Senseless brutality

[R. Richard]

A lot of children today seem to be raised in a manner that will produce such as thrill killers. I suspect that is not really a conscious decision to raise such a child. It probably comes from a basic lack of discipline early on. By the time that the parents realize that there is a problem, the kid and his buddies have become too big and too strong to be effectively disciplined, particularly if the kid is being raised by a single parent mother.

JMNTHO.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A lot of children today seem to be raised in a manner that will produce such as thrill killers. I suspect that is not really a conscious decision to raise such a child. It probably comes from a basic lack of discipline early on. By the time that the parents realize that there is a problem, the kid and his buddies have become too big and too strong to be effectively disciplined, particularly if the kid is being raised by a single parent mother.

JMNTHO.

I've seen it in two parent families. Especially in families where the parents exhibit a marked lack of self discipline.

 

[cantdog]

Here's a link to a live war crime.

"Awesome!"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Here's a link to a live war crime.

"Awesome!"

Since when is shooting an enemy combatant in a war zone considered a war crime? I suppose you think we should just wound the insurgants and that's enough? A wounded man can still kill, ask any Marine who served in the pacific in WWII. The majority of insurgents are every bit as fanatical as the Japanese were, they just aren't as well trained or disciplined.

When you scream war crime over every death, it looses any power to move people. I saw nothing in that footage to suggest a war crime. The man certainly wasn't a prisoner, and fifty feet in a war zone might as well be five miles as far as the safety of the Marines who would have had to take him prisoner is concerned.

 

[zeb1094]

Here's a link to a live war crime.

"Awesome!"

*poke* *poke* This stick must not be sharp enough.

 

[cantdog]

I think, Colly, that there is a Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Shooting a wounded enemy combatant writhing on the ground? Tip of the iceberg.

*UCMJ*

It is important to note that US policy with regard to the treatment
accorded to prisoners of war and all other enemy personnel captured,
interned, or otherwise held in US Army custody during the course of a
conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded
humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final
release or repatriation. The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
states clearly that the observance of this Code is fully and equally
binding upon US personnel, in whatever capacity they may be serving,
whether capturing troops, custodial personnel or any other. The UCMJ
applies equally to all detained or interned personnel, whether their
status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other.


/It may be added here that it applies regardless of whether they are
known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses
that could be characterized as war crimes. The administration of
inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with
deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national
law, international law, and the UCMJ./


Soldiers who murder Iraqis are not the only ones violating the UCMJ. All
those who are witness to the atrocities but fail to report them to
concerned authorities are to be held equally guilty of violation.


The UCMJ clearly states that violations of this Code may result in an
individual being prosecuted as a war criminal, and that anyone observing
a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal
obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is
a violation in itself.


*The Geneva Conventions*


The US happens to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and is
therefore subject to all injunctions thereof. The video clip incident is
in violation of Geneva Convention I of August 12, 1949, for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field


Interestingly, the video clip on the said web site was accompanied by a
comment by one Capt. James Kimber: "The current policy in Iraq is to
SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing [sic] IEDs [Improvised Explosive
Devices] ... <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm>"


If Kimber is to be believed and this has been the policy in Iraq, then
the higher-ups giving the orders may be held as directly implicated in
all such atrocities: read murders.


As for what happens if at some point Kimber is brought to trial for his
crimes, Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law
in San Diego, has this to say, "Self defense is a defense to a homicide
prosecution only if the shooter had an honest and reasonable belief that
he had to defend himself or others from imminent death or great bodily
injury. The question is how imminent the danger would be from a planted
IED. There is also a factual question about whether the Marines were
telling the truth."


These comments of Professor Cohn are equally relevant in the Haditha
incident.


*Representations*


Roughly three years after the date of the video clip incident, this same
Capt. James Kimber appeared in a news story on April 10, 2006. The AP
wrote
<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14310414.htm>
that "three Marines have been relieved of their commands in connection
with problems during their deployment to Iraq." The three men relieved
were involved in the infamous Haditha incident on November 19, 2005, in
which 15 Iraqis from two families were slaughtered by Marines from their
battalion who went on the rampage after a roadside bomb killed one of
their colleagues.


A video taken by an Iraqi student of journalism that was obtained and
brought to wider public attention by Time Magazine showed a bedroom
floor smeared with blood and chunks of human flesh and bullet holes in
the walls of a room in one of the homes. The dead included seven women
and three children, including a three-year-old girl.


The three Marine officers are Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commanding
officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; Capt. James S. Kimber,
commanding officer of Company K, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; and
Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, commanding officer of Company I, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.


While the recent AP story noted that no charges had been filed against
these men, "about a dozen 3rd Battalion Marines are being investigated
for war crimes in connection with the November 2005 incident in Haditha,
to determine if they violated the rules of military engagement."


Meanwhile, according to Lt. Lawton King, spokesman for the 1st Marine
Division at Camp Pendleton in California, Kimber and the others were
reassigned to new duties within their division because of a "lack of
confidence in their leadership abilities." He also said of the decision
to relieve the men of their command that, "It stems from their
performance during the entire deployment."


While the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether the Iraqis were intentionally
massacred by the Marines, there has been little mention of this in the
media, or of the fact that there is a second investigation on to examine
the misleading explanations given by the military about the Haditha
killings.

 

[rgraham666]

Knew it was a mistake to look at this.

I got my ass tanned lots when I was growing up.

What did it teach me? That people in authourity are capricious and cruel.

The bullies, who really enjoyed the 'thunk' of my head bouncing off a brick wall, occasionally got a stern talking to.

Me, sneaking under the fence to avoid the bullies, and was late because of the extra time this took, got the strap.

Let's not talk about the time I couldn't sit properly for a week because I lost a boot to a mud puddle.

 

[cantdog]

But your question was "since when..."

The UCMJ, like any law system, is subject to revision, constantly. Guess you have me stumped, there.

My point is that during wartime and during prohibitions, both of which we have ongoing right now in this country, casual violence and drive-by shootings and all that stuff always goes up, as the statistics show.

You may support the violations on the ground in the other fellow's country, and defy the law, set it aside, whatever you intend to have done, Colleen, with regard to the slaughter of other-people-not-us. But if your society is doing this in one place, you really cannot isolate it there. The whole society becomes more violent.

 

[zeb1094]

Damn, I gotta throw this stick away it works too good!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think, Colly, that there is a Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Shooting a wounded enemy combatant writhing on the ground? Tip of the iceberg.

*UCMJ*

It is important to note that US policy with regard to the treatment
accorded to prisoners of war and all other enemy personnel captured,
interned, or otherwise held in US Army custody during the course of a
conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded
humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final
release or repatriation. The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
states clearly that the observance of this Code is fully and equally
binding upon US personnel, in whatever capacity they may be serving,
whether capturing troops, custodial personnel or any other. The UCMJ
applies equally to all detained or interned personnel, whether their
status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other.


/It may be added here that it applies regardless of whether they are
known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses
that could be characterized as war crimes. The administration of
inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with
deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national
law, international law, and the UCMJ./


Soldiers who murder Iraqis are not the only ones violating the UCMJ. All
those who are witness to the atrocities but fail to report them to
concerned authorities are to be held equally guilty of violation.


The UCMJ clearly states that violations of this Code may result in an
individual being prosecuted as a war criminal, and that anyone observing
a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal
obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is
a violation in itself.


*The Geneva Conventions*


The US happens to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and is
therefore subject to all injunctions thereof. The video clip incident is
in violation of Geneva Convention I of August 12, 1949, for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field


Interestingly, the video clip on the said web site was accompanied by a
comment by one Capt. James Kimber: "The current policy in Iraq is to
SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing [sic] IEDs [Improvised Explosive
Devices] ... <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm>"


If Kimber is to be believed and this has been the policy in Iraq, then
the higher-ups giving the orders may be held as directly implicated in
all such atrocities: read murders.


As for what happens if at some point Kimber is brought to trial for his
crimes, Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law
in San Diego, has this to say, "Self defense is a defense to a homicide
prosecution only if the shooter had an honest and reasonable belief that
he had to defend himself or others from imminent death or great bodily
injury. The question is how imminent the danger would be from a planted
IED. There is also a factual question about whether the Marines were
telling the truth."


These comments of Professor Cohn are equally relevant in the Haditha
incident.


*Representations*


Roughly three years after the date of the video clip incident, this same
Capt. James Kimber appeared in a news story on April 10, 2006. The AP
wrote
<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14310414.htm>
that "three Marines have been relieved of their commands in connection
with problems during their deployment to Iraq." The three men relieved
were involved in the infamous Haditha incident on November 19, 2005, in
which 15 Iraqis from two families were slaughtered by Marines from their
battalion who went on the rampage after a roadside bomb killed one of
their colleagues.


A video taken by an Iraqi student of journalism that was obtained and
brought to wider public attention by Time Magazine showed a bedroom
floor smeared with blood and chunks of human flesh and bullet holes in
the walls of a room in one of the homes. The dead included seven women
and three children, including a three-year-old girl.


The three Marine officers are Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commanding
officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; Capt. James S. Kimber,
commanding officer of Company K, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; and
Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, commanding officer of Company I, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.


While the recent AP story noted that no charges had been filed against
these men, "about a dozen 3rd Battalion Marines are being investigated
for war crimes in connection with the November 2005 incident in Haditha,
to determine if they violated the rules of military engagement."


Meanwhile, according to Lt. Lawton King, spokesman for the 1st Marine
Division at Camp Pendleton in California, Kimber and the others were
reassigned to new duties within their division because of a "lack of
confidence in their leadership abilities." He also said of the decision
to relieve the men of their command that, "It stems from their
performance during the entire deployment."


While the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether the Iraqis were intentionally
massacred by the Marines, there has been little mention of this in the
media, or of the fact that there is a second investigation on to examine
the misleading explanations given by the military about the Haditha
killings.

He's not a prisoner Cant. You can't apply the rules for handling prisoners to any wounded enemy on a battlefield. If the Marines leave stong cover, go and capture him, and return him to that place, he's a prisoner. Wounded enemy combatants can be just as deadly as unwounded ones. On what grounds are you claiming an enemy fifty feet or more from a marine position is now a prisoner? What if he don't wanna be a prisoner? What if he's got a gun, or a grenade or an explosives belt aroun dhis waist and he's just waiting for some Marine to get close enough to use it so he can claim a kill before he goes to paradise to collect his virgins?

The clip provides no visual evidence that this is a secure area. No contextural evidence to show how he was wounded. For all I know, he was manuvering into position to throw a molotov cocktail or grendade when he was first shot. For all I know, there is sniper activity going on, or even a skirmish level action.

Soldiers, duirng action, shoot the enemy. It's the generally accepted method of conducting combat operations. In CI warfare, the troops are usually operating under rules of engagement that put a premium upon thier own lives, I.e. taking prisoners is encouraged when and if conditions make doing so mimimally dangerous.

The genevea accords don't outlaw shooting enemy combatants, last I checked.

I assume to your mind shooting people emplacing IED's is wrong. We should just let our guys get blown up and then, maybe we should go looking for the guy we saw placing it? These guys are sappers Cant. They are placing mines. No accord I ever saw demanded that you not shoot people placing land mines.

I know you are against the war in Iraq Cant. And I know, you are, in general against war period. But I saw no evidence of a war crime in that footage. I saw an act of war, in a war zone. If the full video shows that the wounded man was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, it would change things, but the video dosen't show that and I suspect if it did, they would have aired it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think, Colly, that there is a Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Shooting a wounded enemy combatant writhing on the ground? Tip of the iceberg.

*UCMJ*

It is important to note that US policy with regard to the treatment
accorded to prisoners of war and all other enemy personnel captured,
interned, or otherwise held in US Army custody during the course of a
conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded
humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final
release or repatriation. The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
states clearly that the observance of this Code is fully and equally
binding upon US personnel, in whatever capacity they may be serving,
whether capturing troops, custodial personnel or any other. The UCMJ
applies equally to all detained or interned personnel, whether their
status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other.


/It may be added here that it applies regardless of whether they are
known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses
that could be characterized as war crimes. The administration of
inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with
deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national
law, international law, and the UCMJ./


Soldiers who murder Iraqis are not the only ones violating the UCMJ. All
those who are witness to the atrocities but fail to report them to
concerned authorities are to be held equally guilty of violation.


The UCMJ clearly states that violations of this Code may result in an
individual being prosecuted as a war criminal, and that anyone observing
a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal
obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is
a violation in itself.


*The Geneva Conventions*


The US happens to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and is
therefore subject to all injunctions thereof. The video clip incident is
in violation of Geneva Convention I of August 12, 1949, for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field


Interestingly, the video clip on the said web site was accompanied by a
comment by one Capt. James Kimber: "The current policy in Iraq is to
SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing [sic] IEDs [Improvised Explosive
Devices] ... <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm>"


If Kimber is to be believed and this has been the policy in Iraq, then
the higher-ups giving the orders may be held as directly implicated in
all such atrocities: read murders.


As for what happens if at some point Kimber is brought to trial for his
crimes, Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law
in San Diego, has this to say, "Self defense is a defense to a homicide
prosecution only if the shooter had an honest and reasonable belief that
he had to defend himself or others from imminent death or great bodily
injury. The question is how imminent the danger would be from a planted
IED. There is also a factual question about whether the Marines were
telling the truth."


These comments of Professor Cohn are equally relevant in the Haditha
incident.


*Representations*


Roughly three years after the date of the video clip incident, this same
Capt. James Kimber appeared in a news story on April 10, 2006. The AP
wrote
<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14310414.htm>
that "three Marines have been relieved of their commands in connection
with problems during their deployment to Iraq." The three men relieved
were involved in the infamous Haditha incident on November 19, 2005, in
which 15 Iraqis from two families were slaughtered by Marines from their
battalion who went on the rampage after a roadside bomb killed one of
their colleagues.


A video taken by an Iraqi student of journalism that was obtained and
brought to wider public attention by Time Magazine showed a bedroom
floor smeared with blood and chunks of human flesh and bullet holes in
the walls of a room in one of the homes. The dead included seven women
and three children, including a three-year-old girl.


The three Marine officers are Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commanding
officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; Capt. James S. Kimber,
commanding officer of Company K, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; and
Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, commanding officer of Company I, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.


While the recent AP story noted that no charges had been filed against
these men, "about a dozen 3rd Battalion Marines are being investigated
for war crimes in connection with the November 2005 incident in Haditha,
to determine if they violated the rules of military engagement."


Meanwhile, according to Lt. Lawton King, spokesman for the 1st Marine
Division at Camp Pendleton in California, Kimber and the others were
reassigned to new duties within their division because of a "lack of
confidence in their leadership abilities." He also said of the decision
to relieve the men of their command that, "It stems from their
performance during the entire deployment."


While the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether the Iraqis were intentionally
massacred by the Marines, there has been little mention of this in the
media, or of the fact that there is a second investigation on to examine
the misleading explanations given by the military about the Haditha
killings.

The wounded man in the clip was not a prisoner. Although wounded, he had not made any gesture of surrender and was still armed and a threat to anybody who approached him. Besides this, there is a good chance he was carrying a bomb that would have blown himself up, along with anybody nearby. This is a common practice among Muslim terrorists.

The UCMJ is NOT international law.

The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and Iraq probably is too. However, the terrorists in Iraq are not signatories to it so they are not protected by it. The GC covers captured enemy soldiers and unarmed civilians but it does not cover terrorists and other criminals. The guy may even have been faking bwing wounded in hopes of drawing somebody into approaching him so he could kill them.

 

[cantdog]

Wonderful. Support the crimes, even if the actual military itself does take the Code seriously and did in fact move to deal with violators of it. You would not be alone, if you felt like that.

If a Marine was wounded, and one of the insurgents in some political militia shot them and went "Woo Hoo! Awesome!" you'd be seething. But Iraqis are special. So be it. That attitude runs all the way up, on the political side, and has many apologists within the officer corps. Whatever. But it shouldn't surprise anyone, then, when acts of base brutality proliferate at home.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But your question was "since when..."

The UCMJ, like any law system, is subject to revision, constantly. Guess you have me stumped, there.

My point is that during wartime and during prohibitions, both of which we have ongoing right now in this country, casual violence and drive-by shootings and all that stuff always goes up, as the statistics show.

You may support the violations on the ground in the other fellow's country, and defy the law, set it aside, whatever you intend to have done, Colleen, with regard to the slaughter of other-people-not-us. But if your society is doing this in one place, you really cannot isolate it there. The whole society becomes more violent.

No Can't, I wasn't trying to stump you. I simply was pointing out you are applying the rules for handling prisoners to a situation where I don't think it's logically applicable to say that man was a prisoner. He was a potential prisoner, but so is everyone who takes up arms. You want to extend the rules for handling prisoners to any wounded man in a war zone. That dosen't seem rational to me. If you're going to extend the rules for prisoner handling to any wounded man on the battlefield, then you pretty much have put an end to any attempt to wage a battle. Which is probably your goal, but it isn't very realistic to my mind. Some of our greatest heros won the CMOH for carrying on after being wounded. By your rules, they are war ciminals, as they were actually prisoners and subject to the rules governing the conduct of prisoners?

 

[entitled]

If a Marine was wounded, and one of the insurgents in some political militia shot them and went "Woo Hoo! Awesome!" you'd be seething. But Iraqis are special. So be it. That attitude runs all the way up, on the political side, and has many apologists within the officer corps. Whatever. But it shouldn't surprise anyone, then, when acts of base brutality proliferate at home.

Ummm... Hate to say it, but you're wrong here. Some of us realize that areas like that, with heavy fighting, are either kill or be killed areas. They cheer because they survive another day. They cheer because they have gotten rid of a potential threat, somebody who wants to kill them. It's a sad fact that it happens on both sides but the mentality of it can not be helped. Some of us accept that.

 

[zeb1094]

You know, remembering back on my trainning I seem to recall that unless the combatant visibly surrendered and divest himself of all weapons, he was considered a threat. Even if laying there on the ground not moving he was a threat.

I was taught to put one round into the combatants head to make sure he was no longer a threat to me or my fellow soldiers. As even a wounded combantant could trigger a device concealed on his person that would kill me and me team mates.

So as for the video, I see no crime committed. And as it looked to me the terrorist on the ground was trying to hide something or get something instead of surrendering, I too would have fired or ordered my men to fire.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wonderful. Support the crimes, even if the actual military itself does take the Code seriously and did in fact move to deal with violators of it. You would not be alone, if you felt like that.

If a Marine was wounded, and one of the insurgents in some political militia shot them and went "Woo Hoo! Awesome!" you'd be seething. But Iraqis are special. So be it. That attitude runs all the way up, on the political side, and has many apologists within the officer corps. Whatever. But it shouldn't surprise anyone, then, when acts of base brutality proliferate at home.

I don't see that any crime was committed since the (possibly) wounded man was still armed, was not surrendering, and was not a prisoner.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wonderful. Support the crimes, even if the actual military itself does take the Code seriously and did in fact move to deal with violators of it. You would not be alone, if you felt like that.

If a Marine was wounded, and one of the insurgents in some political militia shot them and went "Woo Hoo! Awesome!" you'd be seething. But Iraqis are special. So be it. That attitude runs all the way up, on the political side, and has many apologists within the officer corps. Whatever. But it shouldn't surprise anyone, then, when acts of base brutality proliferate at home.

Damned right I'd be seething. But I'd be seething that he shot a marine. The wound status of that marine is immaterial. And I would hope we called in some CAS, fired up the old napalm grill and cooked that fucker down too.

I have freinds who are Marines. I have family who are marines. And I have a boatload of near and distant relations over there in all branches. And yeah, I make a distinction. Our boy's lives are more important than theirs. Sue me.

 

[cantdog]

I've answered this. I don't care how you slice the thin lines. Not my lookout. Kill the ragheads, if you must. The possibility of IEDs in Iraq, like the formlessness of the resistance in Vietnam, leads to orders to just shoot whatever moves. They already know from training that Islam is evil, and that they hate us.

My point is about the senseless brutality at home. The younger our citizens are, the more they are swayed by the excitement of just killing, just hating, just pounding on someone for any old reason. The particulars of the case here, or the households of Iraqis raided and shot up, as seems to happen after an explosion kills or wounds some of our men and women-- they do not change the affect on the whole society. Both societies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I've answered this. I don't care how you slice the thin lines. Not my lookout. Kill the ragheads, if you must. The possibility of IEDs in Iraq, like the formlessness of the resistance in Vietnam, leads to orders to just shoot whatever moves. They already know from training that Islam is evil, and that they hate us.

My point is about the senseless brutality at home. The younger our citizens are, the more they are swayed by the excitement of just killing, just hating, just pounding on someone for any old reason. The particulars of the case here, or the households of Iraqis raided and shot up, as seems to happen after an explosion kills or wounds some of our men and women-- they do not change the affect on the whole society. Both societies.

Ci warfare is ugle. And Brutal. None of the men over thier created it so. And I'm sure most would be glad if it wasn't going on, but that's not their decision. They fight the battle they were handed. The battle the enemy chooses to wage.

How you link the extingencies of CI warfare to the actions of these youths is quite beyond me. I don't see any chain of evidence or causality that makes that position rational. Not saying it isn't, because I coul dbe missing somehting, but thus far, I don't think you have made your paoint very effectively.

 

[oggbashan]

I've answered this. I don't care how you slice the thin lines. Not my lookout. Kill the ragheads, if you must. The possibility of IEDs in Iraq, like the formlessness of the resistance in Vietnam, leads to orders to just shoot whatever moves. They already know from training that Islam is evil, and that they hate us...

I agree that in a combat situation a wounded enemy is a potential threat, sometimes even if he pretends to surrender. The Pacific Theatre in WWII showed that 'surrender' could just be an invitation to 'Come and be killed'.

I disagree that 'Islam is evil'.

The troops in Iraq are not fighting Islam. That is what Al_Queda wants the world to believe and it isn't true. What is being fought are several factions within Iraq that do not want that country to have a peaceful solution to its problems. The factions may claim to be Islamic, of different forms. Their actions have nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with temporal power.

The majority of people who follow Islam are as peaceful and peace-loving as any Christian, and more so than some Christians. There are different forms of Islam. Some are fanatical about certain things. Most are not. There are different forms of Christianity. The same applies.

For both religions the overwhelming majority would never try to kill or injure anyone - because it is AGAINST THEIR FAITH.

Og

 

[entitled]

Maybe it's the glorification of slaughtering 'the enemy' that has such an effect on the young.

 

[zeb1094]

I agree that in a combat situation a wounded enemy is a potential threat, sometimes even if he pretends to surrender. The Pacific Theatre in WWII showed that 'surrender' could just be an invitation to 'Come and be killed'.

I disagree that 'Islam is evil'.

The troops in Iraq are not fighting Islam. That is what Al_Queda wants the world to believe and it isn't true. What is being fought are several factions within Iraq that do not want that country to have a peaceful solution to its problems. The factions may claim to be Islamic, of different forms. Their actions have nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with temporal power.

The majority of people who follow Islam are as peaceful and peace-loving as any Christian, and more so than some Christians. There are different forms of Islam. Some are fanatical about certain things. Most are not. There are different forms of Christianity. The same applies.

For both religions the overwhelming majority would never try to kill or injure anyone - because it is AGAINST THEIR FAITH.

Og

No, no, no I'm not going there with my stick!

 

[entitled]

No, no, no I'm not going there with my stick!

Why not? He's absolutely correct. It's just not seen that way.

 

[zeb1094]

Why not? He's absolutely correct. It's just not seen that way.

It was these lines I would poke with a stick. I agree with everything else. And I don't disagree with the peaceful parts. Well just a little.

The majority of people who follow Islam are as peaceful and peace-loving as any Christian, and more so than some Christians. There are different forms of Islam. Some are fanatical about certain things. Most are not. There are different forms of Christianity. The same applies.

For both religions the overwhelming majority would never try to kill or injure anyone - because it is AGAINST THEIR FAITH.

It's just that these peaceful Islamics don't speak up, aren't demonstrating against, aren't shouting for their bretheren to stop!

 

[entitled]

It's just that these peaceful Islamics don't speak up, aren't demonstrating against, aren't shouting for their bretheren to stop!

Of course not. They're waiting for all the fanaticals to be killed off first, so they can speak out without getting slaughtered.

Either that or they ARE speaking out and the media has chosen not to focus on the fact.

Take your pick.