MilitantDogOwner Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17244211 Well what can you say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Very regrettable, especially as the Libyan rebels had British military assistance to overthrow Gaddafi. However, one doesn't know which faction was responsible and the current Libyan regime has duly expressed regret. Hopefully, the CWGC will soon restore the graves to a dignified state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 To violate the graves of the dead whatever their colour, nationality, or creed, is disgraceful. I hope the suthorities will catch the people who did this and prosecute them. One cannot understand the mindset of the thugs who did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Hypothetically, of course not in this case, what if the graves were those of bad people? What if it was Stalin's, Mother Theresa's, Idi Amin's, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Hypothetically, of course not in this case, what if the graves were those of bad people? What if it was Stalin's, Mother Theresa's, Idi Amin's, etc? How many of those died in a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 None. But my reply to a posters sweeping comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 How about someone caught defacing this grave: Its from the waffen ss war graves at Kolmeshöhe in Germany. They got Ronnie Reagan in a bit of trouble in the 1980s. My opinion is live and let live, and anyone desecrating them would be acting incorrectly. People can be monsters, but they are still someone's son, someone's relative, and to desecrate these graves would be to lose the dignity for humanity you criticize their occupants for not having. Though I can understand the anger of someone personally affected by the SS's efforts to ensure millions of people have no grave, and no memorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 To move this out of the hypothetical, Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention requires that the graves of war casualties should be respected. It does not differentiate between the warring parties, nor the military units that the casualty belonged to. From the convention: "Art. 17. Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body. Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead. They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. For this purpose, they shall organize at the commencement of hostilities an Official Graves Registration Service, to allow subsequent exhumations and to ensure the identification of bodies, whatever the site of the graves, and the possible transportation to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country. As soon as circumstances permit, and at latest at the end of hostilities, these Services shall exchange, through the Information Bureau mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 16, lists showing the exact location and markings of the graves, together with particulars of the dead interred therein." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatu Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Hypothetically, of course not in this case, what if the graves were those of bad people? What if it was Stalin's, Mother Theresa's, Idi Amin's, etc? Hehe , that Mother Theresa was a monster . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Absolutely, the world was a better place when that old crone snuffed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So let me get this straight. We (the UK/US/France/whoever else wanted a peice of the lucrative Libyan pie) illegally invaded their country, bombed it indiscriminately back into the third world again, killed thousands of innocent civilians, installed a puppet regime so they could set up a central bank in Benghazi within 24 hours to steal the nations wealth and plunge them into debt, put the kibosh on plans to unite north africa using a gold dinar as oil currency instead of dollars which would have gone some way to regenerate the whole continent, stole the funds of Gaddafi which were in banks in London and then instead of giving it back to the people we seized it as 'collateral' and finally left the country in absolute chaos, like we did in Iraq, Afghanistan, name your other country over the past 50 years...... and people are surprised and outraged that the Libyans don't respect the soldiers who lost their lives carrying out this rape of a sovereign country?? Am I missing something?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Lxxx, I don't know about what you missed, but I certainly missed the invasion of Libya by the UK, France or the USA. Where? When? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Lxxx, I don't know about what you missed, but I certainly missed the invasion of Libya by the UK, France or the USA. Where? When? You don't need boots on the ground to invade a country. All you need is willing mercenaries, arm them to the teeth, create a NATO no-fly zone and aerial superiority and voila, you can take over a country with very little collateral damage. I believe that was what happened was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Lxxx, by any commonly understood definition I think you require an army to enter and occupy a country. The Luftwaffe bombed Britain in the second world war, but Germany did not invade. In your last sentence, you imply that we should not be surprised that Libyans " don't respect the soldiers who lost their lives carrying out this rape of a sovereign country" but actually the cemetery contained war graves from the second world war. Finally, as I said in an earlier posting, the Geneva Convention requires that war graves should be respected. I think that in itself provides grounds for both surprise and distaste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Lxxx, by any commonly understood definition I think you require an army to enter and occupy a country. The Luftwaffe bombed Britain in the second world war, but Germany did not invade. In your last sentence, you imply that we should not be surprised that Libyans " don't respect the soldiers who lost their lives carrying out this rape of a sovereign country" but actually the cemetery contained war graves from the second world war. Finally, as I said in an earlier posting, the Geneva Convention requires that war graves should be respected. I think that in itself provides grounds for both surprise and distaste. Apologies, I meant to say 'soldiers from one of the countries who carried out the rape of this sovereign country'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.