This is only sarcasm at the horror of war, and what it is doing to our children. Years from now, will this kid think the same way? scarry to think so!!.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm


Godless ;)

I can't wait to hear how this is justified by the Jerreks and Othedaps....

BTW, from the Geneva Convention:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

<snip>

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

So this is, in effect, videotape of a defined war crime.

Jesus, that soldier should be rotting in prison!

Even if he was a insurgent or a "terrorist", they had no right to take that kill shot. He was down and was not a threat.
It's disgusting. At least suicide bombers who attack military are willing to sacrifice their lives.
These stupid american kids believe they're playing a video game.

How do we expect our children to grow up listening to governments and media casually talking about "capturing or killing" specific people -- and our society admitting and accepting things like training of assassination squads.

what a barbaric nation :bugeye:
but do we expect something else from them ? no ......
they did it before , and they´ll continue !

jaja , die Amis :rolleyes:

What is there to defend? If someone did something wrong, then it should properly be addressed.

Pentax, are you saying the US is a barbaric nation? I certainly hope that is not what you are saying.

Originally posted by truth
If someone did something wrong, then it should properly be addressed.
Love that "if"...


Pentax, are you saying the US is a barbaric nation? I certainly hope that is not what you are saying.
No, because a barbaric nation wouldn't have 2 million people in jail, a gun crime rate that's off the charts, the world's richest people living in the same place as the nation's poorest people, inmates on death row forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs so that they can be executed while sane for crimes committed while insane, or Guantanamo Bay, Kandahar, 3,500 innocent deaths on their heads in Afghanistan or 10,000 innocent deaths from Iraq, nor would they have daily reports of their troops committing war crimes with impunity in Iraq, and boast of them on the front page of the Washington Post, now would they?
:rolleyes:

Those 2 million are in jail for crimes they committed. What's the problem? Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time.

The rich and the poor, huh. Well it happens, but a guy working at McDonald's should not earn as much as a doctor, contractor, etc. All those people getting welfare for doing nothing from those earning the money, boo hoo. Betcha some of the poor in other countries would not mind being poor here. How poor are you when you have color TV, cable, PS2, a car, food?

My only problem with death row is that it takes too long and so expensive. I think we ought to take all violent criminals and put them in gulags at hard labor for the duration of the sentence. Make criminal punishment meaningful.

And the innocent deaths in every war since man first picked up a rock. War is hell and if you know of a way to completely prevent collateral damage or determine exactly who the combatants vs. non-combatants are without fail, go ahead and market it. Btw, how many of those deaths were caused by Saddam, al Quaida, the Taliban?

Daily reports of war crimes? Using al Jazeera as your source, CNN maybe?

I just thought it a bit ironic for Pentax to claim the US a barbaric nation when he is from Germany. Or anyone else from Europe or anywhere else in the world. When someone else in the world puts as much blood, sweat, money, time, and effort in the pursuit of freedom, liberty, and peace, you be sure and let me know!
------------------------------------
"The main weapon that terrorists use against the West is not bombs or guns, but moral obfuscation."

Netanyahu

Sounds like liberals as well!

Subtract the first "T" and replace the second with an "s" and I think we got it!

Originally posted by Mr. Chips
Subtract the first "T" and replace the second with an "s" and I think we got it!

Going for the moral obfuscation, eh Mr. Chips?

Take a look at the video again, Liar. Obfuscate all you want and even use the word "obfuscation" as a part of your la-la world. I wonder, will Rush Limbaugh go to jail? Do the crime...

Was I being obtuse? If the people in video did something wrong and are properly adjudged so, then by all means do so. I stated this the first time. ;)

As to Rush, that is his issue. I understand why he took the drugs, for relief of severe back pain from a botched surgery, nevertheless he should have sought proper help. Not my issue to judge.

Uh, in what way is this a "la la world"? Is that liberalism for "I have nothing pertinent to say"?

"If" weeeeee

Oh, you've pegged me so well. I was schooled at a "Liberal" Arts college. I got "liberal" tatooed across my forehead. I dig the ACLU. I got friends in the Sierra Club. My motto is "If your "right" you must be wrong. I eat oatmeal for breakfast. I think the only difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected. I think words like "liberal" and "terrorism" are used to justify nepotism and obfuscate rather than look at the world.

Yeah, I like freedom, I must be a liberal. Problem is, I don't think of myself as a liberal. I consider myself a human being and that is a big shoe to fit as far as figuring out what is moral and what is not. I don't feel any allegiance to Amerigoans. I think all human beings are on the same side and when we choose to look at things in a "good guys" verses "bad guys" fantasy we give our common enemy strength.

I consider all nations as inadequate. I consider the Fermi paradox as the prime question. My family is Hominidae. I like science, the art of sharing observations.

If being conservative is being a fascist then, by all means, I am liberal.

Originally posted by truth
My only problem with death row is that it takes too long and so expensive.

Oddly enough, most people's problem with death row is the number of dodgy convictions that put people there, especially in Texas. Hence the large number of cases where previously death-sentenced convicts were found to be innocent and set free, often after years of unjust captivity.



Daily reports of war crimes? Using al Jazeera as your source, CNN maybe?

CNN for the clip above (it aired last night, Dec 10th), then sources like Reuters, the front page of the Washington Post, the BBC, RTE, the AP, the UPI and the large number of eye-witness testimonies reported by various other press groups.



I just thought it a bit ironic for Pentax to claim the US a barbaric nation when he is from Germany.
Funny how Germans are good enough to die supporting US troops, but not good enough to be respected, isn't it?


Or anyone else from Europe or anywhere else in the world. When someone else in the world puts as much blood, sweat, money, time, and effort in the pursuit of freedom, liberty, and peace, you be sure and let me know!
Yes, because as we all know, the aboriginal population of the USA (rather than some filthy immigrants from every other country) were the ones who founded a country based on the principles of the Enlightenment...
:bugeye:

Could we get someone in here who actually knows his own country's history to carry on this debate please?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Godless
This is only sarcasm at the horror of war, and what it is doing to our children. Years from now, will this kid think the same way? scarry to think so!!.



All hope is lost. This is disgusting.

Anyone who fights with monsters should make sure that he does not in the process become a monster.
-Nietzsche

truth ( aka ignorance )

I just thought it a bit ironic for Pentax to claim the US a barbaric nation when he is from Germany.


ww2 ???
man , time changes .... but it seems time stands still in us-minds since ww2 :D

When someone else in the world puts as much blood, sweat, money, time, and effort in the pursuit of freedom, liberty, and peace, you be sure and let me know!


my theory : you only fight for your own interests ;)

Der amerikanische Ubermensch, der durch das amerikanische untermensch Truth verteidigt wird. Simply it is simply sickening, I know that Powell would have showed such a video at the UN to show the callousness of Saddam regime...uh...uh...sorry you mean America. Oh America this war is bound to bite you in the ass.

If you're on a ship at sea in the middle of one of the biggest and ugliest naval battles in history, I can well understand cheering as the enemy that you're pummeling rolls to sink beneath the waves.

If the planes are coming at you, I can well understand the cheer when one of your gunners, desperate to save even his own life, manages to knock an enemy out of the sky so that it crashes into the sea or otherwise doesn't kill your mates.

But if you're cheering at the killshot of an already-wounded single person writhing in the street ... should we presume that you're cheering because it took that many of you to kill one person?

If you have time, amid a warzone, to stop and cheer, then you have time to consider other things, as well. I think of the US marine who shot a mother during one of the Iraqi "refugee pushes" because "the chick was in the way."

But I understand. They're two different situations, entirely. In an urban combat zone, you have time to stop and cheer at the death of one person. But when Iraqis are chasing civilians into the guns, you don't have time to distinguish between the enemy and the frightened civilians whose only hope now is to make your line and beg for safety.

And when you're in a "rolling firefight" with Iraqi bank robbers, you don't have time to distinguish between your targets: fire in every direction, knock down anything you think has a gunman near, in, or on it.

But you do have time to stop and cheer for one guy's execution in the street.

And it feels good, apparently.

A note for Truth:
I just thought it a bit ironic for Pentax to claim the US a barbaric nation when he is from Germany. Or anyone else from Europe or anywhere else in the world.Quite obviously, Germany has spent the 58 years since the end of WW2 in certain contemplation.

A generation disappeared in France ... twice. Europe has seen fire and carnage like Americans can only imagine. Sixty years later, they want to hold themselves to "Never again"?

Well then, it would appear that the Europeans have something to teach us Americans.

Nations that have been leveled ... shattered ... stomped from border to border in the past don't want to see another nation go through that?

"Georgie ... what have ye done?"
And still the dark stain spreads between
Their shoulder blades
A mute reminder
Of the poppy fields and graves
When the fight was over
We spent what they had made
But
In the bottom of our hearts
We felt the final cut.

(Pink Floyd, "Southampton Dock (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Southampton-Dock-lyrics-Roger-Waters/A2DA6710FE8D282B48256C050009D059)")

Originally posted by nico
Oh America this war is bound to bite you in the ass.
Oh well... Saddam would have bitten us in the ass anyway in a couple of years. I think its amazing that the same people who call America self-richeous think themselves to be saints.


Originally posted by tiassa
Well then, it would appear that the Europeans have something to teach us Americans.
Yeah. Never do anything, no matter how necessary, if it has any risk for anyone. Sit in your country and complain but let the world fester. A hundred times more people may die horrible deaths or live in oppression due to your inaction than would ever be hurt by action but at least you can have the illusion of clean hands. Thats what we have to learn.

Oh well... Saddam would have bitten us in the ass anyway in a couple of years.

With what? Slingshots? LOL

I think its amazing that the same people who call America self-richeous think themselves to be saints

And who said this? Americans think of themselves and their values as self-righteous. I mean look at you for instance a Cuban refugee, you know adopting American values, and seeing them as the only value. Then screaming like Batista when things don't go your way.

Saddam would have bitten us in the ass anyway in a couple of years. Well, didn't he already bite us in the ass? I mean, really, if Bush had just come out and said, The guy keeps embarrassing us, so we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot and get it all over with at once, I would be more inclined to accept it than the official line we've received from the executive.
I think its amazing that the same people who call America self-richeous think themselves to be saints. Do expand, please.
Never do anything, no matter how necessary, if it has any risk for anyone.A few things that strike me as relevant:

• What made this invasion to depose any more necessary than it would have or should have been between 1982 and 1990--the period between the removal of Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terrorism and the invasion of Kuwait?
• How was this invasion "necessary" at all?
• If supporting sanctions that have contributed to the deaths of as many as 1.5 million Iraqis, turning a generally blind eye to the thousands of American-sponsored aerial bombings of Iraq, and being correct in their assessment that the "immediate threat" of Iraq was not so immediate as proposed by the war party equals never doing anything, well ... I suppose we disagree on that point.
A hundred times more people may die horrible deaths or live in oppression due to your inaction than would ever be hurt by action but at least you can have the illusion of clean hands. Thats what we have to learn. Let's talk about action, shall we? Past action includes toppling a popularly-elected Iranian prime minister in support of a ruthless and vicious Shah; past action includes supporting a Ba'athist coup in Iraq; past action includes aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein's atrocities in order to assist his military victory against Iran, whose pro-American Shah was replaced by a maniacal Ayatollah. The death toll from these American actions has been huge. Whether inaction or different action would have been more or less helpful is a matter of theory, at best.

The problem is that the first option for Americans tends to be, "Cooperation is when you agree to give us what we want." The further problem is that the second option is not to examine that aspect of cooperation for error, but to resort to the gun and say we have exhausted all other options.

Think of action: The resolutions ending the conflict in Desert Storm seemed to focus on punishing Hussein and his regime, and never really seemed to consider the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Without that action, only Poppy Bush stood in the way of rolling to Baghdad to get our man. And Poppy Bush--how did he come out of all of this looking like a decent fellow?--knew that he would turn the world on its ear if he went all the way to Baghdad. On abstract principle, he did the right thing in choosing to act through resolutions.

So "inaction" in the case of the resolutions ending the conflict the first time around is an interesting case. But different action, for instance--since we discuss in the current situation the plight and welfare of the Iraqi people--writing some of those resolutions to offer better protections to the Iraqi people, presents myriad alternatives, some worse but many better than the situation handed to Clinton and then Bush, which leads us somehow to ... this.

Inaction? Yeah, we could have left Mossadegh in office and not started a cycle of events that led to aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein's atrocities (action, indeed) in the 1980s.

Inaction? Perhaps we might have avoided the whole thing if Hussein had been advised more clearly after he expressed his Kuwaiti intentions to April Glaspie. Oh, that's right ... it was international outrage that moved Poppy to action.

It all depends, Clockwood, on how you delineate action and inaction.

Nice one Tiassa :)

Frikin Europeans, wont fight with US (NOT ALL of us, by the way)

And CLOCKWOOD, never say this to Finn...
"Yeah. Never do anything, no matter how necessary, if it has any risk for anyone. Sit in your country and complain but let the world fester. A hundred times more people may die horrible deaths or live in oppression due to your inaction than would ever be hurt by action but at least you can have the illusion of clean hands. Thats what we have to learn."

Remember WW2 and Finlands winter-war ? We were war against Soviets, England (and with US by an inch) and forced to bed with Hitler because all the help (none) we were getting from US&Allies *spits on the floor and leaves *

Bluemoose

Remember WW2 and Finlands winter-war ? We were war against Soviets, England (and with US by an inch) and forced to bed with Hitler because all the help (none) we were getting from US&Allies *spits on the floor and leaves * [/B]
Have you FINnished complaining?

First of all I was not in agreement of going in there, and trying to get rid of Saddam, when so many otrocities are commited here in our own back yard, Cuba. Some one argued with me that Bush wanted to get rid of dictators to make this a safer world. That was my answer!!. What about Castro?.

Oh!! ;hell no there's no oil in Cuba, let those poor latins suffer under this dictator, we have no interest there!!.

This whole war was a hugemangous propaganda, one which was planed way before 9-11 however Americans needed an event such as the atrocities of that day to start beating the drums of war.

However my whole focus of this post was of the person, a mere child of 19 years old, having fun killing people, I wonder what this kid will think of his actions later? I wonder how many killers this war will produce with our x-service men going bananas? This kid seems to be headed for big problems..


Godless.

Originally posted by Vienna
Have you FINnished complaining?

-Funny.
-George asked us for before Iraq-war (In my eyes that wasnt much of a war, it was like invasion of Poland or so at ww2)
that do we want to come to do some rebuilding after war.
We did scrub here our heads like...

-"What a fuk, they are still arguing is there even reason to go to war, and this guy is calling some help from us already. Naaah, he just want us on hes side. Hey, we dont like terrorist but what a hell you suppose to find at Iraq ?"

Originally posted by tiassa
A generation disappeared in France ... twice. Europe has seen fire and carnage like Americans can only imagine. Sixty years later, they want to hold themselves to "Never again"?
Well then, it would appear that the Europeans have something to teach us Americans.
Nations that have been leveled ... shattered ... stomped from border to border in the past don't want to see another nation go through that?


You see, people who know this (and the fact that the bloodshed never actually stopped over here) is why this (http://www.privilogic.com/wordsfail/) happened.

Clockwood, othedap, jerrek, truth, all of you freeper-wannabes? Take note.

Is that guy at the and of the movie an idiot or do Americans really think like that when someone dies. He is just a stupid kid, who doesnt know what he is talking about. But how can someone in war think about killing someone like that "awesome hell ya" ?!! I mean how come war didnt make him grow up yet, how come he still doesnt think different.

I am sure there are hundreds of these kind of American soldiers in Iraq. They still think that they playing Cowboy-Indians in their backyards. That guy is probably dead by now. I dont think that anyone with that mentality can survive long in a war.

I want to comment on the whole video but i dont know what the other Iraqi guy did before he was shot so i cant say anything. And about the Geneva Convention : I dont think that anyone pays much attention to it because we are
human beings = BARBARIANS

Is that Americans think that being in Iraq, they are going to create a "free, democratic, prosperous" Iraq, who will be more then eager and wiling to join in on the PNAC fun. Also Americans seem to believe the ridiculously idiotic assertion that being in Iraq, will somehow decrease terrorism. I guess raping, pillaging, and defacing a nation of it's pride, and creating a political vacum with only one filler (Islam) should stop terrorism *rolleyes*. The secularization of Iraq has ended in failure, and March 17 was the end of a era. If you thought the US had troubles with Saddam, wait until the new leaders come along. Anti-Americanism, angst, and economic stagnation have set in. The Americans in their little enclave in Baghdad "the Green Zone", are looking more and more like the Brits in India. 60% of the population being Shi'a and theocratics at heart, and a possible alliance with Iran...is this the "new Iraq" the Iraqi ppl were promised? The fact that US companies can do whatever they want, and not be responsible for those actions (I would refer you to Sudan's experience with oil), debt about 3 times the size of her economy. The US not budging on contracts, and expecting creditor nations to miraculously give up about..$153 billion in debt. Oh yes the economic prospects look real good when the oil in Iraq seems won't be nationalized. The Americans are surely having their fun, at failing. The Americans presently have the Midas touch, in reverse.

While reading this thread's doppelganger (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31338), it occoured to me - these guys were shot for carrying an AK-47, right?

Has it not occourred to the US army over there that everyone is carrying an AK-47, because there's no other way to protect yourself and your family? One third of the Iraqi army (excuse me rumsfeld, I meant "security forces") have just quit, looting was given a new high after baghdad fell, gang rapes are the new black, and the police are the old stazi police rehired. Even doctors are carrying AKs on rounds, because they're the cheapest weapon available over there - even pistols cost more.

So for all they knew, they just shot two totally innocent men.

Think what you want about the validity of war in Iraq, but when the bullets are flying, a soldier has to do what it takes to kill the people that are trying to kill you. That's the harsh reality of war, folks. You know the enemy would do the same to you, if given a chance.

spidergoat must be seeing a different video because I certainly don't see that man firing at soldiers. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and all is well, huh? You are a blind fool!

http://objects.activeworlds.com/aw/textures/9-11-trade3.jpg

spidergoat must be seeing a different video because I certainly don't see that man firing at soldiers.

Of course, if you didn't see it, then it must not have happened! Stop playing armchair quarterback. Videos don't tell the whole story. Marines have to evaluate a situation for themselves, they know better than us what was going on there. They very well could have been wrong about killing that man, I wasn't there either. Still, it's their decision, they are the ones that get shot at. I blame Bush for getting us into this mess, but don't blame the marines for doing their job! Dare we bring up the innumerable videos of Saddam throwing his olympic athletes off a roof, or the ones of the taliban stoning and beheading people in a soccer stadium? Go ahead and be outraged, but direct it towards the merciless and degenerate perverters of religion known as the Taliban, or that bloated pigfucker that makes Jeffry Dalmer look like Mr. Rogers - Saddam Hussein.

Marines have to evaluate a situation for themselves, they know better than us what was going on there

Yes and a man who was disabled on the ground should have been shot, in direct contradiction to the Geneva accords which the US is a signatory.

I blame Bush for getting us into this mess, but don't blame the marines for doing their job!

So a Marines job is to ruthlessly kill a hapless man on the floor? Yes the courage.

Dare we bring up the innumerable videos of Saddam throwing his olympic athletes off a roof, or the ones of the taliban stoning and beheading people in a soccer stadium?

You dare to sound like a idiot then bring it up, but your appeal to emotions, and this is Non Sequitur to the thread at hand... learn relevance please.

Go ahead and be outraged, but direct it towards the merciless and degenerate perverters of religion known as the Taliban, or that bloated pigfucker that makes Jeffry Dalmer look like Mr. Rogers - Saddam Hussein.

Why should I be outraged at a man who did nothing against the US, and get invaded for??? PNAC doctrine. I direct my anger where it should be at the antagonists, America and Al Qaeda, one in the same.

Originally posted by spidergoat
that bloated pigfucker that makes Jeffry Dalmer look like Mr. Rogers - Saddam Hussein.
How about the government that recruited, trained, paid, installed, armed, supported and generally ran PR interference for Hussein, all the time knowing what he was?

Originally posted by spidergoat
Marines have to evaluate a situation for themselves, they know better than us what was going on there. They very well could have been wrong about killing that man, I wasn't there either. Still, it's their decision, they are the ones that get shot at. I

If they had been startled or something then that might be a rational arugment, but given that they were cheering before they killed him, and didn't seem in any particular hurry, it doesn't make a lot of sense.



Originally posted by spidergoat
blame Bush for getting us into this mess, but don't blame the marines for doing their job!

I agree that Bush holds a lot of responsibility for this, especially given that many soldiers have been kept in Iraq far longer than was expected. In a case like this however, even if they're not at fault because they've been brainwashed, they would certainly qualify as criminally insane.

E_IS. Spider doesn't know, or remember that far back.. quote:
(How about the government that recruited, trained, paid, installed, armed, supported and generally ran PR interference for Hussein, all the time knowing what he was?)


Saddam is was, a terrible and intolerable dictator a well trained and refined x-cia culprit in the middle east. Only when the guy didn't want to accept a pipeline from crossing his oil fields directly to Turkey (I think) , so that Israel can get some of that oil as well, is when he became an enemy of the US.

Heck any of you heard of the Carlyle Group?.

Check this bunch of business men. Notice who's daddy is on the board..

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

This war is about oil, nothing more, we are paying in blood to have this sob's get filthy rich on American lives.

What are a few thousands dead soldiers, or better yet 15 thousand dead Iragis lives worth compared to the amount of Mula these sob's plan to profit from this war?.

Only one Congressman has a son/daughter in the arm forces, it is not like bush's girls are over there figting for daddy!!.

Spider; please look forward, to loosing more rights, our constitution is about to become toilet paper, bill of rights be damned, all in the name of national security. Have you ever read 1984? it is time to read it again. before it becomes illegal literature.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1211edsecurity11.html##

http://www.ccops.org/

http://www.infowars.com/police_state.html

Yea!! I can see this government hiring kids like that video to shoot American dissenters..

It is cool, lets doit again... was his words..

Godless.

Yes and a man who was disabled on the ground should have been shot, in direct contradiction to the Geneva accords which the US is a signatory.

You don't know that he was disabled, or even wounded!


So a Marines job is to ruthlessly kill a hapless man on the floor? Yes the courage.

Yes, their job is to kill the people that would kill them.


You dare to sound like a idiot then bring it up, but your appeal to emotions, and this is Non Sequitur to the thread at hand... learn relevance please.

Ok, perhaps it's not relevant to this incident.


In a case like this however, even if they're not at fault because they've been brainwashed, they would certainly qualify as criminally insane.

Talk about a non-sequitur! It's a war zone! They are not killing for their own pleasure, but on behalf of the US government. They have not been brainwashed, they made a concious choice to join the military, and obey commands. They are warriors, not criminally insane, big difference. They rejoice to relieve the tension of a stressfull situation, and they won the battle. Wether they cheer or not is irrelevant anyway, they deal with the stress whatever way they want. In the video, you don't see what led up to this incident, so you can't judge it. You don't know for sure if he was wounded, or taking cover. Perhaps he could still reach his cell phone and call for reinforcements, or detonate a bomb. Should they have risked their lives to save his sorry ass? I don't think so.

Originally posted by spidergoat
YTalk about a non-sequitur! It's a war zone! They are not killing for their own pleasure, but on behalf of the US government. They have not been brainwashed, they made a concious choice to join the military, and obey commands. They are warriors, not criminally insane, big difference. They rejoice to relieve the tension of a stressfull situation, and they won the battle. Wether they cheer or not is irrelevant anyway, they deal with the stress whatever way they want. In the video, you don't see what led up to this incident, so you can't judge it. You don't know for sure if he was wounded, or taking cover. Perhaps he could still reach his cell phone and call for reinforcements, or detonate a bomb. Should they have risked their lives to save his sorry ass? I don't think so.
If they are not brainwashed then they are murderers.
If they were genuinely concerned that the guy was dangerous, then why didn't they shoot right away? and when they did, why was it one guy taking careful measured shots? Why weren't they all shooting to kill him as quickly as possible? and if a firefight was actually taking place then why was CNN right next to the soldiers?

Just curious:

1. How do you know it is a real video and not faked?

2. How do you really know what happened? All you see is a video from a site with a definite opinion.

3. You do not know the situation. You were not there and do not know all the facts.

Therefore, reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence require authentication, where is it?

Originally posted by truth
Just curious:

1. How do you know it is a real video and not faked?

2. How do you really know what happened? All you see is a video from a site with a definite opinion.

3. You do not know the situation. You were not there and do not know all the facts.

Therefore, reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence require authentication, where is it?
Given that this aired on CNN, its unlikely that it was faked.

Never ceases to amaze me just how depraved some are.

Truth, don't look at the action, listen to the words the kid says, he actually enjoyed it.

If this is not insane, please explain. Yes this is a war, we suppose to be helping these people, not target practicing while on TV, with a man already down.

And then we wonder why Americans are hated?.

Godless.

They wonder why Americans are hated?

People look at the actions of a soldier and claim how awful the Americans are. Is it any wonder why so many Americans dislike Arabs or Islam? Show me where the actions of one American acting out of line compares to the terrorism of the Fedyaeen or the PLO/Hamas/al Quaida types? Or state sponsored terror of Syria/Iran/Libya? Or the Wahabism from the Saudis?

So quick to blame Americans, so quick to condone all others. Americans are held to a higher standard, this kind of thing is expected of the Arabs, Russians, French, etc., but an American acting out of line and all Americans are to blame. What a load!
-------------------------------------
"There is no way to make war safe; so the thing to do is to make it unsafe for the other side."

Joe Foss

Originally posted by truth
They wonder why Americans are hated?

People look at the actions of a soldier and claim how awful the Americans are. Is it any wonder why so many Americans dislike Arabs or Islam? Show me where the actions of one American acting out of line compares to the terrorism of the Fedyaeen or the PLO/Hamas/al Quaida types? Or state sponsored terror of Syria/Iran/Libya? Or the Wahabism from the Saudis?

So quick to blame Americans, so quick to condone all others. Americans are held to a higher standard, this kind of thing is expected of the Arabs, Russians, French, etc., but an American acting out of line and all Americans are to blame. What a load!
-------------------------------------
"There is no way to make war safe; so the thing to do is to make it unsafe for the other side."

Joe Foss

Oh you must be kidding! America is acting out of line itself and it's soldiers behaving like barbarians only reiterate that. America does not belong in Iraq, America had no reason to invade Iraq. That is why the world thinks the US are bad, because they only interfere out of self interest. And as for showing you where one American acting out of line could compare to terrorism, I'd point to McVeigh and if that escapes your memory, I'd point to George Bush. Bush too ordered the killing of innocent civilians by the sanctions on Iraq and the subsequent invasion of that country.

Such behaviour as this soldier's is NOT expected from ANYONE. It is barbaric and it only shows to the world the animals that are allowed to join the army. Maybe it is time that the armed forces screen out the sheep who join the ranks to ensure they get rid of men such as this individual. It never ceases to amaze me how any individual who can pass the physical tests and minute psychological tests can be given a gun and basically told.. go forth and kill. Is it any wonder that the armed forces are so full of f*ckwits such as this guy? And this individual is representing his country when he perpetrates such acts against humanity. Where were his superiors when he did this? Why didn't any of the others stop him?

That is why people think America is bad Truth, because they let their soldiers get away with it, and if they are punished it's just a slap on the wrist. That image is why the US has refused to join and ratify the International Criminal Court, because they probably figured that individuals such as this soldier would surely be brought in to face trial over his actions. That is why many dislike the US, because they are good at pointing the finger but they never look at their own actions.



:eek:

I find it interesting that the hosted video only shows the snippets of the guy getting shot and the soldiers cheering. Not the firefight preamble, or the IEDs those guys were planting, or the lulls in between, where the squad leader made threat assessments and formulated the next maneuver with his platoon leader. Kind of like a preview of a movie, a select portion of the footage is displayed to impart a certain theme. It reminds me of all the Rodney King nonsense we had to deal with back in 1992, where the news media only aired the portion of the tape that showed King getting his ass kicked by the LAPD, and not the prelude, where King leapt from his vehicle all tuned up on dust, and charged the police officers.

Until we see the video in its entireity we have no way of objectively assessing the situation. And even then, the camera lens can only hope to, at best, capture an inkling of combat. Surely not with enough fidelity to allow us to cast aspersions on the actions of some of our shooters from half way across the planet.

Media is a powerful tool capable of eliciting volatile reactions from a population. This thread exemplifies that. All we can honestly do is sit here and say OMG WAR SUX.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
I find it interesting that the hosted video only shows the snippets of the guy getting shot and the soldiers cheering. Not the firefight preamble, or the IEDs those guys were planting, or the lulls in between, where the squad leader made threat assessments and formulated the next maneuver with his platoon leader.
Whereas I find it interesting that you don't know that none of that matters. It is against the Geneva Convention to shoot a man who is wounded and out of action. That's it. Full stop. No ifs, no buts. If he's down and out of the fight, that's it. You're not allowed take a kill shot.

Besides, how do you know they were Fedayeen? Everyone in Iraq is going about with AK-47s these days because there's no effective police. Doctors on rounds carry AK-47s for pete's sake. And carrying an AK-47 was the sole reason cited by these marines for opening fire. And the transcripts of the tape show no assessment of the situation. They jumped on the hood of the humvee and fired on them, then aimed carefully and took the last few shots that killed the critically injured man.

And that, no matter what spin you put on it, is a war crime. You can wave it off, give them a medal, have Bush stand there on TV and say they're righteous heroes and give them the CMH, it doesn't matter - they're war criminals, right up there with Milosovich, the Taliban, the Iraqi army, and every other bad guy they're supposedly prosecuting.

And that is why US troops are hated in more places than they're accepted.

Maybe spidergoat can be an experiment. I'll shoot spidergoat, let spidergoat roll around on the ground in pain from the wound. Meanwhile, spidergoat would probably be proclaiming the Geneva Convention: "you can't do this to me, I'm wounded" or better yet, "I'm an American. You cannot do this to me!" Then, without thinking about rules of war, we take the kill shot.

We'll send the video to spidergoat's family. Let's see how fast the American government and people's show how hypocritical they really are.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Whereas I find it interesting that you don't know that none of that matters. It is against the Geneva Convention to shoot a man who is wounded and out of action. That's it. Full stop. No ifs, no buts. If he's down and out of the fight, that's it. You're not allowed take a kill shot.What happened was NOT a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. The man was not a EPW, nor was he secured. The marines had not created any sort of security, nor were they able to conduct a proper search of the enemy soldier. As such, he was still a valid target...the chances were excellent he had a grenade or some other such device and was waiting for an American soldier to get close enough to detonate it. So long as the line of advance was not past the Iraqi soldier, he was a valid target. If anyone wants to try and prove he wasn't, be my guest.

This was completely taken out of context. US forces had a LOT of problems in Iraq with soldiers playing dead, then as soon as the unit shifted their attention, would jump up, grab a gun, and shoot the Americans in the back. Thus, US forces initiated a "double-tap" policy to ensure this doesn't happen. These aren't cops we're talking about, these are soldiers for whom deadly force is the ONLY force.

I would add also, that the footage has a quick edit in the first few seconds. Watch the ticker jump. I wonder what didnt fit their view of the event that took place that made them have to edit that part out. The interview with the marine at the end is not contiguous either, inferring that his remarks may have also been taken out of context.

Welcome to warfare 101 by very distant (proxy) sciforums members.

Originally posted by Bells
That is why the world thinks the US are bad, because they only interfere out of self interest.

S

That is why people think America is bad Truth, because they let their soldiers get away with it, and if they are punished it's just a slap on the wrist.

I did not know the world consisted solely of French, German, and Russian opinion melded with most of the world's banana republics. So Spain, Italy, Poland, etc. are not part of the world if they do not fit your opinion? Interesting, very interesting.

Let me explain something to you about soldiers behaviour. You do not trust the enemy and if you think it may jeopardize you or your men, your first and foremost duty is to your men. There are times you cannot even take prisoners with you, what do you do with them, they are incapacitated in whatever manner you need. War is hell!

To quote Patton: Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.

As for soldiers being punished, there a number of Marines sitting in Japanese jails for rape. Personally, I think the sentences are too light.

Just food for thought. If you run around with a weapon and are not clearly of the coalition or the new Iraqi security forces and get yourself popped, it is your own fault.

Also, for those of you screaming about adherence to the Geneva Convention, the only ones who have ever followed it are the US and Britain and allies. Granted the French could not because the Germans would not stay out of the country.

Do you know why they plant trees along the roads in France?
Because the Germans like to march in the shade.
-----------------------------------------
This from Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe.

"Time and again we have been instructed that Islam is a `religion of peace.' Over and over we have been assured that most Moslems are non-violent and tolerant. Yet when Islamic fanatics commit acts of horrifying atrocity, and do so as Moslems, the peaceable Islamic majority has nothing to say. Why not?"

Originally posted by truth
Just food for thought. If you run around with a weapon and are not clearly of the coalition or the new Iraqi security forces and get yourself popped, it is your own fault.
Try telling that to the fathers of the hundreds of women who have been gang raped in Iraq because there is no police force in place unless you're near an oil line. Or the doctors who have to defend their hospitals from looters. Or the fathers of women who do not wish to be gang raped. Or, for that matter, anyone in Iraq that wants to feel safe from criminals.



"Time and again we have been instructed that Islam is a `religion of peace.' Over and over we have been assured that most Moslems are non-violent and tolerant. Yet when Islamic fanatics commit acts of horrifying atrocity, and do so as Moslems, the peaceable Islamic majority has nothing to say. Why not?"
Hmmmm. Indeed. And we should treat all americans as racist bigots because they don't criticise the KKK enough, and as baby-killers because a handful of men slaughtered everyone in Maui Lai, and thieves because of the actions of those in Enron, and ... well, you should have the picture by now.
Moderate islamic leaders have spoken out against fanaticism long before 9/11. You just don't choose to listen.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
What happened was NOT a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare.
Yes it was. The man was down, he was not confirmed as hostile before being fired upon, and no IED was subsequently found.


The man was not a EPW, nor was he secured. The marines had not created any sort of security, nor were they able to conduct a proper search of the enemy soldier. As such, he was still a valid target.
No, he wasn't. The rules of war do not dictate that the safety of the soldier is paramount over that of the wounded man - and they shouldn't. Would it have been dangerous to approach him? In reality, no - but it might have been. So fucking what:? The US kid was a voluntary soldier. And a soldier's job is dangerous and risky and tough shit if you feel it's safer to shoot someone than to follow the rules.


So long as the line of advance was not past the Iraqi soldier, he was a valid target. If anyone wants to try and prove he wasn't, be my guest.
I already did when I quoted the text of the geneva convention to you. Obviously you can't read or don't want to, so what's the point?
Fact remains, that man is a war criminal.



US forces had a LOT of problems in Iraq with soldiers playing dead, then as soon as the unit shifted their attention, would jump up, grab a gun, and shoot the Americans in the back.
Really? They're actually super-human then, are they? With several gunshot wounds, they played dead, then jumped up and continued to fight?
:rolleyes:


Thus, US forces initiated a "double-tap" policy to ensure this doesn't happen. These aren't cops we're talking about, these are soldiers for whom deadly force is the ONLY force.
Wrong. Firstly, killing the enemy during a firefight is legal under the rules of war - it's executing him like was done on the tape that's illegal. And secondly, soldiers are not limited to deadly force alone, just badly trained and inexperienced soldiers. Incompetence, by the way, is not a valid defence under the geneva convention - if you're incompetent, you shouldn't be there to begin with.


Welcome to warfare 101 by very distant (proxy) sciforums members.
What, CNN are sciforums members?
I thought they were a pro-US news station myself... which makes me wonder what was cut. Were the men clearly not a threat and just used as target practise? Just another sand nigger for them to fire at?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Yes it was. The man was down, he was not confirmed as hostile before being fired upon, and no IED was subsequently found.Proof of confirmed neutrality? Also, they had no way of knowing if there was an IED or not, until the area had been secured.

"Down" does not constitute "neutral", btw.

No, he wasn't. The rules of war do not dictate that the safety of the soldier is paramount over that of the wounded man - and they shouldn't. Would it have been dangerous to approach him? In reality, no - but it might have been. So fucking what:? The US kid was a voluntary soldier. And a soldier's job is dangerous and risky and tough shit if you feel it's safer to shoot someone than to follow the rules.It disgusts me that you would prefer people to die in order to support your philosophy. Fortunately competent military commanders do not share your mode of thinking, and the day they do it will be the soldiers and their families that I cry for.

I already did when I quoted the text of the geneva convention to you. Obviously you can't read or don't want to, so what's the point? There is a lot of confusion about the Geneva Conventions presently, specifically with their bearing on modes of combat. They really only apply to prisoners of war nowadays, which this man was not. In 1976, the US military (precipitated mainly by the blurring of IFF during the Vietnam war) adopted the Laws of Land Warfare. Because they are a native protocol, they preempt the Geneva Conventions where applicable, and the only portion of the GC that the US still observes is the treatment of EPWs.

US Army field manual FM 27-10 is the LoLW, and you can read it here: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm

Fact remains, that man is a war criminal.Burden of proof fallacy. He may indeed be. However, not enough evidence exists for any of us to prove that.

Really? They're actually super-human then, are they? With several gunshot wounds, they played dead, then jumped up and continued to fight?
:rolleyes:Played dead, period. Ten bucks says in the middle of a firefight you wouldn't be counting the number of hits an enemy took.

Wrong. Firstly, killing the enemy during a firefight is legal under the rules of war - it's executing him like was done on the tape that's illegal. And secondly, soldiers are not limited to deadly force alone, just badly trained and inexperienced soldiers. Incompetence, by the way, is not a valid defence under the geneva convention - if you're incompetent, you shouldn't be there to begin with.I'm beginning to wonder what the extent of your military experience is, if any. There is no "less-lethal" force for combat troops. You shoot to kill, and you never point your weapon without intent and will to use it. Anything else is restricted only to law enforcement.

What, CNN are sciforums members?
I thought they were a pro-US news station myself... which makes me wonder what was cut. Were the men clearly not a threat and just used as target practise? Just another sand nigger for them to fire at? Produce the entire CNN clip and you will have somewhat of a point.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Proof of confirmed neutrality?
Not required. The rules do not say "neutral" they say "incapacitated".
The rules, in other words, don't just apply to civilians - they apply to every person on the battlefield. Specifically to prohibit this kind of criminal behaviour.


It disgusts me that you would prefer people to die in order to support your philosophy.
This from a supporter of a war of aggression?
And I have news for you, it's not my personal philosophy, it's the Geneva Convention, as enshrined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice and the standard Rules of Engagement.
i.e. It's not a philosophy - it's the soldier's standing orders.


Fortunately competent military commanders do not share your mode of thinking, and the day they do it will be the soldiers and their families that I cry for.
Best start crying then. Guess what - a soldier's job is difficult, dangerous and calls for their lives to be put at risk on a daily basis. And that is why chickenhawks are hated so much - the rest of us know what they're asking of soldiers on all sides.
You'll never see Bush on a battlefield without a thousand troops and minders - hell, you won't see him drive to the pub in the UK without an RPG-and-bullet-proof SUV - but he'll happily put 19-year-old kids in harm's way and shout "bring 'em on".

And idiots like you will vote for him to do so.


There is a lot of confusion about the Geneva Conventions presently, specifically with their bearing on modes of combat. They really only apply to prisoners of war nowadays, which this man was not.
Wrong.
The Geneva conventions from 1947 (which are the ones the US ratified and which still apply) regulate several areas of combat from POWs to civilians to battlefield casualties. They did so in '47 and they do so today - the ink on the page doesn't move about just because it's no longer easy for you to follow the rules.



In 1976, the US military (precipitated mainly by the blurring of IFF during the Vietnam war) adopted the Laws of Land Warfare. Because they are a native protocol, they preempt the Geneva Conventions where applicable, and the only portion of the GC that the US still observes is the treatment of EPWs.
The Laws of Land Warfare, as a native protocol, do not preempt the Conventions - the Conventions, as an international protocol, signed prior to '76, supercede their authority. That legal priotity was established by the US at Neuremburg.


I'm beginning to wonder what the extent of your military experience is, if any.
Me? None.Just family and friends now wearing blue berets in Liberia cleaning up a mess the US should be taking care of. But there's no oil in liberia...
And you?

And btw, last time I checked, being shot at doesn't give you more qualifications for reading the rules.
Learning to read is generally all that's needed.
They were designed that way, since not every soldier is a lawyer...


There is no "less-lethal" force for combat troops. You shoot to kill, and you never point your weapon without intent and will to use it. Anything else is restricted only to law enforcement.
You'll excuse my guffaws, but we just saw Irish troops deployed at shannon against Irish civilians to protect US military hardware.
Troops (at least everywhere they train them correctly) are trained in less-than-lethal measures.


Produce the entire CNN clip and you will have somewhat of a point.
Goofyfish? You okay with me posting an hour-long CNN segment here, complete with the bandwidth and copyright problems? Or would you rather I advise Stokes here to watch the news instead of his playstation?

I remember an incident back in 1992 involving a model citizen, Rodney King. Such responsible media as CNN continually broadcast over and over the same few seconds of footage. Once and once only, I saw about a minute and a half of footage. It was a different story. It showed King continually attacking officers, whom they believed to be dusted, and had just finished a massive car chase with. When you see the whole picture, as 99.99999% of America did not, I do not wholly trust what the 4th branch of government shows us.

Sparks, as for Americans supporting the KKK, never seen anyone supporting them but Aryan Nations. Yet I remember footage of masses of Arabs throughout the Middle East cheering the 9/11 attacks.
------------------------------
And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), Inaugural address, January 20, 1961

Originally posted by truth
Sparks, as for Americans supporting the KKK, never seen anyone supporting them but Aryan Nations. Yet I remember footage of masses of Arabs throughout the Middle East cheering the 9/11 attacks.
]
In the first paragraph you decry the media as manipulative, untrustworthy and not a correct source for formulating opinions, and then in the next, you accept what you've seen on it without question or criticism and use it to decry an entire race of people based on a few seconds of footage of less than a hundred people whose race, past history and locations you don't even know?

Let me guess - Ann Coulter fan, right?

Like with the Rodney King case., the part of the tape where the individual is being brutalized is whats relevant here. The fact that Rodney Kind attacked the police wasn't the issue. People get all fucked up and do crazy things on dust on a relatively regular basis, its not even newsworthy, however, even if rodney king had blown up the police station, it would not justify their standing in circle around him and beating him.
In this case, although we don't know what the guy was doing in the video before he was shot the first time, it doesn't matter. He may have been a doctor on his way to treat someone carrying a gun for protection, or he may have just blown up a US convoy. It doesn't matter, as he was clearly no logner a threat, and shot uneccesarrilly.

Ann Coulter is a shrill voice pandering to the times and does not represent the viewpoint of most voting Republicans. Find another symbol if you must resort to tired cliche's when attempting to pigeonhole someone. Much like Michael Moore, she is simply playing on the current polarization and ADD of the American electorate that actually read a book now and then. Neither one of them could be considered learned scholars of politics. Just pop-culture loudmouths who are milking their 15 seconds for all the cash they can.

As far as people cheering in the streets post 9/11, you would have to be brain dead not to have seen evidence of this all over the world. People love to see the champion go down. It's the voyeur in all of us; the reason we rubberneck at a wreck on the interstate. Someone posted a link to a website that showed images from around the world of people laying flowers at the gates of U.S. consulates and embassies in their respective countries. Those are nice images and they give you a bit of a breather from the game, the truth is that many people in those same countries were privately saying "It's about damn time".

The world abhors a hegemon and the U.S. is it right now. The sad and sick part is that merely two years after the Pentagon was attacked and the WTC fell, many people in the U.S. are more sympathetic to Al-Qaida than they are to the victims of that day. Personally, I wish those people would just move the hell out of the U.S. If it's so bad here, leave! You wont be missed. The whole world is lining up to take your spot.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
As far as people cheering in the streets post 9/11, you would have to be brain dead not to have seen evidence of this all over the world. People love to see the champion go down. It's the voyeur in all of us; the reason we rubberneck at a wreck on the interstate. Someone posted a link to a website that showed images from around the world of people laying flowers at the gates of U.S. consulates and embassies in their respective countries. Those are nice images and they give you a bit of a breather from the game, the truth is that many people in those same countries were privately saying "It's about damn time".
Showing the amount of attention you paid - I was the one posted that link, and you are completely incorrect about the sentiment in other countries. We may have understood why it happened - we didn't support it. There were volunteers from all over the world flying to NYC to help with the rescue attempts, mostly out of their own pockets. Nice of you to dismiss that groundswell of opinion as irrelevant though.
:bugeye:

Incidentally, regarding the CNN's bias and people dancing in the streets after 9/11, CNN used stock footage of celebrations for that.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
We may have understood why it happened - we didn't support it.

If you can understand what al Quaida did and why the support in the Moslem world, then frankly, that is sick. But, if that is the thought path you wish to take, then you certainly and with much alacrity can understand why the US is doing what it is. The US is being too soft, frankly.

It is like children, if you behave we can all get along and help, but if you throw a tantrum, you get punished. Simplistic comparison, yes. Realistic, yes. See the quote below. This realpolitik, baby.
----------------------------------
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.

Niccolo Machiavelli

How did CNN have stock footage of people in the ME and central Asia holding up posters of the WTC in flames and OBL in the background?

Guess you missed those, huh?

Originally posted by truth
If you can understand what al Quaida did and why the support in the Moslem world, then frankly, that is sick.
No, it means that I've actually picked up a history book instead of listening to Fox News. Understanding someone's motives does not require agreeing with their actions. A point lost on you, I see.


But, if that is the thought path you wish to take, then you certainly and with much alacrity can understand why the US is doing what it is. The US is being too soft, frankly.
I can understand why Bush and the rest of the administration are doing what they're doing - and it's got nothing to do with 9/11. As you can tell yourself by looking at where the money is flowing.


It is like children, if you behave we can all get along and help, but if you throw a tantrum, you get punished. Simplistic comparison, yes. Realistic, yes. See the quote below. This realpolitik, baby.
You might want to tell that to the WTO :)
Well, that or go back and finish junior high...


Niccolo Machiavelli
Interesting example. Machiavelli was a secretary in government, lost his job when the Medici took over Florence, wrote The Prince to try to regain his job by brown-nosing the Medici, except that they hated the book and didn't hire him - then when they fled Florence, he was denied his old job a second time by the public who had been outraged by what was written in The Prince. His health failed and he was dead in a few months. His name is now forever associated with corrupt, totalitarian governments.

Interesting example to cite to back up your point of view.

(realpolitik, by the way baby, was a term coined by Bismark and it was Bismark who invented the style of government and diplomacy to which it refers, not Machiavelli.)

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
How did CNN have stock footage of people in the ME and central Asia holding up posters of the WTC in flames and OBL in the background?

Guess you missed those, huh?
http://www.chicago.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=4395&group=webcast

Not all the images were stock footage. Some of them were actually staged, and some of them were no doubt genuine, but they certainly took liberties i their eagerness to portray the Arab world as rising up in celebration of these attacks.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Not required. The rules do not say "neutral" they say "incapacitated".
The rules, in other words, don't just apply to civilians - they apply to every person on the battlefield. Specifically to prohibit this kind of criminal behaviour.What "rules" are these? Certainly not the LoLW. You've proven nothing.

This from a supporter of a war of aggression?I supported the war?

And I have news for you, it's not my personal philosophy, it's the Geneva Convention, as enshrined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice and the standard Rules of Engagement.
i.e. It's not a philosophy - it's the soldier's standing orders.Did you even read my post? How about FM 27-10? What are these "Standard Rules of Engagement" you keep mentioning?

Best start crying then. Guess what - a soldier's job is difficult, dangerous and calls for their lives to be put at risk on a daily basis. And that is why chickenhawks are hated so much - the rest of us know what they're asking of soldiers on all sides.
You'll never see Bush on a battlefield without a thousand troops and minders - hell, you won't see him drive to the pub in the UK without an RPG-and-bullet-proof SUV - but he'll happily put 19-year-old kids in harm's way and shout "bring 'em on".

And idiots like you will vote for him to do so.I have no idea who you intend the target of this directionless mini-rant to be, but it can't be me; I didn't vote for Bush. Incorrectly pigeonholing me as one of your favorite types of cookie-cutter diametric opponents doesn't do you a lot of credit. It would behoove you to stick to the salient facts at hand.

Wrong.
The Geneva conventions from 1947 (which are the ones the US ratified and which still apply) regulate several areas of combat from POWs to civilians to battlefield casualties. They did so in '47 and they do so today - the ink on the page doesn't move about just because it's no longer easy for you to follow the rules.Like I said, certain portions of the Geneva Conventions, by mechanism of the US Constitution, have been preempted by indigenous protocols. Newsflash: This is true of just about every nation out there, not just the United States. Countries play by their own rules first and foremost, honoring "international law" when convenient. Does this really come as a surprise to anybody?

The Laws of Land Warfare, as a native protocol, do not preempt the Conventions - the Conventions, as an international protocol, signed prior to '76, supercede their authority. That legal priotity was established by the US at Neuremburg.I think you need to read over the US Constitution. No foreign legally binding document has preemptive status over domestic/can infringe upon sovereignity. Period.

Me? None.Just family and friends now wearing blue berets in Liberia cleaning up a mess the US should be taking care of. But there's no oil in liberia...
And you?Military officer, 1988-2000. We are pretty nutso about LLoW training.

You'll excuse my guffaws, but we just saw Irish troops deployed at shannon against Irish civilians to protect US military hardware.
Troops (at least everywhere they train them correctly) are trained in less-than-lethal measures.So the guys in the clip are Royal Marines, then? Or are you merely pretending that every military has the same engagement protocols in lieu of bothering to fully understand the background of the subject?

Goofyfish? You okay with me posting an hour-long CNN segment here, complete with the bandwidth and copyright problems? Or would you rather I advise Stokes here to watch the news instead of his playstation? Translation: you don't have a damned thing. Thanks for clearing that up.

Machiavellian principles are alive and well and in use in every government in the world. Why do you think we have welfare? I do not believe it is necessarily derived from altruistism. You give the masses something, food, money, ideas, and keep them at bay.

Thank you for clarifying that it was Bismark and not Machiavelli on Realpolitik. :rolleyes:

As to where the money flows, big deal, before the war it was France, Germany, and Russia. Now money is going through companies of coalition countries, so what. There is no point in that comment.

I am assuming the WTO comment is related to the steel tarifs. Yeah, it happens. So.

Thanks for the primer on Nicolo, we would not know what to do without you. Tell me, what government does not dip into Nicolo's play book. I think the Prince is a great read and ranks with the Art of War from Sun Tzu.
------------------------------------------
Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.

Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourse upon the First Ten Books of Livy

I won't pretend to have any understanding of military law. Whether or not this act was technically not a war crime for one reason or another, it should be. The fact is, the man was rolling around on the ground injured, and then the soldiers killed him. There was clearly not a firefight taking place and they had time to asess the situation, and then mad the choice to kill a man lying injured on the ground., making no threatening movements.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
What "rules" are these? Certainly not the LoLW.
No, the Geneva Convention. Which has legal priority in Iraq over the LoLW..


Like I said, certain portions of the Geneva Conventions, by mechanism of the US Constitution, have been preempted by indigenous protocols. Newsflash: This is true of just about every nation out there, not just the United States. Countries play by their own rules first and foremost, honoring "international law" when convenient. Does this really come as a surprise to anybody?
Actually, the precedence of international law is accepted in pretty much every country bar the US. Which seems to scream foul if anyone else breaks the convention rules, but then merrily breaks them itself to a far greater extent and acts quite indignant that the US would have to follow other people's rules.


I think you need to read over the US Constitution. No foreign legally binding document has preemptive status over domestic/can infringe upon sovereignity. Period.
And you need to read over the Neuremburg decisions, as agreed upon by a US judge and accepted by the US administration - they state that international law overrules national law in every nation.


Military officer, 1988-2000. We are pretty nutso about LLoW training.
And you're never taught that the Geneva Convention supercedes it?
Are you kidding me?
:bugeye:


So the guys in the clip are Royal Marines, then? Or are you merely pretending that every military has the same engagement protocols in lieu of bothering to fully understand the background of the subject?
Actually, that's the professional opinion of the british soldiers that have been serving in Iraq with US troops since the invasion.


Translation: you don't have a damned thing.
Translation : Ah-ha! You didn't get an hour long video capture of something I didn't bother watching, and couldn't post it here if you had, so I can make a throwaway response and pretend I've scored a point despite the fact that the original point remains - that those marines are war criminals.

Originally posted by truth
Machiavellian principles are alive and well and in use in every government in the world.
Actually, the man you're thinking of is Strauss.
But since you don't seem to know your arse from your elbow, I'm not suprised you don't know which philosopher is which...


Why do you think we have welfare? I do not believe it is necessarily derived from altruistism. You give the masses something, food, money, ideas, and keep them at bay.
*sigh*
That's why we have the middle classes, not welfare...
:rolleyes:


As to where the money flows, big deal, before the war it was France, Germany, and Russia. Now money is going through companies of coalition countries, so what. There is no point in that comment.
What an educated man - you mean it doesn't matter that every company now making billions in Iraq contributed huge amounts of money to the campaigns of the current administration and also to their personal accounts?


I am assuming the WTO comment is related to the steel tarifs. Yeah, it happens. So.
Tell me, do you count vietnam as a victory as well? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Like I said, certain portions of the Geneva Conventions, by mechanism of the US Constitution, have been preempted by indigenous protocols. Newsflash: This is true of just about every nation out there, not just the United States.
Whats the point of the geneva conventions then?
Why did the US complain when Iraq showed images of US POWs on tv?
By this reasoning, the Iraqi army could have torchered every US soldier found to death and rightly claimed it was perfectly legal as Saddam's Rules of Land Warfare require such actions and SRLW supercedes the Geneva conventions.

interested;

This is what I found of United Nations Rules of Engagement:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:UOzoa-zVPtkJ:www.maxwell.af.mil/au/cpd/jagschool/press/iodb/chapters/roe.doc+United+Nations+rules+of+engagement&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Have a nice read.

What I wonder, and most of my point to start tis post was the answer this kid says when he is been interviewed.

And I quote: "Hell yea that was awsome, lets do it again"

What is bizare is that he enjoyed it, what is dispicable, is that he feels no remorce for commiting murder.

White trash asshole with no values. This is what this kid represents. Not a soldier.

Godless.

Originally posted by truth
I did not know the world consisted solely of French, German, and Russian opinion melded with most of the world's banana republics. So Spain, Italy, Poland, etc. are not part of the world if they do not fit your opinion? Interesting, very interesting.

Let me explain something to you about soldiers behaviour. You do not trust the enemy and if you think it may jeopardize you or your men, your first and foremost duty is to your men. There are times you cannot even take prisoners with you, what do you do with them, they are incapacitated in whatever manner you need. War is hell!

To quote Patton: Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.

As for soldiers being punished, there a number of Marines sitting in Japanese jails for rape. Personally, I think the sentences are too light.

Just food for thought. If you run around with a weapon and are not clearly of the coalition or the new Iraqi security forces and get yourself popped, it is your own fault.

Also, for those of you screaming about adherence to the Geneva Convention, the only ones who have ever followed it are the US and Britain and allies. Granted the French could not because the Germans would not stay out of the country.

Do you know why they plant trees along the roads in France?
Because the Germans like to march in the shade.
-----------------------------------------
This from Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe.

"Time and again we have been instructed that Islam is a `religion of peace.' Over and over we have been assured that most Moslems are non-violent and tolerant. Yet when Islamic fanatics commit acts of horrifying atrocity, and do so as Moslems, the peaceable Islamic majority has nothing to say. Why not?"

Truth, I take it you don't watch the news or read newspapers. Just because countries such as Poland, Spain, Italy, Australia, UK have taken part in the war on Iraq does not mean that their populace agree with it or think it was right. The war in Iraq is not popular, and why? Because people recognise it is wrong and for the wrong reason. As for your criticism of countries such as France and Germany and they way their soldiers conduct themselves, at least they were not scared to join the International Criminal Court, whereby their soldiers could face trial in the ICC for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The US, China and Russia are noticably absent. Isn't it wonderful that the US can be clumped along with countries who are known for committing war crimes. How comforting. And here is a list of other member states to the ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/statesparties/allregions.php).

And yes, it is humane to use an injured man for target practice:rolleyes:. After all it's war right? The truth of the matter is, it is vile. A soldier gleefully taking the life of another man, especially one that is already incapacitated is disgusting beyond words. Do you want that individual representing your country in an armed conflict? I'd find it an embarrassment personally. And I would expect that he be punished for it. Imagine the outrage in the White House if situations were reversed and it were an Iraqi soldier using a US soldier for target practice. Would you still be saying war is hell then? Or would you see it as disgusting?



:eek:

Originally posted by Godless
This is only sarcasm at the horror of war, and what it is doing to our children. Years from now, will this kid think the same way? scarry to think so!!.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm


Godless ;)
I note CNN on the picture but the web said you won't see it on CNN, how is that?
you have millions of prisoners in the country can you say that the whole country is commiting crimes?

CNN broadcasts all over the world, what it may broadcast in one country it does not mean they will broadcast in other countries, specially sensitive US.

As to the US having 2+ millions prisoners, well it is not we are all criminals over here, it is the screwed laws against victimless crimes. Such as frequent drug users, prostitution, small time drug dealers, (all the big drug dealers have enough money to pay off) crimes of that nature.


Godless.

for the victimless crimes, I do think it needs a second look.