• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

NoJingoLingo said:
So if China were to invade the USA for our human rights violations and any number of other violations they could dream up, you'd go join the military? Or would you fight a geurilla style campaign in civilian clothes? Would you consider yourself a terrorist an insurgent or something more patriotic sounding?
Click to expand...

So now the U.S. is both the human rights equivalent to Iraq AND China. Noice. :roll:
 
Agent Ferris said:
No I didn't why don't you stfu with your bull**** and actually watch and listen to the video, he distinctly says the word "possibly".
Click to expand...

As Jallman would say "reported". :2wave:
 
Agent Ferris said:
So now the U.S. is both the human rights equivalent to Iraq AND China. Noice. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I said. you've got some foam on the corner of your mouth there.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yeah, that's what I said. you've got some foam on the corner of your mouth there.
Click to expand...

You compared human rights violations in the U.S. to the human riots violations perpetrated by Saddam and then went further in your attempts to justify the terrorism in Iraq by comparing the liberation of Iraq from the Baathist regime to a hypothetical invasion of the U.S. by the Chinese.
 
My Pappy taught me the rules of an Honorable fight at age 7.
1) Never pick on any one smaller than yer self. 2) Never start a fight, with out having just cause. 3) Never kick a Man when he is down. 4) No hittin below the belt. 5) No biting or scratchin or hair pullin. 6) and if you expect to live to fight another day, don't put a guy into a corner, with no way out. ---there were more, but these were the key ones. :2wave:
 
Moderator's Warning:
I've had about enough Reported Posts from this thread. Stop it now or there will be hell to pay.
 
I don't even get why people report. It is the damn internet. What anonymous words could bring people to a vengeful tattle state?
 
We seem to have lost our way as a Nation of Honorable Men. We invade anybody we may disagree with, in the name of one "ism" or another. We fight people that have no true Military Might. (We leave Korea alone, I notice. they can fight back). the desert people have no air force, Navy, or mechanized forces. Just guys in sheets, defending their homes against a situation they have no control over, what so ever. If we have a disagreement with a gubment, then address that issue. don't take it out on poor dirt farmers and merchants. It shows a lack of class and decorum. We are the "Big guys". we need to act like it. ---I like a good fight as much as the next guy. but one can not solve a question of Honor, in a dishonorable way.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I don't even get why people report. It is the damn internet. What anonymous words could bring people to a vengeful tattle state?
Click to expand...
Reciprocity. If the righties are going to saddle me with points towards suspension or worse then...
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
We seem to have lost our way as a Nation of Honorable Men. We invade anybody we may disagree with, in the name of one "ism" or another. We fight people that have no true Military Might. (We leave Korea alone, I notice. they can fight back). the desert people have no air force, Navy, or mechanized forces. Just guys in sheets, defending their homes against a situation they have no control over, what so ever. If we have a disagreement with a gubment, then address that issue. don't take it out on poor dirt farmers and merchants. It shows a lack of class and decorum. We are the "Big guys". we need to act like it. ---I like a good fight as much as the next guy. but one can not solve a question of Honor, in a dishonorable way.
Click to expand...
Sounds like conservative philosophy in practice. In their minds, being the "big guys" means we are free to bully, and so they do.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And this is why it's a problem when you have an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms and carries out their attacks from civilian designated areas, because it's impossible to tell who is a hostile and who isn't:

So Article 18 wouldn't apply because the insurgents were clearly not covered by Article 13; and furthermore, I seriously doubt that was ever intended to be read during or immediately after a firefight in which the side allowing the civilians to enter the zone of operations to aid the wounded had no means to control what happened with the wounded afterward.

By your reading of the GC it would be off limits to fire on a non-uniformed U.S. soldier who hops into an unmarked Humvee to extricate his fellow soldiers under fire so that they could live and fight another day.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read Article 2?

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Click to expand...

As such, it is America who violated Article 18 of the First Geneva Convention. Article 18 will always apply because the US is a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of insurgents not being protected by the present convention, America violated international law by firing on the van when it saw it was taking in the wounded.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Any vehicle that arrives after a firefight where weapons were confirmed is automatically suspect.
Click to expand...
The van is automatically suspect. That does not make it automatically hostile. The US should have made all efforts to identify the van as hostile before engaging with it.
Ockham said:
The ROE at that time (2007) identifed DTO's (designated terrorist organizations) as well as time sensitive targets which the VAN clearly was as it arrived and tried to pull in one of the terrorists (at the time that's what all of the men on the ground were viewed as). No ROE was violated that I can see but these rules change often.

What part of the Geneva convention specifically?
Click to expand...

The First Geneva Convention protects spontaneous collection and care for the sick and wounded. You cannot engage with ANYONE that is actively collecting and caring for the sick and wounded. It is also America's obligation as the Occupying Power to give both physical and moral care to the sick and wounded.
 
Degreez said:
Did you bother to read Article 2?



As such, it is America who violated Article 18 of the First Geneva Convention. Article 18 will always apply because the US is a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of insurgents not being protected by the present convention, America violated international law by firing on the van when it saw it was taking in the wounded.
Click to expand...

lol reading comprehension is a must:

the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations,

Ya the mutual relations of the powers who are parties thereto, parties who are not signatories fall into the last sentence of that Article:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The latter being the one which is not a high contracting party.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
The First Geneva Convention protects spontaneous collection and care for the sick and wounded.
Click to expand...

No it protects spontaneous collection and care for the sick and wounded who fall into the categories in Article 13 which these people did not. And that section is there for a very specific reason IE so as to avoid needless civilian casualties, blame the side that doesn't dress in uniforms or obey any of the laws of war it is they not the Coalition who put them in danger. Moreover, the people in the van have been labeled innocent by default when what I saw was two men using children as human shields to cover their aid in the escape of war criminals.

You cannot engage with ANYONE that is actively collecting and caring for the sick and wounded.
Click to expand...

So then a U.S. soldier who goes to the aid of his fellow soldiers under fire and are wounded to help them escape from the firefight to live and fight another day would be off limits? It would be one thing if these people were treating them where they were but they were trying to help them escape.
 
Agent Ferris said:
lol reading comprehension is a must:

the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations,

Ya the mutual relations of the powers who are parties thereto, parties who are not signatories fall into the last sentence of that Article:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The latter being the one which is not a high contracting party.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Nice reinterpretation.

Parties who are signatories to the First Geneva Convention, are bound by it no matter what. The last part that you reinterpreted has nothing to do with a signatory to the convention being excluded from the convention. It has to do with bounding a non-signatory to the convention if said party agrees to the provisions of that convention. Reinterpreting international does not bode well for you.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No it protects spontaneous collection and care for the sick and wounded who fall into the categories in Article 13 which these people did not.
Click to expand...
No, stop trying to interpret international law falsely. Article 18 is clear:
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
Click to expand...
Your reinterpretation is pure beguile.
Agent Ferris said:
And that section is there for a very specific reason IE so as to avoid needless civilian casualties, blame the side that doesn't dress in uniforms or obey any of the laws of war it is they not the Coalition who put them in danger. Moreover, the people in the van have been labeled innocent by default when what I saw was two men using children as human shields to cover their aid in the escape of war criminals.
Click to expand...
Looks can be deceiving. You have no more knowledge that the people from the van were using the kids as human shields than I do that they were relatives. Absolutely none.

Agent Ferris said:
So then a U.S. soldier who goes to the aid of his fellow soldiers under fire and are wounded to help them escape from the firefight to live and fight another day would be off limits? It would be one thing if these people were treating them where they were but they were trying to help them escape.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension is a must.

What does Article 18 say?
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
Click to expand...

A soldier collecting another soldier in an occupied territory is neither an inhabitant nor part of relief society.
 
Degreez said:
:rofl

Nice reinterpretation.
Click to expand...

No actually that's the only interpretation as it is the plain English interpretation,

the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Who is "their", "their" refers to the "Powers who are parties thereto," this is basic grammar and syntax sport. Find yourself an English tutor.


Parties who are signatories to the First Geneva Convention, are bound by it no matter what.
Click to expand...

No they are bound insofar as the opposing side is a member of the high contracting party.

The last part that you reinterpreted has nothing to do with a signatory to the convention being excluded from the convention. It has to do with bounding a non-signatory to the convention if said party agrees to the provisions of that convention.
Click to expand...

No it has to do with a signatory being bound to a non-signatory if the latter accepts and upholds the Conventions.

Reinterpreting international does not bode well for you.
Click to expand...


Article 2 has nothing to do with article 13 in the first place, the people in the video do not fall under any of the categories listed in article 13:


Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Click to expand...

O.K. hotshot which category do these people fall under?
 
Degreez said:
No, stop trying to interpret international law falsely. Article 18 is clear:
Click to expand...

Article 13 is even more clear on who is entitled to that treatment:

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Click to expand...

Which category of the wounded and sick did these people fall under?


Your reinterpretation is pure beguile.
Click to expand...

There is no reinterpretation whatsoever, article 13 clearly states which wounded and sick are covered under the conventions.

Looks can be deceiving. You have no more knowledge that the people from the van were using the kids as human shields than I do that they were relatives. Absolutely none.
Click to expand...

Actually I do by their actions, they came storming into the middle of a battle to help aid in the escape of war criminals who are not covered by any category listed in article 13.

Reading comprehension is a must.

What does Article 18 say?
Click to expand...

So it's o.k. for an insurgent to drop his gun, hop in a van, and aid in the escape of fellow insurgents? FYI sport insurgents dress like civilians.

But all right, since we have dual citizens serving in the U.S. military so in your interpretation a U.S. Soldier with Iraqi citizenship would be off limits if he put on civilian clothes, hopped in an unmarked Humvee, and aided in the escape of his fellow soldiers so that they could live to fight another day.

A soldier collecting another soldier in an occupied territory is neither an inhabitant nor part of relief society.
Click to expand...

And this is why article 13 lists those wounded and sick who are actually covered by the Conventions, it is to insure that they wear uniforms so one can determine who is and who is not a combatant, once again it is the insurgents not the Pilots who were in violation of the GC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom