Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 447

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

  1. #281
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    You should probably learn a bit more about the agreed upon rules before playing the game.
    I am well aware of that section.
    What has that to do with the section my post was in response to? The one about human shields?
    I said Al-Q is not bound by the GCs as they did not sign them.
    I never ever said that the US was similarly not bound.
    If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.

  2. #282
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,666

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    What was that dood holding crouched behind the wall?


    Apparently you didn't watch the video and have no idea what an AK or an RPG looks like.







    .........
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #283
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    What was that dood holding crouched behind the wall?


    Apparently you didn't watch the video and have no idea what an AK or an RPG looks like.
    I do know what both look like, up close.

    I re-watched the video and around 3:43 I do see 2 individuals carrying weapons. One could be an RPG-7 but it's very unclear. I had to watch him closely it swung away from his body as he turned. It could also be something with bipod legs.

    So I'll retract my statement that there was no RPG present because it could be one.

  4. #284
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,666

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    I do know what both look like, up close.

    I re-watched the video and around 3:43 I do see 2 individuals carrying weapons. One could be an RPG-7 but it's very unclear. I had to watch him closely it swung away from his body as he turned. It could also be something with bipod legs.

    So I'll retract my statement that there was no RPG present because it could be one.




    And therefore the entire operation was proper, we can stop attacking these troops now as "murderers" and dipense with your "bad engagment" shtick?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #285
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Until the people trained and permitted to enter the situation arrive. Or at least drop off the kiddies first....
    If you were ever heavily wounded you'd probably want anyone nearby to help you and therefore people with the ability to empathize might wait a few minutes after the shooting stops (which they did) before rushing in to try and save a humans life. There is no question that their actions proved fatal, the question is whether it was necessary to kill them when they were clearly not engaging in combat themselves and were clearly trying to help a wounded individual. The radio operator even says they are picking up bodies and weapons (of course he lied about them picking up weapons).

    The group of armed individuals and the one mistaken for an RPG were identified and engaged. Those weapons did not mysteriously disappear. they were still at the scene.
    Nor was there a weapon near Saaed nor was anyone picking up any weapons.

    You allow the evaquation of wounded in marked veichles of either side. Any other participant can be deemed hostile.
    That would depend on the ROE in an urban setting where non-combatants/civilians are present. If an occupying force wounded my neighbor/countryman/fellow human, I would want to try and save his life, not wait for an ambulance.

    I'm fully educated in the matter, considering I had to enforce it. Bear in mind that the van was unmarked, the insurgent was mobile and moving away, and the driver was aiding in the escape of said insurgent (thus he was not hors de combat) both the insurgent and the driver were legitimate targets.
    You claim to be fully educated so I have to wonder what part of this do you not understand: "Persons who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their life and for their physical and mental integrity. Such persons must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction whatever.

    It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.
    "

    Then you should understand that you don't walk around a combat zone dressed as the enemy and carrying enemy weapons without the risk of getting slotted.
    Huh? Dressed as the enemy, you mean plain civilian clothes?

    You also don't drive a van full of kids into an area where an attack helicopter is still orbiting after engaging said insurgents.
    You drive the kids as far away as possible.
    I don't necessarily disagree with that except for the notion that some people care about others and probably felt like his life was rapidly ending from his wounds.

    Yes, it is too bad. - Stuff happens and the blame lays squarely at the foot of the driver.
    In your opinion.

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    I am well aware of that section.
    What has that to do with the section my post was in response to? The one about human shields?
    I said Al-Q is not bound by the GCs as they did not sign them.
    I never ever said that the US was similarly not bound.
    Sure you did. It was expressly implied when you said...
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    And when Al-Queda signs the GCs that will apply.
    ...in response to his quoting the GC.

  7. #287
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    And therefore the entire operation was proper, we can stop attacking these troops now as "murderers" and dipense with your "bad engagment" shtick?
    Try and keep up, we are talking about the engagement of the van of rescuers.

  8. #288
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,666

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Try and keep up, we are talking about the engagement of the van of rescuers.



    Because RPG's dont fit in vans?


    Please, you claim to have combat knowledge, but I struggle to see how you would look upon engaging a van that was rushing into a fire fight as anything other than prudent.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    So are we just going to ignore the the RPG and the small arms in this edited video and the fact that the troops these Apaches were assigned to were coming under fire from small arms and RPG's in the same sector at the time of the incident? And oh in regards to the children the war crime is staging attacks in civilian sectors and using civilians as cover, the use of human shields does not make one immune from counterattack as per the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions:
    The weapons they are carrying are irrellevent in this situation... because the problems are due to shotting people that have been downed.

    Both Protocal 1 and article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that "the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict," according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129-130).


    Irrellevant, there was no 'excessive' civilian casualties... even the kids in the van apparently had survived the attack. The problem is 'excessive shooting'.

    Article 51 (7) of Protocal 1 states: "The presence or movements of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to sheild military objectives from attacks or to sheild, favour, or impede military operations." And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that "the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflict, 495, 511."
    Also irrellevant to the argument... noone is saying that they shouldn't have attacked because there were civilians present. The problem is shooting civilians that are clearly unthreataning, seemingly unarmed, offering assistance to a downed fighter.

    Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that "utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune operations is recognized as a war crime by Article (2) (b) (xxiii)". (Dinstein, p. 130)
    Also irrellevant... noone was 'using' those civilians... they acted of their own accord to come onto the scene.

    Were you watching the same video?

  10. #290
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,486

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

    The MAIN issues I have from this video aren't as you mentioned specifically, but illustrates why my issues are as few....
    simply,
    a) the first group did have some weapons..[but]
    B) The van with the kids....
    None of that is really relevant to the broader argument though. Had they decided it was best, the military could just bomb the entire area after seeing weapons (and having been engaged in firefights all morning, in nearby areas).

    We could just nuke all of Iraq. We destroyed entire cities to end WWII, why not end the war on terror* by turning Iraq into radioactive glass? We're so far from the extreme nowadays, as despicable as war is, it impresses me from a high-level. The restraint, the checks on whether or not they can engage, the caution with regards to friendlies, the average age/experience of our soliders, the video taping of it, sending in troops right after to investigate and document, etc. Compare and contrast this to say, guerilla war conduct in Africa.

    There is a significant margin of error in their operations, and they will move their target response such that the margin of error will still favor the U.S. military. So they know they will have errors. Not only errors, but militarily acceptable errors, because they already know there is a margin of error, and they know where they put their target in terms of response (such that errors will occur in favor of the U.S.).

    We can help keep them in check, sure, that's a good thing. But acting as though some very specific ROE or questionable "threat" call, in a combat zone, in an area where they have been under fire and RPG threat all morning, should result in some signfiicant military response to this as if it's some big failing or localized failing that should be "corrected", misses the point. Those lives of civilians lost from it? Their entire universe lost, crushingly sad, tragic, and arguably entirely preventable (don't be in Iraq). But as a matter of engaging in a guerilla war? Unfortunately, a calculated loss.

    You'd have a much stronger argument IMO by discussing if the military should have gone there to begin with, or should still be there, etc. If they aren't there, your dissatisfaction with their margin of error is addressed.
    Last edited by Mach; 04-20-10 at 02:42 PM.

Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •