It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Mokuhadzushi doesn't care about truth or reality. He wants all Marines to have a degree in international law and the ability to consider the nuances of law and the threat of death with absolute accuracy in a matter of nanoseconds.
Of course, he doesn't care that the lives of the American warriors is put in jeopardy by insurgents who daily abuse the laws of war by feigning death to entrap soldiers and Marines, who rig bodies with explosives and take civilians as hostages and video tape their brutal murders.
Originally posted by USArmyEngineer
What banned weapons are you talking about?
Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi]
Napalm
It is a lot less expensive to bury a dead terrorist then it is to feed and heal one until you can repatriate him.
Originally posted by smatts
It is a lot less expensive to bury a dead terrorist then it is to feed and heal one until you can repatriate him.
Why are you labeling insurgents as terrorists? They are just people who don't want americans in thier country.
[edit on 11/19/2004 by smatts]
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi]
Napalm
Napalm is not nor was it ever outlawed
try again
Originally posted by smatts
...........The bottom line is that american soldiers are murdering unarmed / unthreatening combatants. If they cannot be trained well enough to determine that they are in fact unarmed and injured, they should not be on the front lines. Saying they are "tired" and "stressed out" are not reasons to murder people.
.............
Originally posted by verfed
It is a lot less expensive to bury a dead terrorist then it is to feed and heal one until you can repatriate him.
This marine is saving the United States money. It is only logical even if you think it is immoral.
The marine could be thinking this:
"This towelhead was trying to blow my face off a couple of minutes ago."
It might not be official policy for America and it might not be publicly discouraged but I am sure the brass smiles every time a grunt saves them all of the trouble of having to take care of "Hazzi Aliahzi Fawzi Jihadi"
Originally posted by sniper068
If they were unarmed then they should have armed themselves !!! Maybe next time they will think twice before decorating the bridges of there city with the burnt corpses of American civilians !!!!
Originally posted by sniper068
I find no credibility in anyone who condemns the actions of American service men while turning a blind eye to the horrific acts being committed by the radical islamic fundamentalist. The opinion of those who do so is without merit , fortunately we have people with the ability to go beyond the realm of tunnel vision, so often displayed by the un-educated narrow minded critics who retrieve there knowlegde from the bias media.
Originally posted by bodrul
Originally posted by sniper068
If they were unarmed then they should have armed themselves !!! Maybe next time they will think twice before decorating the bridges of there city with the burnt corpses of American civilians !!!!
thats abit stupid did all of them do that or was it just a few
and wasnt that only once or twice
and wasnt it US piolets that went there to bomb them?
Originally posted by Amuk
Ok by your own words wasnt it just once or twice Americans shot the wounded?
Wasnt the insurgents there to kill the Americans?
According to YOUR WORDS it should be alright, right?
Originally posted by bodrul
[secoundly when you are in a force that are obliged to follow international laws. its not ok when the person your shooting isnt a threat.
because far as you lot are concerned laws dont mean jack
Originally posted by bodrul
because far as you lot are concerned laws dont mean jack