Anyone seen the new movie Rambo?
They show the soldielr betting on human lives, throwing mines in paddy's, and making the civilians run through them?
Well, this was a movie.

What US forces are doing, is not a movie, it's real.
They are actually shooting on civilians for fun, and joking about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy3O-R8Nn2I

Without in any way condoning or approving of the above mentioned, what is e.g. exploding a carbomb on a marketplace filled with civilians? Does that qualify as a warcrime?

yes penguin blowing up a car to kill people is a warcrime.

what are you suprised? people arent idiots or terror supporters here. we can look at an issue from all sides, two wrongs dont make a right.

we actually know most american soldiers arent bad, just like most muslims arent part of al qaeda. america is trying to do the right thing, and al qaeda isnt the biggest evil the world has ever seen, they have twisted logic that makes them think they are in the right. and thoes americans who believe they own the world have their own twisted logic.

Without wishing or fantasizing in any way, just wondering when will The Dutch drive by an exploding IED?

70% of children running for that bottle of fresh water will (well, if they) grow up and align with anybody who want to kill Americans.. this i can say with certainty.

The BBC just came out with a documentary stating that the total amount of money lost from Iraq calculated so far via corruption from both US contracting and their Iraqi pawns is equal to 23 billion dollars. Mind you this is what they've found out so far and ofcourse the BBC isn't going to show the entire lump sum stolen from Iraq via this dacoitery called a war.

Thats absolutelty disgusting, i hope they all get violated to the highest degree very soon.

Already happened a number of times, with casualties. Your point?



NB: one of the soldiers killed in the April 2008 incident is the son of the new commander in chief of the Dutch military. > that makes it kinda personal, I would think.

I saw that too, it's a disgrace.

You're not a flamer or an immature poster, yet you out-weight talibans to US targeting civilian/humans for the fun of it, do I need a point?

US was supposed to be there to overthrow Saddam, it's done, they were not there to hunt humans, grow up.

The bombing run on the civilians, did you have the audio on and listened in to the conversation? Similar explosion on civilians was carried out not too long ago, 11 Pakistani soldiers were martyred.

Shez, I've not out weighted anybody over anybody else. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

The question was has anyone seen the movie Rambo, that was not answered.
You went on talking about car bombs in a market place.

One is a barbarian, that's why we are too trying to take them out.
The US acts are Barbaric, there is no comparison.

If a robber commits theft, do The Dutch police begin a looting spree?
It's not algebra that both wrongs will strike out each other.

In answer to your question, I've seen the first three Rambo movies and I like the first best.

As for the remainder of your comments, I inquired about what qualifies as a warcrime, a term which is not self-evident and which you introduced without further explanation. Do not try to shoe-horn some position or statement in my direction when I haven't made any, and have taken steps to avoid making any. I've even showed restraint by not asking you why you are not posting footage of carbombs against civilian Iraqis and being similarly outraged...

Your second question was "Without wishing or fantasizing in any way, just wondering when will The Dutch drive by an exploding IED?" and the answer was "Already happened a number of times, with casualties. Your point?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Damn, I missed it.
When will they drive by an IED next?

I've watched the movie. Hell, I've watched all the Rambo movies. Its funny that in the ending of the third one it says "This film is dedicated to the bravery of the Afghan people" LMAO....how times have changed.

^ I meant the new 2008 release http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462499/

70% of children running for that bottle of fresh water will (well, if they) grow up and align with anybody who want to kill Americans.. this i can say with certainty

That what I say .. that in every bomb explosion you make at least 10 terrorist .. be it on any side of the picture .. A person who has lost his loved ones can do anything .. including inflicting pain & death to others ...

some interview of an american soldier back from iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys5bC0esMKU part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdGHlHCblk part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2gkPzlcRpI part 3

yeah, you should also watch "War, Inc.". They have pulled american leg on its policies like nothing.

even American public is quite aware of the monster Bush has created. situation is very similar to what we had during Vietnam era (even worse).
Its quite clear that US has lost this war.
just pray that some sane person will come to power in US and roll-back these stupid policies that Bush created.

EDITED

Burn!

because that gets mass coverage and well known, while US soldiers are supposedly entrusted in the name of freedom, liberty, democracy to bring life, liberty, democracy to iraqis, yet they act in opposite ways. This is brushed under the carpet.

"Reason for edit: Dont bring other posters family into arguments. Respect their mother/sisters as you would like your own to be respected. Your comment was in extremely bad taste"

Unless one considers women working to be in bad taste in general (which 'we' don't in the part of the world where I live), I've not said or implied anything disrespectful about other people's mother/sister. Any bad interpretation of what I posted, specifically any interpretation of the word 'work' - which I take to mean e.g. to clean or to cook or to administrate - is in your own heart or mind.

Of course, it is perfectly innocent to post "Damn, I missed it. When will they [Dutch] drive by an IED next?" after "Without wishing or fantasizing in any way, just wondering when will The Dutch drive by an exploding IED?".

Obviously.

Maybe on your planet, but not on mine.

There, you seem to be learning already.
Next time you want to associate anyone with death, ensure it's your own family members you talk about, and not others.

I think you yourself were hinting at Dutch casualties. Did you consider the possibility that I might have (female) relatives in the Dutch military. Or that they might be stationed in Afghanistan?

So what did you mean to say. That US soldiers could not have acted in opposite ways to what the stated claim is, or that when they do, its not brushed under the carpet.
American media treats American soldiers shooting at passing cars, abusing kids, animals, people in Iraq, as less important issues relative to terrorist threat to west. Though if you were Iraqi, this would be equivalent to terrorist issue. Imagine Dutch troops and cops doing that in Holland, it would be outrageous same as terrorist attack.

Don't know what your problem is, see post #2.

Well then, you should have mentioned it earlier in you 'post # 2', open your own thread, and list their names and pics there.
I don't have time to consider anything you say or do or any possibilities who they work for.

I don't see why I (should) have do any of that, as it wasn't relevant at the start of the thread. It became potentially relevant only after you started to talk about Dutch military and IEDs a few posts later, i.e. after you did make time to craft a barb. But clearly, while you like to admonish others ("Next time you want to associate anyone with death, ensure it's your own family members you talk about, and not others.") you can't be bothered yourself. Keep it up.

Exactly, so why mention about them in the first place?
Stop whining about it now.

The thread is not about The Dutch or Afghan IED's.
Learn to focus, as in not distracting away like an ADD poster, by not posting sarcarstic one liners 'not related to the thread'.

Again, this thread is about justice to The Iraqi's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy3O-R8Nn2I

You are the one that introduced the Dutch and Afghan IEDs mister short-memory, not me, so you stop wining. As for getting distracted, see post #2: that's about Iraqi's FYI. How you subsquently got from there to Dutch and Afghan IED's is a mystery to me (but you went there). I also explained why I posted the question in post 2, which you have conveniently ignored.

Look it up in dictionary.com
Now your Post # 2


No it doesn't, it only qualifies as guerilla warfare.
War crimes are associated to 'The Men In Uniform', who are trusted to uphold the law, and not insurgents.

So, the IED's blowing up NATO troops is not a war crime.
What the US forces are doing in that video, that's a war crime.

Happy now?

Only Muslims will liebrate Iraq1$

Very 'mature', to avoid a serious topic namely the question 'what consitutes a warcrime', which men far smarter and wiser than either you or I have struggled to define. You suggest that 'men not in uniform' (e.g. guerillas) are somehow not belligerents and somehow not (to be held) accountable for their actions. This is rediculous. War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war". "The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces." Meanwhile, "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. " Not sure what an ICC judge would rule but carbombing a market square full of civilians could well qualify as warcrime. We weren't discussing IEDs to begin with so I'm going to leave that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internati...nvasion_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...the_laws_of_war

Go debate on some Thersarus or dictionary.com type forums, to change the definition.
Your opinions might be heard there.

Until the definition doesn't change according to your opinion, it's very immature of you to insist.
Now behave yourself, open your own thread, and discuss there how some English words definition's are not to your liking.

Good bye.

Nothing to do with dictionaries (i.e. 'semantics') or with my opinion. It's al well documented and available from institutions like the ICC. You just don't want to deal with it.

The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 106 countries. This treaty is called the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages.
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva
Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded
are collected, provided they are not military objectives; Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in
violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are
included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

Toilet paper is worth more than the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court these days. And if the Iraqi insurgents keep inflicting these casualties American soldiers might end up using the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as toilet paper, becasue they sure are shitt*ing themselves.

All that is for The Men in Uniform, insurgents are guerillas.
And I don't wish to deal with you.

If you're it, then good bye.

Right now attacks against US forces in Iraq are their lowest since the beginning of the invasion...

Yeah dude I saw that one as well. I saw the rated version and I thought that was messed up. I'm not sure if I could watch the unrated version....the blood and gore doesn't scare me, but the way they treat those women...ya I'd rather not see the unrated version....