• 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

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.
 
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.

This 'dehumanization' is not a partisan issue.
 
I know what with the constant bombardment of twoofers constantly running a muck and infecting people with their stupid bull****.
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.
 
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).
Exactly. The Apache orbited the scene and only reengaged when the van arrived.


Nor was there a weapon near Saaed nor was anyone picking up any weapons.
Hindsight


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.
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?


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.
"

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.


Huh? Dressed as the enemy, you mean plain civilian clothes? :doh
No. In plain civillian clothes and carrying weapons openly in a combat zone


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.
And the kids?


In your opinion.
Yes.
 
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.

You are almost 100% correct.
International Humanitarian Law - Geneva Convention 1864
-snip-
Art. 7. A distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuation parties. It should in all circumstances be accompanied by the national flag.
An armlet may also be worn by personnel enjoying neutrality but its issue shall be left to the military authorities.
Both flag and armlet shall bear a red cross on a white ground.

The veichles and personel have to be marked as an ambulance in order to prevent just such an occurance. The US didn't break the GCs in this one.
 
Exactly. The Apache orbited the scene and only reengaged when the van arrived.
Right, and they had no call to reengage. They wanted to reengage and so they found an excuse to do so.

Hindsight
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.
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?
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...

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.
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.

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.

And the kids?
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.
 
Right, and they had no call to reengage. They wanted to reengage and so they found an excuse to do so.
That would be their job.



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...
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.
We do not know the ROE taht they were operating under. We do not know the exact details of the mission that they had to do. We do know what the GCs contain, and you were the one that brought that standard in, so that is what we are discussing.


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.
GCI Article 3. (1)
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 Iraqi surrender? - He didn't.

and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
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?
They didn't and they don't need to.

So until he A) surrenders, or B) dies, he is a legitimate target. Once he has surrenderd (ie in your custody) or verified that he is hors de combat by either yourself or a recognized medical service, You are free to kill the **** out of him.


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.

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.
Or the getaway..
Remember the van was not marked. The Apache crew couldn't see inside the van and had no way of distinguishing it from a support vehicle for terrorists.
 
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:

No. That would be the medication.
 
No. That would be the medication.
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.
 
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."
 
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."
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??
 
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.

And hope to hell you're not in the general area where the weapons are about to be deployed.

At which part of the video did the Iraqi surrender? - He didn't.

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.

I've said it before... even in the worst case interpretation of this video is HARDLY the worst kind of warcrime... I mean, in the heat of battle I'm sure I'd make certain that everyone is dead. There were people actually shooting back throughout that day.

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.

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.

Ultimately yes...

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.
 
And hope to hell you're not in the general area where the weapons are about to be deployed.
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.



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.
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.


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.
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.



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.
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.
 
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?

Oh, you actually misunderstood... I was simply saying that if you're on the ground fighting and the ROE changes to 'nukes authorized' that you better hope that they aren't talking about the area where you're on the ground... what with nuclear bombs being quite fatal if you're in the area where one goes off.


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.

That's the two points that came from nuremburg...
a) 'following orders' is not an excuse, and
b) soldiers follow orders.

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.

You misunderstood what I was saying here as well...

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.

You misunderstood my point again...

Actually, the children were NOT killed in this instance.

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.

Yes, but with what the apache gunner is saying to his command you CAN infer the ROE (or relevant aspects at least).

I mean, the guy sitting there saying 'come on pick up a gun so I can shoot' (to paraphrase) you can reasonably determine that he was only going to be authorized to shoot people with weapons. Which, if you do watch carefully, the gunner DOES lie about the weapons... but my point was missed.

That point specifically that errors were made in this video, nothing terribly drastic where people would be discharged or whatever... that there are much more blatant violations of the rules of war that could come to light that would be alot more clear cut.

AKA : we shouldn't be stressing out so much about this topic regardless of your position.
 
Back
Top Bottom