Canadian sniper cleared of desecrating al-Qaeda body

National Post ^ | February 8, 2003 | Stewart Bell

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Guilty of what? taking a crap on a dead jihadi getting a little head from an employee during working hours, cutting off a finger lying to the whole nation about it? Big Deal!

[swarthyguy]

Keeping Clinton's memory alive, eh?

Go on, keep feeding the Clinton Permanent Memory Machine.

Perry was acquitted.


I will make No jokes about fingers, blowjobs and severed digits.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So was Bill.

You congratulated people for "switching the knife", in other words, you suggested that these people were actually guilty, and got away with it.

Well, so did Bill.

Your kind of guy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But you don't accept the court's verdict."

Neither did you, otherwise, why congratulate them on switching the knife?

[VaBthang4]

"Thanks for the judgment. I'll continue on. You may want to study human character a bit more. Real grunts value that more than your simple orienteering."

LOL!!

That's the second time you've attempted to lecture a Combat Marine about military mentalities way outside your realm of comprehension.

HAHAHA...does anyone else see this the way I do[?]. Man, that's rich.

We got some real gems on this thread! HAHAHA!!!

[sit-rep]

So what you're saying is, this guy, no matter that he saved many American lives, should be put in prison for cutting off a finger of a dead enemy soldier? Is this what you are saying Luis?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Guilty of what? taking a crap on a dead jihadi, cutting off a finger, Big Deal!"

There may be a lot of cultures spread out throughout the world where the mutilation and desecration of the body of a dead enemy is acceptable under certain circumstances, or maybe even commonplace, or where honor killings may be the norm rather than the rule. That's not the case in this culture, and the sort of actions that you consider "no big deal", run completely against the grain of society.

It's not OK.

I'm not saying that these soldiers did anything, they stood trial and were acquited, but the line of thinking that would excuse off similar behavior is unacceptable.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What does the law say?

[sit-rep]

Why are you picking and choosing now what laws are upheld?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm doing no such thing.

This man swore an oath to serve, and should have been aware that what he may have been doing was wrong.

What does the law say?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Why are you picking and choosing now what laws are upheld?"

Actually, that's what you seem to be doing.

[mosby]

24 hours after I left this thread i come back and your still slandering Perry. Making a statement that refers to "people like...Perry and Calley" is beneath contempt. You are a bona fide raving nut case. By the way I loved your statement some time back that Aussie soldiers would never engage in this type of conduct. I guess shooting innocent Boers in cold blood doesn't qualify?

[sit-rep]

The law, if I were to guess because I do not know, would say it is not right to do such a thing. So, there you have it. Bet let us look a little deeper into this ongoing fiasco of a thread...

The law also states you are not to go over the speed limits on the highways. The law also states you are not to impose any law counter to the constitution of the US. But we all break the laws now don't we. And a portion of "we" support whole heartedly lawbreakers don't we?

So, I guess it is easier to railroad this kid for beaking the "law" than focus and railroad our elected officials for breaking bigger "laws" isn't it?

My point is, there are a LOT bigger fish to fry than this kid. The amount of emotion on this thread tells me, "we" have a long way to go...

SR

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The law also states you are not to go over the speed limits on the highways."

If you are caught, you are punished.

"The law also states you are not to impose any law counter to the constitution of the US."

And when the Courts find that to be the case, the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

"But we all break the laws now don't we."

And when we are caught, we are punished in accordance to the law.

"And a portion of "we" support whole heartedly lawbreakers don't we?"

What does that mean exactly?

"So, I guess it is easier to railroad this kid for beaking the "law" than focus and railroad our elected officials for breaking bigger "laws" isn't it?"

"My point is, there are a LOT bigger fish to fry than this kid. The amount of emotion on this thread tells me, "we" have a long way to go."

So, unless you bust the cartel, don't bust the guy selling crack cocaine to Junior High kids?

It isn't always perfect, but it's the law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW, your argument actually supports the sort of moral relativism that allows politicians to break the law unpunished.

[jwalsh07]

Hope you don't have to sit through another 300 posts for your next cheap shot from the sideline.

I just happened by Byron at a time when you put Pete, the Canadian and William Calley in a sentence in an obvious attempt at slandering two of the three.

I haven't found any intellects on FR that would intimidate me from saying my piece when I feel like it and you aren't an exception.

However speaking of sidelines, it seems to me that relative to veterans, that's exactly the position you occupy.

I probably agree with some of your positions regarding enemy KIA but that doesn't prevent me from recognising bs when I see it and the Calley gambit was bs.

However, I won't let the doorknob hit me in the ass since I am a latecomer to this thread. Later Byron.

[mosby]

Actually the comparison between Calley and your Aussie boy, Morant is real close, come to think of it. Both murdered people in cold blood and both claimed "orders" as their defense. Tell me one more time about your noble Aussies and those rotten Canadians, jackass.

[mosby]

I don't believe Calley is regarded as a hero in the U.S.A. I know that those Canadian soldiers who killed that kid in Somalia aren't regarded as hero's in Canada. So tell me, Byron, you sanctimonious jackass, how is Morant viewed in your beloved Australia?

[sit-rep]

"The law also states you are not to go over the speed limits on the highways."
If you are caught, you are punished.

Are you? or did the state just get another 50 bucks in the kitty?

"The law also states you are not to impose any law counter to the constitution of the US."
And when the Courts find that to be the case, the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

Ya, right...

"But we all break the laws now don't we."
And when we are caught, we are punished in accordance to the law.

...in accordance with the current mood. Let's keep it in proper perspective.

"And a portion of "we" support whole heartedly lawbreakers don't we?"
What does that mean exactly?

Ummmmm....well, basically, I do not see our "Famed" republicans doing a bangup job in rolling back all the damage the Clinton Administration did to our "Laws". Infact, I do not know of one thing the republican majority has done to restore proper law to the system???

"So, I guess it is easier to railroad this kid for beaking the "law" than focus and railroad our elected officials for breaking bigger "laws" isn't it?"

"My point is, there are a LOT bigger fish to fry than this kid. The amount of emotion on this thread tells me, "we" have a long way to go."

So, unless you bust the cartel, don't bust the guy selling crack cocaine to Junior High kids?

No. If you see someone sellin' dope to a highschool kid, shoot first and ask questions later IMHO. But, if someone is selling dope to an adult, go after the Cartel. Perry, did not cut the finger off of a highschool kid.

It isn't always perfect, but it's the law.

You're right here... I think our fight for perfection should be found elsewhere...

SR

[sit-rep]

BTW, your argument actually supports the sort of moral relativism that allows politicians to break the law unpunished.

Elaborate abit...I'm not seein' your drift...

SR