Severed fingers of 5 hostages delivered to U.S. officials in Iraq

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing
The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

Even so, these men were not contracted by, or working for, the U.S. or Coalition forces in Iraq.

They have been ambushed, kidnapped, tortured, and maimed by unknown criminals in Iraq. THOSE are the crimes committed in this case.

Your attempts to paint these innocent civilians as war criminals are sickening.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

These were civilian men escorting 43 civilian trucks filled with building supplies and perishables... what the fvck was their crime exactly? Driving while American!?

you're one twisted SOB...

driving while illegally occupating their country...from a war based on a myriad of intentional lies.

We are not illegally occupying their country. More than likely the captors are from Saudi Arabia anyway, not Iraq. Either way, we are not in there illegally until the new Iraqi ELECTED government tells us to GTFO. Until then you should STFU.

wow, you mean the government we illegally overthrew then installed. lol.

We didn't install their government sunshine. The citizens voted, they were elected.

I don't want to hear any nut job conspiracy theory about them being in our pocket unless you can back it up.

right. the citizens voted. only after we illegally invaded and illegally removed the government in place. next excuse?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing
Read the Nuremberg Principles, and get back to me on that. Actually read them, don't suppose what they might say is a war crime but what they actually say is a war crime (crime against the peace in this case). When doing so, keep in mind that the language in the principles is there at the insistence of the U.S.

So tell me what their war crime is if you are so sure they were committing one. You aren't going to be proven right by telling me to read the definition. If it's such a brazen war crime you should be able to pretty easily point it out.

Here it is:

Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

You have yet to point out their crime.

Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.


EDIT:
Oh, and from your own excerpt from there Nuremberg Principles. subsection (i) and (ii) are referring to crimes against peace. Iraq was not at peace, it was ruled by a dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people among many other horrible things. Next.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

These were civilian men escorting 43 civilian trucks filled with building supplies and perishables... what the fvck was their crime exactly? Driving while American!?

you're one twisted SOB...

driving while illegally occupating their country...from a war based on a myriad of intentional lies.

We are not illegally occupying their country. More than likely the captors are from Saudi Arabia anyway, not Iraq. Either way, we are not in there illegally until the new Iraqi ELECTED government tells us to GTFO. Until then you should STFU.

wow, you mean the government we illegally overthrew then installed. lol.

We didn't install their government sunshine. The citizens voted, they were elected.

I don't want to hear any nut job conspiracy theory about them being in our pocket unless you can back it up.

right. the citizens voted. only after we illegally invaded and illegally removed the government in place. next excuse?

So you concede your argument and agree with me. You contradicted yourself in your own quotes. It's pointless to argue with you, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Illegal is not always wrong, and I don't believe it was wrong either of the two. Point out where it was illegal.

Intelligence was faulty, we acted on what we had. Congress authorized the president. No war was declared because you cannot officially declare war on a movement like that.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

These were civilian men escorting 43 civilian trucks filled with building supplies and perishables... what the fvck was their crime exactly? Driving while American!?

you're one twisted SOB...

driving while illegally occupating their country...from a war based on a myriad of intentional lies.

'occupating'?

These were civilians escorting harmless civilian supplies you dolt! Tell me again, wtf was their war crime?!

Are you retarded, drunk, or both? I'm serious...

"The first four men were security contractors with Kuwait -based Crescent Security and were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, near the Kuwaiti border, on Nov. 16, 2006. "

LoL. enjoy the crow.

what crow?!??

My local McDonalds has armed private security guards posted on Friday nights... are they now considered agents of the US government!??

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

These men were not contracted by the US or Coalition forces in Iraq. They were hired by a private company to escort supply convoys to various locales throughout Iraq. How is that a g'damn war crime!?

i never said it was a war crime. now stfu.

they are, however, part of the american effort, which is illegal. can't blame the defenders.

it's funny, all your anger is never pointed at the liars that put our boys in that situation, eh?

good stuff.

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- but that doesnt change the fact that I disagree with everything else you and ironwing have written about the four American hostages described in the OP.

Quit muddying the waters. We're discussing the ambush, kidnap, torture, and maiming of at least four innocent American civilians whose only crime was Driving While American.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing
Read the Nuremberg Principles, and get back to me on that. Actually read them, don't suppose what they might say is a war crime but what they actually say is a war crime (crime against the peace in this case). When doing so, keep in mind that the language in the principles is there at the insistence of the U.S.

So tell me what their war crime is if you are so sure they were committing one. You aren't going to be proven right by telling me to read the definition. If it's such a brazen war crime you should be able to pretty easily point it out.

Here it is:

Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

You have yet to point out their crime.

Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.

A retaliation? What utter nonsense. It was and remains a war of aggression. These folks are security contractors (mercenaries) participating in that war of aggression.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

Even so, these men were not contracted by, or working for, the U.S. or Coalition forces in Iraq.

They have been ambushed, kidnapped, tortured, and maimed by unknown criminals in Iraq. THOSE are the crimes committed in this case.

Your attempts to paint these innocent civilians as war criminals are sickening.

They were hired guns.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: ironwing
A retaliation? What utter nonsense. It was and remains a war of aggression. These folks are security contractors (mercenaries) participating in that war of aggression.

Check my edit, and re-read the Nuremberg Principles. You don't understand them. It is not a war, and it is definitely not a war of aggression.

 

[jpeyton]

Is anyone here actually surprised with this news?

There are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers. Bush got a blank check for the war, stretched the military as thin as possible (without resorting to a war-killing draft) and handed out sweetheart contracts for the rest of the work.

If contractors in Iraq have the right to take lives, they'll have to accept the fact they can be targeted as well.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.

A retaliation for the part Iraq didn't play in the Sept. 11 attacks?

 

[Sinsear]

By the logic I'm seeing in here, I guess it would be ok if I kidnapped some illegal aliens and chopped their fingers off.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is anyone here actually surprised with this news?

There are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers. Bush got a blank check for the war, stretched the military as thin as possible (without resorting to a war-killing draft) and handed out sweetheart contracts for the rest of the work.

If contractors in Iraq have the right to take lives, they'll have to accept the fact they can be targeted as well.

I agree with you, they knew what they were getting into. However, to say oh well, sucks to be them, they're criminals anyway is just completely sickening.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Quit muddying the waters. We're discussing the ambush, kidnap, torture, and maiming of at least four innocent American civilians whose only crime was Driving While American.

Wrong. They were Americans who chose to accept pay to participate in a crime. Don't take my statements as some sort of admiration for their captors, they too are criminals. But don't pretend these folks are innocent.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.

A retaliation for the part Iraq didn't play in the Sept. 11 attacks?

I've already admitted the intelligence was faulty.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Quit muddying the waters. We're discussing the ambush, kidnap, torture, and maiming of at least four innocent American civilians whose only crime was Driving While American.

Wrong. They were Americans who chose to accept pay to participate in a crime. Don't take my statements as some sort of admiration for their captors, they too are criminals. But don't pretend these folks are innocent.

You have yet to address me and point out their crime.

What is their crime. How have they committed war crimes?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

These were civilian men escorting 43 civilian trucks filled with building supplies and perishables... what the fvck was their crime exactly? Driving while American!?

you're one twisted SOB...

driving while illegally occupating their country...from a war based on a myriad of intentional lies.

'occupating'?

These were civilians escorting harmless civilian supplies you dolt! Tell me again, wtf was their war crime?!

Are you retarded, drunk, or both? I'm serious...

"The first four men were security contractors with Kuwait -based Crescent Security and were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, near the Kuwaiti border, on Nov. 16, 2006. "

LoL. enjoy the crow.

what crow?!??

My local McDonalds has armed private security guards posted on Friday nights... are they now considered agents of the US government!??

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

These men were not contracted by the US or Coalition forces in Iraq. They were hired by a private company to escort supply convoys to various locales throughout Iraq. How is that a g'damn war crime!?

i never said it was a war crime. now stfu.

they are, however, part of the american effort, which is illegal. can't blame the defenders.

it's funny, all your anger is never pointed at the liars that put our boys in that situation, eh?

good stuff.

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- but that doesnt change the fact that I disagree with everything else you and ironwing have written about the four American hostages described in the OP.

Quit muddying the waters. We're discussing the ambush, kidnap, torture, and maiming of at least four innocent American civilians whose only crime was Driving While American.

"mistake". it was intentional. zero connection to AQ and zero WMDs, as all studies have indicated.

civilians? you mean security contractors. i thought we went over this? doesn't matter who did the hiring. they signed up for an illegal cause. suffer the consequences.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing
Read the Nuremberg Principles, and get back to me on that. Actually read them, don't suppose what they might say is a war crime but what they actually say is a war crime (crime against the peace in this case). When doing so, keep in mind that the language in the principles is there at the insistence of the U.S.

So tell me what their war crime is if you are so sure they were committing one. You aren't going to be proven right by telling me to read the definition. If it's such a brazen war crime you should be able to pretty easily point it out.

Here it is:

Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

You have yet to point out their crime.

Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.

A retaliation? What utter nonsense. It was and remains a war of aggression. These folks are security contractors (mercenaries) participating in that war of aggression.

These men were NOT working for, or contracted by, the US or Coalition forces in Iraq.

They are delivery truck drivers, with handguns -- which is always prudent in a dangerous war zone -- who were escorting civilian trucks carrying civilian supplies.

How many times do I have to spell that out for you?!

They were NOT mercenaries in the "Blackwater" sense of the word -- their job had nothing to do with fighting against anyone. Their guns were for self-defense only -- which, ironically, wasnt enough of a defense against the sick roadside bandits who kidnapped them.

In other words, they were just like armored car escorts in America... or armed mall security guards.

They were NOT criminals, and there is NO evidence that they ever harmed anyone in the course of their duties.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

Even so, these men were not contracted by, or working for, the U.S. or Coalition forces in Iraq.

They have been ambushed, kidnapped, tortured, and maimed by unknown criminals in Iraq. THOSE are the crimes committed in this case.

Your attempts to paint these innocent civilians as war criminals are sickening.

They were hired guns.

OK, my local bank has a lot of those as well -- they escort money to and from the banks. Are they to be considered agents of the US government as well?

 

[palehorse]

I'm through with this thread... it's like dealing with someone else' retarded kids.

bah...

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

These were civilian men escorting 43 civilian trucks filled with building supplies and perishables... what the fvck was their crime exactly? Driving while American!?

you're one twisted SOB...

driving while illegally occupating their country...from a war based on a myriad of intentional lies.

'occupating'?

These were civilians escorting harmless civilian supplies you dolt! Tell me again, wtf was their war crime?!

Are you retarded, drunk, or both? I'm serious...

"The first four men were security contractors with Kuwait -based Crescent Security and were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, near the Kuwaiti border, on Nov. 16, 2006. "

LoL. enjoy the crow.

what crow?!??

My local McDonalds has armed private security guards posted on Friday nights... are they now considered agents of the US government!??

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

These men were not contracted by the US or Coalition forces in Iraq. They were hired by a private company to escort supply convoys to various locales throughout Iraq. How is that a g'damn war crime!?

i never said it was a war crime. now stfu.

they are, however, part of the american effort, which is illegal. can't blame the defenders.

it's funny, all your anger is never pointed at the liars that put our boys in that situation, eh?

good stuff.

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- but that doesnt change the fact that I disagree with everything else you and ironwing have written about the four American hostages described in the OP.

Quit muddying the waters. We're discussing the ambush, kidnap, torture, and maiming of at least four innocent American civilians whose only crime was Driving While American.

"mistake". it was intentional. zero connection to AQ and zero WMDs, as all studies have indicated.

civilians? you mean security contractors. i thought we went over this? doesn't matter who did the hiring. they signed up for an illegal cause. suffer the consequences.

edit: nevermind. I see you've got a litany of 9/11 conspiracy links in your sig. I'm not going to bother.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

edit: nevermind. I see you've got a litany of 9/11 conspiracy links in your sig. I'm not going to bother.

you mean jfk (with proof of conspiracy in sig) + 9/11.

yeah. suffer the consequences. they knew what was coming when they signed up for iraq. our boys in uniform might not have, but these contractors sure as hell did.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: magomago
and explain to me OP how this deals with religion rather than the fact that Iraq is one of the most unstable regions in the world at the moment?

Well I think that would be obvious. It wasn't a bunch of wackjobs who severed those fingers, it was "Islam".

In other news....new clues are found as the search for Islam carries on in the middle east....more on this at 8.......

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing
Read the Nuremberg Principles, and get back to me on that. Actually read them, don't suppose what they might say is a war crime but what they actually say is a war crime (crime against the peace in this case). When doing so, keep in mind that the language in the principles is there at the insistence of the U.S.

So tell me what their war crime is if you are so sure they were committing one. You aren't going to be proven right by telling me to read the definition. If it's such a brazen war crime you should be able to pretty easily point it out.

Here it is:

Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The act of participating in a war of aggression is a crime against the peace under the Nuremberg Principles.

You have yet to point out their crime.

Also, the Iraq war is a retaliation, not a war of aggression. Our reasons may be based off faulty intelligence, which is another argument.

maybe? So a whole country is reduced to rubble and people are drowning in a sea of civil strife, this country is buried under loads and loads of debt and we are basing it all on "may or may not be" ??

EDIT:
Oh, and from your own excerpt from there Nuremberg Principles. subsection (i) and (ii) are referring to crimes against peace. Iraq was not at peace, it was ruled by a dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people among many other horrible things. Next.

You know I can so easily manipulate a couple of words in and put Bush in there instead of dictator and I could almost swear that I would have as valid of an argument as you did...

The questions you should be asking yourself are:

Did Iraq declare war on the United States of America in a present near past time context?? Evidence?
Was Iraq preparing to attack the United States of America?? Evidence?
Does working for corporations that are the reason behind this whole war with their lobbying and what not an act of contribution to the war and strife or not? Evidence....
Is what Iraq does to it's own people our business?? Don't bother with evidence...

NEXT

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: ironwing
What were these hostages doing in Iraq? Oh yeah, they were mercenaries implementing Bush's illegal, for-profit war. Their plight is terrible. Maybe, if folks don't get side tracked by the idealogical, jingoistic nonsense coming out of the White House they will learn not to participate in war crimes.

5 kidnapped people who had their fingers cut off working/serving in Iraq and all you're able to do is go off in some diatribe of nonsensical Bush-hate.

They chose to go to Iraq to join a war against people who had done nothing against them. What did they expect? While their predicament is horrible, these are not innocents caught up in circumstance.

by the same token I guess if you get hit by a drunk driver and have your head mashed through the windshield, oh well...you knew the risks getting behind the wheel.

 

[gentobu]

civilians? you mean security contractors. i thought we went over this? doesn't matter who did the hiring. they signed up for an illegal cause. suffer the consequences.

yeah. suffer the consequences. they knew what was coming when they signed up for iraq.

So you have no problem with the kidnapping and torture of civilians. Nice.

 

[gentobu]

They chose to go to Iraq to join a war against people who had done nothing against them. What did they expect? While their predicament is horrible, these are not innocents caught up in circumstance.

Do your feelings apply to all of the foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just American contractors?