• 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

I wasn't talking about the Geneva convention... rather the specific rules of engagement at the time of this video. Which, unless I can be corrected was to the effect that once the enemy is 'downed' to cease fire so that they might be captured.

He fired at the first group until they were all downed, he shot a second time and there was only the one guy left crawling.
[/quote]

I saw the helicopter taking the video firing two short bursts one on top of another to insure that all of the men were hit.

Then the van showed up and the two guys opened the door and picked up the downed reporter (it turned out),

And attempted to aid members from a group of unlawful combatants escape capture and live to fight another day. This was a "reporter" traveling with a group of men carrying 2 RPG's, and an AK47 the very same weapons which U.S. troops were taking fire from in that sector at the same time.

when the gunner says he say a gun and is given permission to fire again.

Um he did see a gun, I saw a gun, and the video saw a gun:

ArmyReport_ExhibitB.png


In fact it saw a gun and an RPG.

That's totally misconstrued my issues with this situation... when I say 'excessive shooting' I mean, because he continued firing while everyone was downed he had violated, what I'm led to believe was the rules of engagement these soldiers were operating under at the time this video was taken.

I saw two short bursts fired one on top of another to take out the targets, then later the 2nd helicopter fires, however, the camera's view is obstructed by the wall and it is unknown if members other than the guy running away, were down, dead, were trying to escape, reaching for their weapons, or all of the above. Furthermore; if it was a willful slaughter as you assert then they would have fired on the unarmed man who ran away.


The armies that would attack people offering assistance to the wounded were at one point considered 'barbaric'.

Oh really it was considered barbaric to stop the escape of the enemy and those who would attempt to aid in that escape?

Now, I don't know much about millitary equipment, but a HUMVEE is NOT a VAN, not sure why you try to say it's a millitary issue vehicle.

A Humvee is a civilian vehicle as well, but hay if you want to play that game then I guess a U.S. soldier could just use a van to play out the exact same scenario and would be considered off limits. :roll:

Are you sure you were watching the same video, because I mean, talking about weapons that weren't there, and the wrong type of vehicle... I'm just saying, maybe you should rewatch the video of the OP so we're not making verifiably false assertions to misconstrue what's being said.

Ground troops found an AK47 and 2 RPGs on site after the firefight, try again.

Actually, strictly speaking, once they were downed, they become 'non-combatants', which are allowed to receive aid... they were effectively executed non-combatants. If you're going to try and play it from that angle...

When are you talking about in the video? Before or after we see the man running and then crawling away? Because before that it was two volleys of fire taking down the men and then a cease in the firing, and after that the view is obstructed by the wall.

Though, even the specific rules of engagement clearly showed that they were only to fire on ARMED combatants... or else he wouldn't have lied about seeing weapons on those from the van in order to get permission to fire.

Um wtf are you talking about he never claimed that the men from the van had weapons, he said they were picking up the wounded and possibly weapons and then repeated his request several times to get permission to engage and never asserted that the men from the van were armed, which is irrelevant anyways as per my scenario with the U.S. soldier stripping off his uniform and aiding in the escape of U.S. troops under fire.

Someone in the millitary would be better to answer the question as to what consequences might be had about not following those rules of engagement, understandably there's a certain 'margin of error'... but if a person outright violates the rules... what typically happens?

I'm not sure what the ROE is for assault helicopters as it's a completely different type of situation from ground troops who would have been able to take prisoners insuring that the enemy didn't escape which is why I think this scenario would be in accordance with the ROE.
 
I would completely agree with you except for a couple small details :
- This was not any sort of millitary vehicle, it was a van.

A Humvee is a civilian and a military vehicle not that it makes a difference, if we replaced our Humvees with vans would that make them off limits?

- Can it be determined if those civilians were even in the audible range of the helicopter? If yes, then it's possible that they used the children to attempt to prevent being fired on... if not, then it becomes more likely that it was simply a passer-by trying to help a wounded man to a hospital.

Oh please there was a sizable contingent of ground troops in the area taking fire from insurgents, and their were at least two Apache helicopters flying in attack formation who had just opened up with a very loud machine gun.

- how is lying to command about seeing weapons in hand where there was none justifiable?

They never said the people in the van were armed they said that they were possibly picking up weapons.

If those guys even had signs of a gun, or being any sort of 'threat' in any sense, I'd agree with you...

Um he did see a gun and so did the video:

ArmyReport_ExhibitA.png


The 2 RPGs and one AK47s were recovered by the ground troops after the firefight.

but I mean really the gunner is sitting there like
'come on, pick up a gun all you gotta do is pick up a gun' and then just announces that he sees a gun to get permission to shoot... Is that type of bloodlust really necessary?

What? He was talking about the guy who was crawling and the guy didn't pick up a gun pilot didn't shoot at him. What minute in the video is that at? It didn't happen.
 
Because RPG's dont fit in vans?


Please, you claim to have combat knowledge, but I struggle to see how you would look upon engaging a van that was rushing into a fire fight as anything other than prudent.
That's your problem right there, you just make **** up to argue. They didn't rush into a fire fight, the shooting had ceased and a human was obviously struggling for his life, NOT looking for a weapon or doing anything other than trying to move.

Besides, I never said it was prudent, heroic perhaps, but that's usually how heroism works.
 
lmfao, so when a Humvee or an APV pulls up to pull out wounded Coalition troops they're off limits?
So you didn't read the articles of the Geneva Convention I posted and instead decide to continue your fallacious nonsense?

This was not an International Red Cross Vehicle or a Red Crescent vehicle and was not marked as such;
It doesn't have to be, as you would know if you read the GC article I posted.

furthermore, it was their fault for bringing children into a gunfight to use as human shields, that is a violation of both the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions
You have no evidence that the children were used as human shields and in fact the video disproves your strawman all by itself.

as was staging attacks within civilian sectors and not dressing in uniform or distinctive clothing.
Irrelevant as stated in the GC articles I posted.

Try and keep up we're talking about the actual laws of war not the fake laws which you people make up in your own head in attempts to defame those who actually obey the laws and customs of war and in attempts to defend actual war criminals.[/QUOTE]
I posted the the facts for you so you should probably read what you are arguing about next time so that your asshat isn't so exposed.
 
I'd light the whole group up as well. Even if it was a camera. Being a "journalist" does not mean you can shield the enemy.
How do you come up with that? Oh right, you just made it up. Got it.
 
And the people in the WTC were armed? Did you watch the video at all? I saw AT LEAST one Ak-47 and one possible RPG. Walk around with people like that you might get your head blown off. Cry me a river.

I don't give a damn whether 9-11 and Iraq were connected. We should have taken Saddam out years ago. Hint to the libs: Shooting at American fighter jets is an act of war. THIS IS WHAT SEPARATES SADDAM FROM EVERY OTHER BRUTAL DICTATOR. Saddam shot at them for 12 years. Google it. I don't care if Bush said Saddam made green cheese and we didn't find any. They performed acts of war on a daily basis. No, Saddam needed to go. He killed 5000 of his own people with gas. If you don't think the Iraq war was justified then yes, I consider you pro-saddam. You are either pro-America, or pro-Saddam, pick a side, libs. I know it's something you don't like to do because that way you can ALWAYS weasel your way out if something goes wrong. Case in point, the Iraq war. Dozens of libs supported it, but when the SHTF, they suddenly try to back away. Unfortunately the internet is an ugly thing and liberal quotes about Saddam's threat to the US came back to haunt them. I say the Iraq war is what made the libs pretty much irrelevant. It showed they were the spineless cowards we always thought they were. And so no one goes running to the mods, I don't mean the libs on this board, I mean the ones in Washington.
I fully understand the 911 thing. but what tie did those people walking in their own city streets have to do with it? Everyone in world is not responsible for 911. Please get a grip. We don't own or control the entire world. We are not Gods.
 
So you didn't read the articles of the Geneva Convention I posted and instead decide to continue your fallacious nonsense?

I didn't see them and I just read them nothing in there contradicts what I said, nothing in the GC allows for the aid of escape of wounded combatants to fight another day.

It doesn't have to be, as you would know if you read the GC article I posted.

No actually it said that an agreement can be made with local parties for them to extract the wounded, no such agreement was reached, these people came in using children as cover to aid in the escape of insurgents.

You have no evidence that the children were used as human shields

Yes actually I do, they brought children into a gun fight to help aid them in the extraction and escape of enemy combatants.

and in fact the video disproves your strawman all by itself.

How so?

Irrelevant as stated in the GC articles I posted.

No they didn't.

I posted the the facts for you so you should probably read what you are arguing about next time so that your asshat isn't so exposed.

Nothing in the GC allows for the escape of wounded enemies to rejoin their own ranks and fight another day. Apparently in your world it would be off limits to fire on a U.S. soldier who strips out of uniform, hops into an unmarked humvee, and goes into aid in the escape of his fellow soldiers who are under fire. Is that your contention yes or no?
 
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.
"

None of these men surrendered, and it is unknown of their fighting condition when they are fired on a second time by the second Apache because the first Apache which fired and is taking the video has its view blocked by a wall.
 
Apparently you didn't watch the video, there is only one weapon visible (a rifle of some kind, probably a 47) and no RPG.

Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about:

ArmyReport_ExhibitB.png


The AKM and two RPGs were recovered by ground troops after the attack.
 
I fully understand the 911 thing. but what tie did those people walking in their own city streets have to do with it? Everyone in world is not responsible for 911. Please get a grip. We don't own or control the entire world. We are not Gods.

lol you're a twoofer so what do you mean by that anyways?
 
I fully understand the 911 thing. but what tie did those people walking in their own city streets have to do with it? Everyone in world is not responsible for 911. Please get a grip. We don't own or control the entire world. We are not Gods.
9/11 has nothing to do with this discussion. The tie is that they were in a "hot" area carrying weapons. Savvy?
 
I didn't see them and I just read them nothing in there contradicts what I said, nothing in the GC allows for the aid of escape of wounded combatants to fight another day.



No actually it said that an agreement can be made with local parties for them to extract the wounded, no such agreement was reached, these people came in using children as cover to aid in the escape of insurgents.



Yes actually I do, they brought children into a gun fight to help aid them in the extraction and escape of enemy combatants.



How so?



No they didn't.



Nothing in the GC allows for the escape of wounded enemies to rejoin their own ranks and fight another day. Apparently in your world it would be off limits to fire on a U.S. soldier who strips out of uniform, hops into an unmarked humvee, and goes into aid in the escape of his fellow soldiers who are under fire. Is that your contention yes or no?

None of these men surrendered, and it is unknown of their fighting condition when they are fired on a second time by the second Apache because the first Apache which fired and is taking the video has its view blocked by a wall.

When you decide not to simply bull**** your way through a debate let me know.
 
Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about:

ArmyReport_ExhibitB.png


The AKM and two RPGs were recovered by ground troops after the attack.
Again, you aren't reading the thread because I already corrected my mistake. :doh
 
A Humvee is a civilian and a military vehicle not that it makes a difference, if we replaced our Humvees with vans would that make them off limits?



Oh please there was a sizable contingent of ground troops in the area taking fire from insurgents, and their were at least two Apache helicopters flying in attack formation who had just opened up with a very loud machine gun.



They never said the people in the van were armed they said that they were possibly picking up weapons.



Um he did see a gun and so did the video:

ArmyReport_ExhibitA.png


The 2 RPGs and one AK47s were recovered by the ground troops after the firefight.



What? He was talking about the guy who was crawling and the guy didn't pick up a gun pilot didn't shoot at him. What minute in the video is that at? It didn't happen.

Ok, I think we're getting confused about the specific issues I'm talking about... so I'm going to use :
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded[/nomedia]
for the timestamps.

4:39 - "... you got about four humvees... (I'm noting this because the insurgents they were looking for were in humvees, like you were talking about)
4:59-5:02 - He shot 3 quick volleys at a single person when he was hit by the first of the three... (which is excessive but justifiable here with the lag time between firing and the bullets hitting the targets)
5:20 - This is when the camera switches, if this is the second gunner?? He 'twitches' on his aim gets chewed out for shooting too close

So far there's a couple 'errors', but like you said these guys had guns, and errors like that aren't really cause for anything more then a 'hey watch out'.

5:50-5:55 - Like you said, can't really see it, but those were the guys with the guns, and if they were getting up and getting there guns then there's nothing else to say.

7:24 - He mentions a group of TRUCKS that they are looking for in the area.
7:30 - "I got a guy down there ... but he's wounded" (Which shows the ROE that they had restrictions to shooting the wounded)
8:02 - Q. Does he have a gun? "No I haven't seen one yet"
*8:32 - "Come on Buddy"
*8:34 - "All you gotta do is pick up a gun"
9:09 - "We got some vans picking up bodies"

The van pulls up to the wounded man...
*9:37 - "Come on, let me shoot"
10:31 - They shoot down the van
*10:54 - As the smoke clears the van hasn't moved, and he just starts shooting.

The ones with the *'s are the parts I actually have issue with... The people with the guns were all killed in the first few volleys. The ONLY thing the van demostrated an interest in was in helping a man that's been severely wounded that's probably going to end up dying anyway... they didn't have weapons, none of them, and with that guy's attitude, even if the van had a red cross painted on the top the gunners attitude showed his anticipation to keep shooting.

I'm not saying that it's enough for a dishonourable discharge or anything like that... As for your claims about the Geneva convention, the WHOLE CONVENTIONS intent was to limit the barbarity of war.

International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

In effect, a person not participating in the combat and a 'combatant' that was wounded were shot at. I expect you to come back and explain somehow that the Geneva convention doesn't apply, but whatever. You're thinking that my perspective is a much harsher criticism then it actually is though...and of a different section of the video.
 
When you decide not to simply bull**** your way through a debate let me know.

O.K. sport, I read the link to the GC regarding the treatment of the sick and wounded but maybe I missed something, so why don't you copy and paste the specific section you are referencing? KTHXBAI.
 
That's your problem right there, you just make **** up to argue. They didn't rush into a fire fight, the shooting had ceased and a human was obviously struggling for his life, NOT looking for a weapon or doing anything other than trying to move.


How long did the "Shooting ceased". Please. I'm thinking you have never been in combat.... :lamo


Besides, I never said it was prudent, heroic perhaps, but that's usually how heroism works.



So wait, the people who took childeren into the middle of a battle between people pointing RPG's a US troops, are "hero's" to you?


How freaking pathetic, brother.
 
8:02 - Q. Does he have a gun? "No I haven't seen one yet"
*8:32 - "Come on Buddy"
*8:34 - "All you gotta do is pick up a gun"

And he didn't pick up the gun so he didn't shoot.

*9:37 - "Come on, let me shoot"
10:31 - They shoot down the van
*10:54 - As the smoke clears the van hasn't moved, and he just starts shooting.

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.


In effect, a person not participating in the combat and a 'combatant' that was wounded were shot at. I expect you to come back and explain somehow that the Geneva convention doesn't apply, but whatever. You're thinking that my perspective is a much harsher criticism then it actually is though...and of a different section of the video.

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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
O.K. sport, I read the link to the GC regarding the treatment of the sick and wounded but maybe I missed something, so why don't you copy and paste the specific section you are referencing? KTHXBAI.

International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention

Art. 18. The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse Party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.
 
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?

Actually, what they said was that the people were picking up bodies AND GUNS...
 
Two things that will be said about that :

- The country is not 'invaded' it is 'liberated'
- 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.

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.

Once the guy from the van started helping one of the wounded, the US violated the First Geneva Convention by opening fire on him.
 
How long did the "Shooting ceased". Please. I'm thinking you have never been in combat.... :lamo






So wait, the people who took childeren into the middle of a battle between people pointing RPG's a US troops, are "hero's" to you?


How freaking pathetic, brother.

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom