NationStates Jolt Archive

Maurizio Scelli, the outgoing commissioner of the aid organization, is reported to have said the deal to free the two women -- Simona Pari and Simona Torretta -- was kept secret from U.S. officials.

"The mediators asked us to treat and save the lives of four presumed terrorists sought by the Americans, wounded in combat. We hid them and brought them to the doctors with the Red Cross, who operated on them," Scelli told La Stampa daily in an interview published Thursday.

"We also treated four of their children, sick with leukemia."

Red Cross spokesman Fabrizio Centofanti later confirmed to CNN that the organization had treated the Iraqis.

"The Red Cross is an impartial organization and it does not depend on the Italian government," Centofanti said.

"It did help presumed Iraqi terrorists, but it did so in the spirit of the Red Cross to help out everyone in need."

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office, which has denied accusations it paid a ransom to win the aid workers' release, said the Red Cross was independent and did not answer to the government.

"As it is known, it (Red Cross) is not under the operative control, even less directives, of the national authorities precisely so that they can be recognized as neutral, which is indispensable for them to carry out their humanitarian mandate towards the international community," it said in a statement.

"Without entering into what has been said by its commissioner (Scelli), who is recognized for his high merits in the work carried out in favor of the injured in Iraq and other parts of the world, we underline how the government authorities never directed or conditioned his actions."

Cooperation between Italy and the United States had always been "reciprocal" in Iraq, it added.

Scelli, who was present at the handover of the two aid workers on September 28, said he helped to secure the women's release.

He told La Stampa the decision to hide details about the operation from U.S. officials was approved by Gianni Letta, Berlusconi's right-hand man.

"Keeping the Americans in the dark about our efforts to free the hostages was a non-negotiable condition to guarantee the safety of the hostages and ourselves," he said, according to Reuters.

Scelli said he held talks with Italian agent Nicola Calipari, who was shot dead in March this year by U.S. troops at a Baghdad checkpoint during a subsequent rescue operation for another Italian hostage.


Now this is a tough thing to judge. Heal the enemy and save your friends, or kill both?

Canada City']Now this is a tough thing to judge. Heal the enemy and save your friends, or kill both?
I say kill both and don't negotiate with terrorists. You have to be at least as cold as they are if you're to defeat them.

I say kill both and don't negotiate with terrorists. You have to be at least as cold as they are if you're to defeat them.

A. Then what exactly are you fighting for if you end up being as cold as them?

B. I'm sure you'd feel differently is it was you or a loved one who was the hostage.

The Red Cross/Crescent is neutral, as such, it has no enemies, and its mandate is to provide assistance and aid to any who need it. It is not supposed to involve itself in politics, just provide medical and humanitarian aid to people.
I say good for them, the world needs more people and organizations who help others, if there was less hate and partisanship going around, there would be less strife and terrorists.

Canada City']Now this is a tough thing to judge. Heal the enemy and save your friends, or kill both?
Killing your friends is not an option.

"It did help presumed Iraqi terrorists, but it did so in the spirit of the Red Cross to help out everyone in need."

I say kill both and don't negotiate with terrorists. You have to be at least as cold as they are if you're to defeat them.

Nonsense, stooping to their level makes you worse than them. If you want to defeat them, you have to realise that violence isnt the answer, it only breeds more of the like.

A. Then what exactly are you fighting for if you end up being as cold as them?

B. I'm sure you'd feel differently is it was you or a loved one who was the hostage.
A. No, it doesn't mean that you abandon the values that make us better than the terrorists, like free speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights for women and gays. It just means that you accept losses if it harms the terrorists and you don't let emotion get in the way of doing the job. Also if you don't negotiate with them you reduce the incentive for people to use terrorism to get what they want.

B. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I'm not in that position so I can't say. What I can say is this, if one of my loved ones is ever captured by terrorists and I try to get the government to negotiate for their release I hope I'm told to shut up and that the location where the terrorists and my loved ones are is hit with a MOAB.

Nonsense, stooping to their level makes you worse than them. If you want to defeat them, you have to realise that violence isnt the answer, it only breeds more of the like.
Sometimes violence is the answer.

I say kill both and don't negotiate with terrorists. You have to be at least as cold as they are if you're to defeat them.

The Red Cross isn't trying to defeat the terrorists. They're trying to provide humanitarian aid.

The Red Cross isn't trying to defeat the terrorists. They're trying to provide humanitarian aid.
Yeah, but wasn't the Italian government involved in the negotiations? Berlusconi let me down.

Was that report from FOX?

It seems abit deceptive to put it on the Red Cross, they were just following a request by the Italian government. According to Fox and the Karl Rover though, the red cross is now a subversive and anti-american organisation.

I would say the most intelligent option in this situation would be to kill both. If you let that many terrorists go, they'll probably end up killing at least two more allies on their own, thus by saving these two you may have killed more on down the road. It is much more personal to just let people die whose lives are solely in your control, but I would still say that their sacrifice would be worth it in the long run.

A. Then what exactly are you fighting for if you end up being as cold as them?

B. I'm sure you'd feel differently is it was you or a loved one who was the hostage.

A. For the freedom of Iraq, which the insurgency is trying hard to delay/stop. We must defeat the insurgents. Hopefully the Sunnis can back the constitution, and the insurgency will ebb. Otherwise, we'll just have to keep killing them, lest they derail the new Iraq.

B. Probably. But I wouldn't make a mockery of my nation/-self/loved one like Sheehan is doing. It would be a tough question: sabotage your country's efforts or your family member's life?

It seems abit deceptive to put it on the Red Cross, they were just following a request by the Italian government. According to Fox and the Karl Rover though, the red cross is now a subversive and anti-american organisation.
It's OK, they've been "Anti-American" since they reported what was going on at Guantanamo Bay.

It's OK, they've been "Anti-American" since they reported what was going on at Guantanamo Bay.

yeah, the three square meals a day and harry potter "torture" techniques are reprehensible.

i suppose if we gave them ice cream, but forgot to give them spoons, that'd be chalked up as torture as well.

A. For the freedom of Iraq, which the insurgency is trying hard to delay/stop. We must defeat the insurgents. Hopefully the Sunnis can back the constitution, and the insurgency will ebb. Otherwise, we'll just have to keep killing them, lest they derail the new Iraq.

B. Probably. But I wouldn't make a mockery of my nation/-self/loved one like Sheehan is doing. It would be a tough question: sabotage your country's efforts or your family member's life?

A. Nice rhetoric.

B. What has Sheehan got to do with the Red Cross or this topic at all!?

yeah, the three square meals a day and harry potter "torture" techniques are reprehensible.

i suppose if we gave them ice cream, but forgot to give them spoons, that'd be chalked up as torture as well.

Only if we refused to give them spoons, then laughed at them. :D

A. Nice rhetoric.

Nice dodge.

Only if we refused to give them spoons, then laughed at them. :D

Or if we gave them forks?

Nice dodge.

What did i dodge? I said he was just using rhetoric for the first post. Its like saying the word 'tartlet' over and over and over and over.... it loses all meaning after a while. Try it. :D

Or if we gave them forks?

No, ice cream can sit on a fork long enough to get it to your mouth. Maybe warm knives.

What did i dodge? I said he was just using rhetoric for the first post. Its like saying the word 'tartlet' over and over and over and over.... it loses all meaning after a while. Try it. :D

Just because a point is repeated often doesn't make it less valid. Besides, rhetoric is generally without substance, and his statement was not. Unless you were complimenting his persuasive ability, "nice rhetoric" was an poor statement and a nice dodge.

Just because a point is repeated often doesn't make it less valid. Besides, rhetoric is generally without substance, and his statement was not. Unless you were complimenting his persuasive ability, "nice rhetoric" was an poor statement and a nice dodge.

His statement was just rhetoric- and the rhetoric in question was without substance, hence my implication of merely spouting what has been repeated ad nauseum to the point where one doesn't even realise the words coming out and what they mean. Its talking without actually saying anything.

It certainly wasn't a compliment.

And still i ask- what has Sheehan got to do with this topic!?!? There was no relevant reason to link the two.

His statement was just rhetoric- and the rhetoric in question was without substance, hence my implication of merely spouting what has been repeated ad nauseum to the point where one doesn't even realise the words coming out and what they mean. Its talking without actually saying anything.

But he was actually saying something. If you say something five hundred times, you don't start suddenly saying nothing.

It certainly wasn't a compliment.

I assumed as much.

And still i ask- what has Sheehan got to do with this topic!?!? There was no relevant reason to link the two.

There wasn't, I agree, which is why I didn't respond.

What I can say is this, if one of my loved ones is ever captured by terrorists and I try to get the government to negotiate for their release I hope I'm told to shut up and that the location where the terrorists and my loved ones are is hit with a MOAB.
Therefore the ends justify the means? And if your loved one wanted to live, too bad?

Sad. :(

Therefore the ends justify the means? And if your loved one wanted to live, too bad?

Sad. :(

What about others' loved ones, who may now be killed by the terrorists that have been treated and freed?

Canada City']Now this is a tough thing to judge. Heal the enemy and save your friends, or kill both?
Save both, of course. The war can go on, and an act of humanity is easily accomodated. :)

There is plenty of historical precedent, the largest scale being temporary ceasefires during WW1 to remove the dead and wounded - the Dardanelles campaign in particular, where there were so many dead and wounded piled up, they were getting in the way of the fighting and both sides spent a whole day clearing them away.

There was nothing morally repugnant then about it, it was actually considered good form, I don't see why that should change.

Yeah, but wasn't the Italian government involved in the negotiations? Berlusconi let me down.The Italian Red Cross says they did it by themselves. No government involvement.

What about others' loved ones, who may now be killed by the terrorists that have been treated and freed?
Take the moment and seize it. Save that life and quit dealing in "what ifs".

Sometimes I think the war mentality blocks out all sense of reason and compassion.

Take the moment and seize it. Save that life and quit dealing in "what ifs".

It's not really a "what if," it's quite likely that a group of four insurgents will manage to kill at least two allies or civilians.

Sometimes I think the war mentality blocks out all sense of reason and compassion.

Sometimes I think it's funny how the latter clouds the former.

It's not really a "what if," it's quite likely that a group of four insurgents will manage to kill at least two allies or civilians.
Well, bear in mind that in WW1, the British were told that the Germans bayoneted babies in Belgium, etc etc, but they still had regular ceasefires to collect bodies and wounded, it was considered the honourable thing, and shooting stretcher bearers was very much frowned upon.

And like I said about the Dardanelles, the number of lives saved in the one-day ceasefire they had, must have been in the thousands. Thousands of enemies which could omg kill you later...maybe. But that's the trade-off both sides were prepared to make, in the interests of doing the decent thing.

I find it disappointing that the modern American military culture could find itself morally lacking compared to the customs of early 20th century trench warfare.

It's not really a "what if," it's quite likely that a group of four insurgents will manage to kill at least two allies or civilians.
You just turned it into pure speculation type of what if?

Sometimes I think it's funny how the latter clouds the former.
I guess you undervalue reason and compassion?

I find it disappointing that the modern American military culture could find itself morally lacking compared to the customs of early 20th century trench warfare.
That is probably why they would prefer the "Shock and Awe" strategy? Just obliterate everything with megatonnage weapons.

You just turned it into pure speculation type of what if?

It's not really pure speculation. I am almost positive that if you averaged the number of kills per terrorist, the number would be at least .5, which means four people would get two.

I guess you undervalue reason and compassion?

That statement would make sense, given I said anything remotely like that. Reminds me of the thread about how people's opinions are grossly reworded. I implied that I undervalue compassion for the sake of reason.

Well, bear in mind that in WW1, the British were told that the Germans bayoneted babies in Belgium, etc etc, but they still had regular ceasefires to collect bodies and wounded, it was considered the honourable thing, and shooting stretcher bearers was very much frowned upon.

Different, because the wounded were not in our possession.

And like I said about the Dardanelles, the number of lives saved in the one-day ceasefire they had, must have been in the thousands. Thousands of enemies which could omg kill you later...maybe. But that's the trade-off both sides were prepared to make, in the interests of doing the decent thing.

Different, because the extra people surviving were never injured, nor were they captured and released.

I find it disappointing that the modern American military culture could find itself morally lacking compared to the customs of early 20th century trench warfare.

I agree. We should go back to lining up in rows and firing muskets at each other.

Different, because the wounded were not in our possession.

Different, because the extra people surviving were never injured, nor were they captured and released.

I agree. We should go back to lining up in rows and firing muskets at each other.
Talk about missing the point - every point I made. :rolleyes:

Good on the red cross for remaining impartial, keeping away from politics, and helping people in need regardless.

It's not really pure speculation. I am almost positive that if you averaged the number of kills per terrorist, the number would be at least .5, which means four people would get two.
Actually it is speculation or a what if.

What if the people who were spared went on to save thousands of lives?
What if the terrorists got killed the next day?
What if......

You could speculate til the cows come home. That is why I suggested seizing the moment and saving the life.

That statement would make sense, given I said anything remotely like that. Reminds me of the thread about how people's opinions are grossly reworded. I implied that I undervalue compassion for the sake of reason.
That is probably why there are so many wars and too many deaths in the world today:

Not enough compassion. :(

And the reasoning is so shallow.......

Talk about missing the point - every point I made. :rolleyes:

What points? You didn't make any that were even remotely valid because all of your comparisons weren't the same.

Actually it is speculation or a what if.

What if the people who were spared went on to save thousands of lives?

My "speculation" has precedent, yours does not.

What if the terrorists got killed the next day?
What if......

Possible, but not as statistically probable.

That is probably why there are so many wars and too many deaths in the world today:

Not enough compassion. :(

And the reasoning is so shallow.......

Hah, trust me, if I ran the Iraq war, we'd be out by now, the new Iraq would be established and the United States would have lost less than a thousand troops. Possibly less than five hundred. Why? Because I have so little compassion.

My "speculation" has precedent, yours does not.
Not necessarily and you have now proved my point. You base your premise on pure speculation and totally disregard the possibility of a different outcome.

Possible, but not as statistically probable.
Why not? The insurgents and/or terrorists are dying on a daily basis.

Hah, trust me, if I ran the Iraq war, we'd be out by now, the new Iraq would be established and the United States would have lost less than a thousand troops. Possibly less than five hundred. Why? Because I have so little compassion.
And what is your magical, mythical, superior strategy that would have won the war by now? How are you better than all the other Generals over there?

I'm disgusted by a good half of the people in this thread. Learn about the Red Cross, then attack them if you feel you must.

Not necessarily and you have now proved my point. You base your premise on pure speculation and totally disregard the possibility of a different outcome.

Wrong, I base my premise on the likely outcome and favor said outcome to a highly unlikely outcome.

Why not? The insurgents and/or terrorists are dying on a daily basis.

Yes, but the odds of a terrorist dying the day after he is healed are pretty low.

And what is your magical, mythical, superior strategy that would have won the war by now? How are you better than all the other Generals over there?

It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.

It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.
You're basically condoning terrorism, then.

Sometimes violence is the answer.

History has far more evidence for the affirmative than the negative of this statement.

But I can't oppose the Red Cross' decision on this. Sounded like the best thing to do at the time (for anyone with morals anyway)

You're basically condoning terrorism, then.

No, I'm condoning the nearly complete destruction of all will to condone terrorism.

No, I'm condoning the nearly complete destruction of all will to condone terrorism.
Fuck ethics. I suppose Americans cannot be terrorists? When you say terrorist do you really mean bad guy? Basically what you are saying is, I'm condoning the nearly complete destruction of all people who would be a bad guy even if I have to be a bad guy. Your opposite is in Iraq.

The Red Cross/Crescent is neutral, as such, it has no enemies, and its mandate is to provide assistance and aid to any who need it. It is not supposed to involve itself in politics, just provide medical and humanitarian aid to people.
I say good for them, the world needs more people and organizations who help others, if there was less hate and partisanship going around, there would be less strife and terrorists.

Really? do you think they treat US soldiers or Iraqi Police? they dont.

Seriously to save the lives of 2 people you save the lives of the ones that have killed hundreds of people....sounds like typical stupidity and short term thinking to me....hey thats the way most the anti war people think anyways...

Was that report from FOX?

It seems abit deceptive to put it on the Red Cross, they were just following a request by the Italian government. According to Fox and the Karl Rover though, the red cross is now a subversive and anti-american organisation.

Of course, they are the opposite of an imperialist warmogering state. They are impartial, a-political, neutral, non-profit, out only to help people.

yeah, the three square meals a day and harry potter "torture" techniques are reprehensible.

i suppose if we gave them ice cream, but forgot to give them spoons, that'd be chalked up as torture as well.

That's bullshit and you know it.


Good on the red cross for remaining impartial, keeping away from politics, and helping people in need regardless.

I agree entirly.





I don't know about the rest of you, but I count the death of an Iraqi miltia fighter the same as a US marine, an equal tragity.

Well, bear in mind that in WW1, the British were told that the Germans bayoneted babies in Belgium, etc etc, but they still had regular ceasefires to collect bodies and wounded, it was considered the honourable thing, and shooting stretcher bearers was very much frowned upon.

And like I said about the Dardanelles, the number of lives saved in the one-day ceasefire they had, must have been in the thousands. Thousands of enemies which could omg kill you later...maybe. But that's the trade-off both sides were prepared to make, in the interests of doing the decent thing.

I find it disappointing that the modern American military culture could find itself morally lacking compared to the customs of early 20th century trench warfare.

Youre talking about an Army fighting an Army...this isnt the case. Think before you type next time.

Really? do you think they treat US soldiers or Iraqi Police? they dont.

They would if they were asked, and I'm sure they have.

Seriously to save the lives of 2 people you save the lives of the ones that have killed hundreds of people....sounds like typical stupidity and short term thinking to me....hey thats the way most the anti war people think anyways...

And you save the life of a marine, you save the life of of the ones that have killed hundrends of thousands. Goes both ways, friend

Wrong, I base my premise on the likely outcome and favor said outcome to a highly unlikely outcome.
I truly hope you are never in a position to make such a judgement call.

Yes, but the odds of a terrorist dying the day after he is healed are pretty low.
See above.

It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.
Ahhh, so you believe in genocide? Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer.

Credibility = zero.

Fuck ethics. I suppose Americans cannot be terrorists? When you say terrorist do you really mean bad guy? Basically what you are saying is, I'm condoning the nearly complete destruction of all people who would be a bad guy even if I have to be a bad guy. Your opposite is in Iraq.

Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures. ;)

he never said that, don't put words into people's mouths, you just lose credibility yourself.

EDIT: This was in responce to the

"Ahhh, so you believe in genocide? Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer.

Credibility = zero."

Ahhh, so you believe in genocide? Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer.

Credibility = zero.

Of course not. I never said that I would commit genocide. If you think that I meant I would just nuke their asses, you're a tad off. If I did that, I doubt we'd have anywhere close to 500 deaths. Nukes, bah. More daisycutters and airstrikes coupled with a decreased necessity for close combat, meh, if it brings more of our boys home.

Of course not. I never said that I would commit genocide. If you think that I meant I would just nuke their asses, you're a tad off. If I did that, I doubt we'd have anywhere close to 500 deaths. Nukes, bah. More daisycutters and airstrikes coupled with a decreased necessity for close combat, meh, if it brings more of our boys home.


A little less US soldiers die, but many many more Iraqi civilians die. Not a fair trade off in my book

Of course, they are the opposite of an imperialist warmogering state. They are impartial, a-political, neutral, non-profit, out only to help people.



That's bullshit and you know it.




I agree entirly.






I don't know about the rest of you, but I count the death of an Iraqi miltia fighter the same as a US marine, an equal tragity.

I would like to say the Red Cross did the right thing, but they didn't. If this had happened when the Coalition was still fighting the Iraqi Army, say the Red Cross treated some Iraqi Soldiers in order to get medical aid to POWs, then I would support it. But they gave medical aid to terrorists, they even admit that they were terrorists. I hope to god those two aid-workers were worth it, because the terrorists that the Red Cross treated could very well have caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, and Coalition Soldiers.

I have to admit, this operation went better then the operation to free that fucking journalist. She was not worth the $10 million they paid for her, no one is worth that much.

The Red Cross should stick to treating civilians and looking after POWs. If even one person is killed by those terrorists that they treated, the people who launched the operation to save the aid-workers should be arrested and put on trial by the Iraqi Government for murder.

A little less US soldiers die, but many many more Iraqi civilians die. Not a fair trade off in my book

A lot less U.S. soldiers would die. It's our job to worry about the lives of our people, just like it's Iraq's job to look out for its people. That's how war works. When it doesn't work that was, you lose 1900 troops against petty insurgent forces.

If you're fighting a war fairly, you're doing something wrong.

Really? do you think they treat US soldiers or Iraqi Police? they dont.

Seriously to save the lives of 2 people you save the lives of the ones that have killed hundreds of people....sounds like typical stupidity and short term thinking to me....hey thats the way most the anti war people think anyways...
Uh...

Primary Role: The Red Cross provides emergency communication services for active duty, reserve and national guard service members and their families. Each month, Red Cross emergency communication centers process 120,000 calls and 12,800 e-mails in support of military famililes.

http://www-nmcp.med.navy.mil/ARC/services.asp

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Active_Family_Red_Cross.htm

he never said that, don't put words into people's mouths, you just lose credibility yourself.

EDIT: This was in responce to the

"Ahhh, so you believe in genocide? Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer.

Credibility = zero."
He stated:

Originally Posted by Aldranin
It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.

And he further qualified it by stating:

"More daisycutters and airstrikes coupled with a decreased necessity for close combat, meh, if it brings more of our boys home."

This of course means a greater civilian death toll which is "unethical". What do you take "Fuck ethics." to mean?

He stated:

Originally Posted by Aldranin
It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.

And he further qualified it by stating:

"More daisycutters and airstrikes coupled with a decreased necessity for close combat, meh, if it brings more of our boys home."

This of course means a greater civilian death toll which is "unethical". What do you take "Fuck ethics." to mean?

Genocide is defined as a greater civilian death toll than would be the norm? What fucking dictionary do you use?

I would like to say the Red Cross did the right thing, but they didn't. If this had happened when the Coalition was still fighting the Iraqi Army, say the Red Cross treated some Iraqi Soldiers in order to get medical aid to POWs, then I would support it. But they gave medical aid to terrorists, they even admit that they were terrorists. I hope to god those two aid-workers were worth it, because the terrorists that the Red Cross treated could very well have caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, and Coalition Soldiers.

I have to admit, this operation went better then the operation to free that fucking journalist. She was not worth the $10 million they paid for her, no one is worth that much.

The Red Cross should stick to treating civilians and looking after POWs. If even one person is killed by those terrorists that they treated, the people who launched the operation to save the aid-workers should be arrested and put on trial by the Iraqi Government for murder.

Soldiers kill civilians too. Just because they are not part of a regular army doesn't mean it's wrong to help them. The Red Cross has a mandate of help everybody, and I support them.

A lot less U.S. soldiers would die. It's our job to worry about the lives of our people, just like it's Iraq's job to look out for its people. That's how war works. When it doesn't work that was, you lose 1900 troops against petty insurgent forces.

If you're fighting a war fairly, you're doing something wrong.

In a war, you are also a human being, and you can't forget that for the sake of victory. You must never forget that, in all things, you are a human being first.

I think the stratigy you discribed would kill alot more Iraqi civilians then US soldiers would be saved. Which to me, boils down to more people killed then saved.

Besides, the Red Cross is not at war with anyone

I have to admit, this operation went better then the operation to free that fucking journalist. She was not worth the $10 million they paid for her, no one is worth that much.
Osama is worth $25 Million.
Michael Jordan earned $30 Million for one season with the Bulls.

The Red Cross should stick to treating civilians and looking after POWs. If even one person is killed by those terrorists that they treated, the people who launched the operation to save the aid-workers should be arrested and put on trial by the Iraqi Government for murder.
So what should the penalty be for George W. Bush, who started this war?

I would like to say the Red Cross did the right thing, but they didn't. If this had happened when the Coalition was still fighting the Iraqi Army, say the Red Cross treated some Iraqi Soldiers in order to get medical aid to POWs, then I would support it. But they gave medical aid to terrorists, they even admit that they were terrorists. I hope to god those two aid-workers were worth it, because the terrorists that the Red Cross treated could very well have caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, and Coalition Soldiers.

I have to admit, this operation went better then the operation to free that fucking journalist. She was not worth the $10 million they paid for her, no one is worth that much.

The Red Cross should stick to treating civilians and looking after POWs. If even one person is killed by those terrorists that they treated, the people who launched the operation to save the aid-workers should be arrested and put on trial by the Iraqi Government for murder.
Uninvolved. They give aid to ANYONE. Anybody. It's very simple. I'd say that their actions do more to promote peace than anything you've just said.

He stated:

Originally Posted by Aldranin
It's pretty simple. It's called "Fuck ethics." You think the world hates Bush? They'd really hate me.

And he further qualified it by stating:

"More daisycutters and airstrikes coupled with a decreased necessity for close combat, meh, if it brings more of our boys home."

This of course means a greater civilian death toll which is "unethical". What do you take "Fuck ethics." to mean?

I, also, disagree with him, but he never advocated genocide

Genocide is defined as a greater civilian death toll than would be the norm? What fucking dictionary do you use?
You stated that YOU would use more "more daisycutters and airstrikes", which would increase the civilian death toll, and that neatly fits the dictionary definition that you conveniently supplied. Thanks for proving my point.

He was saying that genocide is not, in fact, defined as a higher civilian death rate then normal.

A agree that is stratigy is unethical, immoral, and murderous, in my opinion, but genocide it is not

You stated that YOU would use more "more daisycutters and airstrikes", which would increase the civilian death toll, and that neatly fits the dictionary definition that you conveniently supplied. Thanks for proving my point.

Holy shit. Are you posting as multiple people? Why is everyone twisting my words into what they are not tonight? Why can no one comprehend basic English sentences? An increase in civilian death toll is not what genocide means. You incorrectly accused me of implementing genocide as a military tactic. I pointed that out, and you took my question to mean that I was actually pointing out some definition of genocide that actually doesn't exist. Do you even know what genocide is? Thanks for giving me a fucking headache.

I can't believe that it took 2 pages to sort that out ::rolls eyes::

I can't believe that it took 2 pages to sort that out ::rolls eyes::
There should be a seperate thread for stuff like that, or a way to make it private.

He was saying that genocide is not, in fact, defined as a higher civilian death rate then normal.

A agree that is stratigy is unethical, immoral, and murderous, in my opinion, but genocide it is not
Okay, you win. Let's just call it murder, or homicide if you prefer. Still a crime in my books.

I apologize for the use of the word genocide.

Aldranin is advocating the murder of innocent men, women, and children through the use of "more daisycutters and airstrikes", or as he coined it "Fuck ethics".

Holy shit. Are you posting as multiple people? Why is everyone twisting my words into what they are not tonight? Why can no one comprehend basic English sentences? An increase in civilian death toll is not what genocide means. You incorrectly accused me of implementing genocide as a military tactic. I pointed that out, and you took my question to mean that I was actually pointing out some definition of genocide that actually doesn't exist. Do you even know what genocide is? Thanks for giving me a fucking headache.
Okay, calm down. I retract my accusation of genocide and instead suggest that you advocate mass murder through the use of "more daisycutters and airstrikes" on the Iraqi people.

And yeah, I do think that would make you more unpopular than George Bush.

I never said it wasn't a crime. But good, we are in agreement. Now, we debate Aldranin, who will no doubt respond with a support of his position.

Okay, you win. Let's just call it murder, or homicide if you prefer. Still a crime in my books.

I apologize for the use of the word genocide.

Aldranin is advocating the murder of innocent men, women, and children through the use of "more daisycutters and airstrikes", or as he coined it "Fuck ethics".

No, damn it all, I thought we had finally talked some sense into you. Murder is illegal. Call it killing, or homicide if you prefer. Not murder. Besides, I'm advocating the killing of those innocents to save our innocents. The only criminals - the only ones that are not innocent - of those fighting are the terrorists. They are committing illegal acts. The coalition soldiers are not. Our soldiers are no more guilt than the innocents that would be bombed in their stead. I prefer to keep our soldiers alive. The lives of enemy's people are for them to worry about. If they want them to stop dying, surrender. How is that not reasonable?

Or, what's more, they could stop positioning themselves near civilians.

The US troops arn't killing civilians? The US soldiers arn't committing illegal acts? That's just not true.

I don't concider any civilian to be "the enemy."


Now I'm out of crackers so I'm going to bed. I'll be back tomarrow, perhapse.

The US troops arn't killing civilians? The US soldiers arn't committing illegal acts? That's just not true.

Who said that?

I don't concider any civilian to be "the enemy."

Who said that?

Now I'm out of crackers so I'm going to bed. I'll be back tomarrow, perhapse.

Night.

Canada City']Now this is a tough thing to judge. Heal the enemy and save your friends, or kill both?


We have to save them ourselves. Don't get me wrong- we can't let them go back to fighting, but if we refuse to let them be treated, them they will fight to the death without surrender, which makes it harder for us.

We have to save them ourselves. Don't get me wrong- we can't let them go back to fighting, but if we refuse to let them be treated, them they will fight to the death without surrender, which makes it harder for us.

It's not a matter of letting them be treated, it's a matter of treating them ourselves. In a war, you should never expect your enemy to treat your soldiers.

It's not a matter of letting them be treated, it's a matter of treating them ourselves. In a war, you should never expect your enemy to treat your soldiers.


If a man surrenders himself to us to be treated, we should do it and take him captive.

It's a matter of being better than them.

I'm beat. Good night.

If a man surrenders himself to us to be treated, we should do it and take him captive.

Well, of course. But we shouldn't treat them and let them fucking go. That's just being stupider than them.

Well, of course. But we shouldn't treat them and let them fucking go. That's just being stupider than them.
It's not us treating them. Red Cross is neutral. We are not the ones treating them.
I get the feeling that if you were in a war and someone raised a white flag, you'd make good use of it as a target.

A. Then what exactly are you fighting for if you end up being as cold as them?



I don't care how cold we are as long as it's our foot on his throat at the end of the day...and our nation and homes are safe.

Don't give me that.....it's sort of hard to stoop to their level, I mean they target civilians daily with car bombs.....

It's not us treating them. Red Cross is neutral. We are not the ones treating them.
I get the feeling that if you were in a war and someone raised a white flag, you'd make good use of it as a target.

Well since the enemy sneaks suicide bombers up close in that manner, yep.

[Fullmetaljacket]Remember, if they run they're a poorly trained terrorist. If they don't, they're a well trained terrorist. [fullmetaljacket]

It's easy, you just don't leadem' as much.

No, damn it all, I thought we had finally talked some sense into you. Murder is illegal. Call it killing, or homicide if you prefer. Not murder. Besides, I'm advocating the killing of those innocents to save our innocents. The only criminals - the only ones that are not innocent - of those fighting are the terrorists. They are committing illegal acts. The coalition soldiers are not. Our soldiers are no more guilt than the innocents that would be bombed in their stead. I prefer to keep our soldiers alive. The lives of enemy's people are for them to worry about. If they want them to stop dying, surrender. How is that not reasonable?

Or, what's more, they could stop positioning themselves near civilians.
Since you want me to use the dictionary:

murder

1. transitive and intransitive verb kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

2. transitive verb kill somebody brutally: to kill somebody with great violence and brutality

Besides, I'm advocating the killing of those innocents to save our innocents.

Yeah, I think that qualifies as murder!!

Since you want me to use the dictionary:

murder

1. transitive and intransitive verb kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

2. transitive verb kill somebody brutally: to kill somebody with great violence and brutality



Yeah, I think that qualifies as murder!!

If they walk right next to a tank that get bushwhacked by an apache, nope. Not murder. If a helo sees a bunch of people walking around and strafes them, yes, murder.....

If they walk right next to a tank that get bushwhacked by an apache, nope. Not murder. If a helo sees a bunch of people walking around and strafes them, yes, murder.....
You need to back up a whole bunch of posts to get the drift of this discussion.