If the Marines are indicted should they be sent the Hague for War crimes?

[kissanmakeup]

Quote from Sam123:

I don’t see anything applied to the Islamists who first throw bombs and then hide behind children when the coalition fights back.

take it easy sam! first of all, these soldiers witnessed these kids begging for their lives before they executed them.
second, i have no problem with you and your soldiers morally aliening your/ themselves to these islamists but if that is the case, that only enforces my opinion that your soldiers should be treated in the same exact way i would want to treat a low life terrorist.

 

[g222]

Quote from Sam123:

I don’t see anything applied to the Islamists who first throw bombs and then hide behind children when the coalition fights back.

No, and you probably never will, either.

First of all, war crimes by any side is intollerable, and I think we all feel that way. But unfortunately, mahram's hatred-for-America-fuled banter has inspired some responses that were more representative of the authors' feelings toward him than towards innocent victems.

In another post where mahram suddenly fell silent, he was quick to point out that because America was in the roll of keeping and maintaining the rule of law, these acts were 20 times worse. And indeed we should expect more from law-makers and law-keepers. But I ask you again, mahram, here on this post, why you have not also vented against the islamic holy men who make and uphold the laws of their people, when they support and order the suicide bombers to go out among their muslim brothers and sisters and kill babies ????? And once again I say that your problem is with Americans (infadels) killing muslims, not the act of muslims killing muslims - and your silence underscores your support of their acts.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from kissanmakeup:

and that is why there are international laws put in place.

You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend anything I wrote. International laws have nothing to do with the codes of military conduct of any army. They serve 2 clearly seperate purposes. Given the proper opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues in question, the chain of command of any military, regardless of it's nationality, can be found to satisfy the requirements of justice under international law. However, resolution of such issues under international laws in international courts can never satisfy the definitions and needs of the military codes of conduct as it exists with any standing army. Application of international laws by international courts without opportunites for the individual countries' to handle their own soldiers threatens the very existance and purpose of all military codes of conduct and the chain of command that governs them. This fact includes the armies through which international governing bodies draw their power to impose their authority. Examples:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14271
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral2/un.htm
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HAC/11_28_5.html

Take note: these examples include Canadian troops implicated in murder, torture, rape, and blackmarketeering. It also includes Jordanian troops, a prominent contributer to UN military power, in Haiti.

you want to avoid being a hypocrite? ship these soldiers, along with their commanders, wearing orange suites, to the hague.

No sir, if YOU want to avoid being a hypocrite, you would be equally outraged of atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims. After all, these US soldiers you want so much to ship to the Hague would have to wait in a loooonnnnnnggggggg line behind members of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks.

Edit: However, I regress. The Hague was never meant to put individual soldiers on trial for the above reasons that I mentioned. That distinction is mostly reserved for the commanders and political leaders that order, condone, and sanction vioaltions of international laws. That's why you are foolish and/or ignorant to even suggest that it should be done.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from riserburn:

No sir, if YOU want to avoid being a hypocrite, you would be equally outraged of atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims. After all, these US soldiers you want so much to ship to the Hague would have to wait in a loooonnnnnnggggggg line behind members of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks.

Interesting. The left, at least on this forum, claims that we should hold our soldiers to a higher moral and legal standard than the Muslims. Does that imply that the left believes that "we" are a "better" civilization than those barbarics? OTOH, the right claims that we should hold everyone to the same standard. Does the right think that the Christians are as good/bad as the Muslims?

Hmm, this world is really upside down.

 

[mahram]

they are held in higher standards. they are officers of the government of the united states. When you are comparing civilians committing crimes to soldiers or agents of the law committing crimes, there are diffrences. Agents of the government are held to higher standards b/c they are suppose to uphold the law. James bond, is there a diffrence when a judge takes a bribe and your average joe?

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Interesting. The left, at least on this forum, claims that we should hold our soldiers to a higher moral and legal standard than the Muslims. Does that imply that the left believes that "we" are a "better" civilization than those barbarics? OTOH, the right claims that we should hold everyone to the same standard. Does the right think that the Christians are as good/bad as the Muslims?

Hmm, this world is really upside down.

 

[g222]

Quote from riserburn:

... you would be equally outraged of atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims. After all, these US soldiers you want so much to ship to the Hague would have to wait in a loooonnnnnnggggggg line behind members of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks.

I think what's going on here is that this act is so out of character for Americans, that some - especially mahram - are not only decrying it ( as they should), but are languishing in rubbing all of our faces in it. But such acts - and worse - committed by muslims on muslims have become so commonplace that we have grown to accept their butchery as nothing less than we expect from them. It's part of their natural behavior. If they suddenly stopped for an instant, it would be just as out of character for them as this current situation is for us.

 

[g222]

Quote from mahram:

they are held in higher standards. they are officers of the government of the united states. When you are comparing civilians committing crimes to soldiers or agents of the law committing crimes, there are diffrences. Agents of the government are held to higher standards b/c they are suppose to uphold the law. James bond, is there a diffrence when a judge takes a bribe and your average joe?

Ah ... there you are, mahram.

So ... the imams have nothing to do with governing their people ????? As men of God, they should not be held to higher standards ???? They are indeed looked up to and revered by their followers. And their followers will do whatever their imams command. So why do you condone and support the imams in their effort send suicide bombers out to kill their own children ??? Why have you not labeled the imams as baby killers ??? I think it's because you believe that infadels killing muslims is a no no, and muslims killing muslims is God's will.

 

[kissanmakeup]

Quote from riserburn:

International laws have nothing to do with the codes of military conduct of any army. They serve 2 clearly seperate purposes. Given the proper opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues in question, the chain of command of any military, regardless of it's nationality, can be found to satisfy the requirements of justice under international law. However, resolution of such issues under international laws in international courts can never satisfy the definitions and needs of the military codes of conduct as it exists with any standing army. Application of international laws by international courts without opportunites for the individual countries' to handle their own soldiers threatens the very existance and purpose of all military codes of conduct and the chain of command that governs them. This fact includes the armies through which international governing bodies draw their power to impose their authority. Examples:

Take note: these examples include Canadian troops implicated in murder, torture, rape, and blackmarketeering. It also includes Jordanian troops, a prominent contributer to UN military power, in Haiti.

isn't that hilarious! like you have given the serbian army the opportunity to conduct and prosecute its own offending soldiers?


No sir, if YOU want to avoid being a hypocrite, you would be equally outraged of atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims. After all, these US soldiers you want so much to ship to the Hague would have to wait in a loooonnnnnnggggggg line behind members of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks.[/b]

i am as equally outraged when a crime against little children is committed by one of the above.
also, i really appreciate your honestly of equating your soldiers to the above groups and people.
yes sir, i would like to see them stand in line with the rest...only then the american people will pull the cork off their asses and get off their high horses.

Edit: However, I regress. The Hague was never meant to put individual soldiers on trial for the above reasons that I mentioned. That distinction is mostly reserved for the commanders and political leaders that order, condone, and sanction vioaltions of international laws. That's why you are foolish and/or ignorant to even suggest that it should be done.

what is it with you guys defaulting into a stupid mode whenever cornered! you are wrong...hence the rwanda genocide. but let us say that i am as stupid as you think i am and i agreed with you on the issue of the commanders. would you agree that the american commanders who did the cover-up of such massacre should be sent to the hague?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from mahram:

James bond, is there a diffrence when a judge takes a bribe and your average joe?

Yes, there is. The former may be against the law and the latter may not be. But there is definitely no difference between murder by a judge and murder by your average joe.

I think you missed the point of your own question, though. The point is not murder per se. Pacifists would claim that all acts of war are murder. The point is that killing unarmed civillians by our soldiers is against our law, which we (Americans) are oblidged to enforce. That is why we should be more outraged. Otherwise we would not be patriotic!

 

[g222]

Oh ... and by the way, mahram ... your constant banter has indeed aggrivated me to no end. But please know that I have no problem with you expressing your views. If you hate America and Americans, it is your right - no matter where you might live - to so state. You do seem to be a sensitive guy and I'm sure you're just as uncomfortable with actions of the imams as you are with the Marines.

In that regard, I would fully support any effort on your part to go public in a newspaper of your choice where-in you would fully expose the Marines for the baby-killers that you know they are, and the imams for the baby-killers that the rest of the world knows they are.


(Now for the rest of us ... let's start a pool on how many days after he publishes that it takes for someone unknown to knock him off his bike and stab him 20 times ... )