Is the Sydney Morning Herald that much of a rag that they would publish this steaming pile?
1 posted on
10/19/2005 8:54:57 AM PDT by
Rebelbase
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
I'd prefer a film of these scum being hacked up and fed to pigs. Then get the pigs drunk, slaughter them, and burn the pig corpses. And if that's not offensive enough, be sure that the men involved in disposing of the cowards are southpaws.
75 posted on
10/19/2005 9:37:36 AM PDT by
whd23
To: Rebelbase
All's fair I say. As John Rambo said,"They drew first blood."
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Rebelbase
Is this supposed to be "We support the troops, but oppose the war" BS? Because it sure as hell sounds like they don't even support the troops!
108 posted on
10/19/2005 10:59:11 AM PDT by
mosquitobite
(What we permit; we promote. ~ Mark Sanford for President!)
To: Rebelbase
You attack and run away like women Ohhhhh they did it now. The Feminazies will be piiiissssed off.
Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".
Oh and how do you bury the jihaders? Don't they just burn up in their suicide mobiles?
Actually folks, if you ever have the time and want a fun read, read the Laws of Land Warfare....obviously written by lawyers who never once had a bullet fly over their gelled hair or broke a manicured nail.
111 posted on
10/19/2005 11:16:55 AM PDT by
jb6
(The Atheist/Pagan mind, a quandary wrapped in egoism and served with a side order of self importance)
To: Rebelbase
The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison The journalist is just looking for his 15 minutes of fame. What a jerk.
113 posted on
10/19/2005 11:45:08 AM PDT by
Theo
To: Rebelbase
I thought everyone agreed that the Taliban were not covered by the Geneva Conventions? Even those who were outraged by the Abu Ghraib incident said that it was different from Guantanamo because whereas Taliban were not covered by the GC, the Iraqis taken to Abu Ghraib were.
I'm confused.
114 posted on
10/19/2005 11:48:35 AM PDT by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Rebelbase
We dispose of their dead in a sanitary way and we call them names.
Yeah...that ranks right up there with slicing a man's head off, doesn't it?
Frickin' anti-American, slackjawed, idiot Leftists. (I know...I'm repeating myself.)
120 posted on
10/19/2005 12:21:29 PM PDT by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: Rebelbase
we probably need to take some lessons from these peaceful loving people...
124 posted on
10/19/2005 1:35:44 PM PDT by
Dick Vomer
(liberals suck......... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.)
To: Rebelbase
The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.It is? No, it's actually more reminiscent of the burning of the bodies of several U.S. contractors on a bridge near Fallujah.
130 posted on
10/19/2005 4:15:42 PM PDT by
arasina
(So there.)
To: Rebelbase
131 posted on
10/19/2005 6:11:39 PM PDT by
Fred Nerks
(Understand islam understand evil - read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD free pdf see link My Page)
To: Rebelbase
not a burn day? no burning permit? what did they do wrong?
136 posted on
10/21/2005 10:23:40 AM PDT by
showme_the_Glory
(No more rhyming, and I mean it! ..Anybody got a peanut.....)
To: Rebelbase
Personally I'd rather they had wrapped those stinking jerks in pigskins and THEN burned them.
The Bolshevik Media needs to shut the hell up and let Adults conduct the war.
When the MSM starts worrying about innocent Civilians having their throats cut on publicized Videos, THEN I'll start be more apt to be worried about something like this.
Kill 'em all, coat them in pig scat and burn them to ash.
137 posted on
10/21/2005 10:25:59 AM PDT by
Leatherneck_MT
(3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson