Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:10.............THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
I think that was "wife."
Obviuosly, you only know the shortened version, especially the one, which reduced the ten to only nine commandment. (Might be, becuase nine are allowed in court houses?)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's. ("Non concupisces domum proximi tui nec desiderabis uxorem eius non servum non ancillam non bovem non asinum nec omnia quae illius sunt.") Exodus 20:17
On the wars bit I think the rules were laid down by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas for "just war" to be waged by Christian Kings (not that I'm saying he is acting like a King but it means I think modern heads of government).
(Can anyone find an article that says Bush is against this sort of thing? If he is Christian, he should denounce such actions! It is against Geneva conventions....does that mean anything to America?)
Published on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 by the Sydney Morning Herald / Australia
Psych War in Afghanistan
Film Rolls as Troops Burn Dead
by Tom Allard
US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.
An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.
It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.
According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said.
"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."
The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.
Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".
US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.
SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action.
The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Quote:US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.
Who gives a rat's a$$ what these 2 reporters think? They are selling copy and that's what matters.
The Taliban are cowardly dogs and they should be called on it.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.
Who gives a rat's a$$ what these 2 reporters think? They are selling copy and that's what matters.
The Taliban are cowardly dogs and they should be called on it.
One could ask just as easily who gives a rats ass what you think? Or what I think? Relax Captain Underpants. :wink:
Er, so you are saying the films of the burnings and the taunts are fake, McG?
Or that you approve of what the troops did, but we aren't allowed to mention it, because we do not think the same as you?
It is quite hard to sort out any actual sense from that last.....er....thing...you posted.
I think America should remember that the Taliban were on America's payroll during Reagan's era. He gave them Stinger weapons, etc. America turned against the Taliban because they refused to play ball on the then proposed and recentlly completed pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan. This isn't leftist spewings. Just facts.
dlowan wrote:Er, so you are saying the films of the burnings and the taunts are fake, McG?
Or that you approve of what the troops did, but we aren't allowed to mention it, because we do not think the same as you?
It is quite hard to sort out any actual sense from that last.....er....thing...you posted.
No, I am saying the opinion of these two people is unimportant. The soldiers said they burned the bodies for sanitary purposes. The footage shows that. The footage also shows psyops taking advantage of that. Two reporters decided the truth was somthing different and posted their screed for liberal consumption. Effectively apparently.
So, you support the manner of the psy ops?
If your answer is yes, do you also approve of similar behaviour towards the bodies of American soldiers, and similar psy ops using the same tactics by those fighting American troops?
dlowan wrote:So, you support the manner of the psy ops?
If your answer is yes, do you also approve of similar behaviour towards the bodies of American soldiers, and similar psy ops using the same tactics by those fighting American troops?
You don't see a difference?
McGentrix wrote:dlowan wrote:Er, so you are saying the films of the burnings and the taunts are fake, McG?
Or that you approve of what the troops did, but we aren't allowed to mention it, because we do not think the same as you?
It is quite hard to sort out any actual sense from that last.....er....thing...you posted.
No, I am saying the opinion of these two people is unimportant. The soldiers said they burned the bodies for sanitary purposes. The footage shows that. The footage also shows psyops taking advantage of that. Two reporters decided the truth was somthing different and posted their screed for liberal consumption. Effectively apparently.
liberal consumption? why preach to the choir? Your theory is is full of holes, among other possibilities.
Well, the fact is, the Americans were taunting and provoking as well as going against Geneva Convention. There sure would be outrage (and there was) when some American soldiers were burnt. Human beings don't deserve that kind of treatment. This action will just stir up more killings. Is America immune to every court or opinion in the world? The world (comprised of more than just America) does not condone what America did to these soldiers. As I said in a previous post, the Taliban were on America's payroll, remember? America supplied their weaponry. When did they become the bad guys?
Jesus cared for the poor and meek.
Global Warmer Bush cared only for the rich and gave them tax cuts. His god is the 'black gold' under the ground of Iraq.
Talk, I gotta ask this question. Since on one other thread you go out of your way to refer to Bush as "Global warmer" or some such thing, I will assume you do not consider yourself someone who is contributing to global warming (assuming for a moment that global warming is a reality).
So, I take it you ride a bicycle everywhere you go? And I assume you use natural gas to heat your home. And you never use electricity unless you know it is generated without the use of fossil fuels. Right? If not, then may I ask why you are contributing to the problem of global warming instead of trying to lessen it?
Re: Is George Bush really a Christian?
pachelbel wrote:
You decide!!
Bush's flim-flam on faith
By Derrick Z. Jackson | October 15, 2005 BOSTON GLOBE
BY THE TIME our holy-roller-in-chief leaves office,
I stopped reading after this. If there's any non partisan writeups about his failures as a christian then I'll happily read it. But I tire of the constant political pissing already, and it's not even an election year.
Well, I don't see where Bush's actions are any different from Saddam, Hitler, etc. Bush SAYS he's Christian but he has people killed, doesn't he? He doesn't actually point the trigger (neither did Stalin or Hitler, or Saddam, for that matter). Aren't Christians known for what they do, rather than what they say? Aren't actions stronger than words?
I don't intend to get into a pissing contest either. However, Bush is a hypocrite in my mind.....
For thousands of years, whenever politicians have lusted for power they have called on the priests for support.
In turn, the priests have exploited the flock to provide fodder for the gods of war.
Should we be surprised that things have not changed?
Once again I refer to Denis Diderot's prophetic quote:
Denis Diderot wrote:Mankind will never be truly free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
dlowan wrote:Don't think Bill had godly voices telling him to invade people and all....
He didn't heed any voices at all that told him to defend the country either.
The US was attacked AT LEAST 4 separate times by terrorists during his tenure with no measurable response from our "co-presidents" Hilly & Billy.
talk72000 wrote:Jesus cared for the poor and meek.
Global Warmer Bush cared only for the rich and gave them tax cuts. His god is the 'black gold' under the ground of Iraq.
Thats true. But Mr Bush is not the only one with a car.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:talk72000 wrote:Jesus cared for the poor and meek.
Global Warmer Bush cared only for the rich and gave them tax cuts. His god is the 'black gold' under the ground of Iraq.
Thats true. But Mr Bush is not the only one with a car.
Precisely. How do you think the country would react if we had a national gas shortage? The majority of US cities are not equipped with electric public transportation. Having to shell out $6.00 a gallon could very easilly lead to riots, another depression, etc etc.
Everyone blasts Bush for being an oil-grubbing pig, yet I hear noone pissing and moaning about gas prices finally dropping a bit.
