al-Zarqawi bounty... 28 replies

Please wait...

-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago
MihailDoubtful anyone in iraq who calls themself a arab would ever turn him in.

You DO know that 'Arab' Iraqies turned Saddam Hussien in to american forces right?




Blank Stare

AE

50 XP

24th July 2004

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago
CataphractHaha. Why is it that 'librals' are always referred to as hateful immoral people when people like M1GarandSharpShooter spew this kind of crap out of their asses? Propaganda is like alcohol...you need to have the stomach to take it and digest it without becoming so intoxicated that you act like an asshole. :beer:

It is not the liberals it is the media, remember geraldo? They screw everything up.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago

It is not the liberals it is the media, remember geraldo? They screw everything up. Whenever the media presents information that is unbiased or un-nationalistic, suddenly it is called "liberal." So if they showed nothing but "the glorious American troops winning battle after battle" and showed American flags everywhere, it would be called the "conservative media?" No, it would just be called nationalistic and/or patriotic.




shak4l 01

Xj owns all TIEs

50 XP

8th November 2006

0 Uploads

1,102 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago
Swordmaster9It is not the liberals it is the media, remember geraldo? They screw everything up.

Thats what I ment... For a example,.. That solider that shot a Iraqi that was wounded, he had all the rights to shoot that iraqi in that confusion. Now the solider is up for trial and might be charged. Ok now what should the reporter get for giveing the tape to the media before going to get clearance from the US Army.

Now as always the news is blowing it out of proportion, making this marine look like he did the worse thing in the world...




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#15 14 years ago
M1GarandSharpShootermaking this marine look like he did the worse thing in the world...

yeah, because shooting an injured unarmed man is, like, you know, totally a 'cool' thing to do. :uhoh:




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#16 14 years ago

For a example,.. That solider that shot a Iraqi that was wounded, he had all the rights to shoot that iraqi in that confusion. Explain why the soldier had "the right" to shoot him/her.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#17 14 years ago

there was no confusion, that part of the city was propablly taken care of already.

if there were american wounded in a freakin home or mosque would you say the iraqi insurgents had the right to kill the america(s)? no you wouldnt. same goes to any one. no one is special.




shak4l 01

Xj owns all TIEs

50 XP

8th November 2006

0 Uploads

1,102 Posts

0 Threads

#18 14 years ago
CataphractFor a example,.. That solider that shot a Iraqi that was wounded, he had all the rights to shoot that iraqi in that confusion. Explain why the soldier had "the right" to shoot him/her.

Explain why the terrorist have the right to cut heads off in the name of their god.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#19 14 years ago
Originally Posted by Cataphract
For a example,.. That solider that shot a Iraqi that was wounded, he had all the rights to shoot that iraqi in that confusion.

Explain why the soldier had "the right" to shoot him/her.

Explain why the terrorist have the right to cut heads off in the name of their god.

Was the injured unarmed Iraqi a terrorist? Also, Rousseau says in his book The Social Contract, published in 1762, the following about the non-existence of a "right to massacre conquered peoples": Grotius and the rest find in war another origin for the so-called right of slavery. The victor having, as they hold, the right of killing the vanquished, the latter can buy back his life at the price of his liberty; and this convention is the more legitimate because it is to the advantage of both parties. But it is clear that this supposed right to kill the conquered is by no means deducible from the state of war. Men, from the mere fact that, while they are living in their primitive independence, they have no mutual relations stable enough to constitute either the state of peace or the state of war, cannot be naturally enemies. War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons; and, as the state of war cannot arise out of simple personal relations, but only out of real relations, private war, or war of man with man, can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no constant property, nor in the social state, where everything is under the authority of the laws. Individual combats, duels and encounters, are acts which cannot constitute a state; while the private wars, authorised by the Establishments of Louis IX, King of France, and suspended by the Peace of God, are abuses of feudalism, in itself an absurd system if ever there was one, and contrary to the principles of natural right and to all good polity. War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men, nor even as citizens,3 but as soldiers; not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not men; for between things disparate in nature there can be no real relation. Furthermore, this principle is in conformity with the established rules of all times and the constant practice of all civilised peoples. Declarations of war are intimations less to powers than to their subjects. The foreigner, whether king, individual, or people, who robs, kills or detains the subjects, without declaring war on the prince, is not an enemy, but a brigand. Even in real war, a just prince, while laying hands, in the enemy's country, on all that belongs to the public, respects the lives and goods of individuals: he respects rights on which his own are founded. The object of the war being the destruction of the hostile State, the other side has a right to kill its defenders, while they are bearing arms; but as soon as they lay them down and surrender, they cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy, and become once more merely men, whose life no one has any right to take. Sometimes it is possible to kill the State without killing a single one of its members; and war gives no right which is not necessary to the gaining of its object. These principles are not those of Grotius: they are not based on the authority of poets, but derived from the nature of reality and based on reason. The right of conquest has no foundation other than the right of the strongest. If war does not give the conqueror the right to massacre the conquered peoples, the right to enslave them cannot be based upon a right which does not exist. No one has a right to kill an enemy except when he cannot make him a slave, and the right to enslave him cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill him. It is accordingly an unfair exchange to make him buy at the price of his liberty his life, over which the victor holds no right. Is it not clear that there is a vicious circle in founding the right of life and death on the right of slavery, and the right of slavery on the right of life and death? http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm Just because we're in Iraq doesn't mean we get to shoot people that have reasonably given up the fight (those who are injured and unarmed). We don't have the right to take the lives of non-combatants, just as the 9/11 hijackers didn't have the right to take the lives of non-combatants.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#20 14 years ago
M1GarandSharpShooterExplain why the terrorist have the right to cut heads off in the name of their god.

Your 15 years old and you think you know anything about Iraq or Islam or the Conflicts going on in the middle east or even america??

And yes your age does affect what you know.