Page 34 of 45 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 447

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

  1. #331
    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
    Stop crying. I did no such thing. You think the van picking up the people who were shooting at your fellow americans were "heros"....


    That is what you said. If thats not what you meant, instead of mouth foaming, try to explain it like a rational person, brother.





    So they should have waited until the van who entered a firefight to have started shooting at them?

    You must never have seen combat. :
    I guess you really are that dense, so dense that you couldn't even understand or comprehend a clarification.

  2. #332
    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 part of "the van entered a fire fight" is giving you trouble?
    The part where the shooting had stopped and a mortally wounded human was struggling for life. Standing nearby and watching might give the impression that the Americans were not going to continue shooting at the wounded man so they rushed to help. I don't expect you to understand because you've never been in ground combat and are obtuse.

  3. #333
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,492

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    The part where the shooting had stopped and a mortally wounded human was struggling for life. Standing nearby and watching might give the impression that the Americans were not going to continue shooting at the wounded man so they rushed to help. I don't expect you to understand because you've never been in ground combat and are obtuse.


    You are speculating. And the us troops you call murderers, can not risk thier lives on speculation, that your heros rescuing the ones shooting at Americans don't have an rpg in the van.


    As for my "ground combat" experience. Well. Lets just leave that as you being foolish as usual.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #334
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    What part of "the van entered a fire fight" is giving you trouble?
    I know this would be a bit of calculation, but were those attack helicopters within an 'audible range' of the area of the gunfight?? I mean, you hear the shooting start, and about 1-1.5 seconds before the volley hits the ground, to help, because I don't know how far the choppers need to be before they are not heard on the ground.

    This is important because there was several minutes after the last volley before the van showed up.... so while they would have all but definately heard the shooting, it's possible that these people arrived thinking that they had moved on.

    It doesn't change MUCH, but to point out that it becomes more likely that they were simply offering assistance to a wounded man on the street.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Any vehicle that arrives after a firefight where weapons were confirmed is automatically suspect. 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.
    Thanks... it's too bad nobody could really say for certain on this one.

    What part of the Geneva convention specifically?
    I was just about to answer... but then I remembered, it's useless to quote sections of the Geneva Convention because you'll just come back and say they are 'unlawful combatants'...

    But in case you weren't just asking, Article 3 makes it a war crime to shoot at wounded soldiers, also a war crime to shoot at non-combatants as well as people offering assistance to wounded soldiers regardless of who they are. That's made it so they had to say that they were also picking up guns, when so far as can be told they were simply offering assistance.

    Look, Bush's advisors got Bush to word 'regime change' and all the other buzzwords surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan that makes ALL SORTS of war crimes as 'justifiable'. Also, I feel compelled to bring up the Nuremburg precedence, "following orders" is not a defense for committing war crimes.

    That said, this isn't even the worst kinds of violations of the rules of war that COULD come out...


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    You are speculating. And the us troops you call murderers, can not risk thier lives on speculation, that your heros rescuing the ones shooting at Americans don't have an rpg in the van.
    Most troops are legitimized murderers... but that's a semantic argument. I wouldn't go as far as calling the ones in the vans as 'heroes', more like good samaritans offering assistance to someone in need...

    As for my "ground combat" experience. Well. Lets just leave that as you being foolish as usual.
    Having been a soldier, I hope you can accept that any criticisms are not reflective of the army in general??

  5. #335
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,492

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

    I'll respond later bman as i am on my iphone. But hat last part was for one particular poster. Not you at all.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    The flaw in your arguments about finding weapons and this retarded, helping of combatants nonsense is that we know there were no weapons in the van or on the people from the van as well as the wounded person who we know was a journalist.
    A "journalist" who was traveling in the company of a group of unlawful combatants carrying RPGs and AK47s during the exact same time and the exact same place that U.S. ground troops were coming under fire from RPGs and AK47s.

    So you can't argue that after the fact weapons were found which justifies your argument while denying the other things "found" after the fact.
    These weapons were seen BEFORE the fact as was stated and as was seen in the video itself.

  7. #337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    They didn't even get him into the van. The gunner in the video simply lied in order to continue shooting.
    WTF did he lie about? He said that the men in the van were picking up the body and possibly weapons.

  8. #338
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    - The are not inhabitants they are 'unlawful enemy combatants' until proven otherwise, (usually after weeks and months of torture and interrogation) and so they are not eligible for Geneva protections.
    Actually it will be brought up, because in Article 13 of the First Geneva Conventions actually says as much:

    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.

    International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
    Number 6 is the biggee here because they were in fact in violation of the laws and customs of war by staging an attack within a civilian sector.

  9. #339
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    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:

    [quote]
    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.

    International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
    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.

  10. #340
    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
    Actually it will be brought up, because in Article 13 of the First Geneva Conventions actually says as much:



    Number 6 is the biggee here because they were in fact in violation of the laws and customs of war by staging an attack within a civilian sector.
    Fair enough... So long as you accept the rediculous notion that Iraq is not occupied. yes yes... they're not occupying Iraq, they are liberating it...

    The way I see it :
    We have invaded their country illegally and on false pretenses, and these soldiers are returning by not following those same rules of war... on both faces of it.

    So, let's be real... we are little better then pirates in Iraq there to plunder their ressources. So, is it really such a surprise that the other side would return the favor by using 'illegal' tactics of defense?

    It's ALMOST comparable to someone trying to home invade you, and you blow his brains off, only to find yourself arrested for defending yourself.

Page 34 of 45 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •