• 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

USA-1 said:
Has there ever been any proof confirming the existence of rape rooms?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. That's legit. And a whole lot more. Much worse.

Confirming the existence of WMDs?
Click to expand...

Had them at one point...RE: Halabja. Don't know after that.

A lot of that stuff was made up to bolster support for the invasion.
Click to expand...

WMD intel was bad, no doubt. There should be someone to blame, I agree. But "made up"? That might be a stretch.
 
kansaswhig said:
Oh yeah. That's legit. And a whole lot more. Much worse.



Had them at one point...RE: Halabja. Don't know after that.



WMD intel was bad, no doubt. There should be someone to blame, I agree. But "made up"? That might be a stretch.
Click to expand...

There were countless lies leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq.
They acted dumb and said they didn't know any better, but that was a lie too. Some folks swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Propaganda is a powerful tool.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html

Can anyone show proof of Saddam's rape rooms?
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
Can anyone show proof of Saddam's rape rooms?
Click to expand...

How about proof that Reagan removed Iraq from the state terrorists listing, or provided Saddam with precursors needed to make the internationally banned Mustard gas he later used on his own people? We have proof of those things that occurred before he Nationalized Iraqi oil and kicked the Western oil companies out.
 
USA-1 said:
Has there ever been any proof confirming the existence of rape rooms? Confirming the existence of WMDs? A lot of that stuff was made up to bolster support for the invasion.
Click to expand...




You are so right, How dare we invade that paradise Hussein created for his people. :ssst:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You are so right, How dare we invade that paradise Hussein created for his people. :ssst:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was worth a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to disarm Saddam.
There were other dictators just as worthy as Saddam for regime change.

If you think we did it for the Iraqi people you are more foolish than I thought.
 
USA-1 said:
Yeah, it was worth a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to disarm Saddam.
There were other dictators just as worthy as Saddam for regime change.
Click to expand...


None of those other dictators were embezzling money with the UN and blaming the US for sanctions..... :shrug:


If you think we did it for the Iraqi people you are more foolish than I thought.
Click to expand...



If I am foolish, it would be for taking you seriously. Fortunatly, the Greatness that IS the Good Reverend, this is not a problem :pimpdaddy:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
None of those other dictators were embezzling money with the UN and blaming the US for sanctions..... :shrug:






If I am foolish, it would be for taking you seriously. Fortunatly, the Greatness that IS the Good Reverend, this is not a problem :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Have you ever wondered how different your life would have been had you gotten enough oxygen at birth?

Invading Iraq was a mistake. Only those in total denial won't admit it.
 
USA-1 said:
Have you ever wondered how different your life would have been had you gotten enough oxygen at birth?
Click to expand...


smack FAIL


If you want to insult me, why not come down to the basement? This lack of self control you display is embarrassing.


Invading Iraq was a mistake. Only those in total denial won't admit it.
Click to expand...



Or, those with a different opinion than you who have a deeper understanding of geopolitical issues. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Or, those with a different opinion than you who have a deeper understanding of geopolitical issues. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You have shown you have absolutely no understanding of geopolitical issues. I can see why you're embarrassed. Invading Iraq and discovering it had no WMDs will be forever known as the greatest blunder of the 21st century. And the costliest.
 
USA-1 said:
You have shown you have absolutely no understanding of geopolitical issues. I can see why you're embarrassed. Invading Iraq and discovering it had no WMDs will be forever known as the greatest blunder of the 21st century. And the costliest.
Click to expand...




ok, 2004 called, they want thier talking points back. :roll:
 
I can't believe people watching that are attempting to second guess the soliders, and the military reviewed approval of their actions.

If you think with all the variables that exist in such circumstances, with your lives on the line, with limited information and time, that there is not a huge margin of acceptable error, you aren't being honest. Furthermore, if you think any military should set its margin of error such that it hurts them and their objectives as much as it doesn't, then that's absurd.

The reality is that if you absolutely do not want that to happen, ever, then get your military out of there. By in large, the military isn't killing people when they are back stationed on their base state-side (aside from those that snap or turn on them intentionally). These soliders are at war. You may think the war is a joke, a mistake, etc.....all entirely irrelevant. Their lives aren't mistakenly at risk....they are actually, at risk.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What a shallow concept of history you have. :shrug:
Click to expand...

At least I have a concept of history. You on the other hand don't seem to have a clue.

The undeniable fact is Bush invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam of his WMDs and there wasn't any. Oops.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
At least I have a concept of history. You on the other hand don't seem to have a clue.

The undeniable fact is Bush invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam of his WMDs and there wasn't any. Oops.
Click to expand...




This was one dof several reasons. Hussein bluffed. He lost. But you keep lamenting old iraq :roll:
 
Mach said:
I can't believe people watching that are attempting to second guess the soliders, and the military reviewed approval of their actions.

If you think with all the variables that exist in such circumstances, with your lives on the line, with limited information and time, that there is not a huge margin of acceptable error, you aren't being honest. Furthermore, if you think any military should set its margin of error such that it hurts them and their objectives as much as it doesn't, then that's absurd.

The reality is that if you absolutely do not want that to happen, ever, then get your military out of there. By in large, the military isn't killing people when they are back stationed on their base state-side (aside from those that snap or turn on them intentionally). These soliders are at war. You may think the war is a joke, a mistake, etc.....all entirely irrelevant. Their lives aren't mistakenly at risk....they are actually, at risk.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point...

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, and the gunner was justified in shooting at them... the main issue is that he continued firing untill they were all dead. I'm not 100%, but I was under the impression that ROE at the time was that once a combatant was downed that they would cease fire... correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood.

B) The van with the kids... It's not so much that he shot at the van with kids in it... he essentially lied to his command about the threat that the people in that van represented. They were there clearly to offer assistance to the wounded guy. None of them had any weapons, or even made any threatening gestures or anything. Not sure how that would fit with the ROE... but somehow you would expect there to be conditions set before shooting.

This situation DID happen in the heat of a battle, and there were some enemy combatants in the area. I understand the adrenaline, but there needs to be a level of professionalism from the millitary. I know that most soldiers act honourably, so don't take this the wrong way...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It's just we get a lot of claims of service brother, you should ask the admin for your star. ;)
Click to expand...
I was forced, against my better judgment and will, by a government running a segregated country, to go to a foreign country and kill other humans for, what was by '69, a grab bag for officers advancement and corporate profits. I never picked up my metals and I don't want recognition here for that ****.
 
Just popped in to see if anybody posted any more cool videos. :2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This was one dof several reasons. Hussein bluffed. He lost. But you keep lamenting old iraq :roll:
Click to expand...
Bluffed? Saddam repeatedly declared no WMDs.
A trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and we have gained nothing.? We lost.
 
USA-1 said:
Bluffed? Saddam repeatedly declared no WMDs.
Click to expand...

Not only that... he was essentially telling Bush : Look, I'll do anything just don't bomb my country.

Where Bush's diplomacy was along the lines of 'Do what we tell you to and we'll attack you anyway.'

A trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and we have gained nothing.? We lost.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm sure there's been millions made off Iraqi oil pipelines...
 
USA-1 said:
Bluffed? Saddam repeatedly declared no WMDs.
A trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and we have gained nothing.? We lost.
Click to expand...


This is sad..... So you would take the word of this dictator?


Let me ask you what do you know of the oilfor food program an its impact on the war?

Also when did he let the inspectors have unfettered access?


Sad really.
 
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:

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).

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."

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)
 
NoJingoLingo said:
An unmarked van, in a city... imagine that. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yes I can imagine that. The moment he involved himself in the situation he bacame a threat.


According to the footage. The combat had ceased for several minutes and there was a badly wounded person attempting to crawl away. A van with some locals probably thought it was safe to go help the man before he died. They were begging for the guy to pick up a weapon so they could finish him off. He was obviously badly wounded and it's extremely doubtful that someone in that condition would be looking to grab a weapon. It's OBVIOUS that he was horribly wounded and was probably in shock already and just blindly trying to crawl away. Let's not forget that it's clear from the video that there aren't even any weapons around for him to pick up.
Click to expand...
Firstly, it is not clear from the video that there are no weapons around. Weapons had already been identified triggering (no pun intended) the response from the helicopter.
Secondly, it does not matter that the person identified as an insurgent was crawling away, the van was not marked as an ambulance that made it a legitimate target as it is assisting in the escape of an insurgent.
Thirdly there is no visibility of what the van is carrying, and because it is not marked as an ambulance, there is no presumption that it is carrying out medical evaquation.


There are rules of engagement and this isn't the jungle, it's a city street where civilians live and work.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Welcome to the party. Confusing isn't it.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that I agreed with the original action. It's the firing on that van, which turned out to be non-combatants who had children with them, they were probably just driving by when the shooting started and once the shooting was over they wanted to help a badly wounded person, that I have a disagreement with.
Click to expand...
A long time ago I did a tour on the border between Isreal and Lebanon. During periods of higher tension I've seen Hezzis piled in the back of ambulances, in police cars etc. I've heard first hand how they evaquate the dead and wounded to make after action assesments difficult and leave the civillians in order to make it look like a mistake.
It's a standard tactic.

And before someone jumps in and suggests bias on my part, you shoud see what the Isrealis were doing at the same time....
 
Agent Ferris said:
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:

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).

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."

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)
Click to expand...

And when Al-Queda signs the GCs that will apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom