Fucking Animals that beheaded our boys

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
#2
I want to see these fuckers get nuked when i see this shit
 

Schmed

I'm a corpse without a soul...
#3
We should just unload on these motherfuckers, like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This shit burns me up - no pun intended.
 

Myhairygrundle

Screw you guys, I'm going home.
#4
And...there are elected officials that want to give these savages protection when we keep them...

un-fucking believeable

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/02/14/bill_would_give_rights_to_detainees/9810/

Bill would give rights to detainees
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A bill introduced by Senate Democrats in Washington would extend habeas corpus rights to detainees in U.S. custody and more narrowly define "enemy combatant."
The "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007," which is designed to counteract portions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, would allow detainees to plead their cases in U.S. courts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The bill, which would also limit the president's authority to declare detainees enemy combatants, was introduced by prospective presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

The measure would limit the definition of enemy combatant to mean a person "who directly participates in hostilities in a zone of active combat against the United States" or participated in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States.

"I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists," Dodd said in a statement. "But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this ... In taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country's Constitution, we're taking away our own moral compass as well."
 
#5
when they first burned those blackwater employees (all veterans) from the bridge near sadr city, we should have obliterated that town
 

Arch Stanton

It's all about the funny!
#6
War is War.... Now isn't about time we got back to the business of War and do what has to be done? We have most of the haters there now from the Middle East.

Now is the time, get our guys out and launch.
 

Smokezilla

U. S. Backstroke Roulette Champion
#7
The sad thing about seeing shit like that is that it won't make a bit of difference in the way we approach the Iraq situation. Our troops fight using the Rules of Engagement that the enemy simply does not. The Insurrgents have no honor. They have no qualms about violating someone's "human rights". As long as we fight by a set of rules that the enemy doesn't, we cannot hope to ever win. I think it's time for some "Black Op's" shit to go down over there. People need to start "disappearing" in the middle of the night (if you get my meaning. . . ;)) just like they did when Sadam was in power. Maybe then shit like what happened with these men would not happen so often.
 

pure_waves

© Steven Carr Industries, 2014. Grrrrrrrr
#8
That horrific link doesnt surprise me. For them beheading or mutilating an enemy is a macho thing. They want to prove theyre men and show that's what happens when you fight them. Doesn't the Mafia do the same thing (in the movies at least) when you fuck them? Just look at the end of Goodfellas.

Fighting in Iraq as many of you know is not a conventional war and there are no set of rules we can follow. These fuckers dont subscribe to our theories, or our ethics. We are their enemies and they act as savagely as possible. We really should fight in the same way because that's the kind of fight it is.

Unfortunately for the guys on the ground there, the politicians wont let them fight properly or in proper numbers, because of bad PR and ultra sensitivity to the feelings of the world and the Arab street. Perhaps we are fighting a dirtier war covertly. I really hope thats the case. If it's not happening it should be. We're not fighting Sweden here, we're fighting animals. We need to be ruthless as well, or at the least we need to have an Iraqi proxy that can do it for us.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
#9
I love what they called it. The "Illegal Powergrab Act of 2007" would have been too noticable.
 
#12
Blechhhh.....Whether you agree with the war or not, it's long overdue that we stop letting a bunch of pussies in suits call the shots....Get some old mean son of a bitches in there, slaughter these animals, burn the fucking place down and bring the troops home
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#13
And...there are elected officials that want to give these savages protection when we keep them...

un-fucking believeable

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/02/14/bill_would_give_rights_to_detainees/9810/

Bill would give rights to detainees
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A bill introduced by Senate Democrats in Washington would extend habeas corpus rights to detainees in U.S. custody and more narrowly define "enemy combatant."
The "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007," which is designed to counteract portions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, would allow detainees to plead their cases in U.S. courts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The bill, which would also limit the president's authority to declare detainees enemy combatants, was introduced by prospective presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

The measure would limit the definition of enemy combatant to mean a person "who directly participates in hostilities in a zone of active combat against the United States" or participated in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States.

"I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists," Dodd said in a statement. "But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this ... In taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country's Constitution, we're taking away our own moral compass as well."
#1) i dont know how a non citizen especially an enemy caught in combat against this country can use our courts against us.im going to have to find the name of the case but in ww2 two German captives tried to do that and lost the case.there is no legal precedence for this.this is just lawmakers not following the word of law and just making shit up as they go along to suit political petty personal needs despite whats good for the common good and the protection of this country(i will update with the details of the germans).

#2) isn't the whole point of the geneva conventions(as i understand why they exists) not to protect terrorists? to protect honorable soldiers on the battlefield so that all captives are treated fairly? so that men who bravely fight for their country don't have to be dishonoured just because their team lost? doesn't it exclude criminals? doesn't it exclude they types of people we are fighting (at least their methods)? the geneva conventions is designed to protect soldiers not murderers.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#14
#1)m going to have to find the name of the case but in ww2 two German captives tried to do that and lost the case.there is no legal precedence for this.this is just lawmakers not following the word of law and just making shit up as they go along to suit political petty personal needs despite whats good for the common good and the protection of this country(i will update with the details of the germans).
(i have not watched the video yet.)

“Eistentrager established the principle that aliens detained outside the United States could not ask federal courts to review their status. The reasoning of the Court was explained by Robert D. Alt, a fellow in legal and international affairs at the John Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs:

[Proceedings by alien detainees] would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of out commanders, not only with the enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be [a] conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting ti enemies of the United States,

In Eientrager, twenty-one German nationals were taken into custody in China at the conclusion of World War II. They were tried and convicted of war crimes by a U.S. military tribunal in China. They were then remitted to a military prison in Germany. These individuals sought to bring their case to America by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The issue was whether alien combatants should have access to civilian courts.

Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, was adamant in denying aliens this access: “We are cited no instance where a court in this or any other country where the writ [of habeas corpus] is known, has issued it on behalf or an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction.

Jackson realized the danger enemy combatants posed. “But these prisoners were actual enemies, active in the hostile service of an enemy power. This is no fiction about their enmity.” The German soldiers were denied the ability to petition civilian courts for review of their status.

War limits the rights of certain aliens to access U.S. courts, or at least it used to. As Jackson wrote:

It is war that exposed the relative vulnerability of the alien’s status. The security and protection enjoyed while the nation of his allegiance remain in amity with the United States are greatly impaired when his nation takes up arms against us. While his lot is far more humane and endurable than the experience of our citizens in some enemy lands, it is still not a happy one. But disabilities this country lays upon the alien who becomes also an enemy are imposed temporarily as an incident of war and not as an incident of alienage.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#15
Fuck 'em. No, literally, fuck 'em.

Capture a few of these savages, and have some heroin-using homo with full blown AIDS fucking ass r*pe them for 2-3 days straight. Record it all. Release them, and the video, and let them know that the US military is no longer shooting to kill but doing everything in its power to capture you fucking camel jockeys and this is what's in store for you as soon as we capture you.

We set up a special website called sand n*gger ass r*pe, and put out fliers whenever we capture one of these fuckers saying "Abdeed got r*ped!!!" and the URL to the video.

And when I mean ass r*ped, I mean ASS R*PED. Bukakkae, fisting the ass, kicking them in the balls, yelling out "this sand n*gger is pushing back!" while the homo is pulling their hair. I'm not talking "normal" homo shit, here. I'm talking prison r*pe shit that fucking OZ wouldn't put on.

Then, when you're done and you release them, tattoo "ass r*aped* on their face. Not their forehead: their headdresses will cover that shit up. I mean their FACE. From one cheek to the other cheek, going over their nose. Cover THAT shit up, motherfucker!

Shit, make this stuff fucking hot, man.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
#16
#2) isn't the whole point of the geneva conventions(as i understand why they exists) not to protect terrorists? to protect honorable soldiers on the battlefield so that all captives are treated fairly? so that men who bravely fight for their country don't have to be dishonoured just because their team lost? doesn't it exclude criminals? doesn't it exclude they types of people we are fighting (at least their methods)? the geneva conventions is designed to protect soldiers not murderers.
Pretty much, yes. To get Geneva Convention benefits, you have to be wearing your country's (or at least your faction's) uniform. You are required to give name, rank, and serial number.

You've seen this photo from 'Nam, right?


That's TOTALLY legal under the GC. Dude was VC, and wasn't wearing a uniform with his nation/faction's flag on it (that's one of the reasons why US uniforms have the American flag patch on them, as all other countries).

You show up without a uniform? Zero GC protection. There are a few other treaties that govern torture, etc. of prisoners (not necessarily POWs), but none of them are really followed by any country.

99% of the shit we got for Abu Gharib, which WAS wrong and those troops shouldn't have done it, was just a lot of schadenfreud bullshit. It's because it was the US that did it. Any other country, that shit gets ignored, and ignored, and ignored. Never mind French UN peacekeepers in Africa have routinely left camp so they could pick up/r*pe pre-teen girls outside their camps. Never mind our neighbor to the north, the NICEST Goddamn people in the world, did THIS shit in Somalia:

MODS! You might want to make the following pics NSFW:
[nsfw]

[/nsfw]

Compare that with the Abu Gharib pictures, and we're talking about a COMPLETELY different level of abuse and "torture". Shit, water boarding scares the fucking shit out of people, and there's a risk of them having a heart attack, but it's otherwise as safe as watching a Friday the 13th movie. Abu Gharib? "Oh, that's humiliating!" Fuck you. Fuckers lived, right? That's a shitload better than Shidane Arone.
 
Top