Comments on: Blackwater Indictment Alleges Grisly Tale

Prosecutors Say Guards Used Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers On 34 Unarmed Civilians, Including Women And Children

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb, that list you posted describesthe Islamic militants agenda to a tee! Nice job exemplifying and listing their barbarism! Finally on the right side now?" Posted by notblue

Since we are committing the same acts against them, and we committed them first, I am on neither side.

In fact, if we commit those same acts against them, then where is our right to claim indignation? Does it not show that we are no better than they, especially since we invaded them to commit the same acts we accuse them of committing, and therefore still have no right to interfere in their own affairs?

[hatesthecolt]

Your opinion is at odds with the law.

Posted by brianbwb

Well executed but so WASTED on Rowdy! But I liked it very much!

[brianbwb-2009]

"BTW, Brianwb, these terrorist bastwards AREN''''T MILITARY OF ANY COUNTRY, they''''re terrorists....NO TREATY IN THE WORLD APPLIES TO THEM!" Posted by RowdynTex

Incorrect, as shown below,

"Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory''s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3''s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII."

Your opinion is at odds with the law.

[wdrussell1]

It is amazing that religious nutjobs will dance in the street when it comes to killing innocents.
Fundi Muslims and fundi Christians are all the same.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb, what is your opinion on whether the Islamic militants are violating the Geneva convention in regards to prisoner treatment, rules of engagement, and the killing of innocent civilians?" Posted by notblue

My opinion is yes, they are in breach of several articles of the Convention. Yes they are militants, but being Islamic is irrelevant, because Islam forbids such, except for defense. Calling them "Islamic militants" is like calling the kkk "Christian militants", not only does it miss the point, but it engenders unnecessary intolerance not germane to the real reasons for the struggle.

I must also add however, that they are committing these acts while defending themselves from a hostile force which invaded them on the basis of lies.

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to commit acts against them which are violations from the inception, then expect them to obey laws which we ourselves do not.

[notblue]

brianbwb, that list you posted describesthe Islamic militants agenda to a tee! Nice job exemplifying and listing their barbarism! Finally on the right side now?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by BRdeckard

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

2. Torture or inhumane treatment

3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property

4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power

5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer

7. Taking hostages

2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:

1. Directing attacks against civilians

2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

3. Killing a surrendered combatant

4. Misusing a flag of truce

5. Settlement of occupied territory

6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory

7. Using poison weapons

8. Using civilians as shields

9. Using child soldiers

3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture

2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

3. Taking hostages

4. Summary execution

5. Pillage

6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"

[cyinzl8r]

You see, there are MILLIONS of people in the US that think what Bush did was rightPosted by RowdynTex
I support it. We beat him in the first war. He surrendered and agreed to terms. He did not abide by terms. We go back and beat him again. You all have selective memory. WMD was only part of the reason to go back to Iraq. I remember!!!

[notblue]

hatesthecolt, what if the women and children were used as bombs to kill innocent civilians? This is not conjecture as the militants have already used women, even infants as bombs.

[notblue]

brianbwb, what is your opinion on whether the Islamic militants are violating the Geneva convention in regards to prisoner treatment, rules of engagement, and the killing of innocent civilians?