The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Agent Ferris is.... The Master :shock:
It is plain to see, the evolutionary train did not come near here. :shock:
Agent Ferris is.... The Master :shock:
Kneel Earthling!!!!
I don't think the conservatives are being dishonest. I believe that the social conditioning and the imposed dehumanization of the Iraqi "enemy" has had such an impact on their minds that they believe what they are saying.But it's not surprising to see the absolutely insane conservatives on this forum come forward and blatantly express their dishonesty and bowing down to all actions taken by "America". I don't think their dishonest and absolutely disgusting position regarding the murder of innocent human beings could be more clearly exposed than it is in this thread. Clearly to them it is acceptable as long as it is America that kills them, and they must be terrorists because why else would America shoot them?
I don't think the conservatives are being dishonest. I believe that the social conditioning and the imposed dehumanization of the Iraqi "enemy" has had such an impact on their minds that they believe what they are saying.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good blood bath from time to time. and the odd dismemberment, before breakfast. but I have learned to temper my primal desire, with what is known as civilized behavior, for the good of the whole. I choose to be the way I am. It is not like I don't have unlimited options. You might take it under advisement.I know what with the constant bombardment of twoofers constantly running a muck and infecting people with their stupid bull****.
We'll take your lack of defense as evidence that you called our Troops assholes and pedophiles.
"We become, what we do"
Exactly. The Apache orbited the scene and only reengaged when the van arrived.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).
HindsightNor was there a weapon near Saaed nor was anyone picking up any weapons.
That doesn't depend on the ROE as such. The ROE for a signatory can't violate the GCs. They can be more stringent, but not more lax. I thought the requirements we are discussing were the GCs?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.
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."
No. In plain civillian clothes and carrying weapons openly in a combat zoneHuh? Dressed as the enemy, you mean plain civilian clothes? :doh
And the kids?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.In your opinion.
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.
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.
Right, and they had no call to reengage. They wanted to reengage and so they found an excuse to do so.Exactly. The Apache orbited the scene and only reengaged when the van arrived.
Not entirely, Seems to me they could see weapons when they opened fire. The gunner even begs the wounded man to pick up a weapon so... Besides, hindsight is being used a lot in this thread in favor of the soldiers.Hindsight
Huh? RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. I assume you understand that. How can the ROE not be a factor? And yes we are talking about the GC and guess what... The ROE too...That doesn't depend on the ROE as such. The ROE for a signatory can't violate the GCs. They can be more stringent, but not more lax. I thought the requirements we are discussing were the GCs?
I'm not going to make it so simple for you. Please quote the GC where it explicitly details that the sections I'm quoting apply only to those in custody.Yes I am fully educated in those matters as I have had to follow them on more than one occasion.
I'll make it really simple for you;
The GC sections you cite depend on the wounded combatant being in your custody. They are there to prevent the execution of prisoners or wounded on the battlefield or in detention. The target on the ground was not in custody and he and not surrendered.
No. In plain civillian clothes and carrying weapons openly in a combat zone
The people getting out of the van didn't have any. If the gunner could see weapons when they were there then he can surely see when weapons are not in hand.
Unfortunately they apparently didn't stop to think about the kids getting shot. They probably thought the shooting was over and first and foremost on their mind seems to have been the heavily wounded man.And the kids?
That would be their job.Right, and they had no call to reengage. They wanted to reengage and so they found an excuse to do so.
The ROE changes mission to mission or even during the same mission. The can go from "Do not fire under any circumstance" to "Nuclear weapons are authorized" and every point in between. What they can't do is break the law.Huh? RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. I assume you understand that. How can the ROE not be a factor? And yes we are talking about the GC and guess what... The ROE too...
GCI Article 3. (1)I'm not going to make it so simple for you. Please quote the GC where it explicitly details that the sections I'm quoting apply only to those in custody.
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms
At which part of the video did the Apache crew or the first people on the scene verify that the Iraqi was hors de combat?and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
Or the getaway..Unfortunately they apparently didn't stop to think about the kids getting shot. They probably thought the shooting was over and first and foremost on their mind seems to have been the heavily wounded man.
This can be true. But Dreams are also the blue print of what we do in the Future. I'm living my dream daily. Which is why I smile so much. :2razz:"We become, what we do"
This can be true. But Dreams are also the blue print of what we do in the Future. I'm living my dream daily. Which is why I smile so much. :2razz:
Hahaha---good try, but wrong. Other than Beers and a little pot, I have been drug free for more than 25 years. Dope did open some doors for me. But then it was up to me to take it from there. And I did.No. That would be the medication.
Only a dope thinks pot is a drug. Or someone scared to get out of their safe comfort level, and dare to get high. scared you'll fall??Ok, then you're not drug free.
Pot is illegal. You are still a dope head. Saying "besides pot, I'm drug free" is like saying, "besides speeding, I'm a perfect driver."
The ROE changes mission to mission or even during the same mission. The can go from "Do not fire under any circumstance" to "Nuclear weapons are authorized" and every point in between. What they can't do is break the law.
At which part of the video did the Iraqi surrender? - He didn't.
Following the logic you use common practice in war is illegal if you drop more than one bomb because there may be wounded from the first one, or if you shoot someone with more than one round..
Ok that's taking the logic to the extreme, but it is well to remember that the GCs recognize the fact that the primary job of a soldier is to kill the enemy and it allows them to do that. What they do not allow them to do is to kick them in the nads once they are down so to speak.
What is wrong with that statement? Are you suggesting that the ROE are inflexible as the situation changes, and that the chain of command can't change the ROE mid mission to address situations that arise in the AO or stratigecally or politically?And hope to hell you're not in the general area where the weapons are about to be deployed.
If he is moving and there are weapons, and he has been previously identified as a terrorist, and he has not surrendered, then he is a target.I would argue that the guy being shot up pretty good and not even able to get back up.... that should at least be a condition where the guy would have to at least pick up a gun... and the only thing that guy was doing was picking out a good spot to die anyway... but that's more a matter of opinion then a millitary precedent.
Not really, an unmarked van becomes a threat by it's actions in situations like this. I'd agree with you if the van was driving away from the scene, but it wasn't. I'd agree if the van continued driving past the scene, but it didn't. It stopped to render aid. Being unmarked there is no presumption that the occupants are benign in an area where the enemy use just such transport for their operations. Yes kids were killed in this instance, but the pilots had no way of knowing that, they had to go by instruction, experience and proceedure. They did. It was the correct thing to do. It wasn't right, but then again thats two different things.I mean, if the van had a red cross on it (burn if they actually had the bracelets), and they still shot that van down.... then we'd be talking about a serious violation.
I'm trying not to assume because that can lead us anywhere. Was it a warcrime? No it wasn't. Was it a tradegy? Very much so. But the blame shouldn't fall on the Apache crew. IMO the blame for the death of the children rests squarely on the shoulders of the person that ellected to drive them into a dangerous situation. That was the mistake that ultimatly lead to their deaths.It was said that the ROE is unknown... ultimately yes, but you can infer the important aspects of the ROE through the conversation the gunners have with their command.
What is wrong with that statement? Are you suggesting that the ROE are inflexible as the situation changes, and that the chain of command can't change the ROE mid mission to address situations that arise in the AO or stratigecally or politically?
Because you are sadly mistaken. You want an example of a change or ROE?
A declaration of war would be a good one.
And the breaking the law part?
A soldier is duty bound to refuse any unlawful order and putting such orders in the ROE is not an excuse. - It didn't work in Nurembureg.
If he is moving and there are weapons, and he has been previously identified as a terrorist, and he has not surrendered, then he is a target.
From an Apache there is no way to tell if he is crawling away, or crawling to cover. And the Apaches job is to make sure that the troops on the ground do not have to place themselves in danger ascertaining which is which.
Not really, an unmarked van becomes a threat by it's actions in situations like this. I'd agree with you if the van was driving away from the scene, but it wasn't. I'd agree if the van continued driving past the scene, but it didn't. It stopped to render aid. Being unmarked there is no presumption that the occupants are benign in an area where the enemy use just such transport for their operations. Yes kids were killed in this instance, but the pilots had no way of knowing that, they had to go by instruction, experience and proceedure. They did. It was the correct thing to do. It wasn't right, but then again thats two different things.
I'm trying not to assume because that can lead us anywhere. Was it a warcrime? No it wasn't. Was it a tradegy? Very much so. But the blame shouldn't fall on the Apache crew. IMO the blame for the death of the children rests squarely on the shoulders of the person that ellected to drive them into a dangerous situation. That was the mistake that ultimatly lead to their deaths.