Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muckmaw1 on December 08, 2004, 11:56:23 AM
-
US. killed unarmed Iraqis, war-dodger hearing told
Colin Perkel
Canadian Press
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
TORONTO (CP) - A former United States marine told a refugee hearing for an American war dodger Tuesday that trigger-happy U.S. soldiers in Iraq routinely killed unarmed woman and children, and murdered other Iraqis in violation of international law.
In chilling testimony intended to bolster the asylum claim of compatriot Jeremy Hinzman, former staff sergeant Jimmy Massey recounted how nervous soldiers trained to believe that all Iraqis were potential terrorists often opened fire indiscriminately.
"I was never clear on who the enemy was," Massey, 33, told the hearing.
"If you have no enemy or you do not know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?"
On several occasions, his soldiers pumped hundreds of bullets into cars that failed to stop at U.S. military checkpoints, killing all occupants - who were later found to be unarmed, Massey said.
On another occasion, marines reacted to a stray bullet by killing a small group of unarmed protesters and bystanders, said Massey, who said he suffers from nightmares and post-traumatic stress disorder.
"I was deeply concerned about the civilian casualties," he said.
"What they were doing was committing murder."
Massey's statements echoed earlier testimony from Hinzman, who says he fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and any violent acts he committed there would be unconscionable.
"This was a criminal war," Hinzman said.
"Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity."
Hinzman, 26, deserted his regiment in January just days before being deployed to Iraq, and fears he will be unfairly court-martialled if returned to the United States.
Hinzman told the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing that the U.S. military regarded all Arabs in the Middle East - Iraqis in particular - as potential terrorists to be eliminated.
"We were referring to these people as savages," Hinzman testified.
"It fosters an attitude of hatred that gets your blood boiling."
While a federal government lawyer said U.S. deserters often get about a year in jail, Hinzman countered he would be treated more harshly because of his views on the Iraq war.
"Serving even one day in prison for refusing to comply with an illegal order is too long," Hinzman said.
"I would be prosecuted for acting upon a political belief . . . for refusing to do something that was wrong."
A Washington Post reporter covering the hearings said Americans are extremely sensitive to Hinzman's request for asylum because of parallels to the Vietnam War.
"There's a great deal of worry that Iraq is beginning to look a little like Vietnam," said Doug Struck.
"Americans are very worried when their servicemen start saying, 'No, we're not going to go.' It sends alarms off."
-
That guy should run for president.
-
Originally posted by ra
That guy should run for president.
He did- but he lost.
-
And just like Kerry, if he committed, or saw atrocities, he should not be in the media, he should be in front of his superior officers reporting it. I call total bull**** on both of these guys.
-
Sounds like desertion in the face of the enemy to me
-
Originally posted by Lizking
And just like Kerry, if he committed, or saw atrocities, he should not be in the media, he should be in front of his superior officers reporting it. I call total bull**** on both of these guys.
I'm not sure to translate accuratly your post but IMO a war without atrocities simply don't exist.
Or by atrocities you mean something I don't know.
-
No, you have it right. They do happen, and the proper course of action for someone who sees or is forced to participate in them is to immediately report it to your commander, not NBC news.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
US. killed unarmed Iraqis, war-dodger hearing told
Colin Perkel
Canadian Press
I got to this point and stopped reading.:aok
-
Hinzman, 26, deserted his regiment in January just days before being deployed to Iraq, and fears he will be unfairly court-martialled if returned to the United States.
He wants aslyum because he refused to serve the military that he volunteered for? He didn't even deploy to Iraq. I hope the Canadians senf him back and he gets a few years for desertion. I think he would have had better odds though had he hopped on a plane to France or Germany.
-
He applied for CO status once he realized that he might have to actually do what he volunteered for.
-
On several occasions, his soldiers pumped hundreds of bullets into cars that failed to stop at U.S. military checkpoints, killing all occupants - who were later found to be unarmed, Massey said.
This happens an awffull lot in Iraq but to me to say this is in fact a war crime is ludacris at best. These guys set up check points and civilians try to run it. They know full well what's going to happen if they do and the troops have every right to open fire to this percieved threat.
-
I haven't payed too much attention to this story but I have always believed canada would be a preferred place to flee to as opposed to mexico. Having said that, these people that flee to canada to avoid voluntary duty in the united states military should be deported back to the united states to face charges of desertion.
I do not believe in the draft and would likely flee to canada myself if I were ever forced to serve involuntarilly, as such I hold nothing against people that flee the country to avoid involuntary servitude, I support them.
IMO, If you cant muster a volunteer military force your cause is not worth defending.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
IMO, If you cant muster a volunteer military force your cause is not worth defending.
FDR didn't think so.
-
No, you have it right. They do happen, and the proper course of action for someone who sees or is forced to participate in them is to immediately report it to your commander, not NBC news.
Exactly. In fact you have a duty NOT to obey an unlawful order, STOP any atrocity, and immediately report the individual issuing the order to the chain of command or PMO.
He applied for CO status once he realized that he might have to actually do what he volunteered for.
Yep. What a ****.
These guys set up check points and civilians try to run it. They know full well what's going to happen if they do and the troops have every right to open fire to this perceived threat.
It's impossible to tell the folks running a check point because they are stupid from the fanatics who are driving a car bomb to blow up the checkpoint. Instead of an IFF, Identification Friend or Foe, we need an ISS, Identification Stupid or Suicidal.
Crumpp
-
GS, if he reported it to his superiors and nothing happened. No problem, blab it to the world.
This gentleman is making these claims to save his own ass, not because of any concern of his for the innocent.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
He applied for CO status once he realized that he might have to actually do what he volunteered for.
LOL yeppers
-
Why is this even an issue, inst he simply a deserter?
-
He may be a deserter or a frigging alien from outer space but his claims have to be investigated anyways.
I just hope his story was just that, a story without any truth.
-
True, but does that mean he shouldn't also report such incidents to the press when he gets back? Should such things be kept within the military ... the military takes care of its own?
A soldier could report it to the press with no repercussions as long as it was the truth. It happens all the time. It is individuals who make up the Army so why bring the entire organization down for the actions of a few bad apples.
Usually though most are smart enough to realize the American press is more interested in sensationalism than it is in responsibly reporting the truth or presenting a balanced perspective. Boring stories of the system working properly just don't sell the newspapers like searing exposé's. Down side of capitalism. Newspaper are there to make money, not necessarily report the truth. Why do you think they need armies of lawyers? Helps them to walk a fine line sometimes.
Just look at the Iraqi Prison scandals. That was a story that first broke because the Army's Public Affairs Office told the United Press about the allegations and criminal investigations that were underway. The United Press chooses to publish another sensational expose! The press did not come out and say "We found this" but they did not draw undue attention to the fact the army told them either. They just let their writing create the perception they wanted. It worked and gave the bad guys a moral victory.
Nobody twisted this "kids" arm to join. He volunteered in exchange for a decent benefits package, a living wage, and organizational trust. No other institution in America will give an 18 year old the level of trust and responsiblity the Military would have placed in him. When I was 19 and a team leader, I was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment along with men to lead to accomplish a job. Most places won't trust a 19 year with a broom to sweep the floor under supervision.
Crumpp
-
First off, the guy was NEVER in the Marines. EVER
Second off, the unarmed civilians he was referring to were kidnapped by the Fedayeen forces and forced to run through checkpoints(wth terrorists in their midst) in an effort to get past.
Third, the guy started attending Quaker church meetings AFTER 9/11 and then decided he was a Quaker and could not enter combat.
If you are going to post whackjob propaganda, expect the truth to come out, eventually.
-
Massey is applying for protection, too, GS.
-
I call BS.
But even so.
People die in war. That is what war is. Death and destruction. What do people expect?
Its nothing pretty, or beautiful, it never was, never is or never will be.
But again, I call BS on this. :)
-
We agree, GS, it is the method and reasons for making his claims that I have issue with, not the fact that he is doing so.
Just like Kerry in front of the senate.
-
it is your duty to the people to tell them your story.
That is true. It has been my experience though in the 17 years I have been involved in every major US Conflict that it is much more of a problem to get the press to tell the truth than the soldiers.
I mean look at this idiotic website!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4077935.stm
"New attacks 'kill Iraq civilians'"
Man the coalition is at it again!! Bad America wantonly killing civilians! Wait, it's the "freedom fighters" who set the bomb off among their own people, right?!?!
Why didn't the Headline read "Terrorist Kill Innocent Civilians in Iraq" ? That is what the story is about.
click on the related internet links:
Iraqi Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Read the incidents at the top of the scrolling screen and tell me who is responsible for those deaths? Coalition Forces??
You can bet though the Coalition is being blamed for each death the terrorist cause with roadside bombs, random rocket attacks, and suicide bombers. That is why they do it because the survivors will blame us. Hell the press does.
There is a whole psychology to this kind of warfare and it is very effective because their are many sheep in the world. So tuck your wool in...things will be ok.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Lizking
We agree, GS, it is the method and reasons for making his claims that I have issue with, not the fact that he is doing so.
Just like Kerry in front of the senate.
So why did he made those accusations? You seem to know this case well enough to bring some light to this thread :)
-
Originally posted by ra
That guy should run for president.
:rofl
-
Perhaps this is a case of US and Europeans being somewhat different in their wording and intended meaning. Perhaps Americans and Europeans (probably even among their own respective nations) read the news differently.
I disagree. Just on the story you might have point. However the fact the BBC would entertain those "links" speaks volumes.
Simply put, willing or unwilling, the press is the best proganda machine terrorism has going for it.
Crumpp
-
I wonder if Crump forgot to take his Prozacs?
Like GS I couldn't find anything in that report which would blame coalition troops?
-
Anyways it looks like Army is quite eager to cover its actions; maybe actions like this is only way how to get accurate info from Iraq...'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4079891.stm
-
Anyways it looks like Army is quite eager to cover its actions; maybe actions like this is only way how to get accurate info from Iraq...'
One guy wrote some letters and you only have a small part of one side. The "whole army" is hardly applicable.
Crumpp
-
Guess you didn't read that link.
-
Actually I did Staga. Being in the US Army I have become accustom to the "post Iraqi prison abuse" feeding frenzy of the press.
Very little of these kind of stories amount to anything when the full truth is brought to light. So you can get excited and dance if you like.
Crumpp
-
Now I think I'm the one who don't get your meaning. What do you mean by the BBC "entertain those 'links'"?
Look at the Internet links on the right hand side.
Some are legit. Some are just ridiculous, such as Iraqi Body Count.
Crumpp
-
AFAIK the statistical material on that site is well documented.
What is ridiculus is the fact that site definately creates the impression the coalition is the cause of all civilian deaths and that it does not care about it.
I know good men who pick up a rifle and go room to room rather than take the risk of inflicting innocent casualties. Some of them have paid with their lives for it.
Crumpp
-
Yeah I know, but I don't think that site (or any other anti-war sites) blame the soldiers.
Does not matter. By creating doubt about the war they:
1. Erode the will to fight it and create doubt thereby prolonging the misery of war.
2. Bolster the enemies will to fight it therby prolonging the misery of war.
If they erode the will long enough then the Western Forces will pull out. That is what the terrorist want. Iraq will have a baathist extremist government which certainly will not be better for the iraqi's. All the soldiers who gave their lives trying to stop them will have died for nothing.
They cannot defeat us on the battlefield but Vietnam proved that any democracy can be beaten at the presses.
Going to war should never be undertaken lightly. If the decision is made then do what is necessary to bring a swift end to the misery under palatable terms. The time to question reasons is after, not during, once the decision is made.
If the political leadership was wrong sending the nation to war then I will join the calls to see justice AFTER the war is won.
Crumpp
-
There is no such cohesion of will and thought in a democracy. People must have the right to express their opinions freely no matter the situation ... or consequences. If your people do not have the resolution to fight this war without suppressing free speech, then you should not fight this war.
And here endth the discussion. Nobody said a thing about suppressing free speech. I am talking about exercising individual responsibility and telling the truth.
You can put out the same information. Just like that Iraq Body count. There is nothing wrong with bringing attention to the innocent people who are injured in Iraq. Not only is that very necessary, getting the people of Iraq help is the desired end state!! To do it in the manner they have, by creating the perception the Coalition is killing innocents and simply does not care is factually wrong. It is pure propaganda. It is using free speech to distort the truth creating a false perception. Same thing Goebbels used to do.
Crumpp
-
60 minutes did a piece about the deserters in the Iraq war. I think they stated a number of about 5000. I'm really interested how this plays out, and I think George W's national guard service is going to be revisited without the phoney documents. I have a feeling a huge microscope is going over his duty if deserters start being prosecuted. I have no opinion either way, but am very interested how it plays out. Another great plot for a novel. Its going to be interesting.
A few things are evident. Bush and some of his administration purposely avoided VietNam with politcal pull. It will be interesting to see them proceed with prosecuting deserters without all types of dirty laundry falling out. But they can not just ignore the problem. This could get so interesting and lead to Watergate type crimes.
-
People must have the right to express their opinions freely no matter the situation ... or consequences.
This is not what free speech or democracy is about.
Learn what a tort is.
-
"It is pure propaganda. It is using free speech to distort the truth creating a false perception. Same thing Goebbels used to do. "
hmm
Goebels actually used the lack of free speach to allow the goverment to control the countries perceptions and increase their will to fight.
"Does not matter. By creating doubt about the war they:
1. Erode the will to fight it and create doubt thereby prolonging the misery of war.
2. Bolster the enemies will to fight it therby prolonging the misery of war. "
So any statement that increases the willingness to fight is good. And anything that might decrease it is propaganda. What about something that is just the simple truth?
I dont think that you know what propaganda is. You seem to have reversed it in this case.
-
ya missed the "using free speech to distort the truth to create a false perception " part:D
-
What a punk coward this guy is! Traitor too.
I hope he gets 20 years at hard labor in Leavenworth.
-
The sad fact of the matter is, after U.S. soldiers have been in a war zone for a few months, killing civillians becomes easy. This isnt just unique to U.S. troops, all troops are suceptable to killing indiscrimantely.
I knew things were turning bad when that Bradley gunner blew apart that van full of women and children.
-
I bet there'sa whole lot of youth thinkin twice about havin Uncle Sam pay for their college tuition now.
-
The sad fact of the matter is, after U.S. soldiers have been in a war zone for a few months, killing civillians becomes easy.
Please read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316330116/002-4840430-9783214?v=glance
It is a huge myth that killing becomes "easier" the more you do it. In fact it becomes harder to kill over and over again.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No. The person making the "killing women and children" claim, Jimmy Massey was just a defence-witness in the court case of the deserter Jeremy Hinzman. Jimmy Massey is a former USMC staff sergeant that served in Iraq.
Umm, no he was not a Marine, I just looked on MOL on the Personnell locator. And ther is no matches to that name.
This hole thing is B.S
-
Yup, already said. they guy was NEVER a marine.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
From what I can find on the net:
1. Jimmy Massey is not a deserter or on trial for anything.
2. Jimmy Massey was a marine for 12 years, and served three months in Iraq as a Staff Sergeant in the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Weapons Company. He was honourably discharged in December 2003.
3. Jimmy Massey is simply a witness in Jeremy Hinzman's case.
(http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/sjm/sjmhummv.jpg)
USMC Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey.
1.OK NOW I AM CALLIN BULL *****, I WAS ATTACHED TO 3/7. AND 3/7 DID NOT GO TO IRAQ WE WHENT TO AFGHANISTAN.
2.I DO NOT KNOW THIS GUY.
AND IM A SSgt TOO, AND ALL OF US SNCO'S EAT CHOW IN THE SAME SPOT SO I WOULD KNOW HIM THEN.
AND I DO NOT KNOW THIS GUY.
3 . THIS PICS ARE OLD, LOOK AT HIS CAMIES. OLD NOT NEW, Umm WE ALL GOT THE NEW CAMIES TO GO OVER.
4. HE IS NOT ON MOL, AND IF YOU ARE NOT ON THAT YOU ARE NOT OR HAVE EVER BEEN A MARINE.
SO STFU
-
Caps make you look *****.
-
Now if these people believe what they say on that site ... are they not right in expressing their views?
Sure, I guess if the Nazi's believed they were superior to the jews....by that same logic.... I guess they were right in expressing their views too.
Just because one believes a lie does not change the fact it is a lie.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by straffo
Caps make you look *****.
No I'm just pi$$ed, at that oscarhole. He has no Fu(k!ng clue.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I'm not going to STFU. :)
I have a lot more reason to belive that he was a marine than I have of you being a marine.
Come to CAMP PENDLETON, I will meat you at the gate.
-
Originally posted by YTSSGTD
No I'm just pi$$ed, at that oscarhole. He has no Fu(k!ng clue.
Look, its Mr Black!
Hows the Snipah! Rifle working out for you?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Look, its Mr Black!
Hows the Snipah! Rifle working out for you?
No im not your Mr. black. I do play AH look me up.
-
Originally posted by YTSSGTD
No I'm just pi$$ed, at that oscarhole. He has no Fu(k!ng clue.
Not having acces to the Marines database I just checked ongoogle news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=Jimmy+Massey+marine+&btnG=Recherche+Actualit%C3%A9s) Jimmy Massy status.
Perhaps he is lying to a lot of people or you made a typo /an error during your request on your DB
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not having acces to the Marines database I just checked ongoogle news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=Jimmy+Massey+marine+&btnG=Recherche+Actualit%C3%A9s) Jimmy Massy status.
Perhaps he is lying to a lot of people or you made a typo /an error during your request on your DB
I did a cut and past. So?????
-
As I say either this guy is an attention potato pretending to be a former marine in front of the world and sooner of later he will be outted.
Or you made an error when searching the Marines database.
-
However is it a lie?
Yes it is a lie.
The coalition does everything possible to prevent the loss of innocent life.
The terrorist could care less and routinely kill innocents. In fact the more innocents that die the better. US will get blamed anyway!
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war. If he would have complied with UN mandates and not defied the world 11 times playing a dangerous shell game with WMD. Or began flirting with AQ connections then the Invasion of Iraq would not have been necessary.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war. If he would have complied with UN mandates and not defied the world 11 times playing a dangerous shell game with WMD. Or began flirting with AQ connections then the Invasion of Iraq would not have been necessary.
LMAO!
Bush is the man responsible for this war. By the way. Where is the WMD?
-
Why are all these people claiming to be marines trying to make them look like illiterate morons?
-
Maybe they're from Army ?
-
See how abstract truth is relative Crummp? You believe what you just posted ... I don't.
So you believe America is looking for Empire huh? Just like we were on 10 Sep 2002.
Crumpp
-
No, I believe America has made a big mistake.
Depends on how it ends up.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Iraqi Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Read the incidents at the top of the scrolling screen and tell me who is responsible for those deaths? Coalition Forces??
You can bet though the Coalition is being blamed for each death the terrorist cause with roadside bombs, random rocket attacks, and suicide bombers. That is why they do it because the survivors will blame us. Hell the press does.
Crumpp
Who is responsible? We are, Crumpp. We invaded that country unprovoked, and set all this chaos in motion. That's simple to see, isn't it?
-
We invaded that country unprovoked,
Holy SMOKE!
Way to rewrite History!
Since your probably not in the Military, it just escaped your attention all the SHOOTING SADDAM did at our forces before the invasion.
And that's not even counting the silly games he played with the UN and the rest of the world.
Crumpp
-
if you're referring to the Iraqis taking pot shots at your aircraft, I must remind you that your aircraft were operating illegally in Iraqi airspace. So, in fact it was you who were provoking the Iraqis.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Sorry, couldn't help it, that statement is so ludicris
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Sorry, couldn't help it, that statement is so ludicris
I don't remember the legal basis of your operation.
-
I don't remember the legal basis of your operation.
The United Nations resolution to liberate Kuwait and the one that was passed to protect the Kurds from being slaughtered in Northern Iraq.
Crumpp
-
Every coalition plane that operated in Iraqi air space after the ceasefire did so without any international justification and the Iraqis were in their full right to shoot at them.
====
proof that gshmoltz is a communist hardon trying to sap the life energy out of our bodily fluids.
gshmoltz is a putz.
-
While their was no specific "mandate" to estabilish "no fly zones". There was a resolution to protect the Kurds and the Shiite minority.
The No Fly zones were estabilished to do just that.
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
Crumpp
-
You know as well as I that military action must be specifically mandated by the UN,
Where in the world do you get this?
Since When did the UN Member States give up the right to defend themselves?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You know as well as I that military action must be specifically mandated by the UN, and SC resolution 688 did in no way mandate or otherwise authorise military action.
Yeah, right.
I wonder why Gshlitz doesn't ever whine about any other non UN mandated wars in this world? Amercian fetish I guess.
What is a "UN" mandated war anyway....and what special authority or expertise does the UN have in deciding what wars are acceptable?
-
Iraq did not attack, or pose a threat to the United States.
In whose opinion? The Norwegians??
Hindsight is 20/20. Iraq may not have imposed a serious threat. That was not the perception Saddam deliberately created. He played a dangerous cat and mouse game with both WMD and AQ. The United States called his trump card.
The alternative would have been to wait until the Sarin is released at the local shopping mall.
So your an idiot if you think the United States will not act in it's own self defense. WE certainly would expect Norway too. Of course you're so blinded by your anti-American ranting you can see nothing else.
Crumpp
-
all of us Americans are barbarians... when we invade norway you had better just hand over the women and give up... for now we have to go to north dakota to kill norweigan babies.
lazs
-
You don't need the resources of a nation state to make sarin. In fact it is far less risky to simply make it in you garage than to seek assistance from a nation. The Tokyo subway attacks proved that.
Correct. Sarin was probably a poor example but you get the idea. We are not going to tolerate WMD in the hands of nuts who would use them.
He did not at any time create the impression of being a threat to the United States
That is a wonderful piece of fiction! What color is the sky in your world?
You're an idiot if you think anyone will ever trust you again. You have set the legal precedence now. It is quite clear that anyone can attack everyone with little or no justification beyond the possibility of a fictional future threat.
You have an astonding ability to rewrite history. "Little to no Justification" is very much a relative term. Mounds of physical evidence and the every foreign policy think tank in the world in agreement. So I would hardly say you are repeating the facts.
Wonder how Norway would feel in our position were things are not quite so academic?
Is that not the claim Europeans made for years?
How can we judge Europes actions when the United States has not experienced large civilian causalties?
Big bunch of hypocrites.
proven that you can't be trusted to abide by any treaty, and you're a threat to world peace.
The Norweigens are coming!! The Norweigens are coming!!
Pfft...
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The United Nations resolution to liberate Kuwait and the one that was passed to protect the Kurds from being slaughtered in Northern Iraq.
Crumpp
I don't remember of a UN resolution for the "no fly zone".
-
schlotz... we have to get some practice in.
lazs
-
I don't remember of a UN resolution for the "no fly zone".
There is not a specific mandate for the No-fly zones, that is correct.
There is one to protect the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North from Saddams wrath. Since the coalition incited them to revolt against Saddam and then had our ME allies back off removing Saddam from power it put the US between a rock and hard place. It is only big boy rules we protect them for helping us.
I for one am proud we choose to protect the Shiites and Kurds rather than listen to the banter of Europeans in their cozy, protected homes.
Crumpp
-
The UN only condemned the Iraqi actions and urged humanitarian organisations to help
I am sure the Kurds and Shiites appreciate that!!
Must have been a good tradgedy to discuss in European Coffee shops.
Pfft...
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, that is incorrect. There is no UN resolution calling for member nations to protect the Shiites or Kurds. The UN only condemned the Iraqi actions and urged humanitarian organisations to help. The no-fly zones were illegal.
And this is why I'm so pissed at the UN and why I instinctivly disagree with some of your stances and this cold legalistic way you look at things, and I apologize before hand if this persponally offends you GS..
Tsk Tsk Tsk, Serbian genocidal killers, we here at the UN highly condemn your slaughter of 8,000 innocent refugees under our protection. However we feel legally OK since our legal duty to protect said civilian refugees ended when we handed them into your capable hands...
There are more important and greater considerations than legal and illegal in certain circumstances GS... If you just look at legality I assume from what u told me everyting the Dutch UN did in Srebrenica was legal, but it was not right or moral...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
We would not go around invading nations that has never attacked us or supported an attack on us, and doesn't even pose a threat to us ... if that's what you mean?
(http://cybaea.com/pictures/pcd2742/JVF10-22.42.2.jpg)
A reinactment of an attack by your countrymen on the Saxon town of York.
-
Well, as long as you apologise...
-
Well, as long as you apologise...
And it's all "legal", right?
Crumpp
-
Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.
-
But GS do you not see the difference between it apparently being legal but not being moral or correct?
Also GS why is it unreasltic that I expect the UN to make sure its "safe havens" are, indeed, safe?
I understand you get angry over this topic, but if there ever was a clear example of legal and correct not being the same I'm guessing Srebrenica is it...
What is your view on this?
-
But GS do you not see the difference between it apparently being legal but not being moral or correct?
He's a lost idiot and wouldn't know what was moral if it came up and bit him on that bellybutton he constantly shows.
but I have a feeling they would have been quite upset with the Vikings if they were.
The UN would have condemned it and ask for someone to send aid. But not stop it because that would be illegal and violate the rights of the plunderer.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Crumpp
-
I agree GS, the UN probably would have passed several inconsequential resolutions regarding the Viking's behavior.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But GS do you not see the difference between it apparently being legal but not being moral or correct?
Something legal didn't have to be moral it has to respect law.
-
I see... The vikings were relegated to insignifigance and so now that you are no possible threat to any country bigger than say... Rhode Isalnd... it's "oh we were just kidding back then... we will never invade anyone again.... please don't hurt us.."?
like you really could invade anyone...
lazs
-
Something legal didn't have to be moral it has to respect law.
Crap. If that is what you believe then your system is truly lost.
A legal system exist's to prevent the strong from praying on the weak and doing what is wrong.
Now both morals and legallity have evolved over the years to reflect changing attitudes. When they are out of balance then in a well designed legal system, laws change.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by straffo
Something legal didn't have to be moral it has to respect law.
It was perfectly legal to own slaves in 1840 America..
So it was ok then, right? There is nothing wrong with it, there is nothing illegal, it's ok?
-
Then again we don't need to invade anyone.
Yes because your country is small and insignificant in the World Power structure. Norway does not get blamed for every wrong in the world.
Crumpp
-
Gscholtz is an attention potato, stop feeding him and he'll go away.
-
So now you want to dictate law and what's considered "right" in other countries? Typical.
Is that what your anger and paranoia read into that statement?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So now you want to dictate law and what's considered "right" in other countries? Typical.
You seem to be happy with that in your support of some unwritten internatinal laws that you claim apply to all people's whether they choose to accept them or not... These laws are so dear to you that they even make invading violator nations legal in your view..
-
Gscholtz is an attention potato, stop feeding him and he'll go away.
But he so fun and easy to make look silly!!
Like a moth to a lamp, he just bounces from one stupid concept to another...
Crumpp
-
Most of the blame you get is well earned.
How does it feel to eat a steady diet of propaganda?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Crap. If that is what you believe then your system is truly lost.
It's not what I believe it's a constat,a fact.
A legal system exist's to prevent the strong from praying on the weak and doing what is wrong.[/B]
Nope, a legal system is made to give rules a legal system don't care nor protect the weak.
It can produce legal judgement like the one discussed in this thread First time marijuana seller gets 55 years (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137530)
Now both morals and legallity have evolved over the years to reflect changing attitudes. When they are out of balance then it a well designed legal system, laws change.[/B]
Almost :)
A legal system change when some one manage to have a consencus for a new law or a revised version, law don't change on its own will :) (I know it nitpicking :))
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Most of the blame you get is well earned.
Even Bin Laden's stated reasons behind 9/11?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It was perfectly legal to own slaves in 1840 America..
So it was ok then, right? There is nothing wrong with it, there is nothing illegal, it's ok?
It was legal in 1840.
Not moral according to my education , but certainly it was for some or the secession war wouldn't have started.
Segregation was legal some years ago.
Not moral but I'm sure there is a least one living person thinking it is moral.
-
GS you say my views are unrealistic about how things should work.
Just to be clear, I am glad somebody came to help my old country and all the peoples. I understand the UN had a very hard job to do in a complicated civil war so I'm thankful that they helped as they could. However none of that takes away from the fact that srebrenica was a disaster.
So please tell me what I should have realstically expected from the UN safe havens? How shpuld have srebrenica worked out with the serbs coming?
-
Its not a diversion, its perfectly on topic.
First, its a clear case of something being legal but not morally correct. This is entirely applicable to this thread since you claim the Iraq overflights were illegal and I contend that legality in itself is not enough.
Second, you said my views as to how things should work are unrealstic.
I am simply asking you for clarification.
-
I understand GS, we have argued over this too much.
Back to the flights only. I believe you once said that germany would have been legaly invaded for its treatment of jews even if it was done just in its own borders under current German laws - meaning Hitler's whim.
How is that legal attack on Germany to protect the jews any different than the US and UK overflying Iraq to protect Shias and Kurds from the whims of Saddam hussein and Iraq law?
-
Segregation was legal some years ago.
So legal systems do evolve to reflect morality.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I understand GS, we have argued over this too much.
Back to the flights only. I believe you once said that germany would have been legaly invaded for its treatment of jews even if it was done just in its own borders under current German laws - meaning Hitler's whim.
How is that legal attack on Germany to protect the jews any different than the US and UK overflying Iraq to protect Shias and Kurds from the whims of Saddam hussein and Iraq law?
If you must ask this question you obiously have no fashion sense .
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As a soldier your Boss is not your superior officer, or the military, or the government, or the President, but the people of your country. It is they who ultimately should decide if the actions by the military is justifiable or not, because it is they who ultimately will be held responsible for them.
We'd never win a war with that attitude!!
When push comes to shove, and the military is called upon to go into combat, strict and immediate adherence to NCO's and officer's orders (legal orders) is paramount in order to do the job with as little loss of life as possible.
If any private out there feels he has to answer to the public rather than his squad leader, he is not a soldier.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So legal systems do evolve to reflect morality.
Crumpp
I missed you reply ,sorry.
I've translation trouble with your assertion can you please reformulate it ?
Actually I can have 2 contradictory translations of it :)
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
We'd never win a war with that attitude!!
When push comes to shove, and the military is called upon to go into combat, strict and immediate adherence to NCO's and officer's orders (legal orders) is paramount in order to do the job with as little loss of life as possible.
If any private out there feels he has to answer to the public rather than his squad leader, he is not a soldier.
So if your squad leader orders his troops to set up a massacre in Vietnamese village you just merrily obey him because of the orders you got... Oh you added the word "legal"...