• 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

The pathetic thing is that you know exactly what I said and meant but decided to make some **** up. As usual.


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.


Did the people in the van point ANY weapon at ANYONE? Then I guess I wasn't talking about the OTHER people who actually had weapons. I only explain it on the off chance that you really are that dense.


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

You must never have seen combat. :doh:
 
And he didn't pick up the gun so he didn't shoot.



He says in between that that he "can't fire" as if there was a weapons malfunction, to me it looks like his intent was to destroy the van and insure that it was immobilized and you can't really see anything at that point anyways.




I see no violation of the GC, these people put themselves in the middle of a firefight and attempted to aid in the escape of unlawful combatants, an equivalent would be an armed robber who got shot was surrounded by police and I burst through in a van to try to rescue him.

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.

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.
 
Notice how when the gunner asks for permission to engage the van he lies. He says that they are removing the bodies. (Hiding the dead?) But the van only ever picked up a guy that was hurt. Is there a difference between picking up a wounded person and removing dead from the battlefield in terms of legality.

Did he intentionally make it sound like the van was scooping up all the dead even though they put one living wounded man in it?
They didn't even get him into the van. The gunner in the video simply lied in order to continue shooting.
 
No doubt that will probably be brought up.

Regardless, the gunner in the AH-64 should have made all efforts to identify the van as hostile. These efforts were not made and are clear violations of international law.
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.

Once the guy from the van started helping one of the wounded, the US violated the First Geneva Convention by opening fire on him.
What part of the Geneva convention specifically?
 
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. :doh:
I guess you really are that dense, so dense that you couldn't even understand or comprehend a clarification. :doh
 
What part of "the van entered a fire fight" is giving you trouble? :doh
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. :2wave:
 
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. :2wave:



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. :ssst:
 
What part of "the van entered a fire fight" is giving you trouble? :doh

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.

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...


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. :ssst:

Having been a soldier, I hope you can accept that any criticisms are not reflective of the army in general??
 
I'll respond later bman as i am on my iphone. But hat last part was for one particular poster. Not you at all. :thumbs:
 
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.
 
- 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.
 

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:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Still claiming illegality after UN resolution 1441 from 2002? Sorry, that won't fly - and if "we" go down, everyone who backed us goes with us.

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.
That happens in my State and all the time in other country's. Nothing uncommon about that.
 
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...

Huh? That has nothing to do with it.

The way I see it :
We have invaded their country illegally and on false pretenses,

The Iraq war was perfectly legal, Saddam Hussein perpetrated numerous acts of war acts the U.S. and UNSCR 678 authorized us to use "all necessary means," to enforce UNSCR 660 and "all subsequent resolutions," and Saddam continuously violated those subsequent resolutions.


and these soldiers are returning by not following those same rules of war... on both faces of it.

Which soldiers?

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?

Um, it was Saddam who plundered the resources of Iraq for his own gains, the U.S. on the other hand has given the people of Iraq control over their own resources for the first time in their modern history, so try again.

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.

If by home invasion you mean the police breaking down the door with a warrant and trying to arrest you.
 
Last edited:
Still claiming illegality after UN resolution 1441 from 2002? Sorry, that won't fly - and if "we" go down, everyone who backed us goes with us.

Well... you wouldn't like the analogy I would give to this situation, so I'll just let you have it.

That happens in my State and all the time in other country's. Nothing uncommon about that.

Just because it's a regular occurance, doesn't mean it's right or good, although that's more an issue about laws not reflecting justice.
 
Um, it was Saddam who plundered the resources of Iraq for his own gains, the U.S. on the other hand has given the people of Iraq control over their own resources for the first time in their modern history, so try again.

Is there anything that should be done about a democratic republic's government massively appropriating and stealing from those out of Sauron's media eye? Or is just wrong when small sects of people do it?
 
Well... you wouldn't like the analogy I would give to this situation, so I'll just let you have it.
I have more Resolutions if you want them. :shrug:

Just because it's a regular occurance, doesn't mean it's right or good, although that's more an issue about laws not reflecting justice.
Right or good is irrelevant when it comes to this - accepted is the motto to be followed. You defend yourself in the U.K. for example, you run the risk of going to jail and being sued by the guy robbing you. Not right. Not good. But accepted.
 
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. :ssst:

The only way I would join the militairy is if I was willing to risk my life for what others speculate on. Seems they risk their life to find many speculated terrorists according to lots of these videos. Oh wait. Not really. They aren't risking their life severely with the upper hand they have. This puts some in a situation totally out of touch with the boundries most have from society. The ability to kill without any chance of being hurt. It isn't war. It is a death game. Our militairy shouldn't be a death cult. It should be a defensive force.
 
there is no force, nor threat of force, that could make me harm any being on this planet, that didn't have it coming. I am a "Life Guard". My role is to save lives.
 
Seems they risk their life to find many speculated terrorists according to lots of these videos.

I think you mean "suspected".

Oh wait. Not really. They aren't risking their life severely with the upper hand they have. This puts some in a situation totally out of touch with the boundries most have from society. The ability to kill without any chance of being hurt. It isn't war. It is a death game. Our militairy shouldn't be a death cult. It should be a defensive force.

Yeah, we have the upper hand with our ability to emplace IEDs, wear civilian clothes to blend in with the population, hide in mosques, use civilians as human shields, wear suicide vests and drive cars rigged with explosives, kidnap and execute people.

Get a clue.

How about you get in a humvee and drive down MSR Tampa or Route Irish. Then you can tell me that Soldiers aren't risking their lives.

PS: We are a defensive force. 99% of enemy casualties in Iraq are a direct result of self-defense or reaction to contact.
 
Is there anything that should be done about a democratic republic's government massively appropriating and stealing from those out of Sauron's media eye? Or is just wrong when small sects of people do it?

Um what? You're going to have to elaborate but I'm sure it will be some false analogy comparing the U.S. government to the Baathist regime.
 
The only way I would join the militairy is if I was willing to risk my life for what others speculate on. Seems they risk their life to find many speculated terrorists according to lots of these videos. Oh wait. Not really. They aren't risking their life severely with the upper hand they have. This puts some in a situation totally out of touch with the boundries most have from society. The ability to kill without any chance of being hurt. It isn't war. It is a death game. Our militairy shouldn't be a death cult. It should be a defensive force.





Hey man, you know why they sounded like they did requesting permission to fire with urgency? You could hear the adrenelin, you know why that was?


It was because they had no chance of being hurt. :roll:



:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom