDT
by
Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
(Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
To: Rebelbase
The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims Is there anything that does not insult Muslims? Also, I have heard that one of the tactics used in this war is to call the terrorists 'girlie men' to enrage them and flush them out from behind their women and children. I think it's a great idea!
88
posted on
10/19/2005 9:56:48 AM PDT
by
layman
(Card Carrying Infidel)
To: Rebelbase
Yes,they are. You can find them featured under the heading "Lifestyles of the Dumb and Clueless".
More idiotic prattle from the trenches of the uninformed,unknowing and hopelessly leftist cretins.
(By the way...No insult to cretins intended.)
89
posted on
10/19/2005 9:59:36 AM PDT
by
gimme1ibertee
(Searching for the ultimate tagline....Please Wait.......)
To: Rebelbase
Where were these conventions when the Muslims burned hundreds of Churches right in front of the "peace keepers" in Kosovo?
Acts of hostility towards places of worship in international conflicts are prohibited. Places of worship may not be used in support of the military effort, and they cannot be the objects of reprisals. (Protocol I, Art. 53)
These prohibitions also apply in non-international conflicts. (Protocol II, Art. 16)
If there is any doubt as to whether a place of worship is being used to help the military action, then it will be presumed not to be so used. (Protocol I, Art. 52, Sec. 3)
Attacks against places of worship are grave breaches against the Geneva Convention. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4)
Where were these conventions when Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia and all of her infrastructure for 78 days.
Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)
An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)
Hypocrite Marxist dogs!
90
posted on
10/19/2005 10:02:29 AM PDT
by
SQUID
To: Rebelbase
"They" are always trying to use the GC when the GC does not apply in this war.
91
posted on
10/19/2005 10:03:08 AM PDT
by
SolidRedState
(E Pluribus Funk --- (Latin taglines are sooooo cool! Don't ya think?))
To: John Robertson
But when I explained this to an extremely hysterical Leftist acquaintance, she explained that she understood that, but that the West had a "moral obligation" to observe the GC, because we're supposed to be the civilized ones. Yeah, that's how they see things. Thank you for reminding us why, no matter how angry the Repub Leadership make us, we simply cannot trust Democrats with ANY measure of political power
92
posted on
10/19/2005 10:04:07 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
To: Rebelbase
Did I miss something, but didn't those 19 Muslim pigs incinerate thousands on Set 11,2001?
93
posted on
10/19/2005 10:09:37 AM PDT
by
P8riot
(When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
To: JamesP81
I've must throw in the little kids in American elementary school, punished for hitting back. I've been watching this for 18 years. Always told mine, if you need to hit back, make it worth your while.
I also thought it might be fun for Freepers worldwide to coordinate a good ol' fashioned pig pickin'.
94
posted on
10/19/2005 10:13:32 AM PDT
by
freema
(Proud Marine Mom)
Comment #95 Removed by Moderator
To: Rebelbase
Hooray for our side. Now I have a question for those with more knowledge of things military. Are the Taliban entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention?
Are they considered enemy soldiers of a recognized sovereign nation? I thought that was the defining term.
Or are they terrorist operatives who have formed their own armies independent of any jurisdiction?
I guess an example would be of this would be German soldiers fighting in WWII would be entitled to Geneval Convention protections. Columbian drug lord guerillas would not be. Am I right?
96
posted on
10/19/2005 10:17:33 AM PDT
by
lastchance
(Hug your babies.)
To: Dahoser
97
posted on
10/19/2005 10:19:13 AM PDT
by
ArmyTeach
(Pray daily for our troops...)
To: JamesP81
Why do lefties ignore this? They cite the GC and they aren't even aware that it doesn't apply to our present enemies.
Unfortunately they aware, they just don't care.
To the left, the end justifies the means.....and they mean to regain power using any tools at their disposal....
98
posted on
10/19/2005 10:23:26 AM PDT
by
PigRigger
(Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
To: When do we get liberated?
The reason the corpses were burned was the American Military had quite legitimate fears about the spread of Avian Flu. As you know it has been reported that the Avian Flu strain has been discovered South of Moscow. Russian soldiers fought in Afghanistan for many years. We can only assume that perhaps strains of this flu were dormant in Afghanistan for decades. The poor Russian soldier brought the virus home where it incubated until now. To assure the health of Central Asia our brave troops had no choice but to burn the corpses which might harbor the flu virus. It is standard practice in a pandemic to burn the contagious dead. How sad to see a public health practice villified by the ignorant libs. Note to all Islamofascists- if you think our soldiers are tough- wait till we sic CDC on you.
Nothing like a great cleansing fire to say NUTS TO YOU!!
99
posted on
10/19/2005 10:31:55 AM PDT
by
lastchance
(Hug your babies.)
To: GrandEagle
The Taliban are not the Afghan army. The Taliban are not 1)uniformed members of a 2)national army with a 3)recognizable chain of command, all stipulations under the Geneva Accords. Nor are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva Accords. My undertstanding is that any kind of terrorist of insurgent is not covered. They are illegal combatants going about committing heinous crimes and then pleading protection to which they are not entitled..
100
posted on
10/19/2005 10:33:23 AM PDT
by
ArmyTeach
(Pray daily for our troops...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-137 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson