PDA

View Full Version : Are things getting out of hand?



Qtec
11-16-2004, 07:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Marine in shooting incident suspended

Simon Jeffery
Tuesday November 16, 2004

The Guardian

A US marine filmed shooting an unarmed and injured insurgent in a Falluja mosque was today taken off duty while an investigation is carried out into the killing.
The close range execution-style shooting, captured by an American journalist embedded with the marine unit, was broadcast on US networks just hours after Amnesty International accused US forces and insurgent fighters of breaking the rules of war that protecting civilians and wounded combatants

The footage - edited to remove images of the shot being fired - showed five injured or dead insurgents in the mosque on Saturday when an unnamed US marine is heard shouting obscenties in the background, yelling that one of the men is only pretending to be dead.

"He's [censored] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [censored] dead," the marine says.

The video then showed him raising his rifle towards a prisoner lying on the floor. The pool footage provided to US networks cuts out at that point but the Associated Press, which saw the full video, said a bullet hits the man in his upper body or head and blood splatters on the wall behind him.

Another voice can then be heard saying: "He's dead now."

Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi, chair of Arab Media Watch, said the footage would reinforce the idea in the Middle East that the welfare of Iraqis was not the prime concern of US forces.

"It is not so groundbreaking given what happened in Abu Ghraib," he said. "It will be more a confirmation of Arab suspicions than a revelation."

The US 1st Marine Division said it would investigate whether the soldier, part of a unit that had lost a man the day before to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent, had acted in self-defence or not.

<hr /></blockquote>



Is this a symptom of a deeper problem?
A lot of the troops over there have been on active duty for more than a year. Far too long IMO.
There was obviously a FK up. You dont leave captured enemy soldiers lying around unguarded, even if they are wounded.
Fallujah might be taken but all round the country attacks are taking place. Iraq is out of control. The US forces are over-stretched and the end is nowhere in sight. They cant even trust the Iraqis who they have trained to take over the fighting. At the first sign of trouble, they join the other side!

Powell was right.
GW has bitten off more than he can chew.

Q [ IMO, they should never have shown that video. Its an advertisment for recruiting terrorists.]

Deeman2
11-16-2004, 07:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>



Is this a symptom of a deeper problem?

<font color="blue">Yes/No, war is hell. American soldiers, while much better than most, will make mistakes (if this turns out to be one, all the info is not in yet), this soldier was apparently wounded the day before (not an excuse, but he was not a casual observer, he had been/was in combat), many of these wounded and dead have been rigged with explosives and some "playing" dead only to jump up and shoot soldiers. No front page news about this, huh? </font color>

A lot of the troops over there have been on active duty for more than a year. Far too long IMO.

<font color="blue"> I wish the assignment rotations were shorter but they, our heros, are doing what they have to do in a difficult situation. </font color>

There was obviously a FK up. You dont leave captured enemy soldiers lying around unguarded, even if they are wounded.

<font color="blue"> What do you do with them in close quarters combat when you are fighting for your life, house to house? Maybe a Dutch soldier could have been there to babysit them, or are you sitting this one out? Yep..Free Speach is on the installment plan for you guys. The opposition would have just cut all their throats and not worried about them. Even YOU know this in your little heart.</font color>

Fallujah might be taken but all round the country attacks are taking place. Iraq is out of control. <font color="blue"> It's called combat. </font color> The US forces are over-stretched and the end is nowhere in sight. <font color="blue"> US Troops were even more overstretched when they fought their way into France, Belgium and the Netherlands about 60 years ago. I wasn't around then, but didn't hear any clammering from Holland on that one. </font color> They cant even trust the Iraqis who they have trained to take over the fighting. At the first sign of trouble, they join the other side! <font color="blue"> This is called, "Showing resolve on out part". They will believe we are in for the long run if we don't cut and run and maore and more will feel safer taking own their own responsibility. </font color>

Powell was right.
GW has bitten off more than he can chew. <font color="blue"> I did not catch that quote by Colon Powell. </font color>

Q [ IMO, they should never have shown that video. Its an advertisment for recruiting terrorists.] <font color="blue"> Probably true but we are a free country and we still want a critical look at our mistakes as well as our accomplishments. I still, after listenening to all your whining, have not heard your outrage at the atrocities on the other side. Could it possibly be that you have a one sided, hate America view on this, Naw. No way.... </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-16-2004, 08:31 AM
Probably part of Little Bushy's new "Secret rules of War" program.

Don't worry, when my new book hits the market, "How to Talk To A Bushyite, If You Must." I will send you a free signed copy friend, LOL.

Anne Coulter....Just because she looks like an Afghan Hound, doesn't meant she understands Afghanistan, LOL.

Gayle in Md., The Great Blue State!!!! Red is such an appropriate color for the Repubs.

Qtec
11-16-2004, 09:01 AM
First of all, I dont think you know the whole story and secondly, you missed the whole point of my post.
I never criticized the soldier in question. The fact is the US is desperatley undermanned and the country is in chaos. Despite what GW, Rumy and dick have said, the situation is about to get worse. After this video, shooting a wounded prisoner and leaving wounded prisoners for 24 hours without medical attention, is not going to look good to to anybody, especially the Arabs!
It must be apparent to you by now that brute force will not end this conflict. Look at the Palestine situation. You need Iraqi support. You dont get that by reducing one of their Holy cities to rubble and shooting wounded prisoners, even if you have good cause!

I,m normally against censorship but I think this is one time the public interest would have been served if it had been axed.

Q

Deeman2
11-16-2004, 09:35 AM
Q,

You make good points but as an American, I am NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for censorship. War is ugly and we never need to forget that. I would accpet censorship that put's our troop movements, furure plans in jeapordy. However, I'd rather take the political flack than hide anything. That's just my right wing view.

Deeman

highsea
11-16-2004, 10:17 AM
I don't know that Fallujah is one of their "holy cities". I think it's more of a slum.

But anyway, combat troops on the move cannot stop and deal with wounded, they have to keep moving. That comes after the battle is over. The mosque was reinfiltrated after the troops left on the first day. When they came back there was another firefight. When the Marines went in, they didn't know that guy was wounded from the previous day. We have lost soldiers from booby-trapped bodies, and the Marine thought this guy was faking death to ambush them. The whole thing happened pretty quickly in the heat of combat. We can't second guess from behind our monitors. We weren't there.

But I agree, in this case the video should not have been released until the investigation was completed, it should have been held as evidence.

hondo
11-16-2004, 01:13 PM
Just curious- are you for listing our dead's names in
the paper each day? If so, as a staunch Bush supporter
maybe you can have some influence on our leader.

You make good points but as an American, I am NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for censorship. War is ugly and we never need to forget that. I would accpet censorship that put's our troop movements, furure plans in jeapordy. However, I'd rather take the political flack than hide anything. That's just my right wing view.

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
11-16-2004, 01:25 PM
the video is at http://www.hannity.com/ if anybody wants to see it

SecaucusFats
11-16-2004, 02:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Probably part of Little Bushy's new "Secret rules of War" program.

Don't worry, when my new book hits the market, "How to Talk To A Bushyite, If You Must." I will send you a free signed copy friend, LOL.

Anne Coulter....Just because she looks like an Afghan Hound, doesn't meant she understands Afghanistan, LOL.

Gayle in Md., The Great Blue State!!!! Red is such an appropriate color for the Repubs. <hr /></blockquote>

The Marine should have done the "Islamic" thing and strapped explosives to the body after which he should have tossed it into a bus load of innocent children and blown them all up to kingdom come. There, is that better? BTW the Islamo-fascists terrorists murdered Margaret Hussein today what about that? What about all the beheadings and car bombs? What about the Americans who were tortured, murdered and whose bodies were strung up on the bridge in Fallujah? Oh, silly me, I forgot those were all done by poor oppressed "freedom fighters". /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Now excuse me while I barf.

SF

Deeman2
11-16-2004, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Just curious- are you for listing our dead's names in
the paper each day? <font color="blue"> I am not opposed to listing the names of our dead soldiers in the newspaper each day, if a news organization wants to do this. As long as the families have been notified in advance. Has the administration not allowed this? </font color>

If so, as a staunch Bush supporter
maybe you can have some influence on our leader. <font color="blue"> I don't know that I am a staunch Bush supporter. I am in favor of him over the man that ran against him. I know and admit he has faults. I always have. I thought the opposition had many more. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bush and would question his leadership and judgement if he startred listening to hacks like me.

You may take my point of never being for censorship as a cart blanche for printing anything true or false. I do have limits as to the tests of legal truth when it is called a news story. However, under commentary I believe in total free speech as long as it does not do harm for no gain. ie; yelling "Fire" in a theater. I would never suppress a Moore film, for instance. But it is silly to consider it an unbiased documentary in the classic sense. However, the same may be said of the Swift Boat people with a little less creative editing. I also think it serves no great purpose to air the actual beheadings of Americans and European social workers, beyond voyeuristic chud to wierdos. I also think there are some legitimate reasons to withhold info until things can be sorted out when it might inflame a group. However, in the end, the truth should be told. We can handle the truth.</font color>

You make good points but as an American, I am NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for censorship. War is ugly and we never need to forget that. I would accpet censorship that put's our troop movements, furure plans in jeapordy. However, I'd rather take the political flack than hide anything. That's just my right wing view.

Deeman <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

crawdaddio
11-16-2004, 04:19 PM
[quote Q] Fallujah might be taken but all round the country attacks are taking place. Iraq is out of control. <hr /></blockquote>

[quote Deeman] It's called combat. <hr /></blockquote>

[quote GW]"Combat operations are over......Mission accomplished" <hr /></blockquote>

Peace
~DC

Sid_Vicious
11-16-2004, 05:26 PM
"I wish the assignment rotations were shorter but they, our heros, are doing what they have to do in a difficult situation."

Our "heros" are by military decree and governing laws, stuck HAVING to do in this situation, else it's Levenworth, all imo due to some idiot chasing his father's mistake. There is a whole lot of difference in that fact, and I expect more of these embarrassments to come. I don't blame those souls we sent into this debacle, it all comes back to us as individual electors. There should have been enough mentally wounded Vnam soldiers to prove that ahead of this mistake, but NO, somebody let this happen, all without due imminent danger to legalize this plunder...Sid Vicious

pooltchr
11-17-2004, 05:40 AM
[quote=SecaucusFats

The Marine should have done the "Islamic" thing and strapped explosives to the body after which he should have tossed it into a bus load of innocent children and blown them all up to kingdom come. There, is that better? BTW the Islamo-fascists terrorists murdered Margaret Hussein today what about that? What about all the beheadings and car bombs? What about the Americans who were tortured, murdered and whose bodies were strung up on the bridge in Fallujah? Oh, silly me, I forgot those were all done by poor oppressed "freedom fighters". /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Now excuse me while I barf.

SF <hr /></blockquote>
TAP! TAP! TAP!

Has anyone beside me noticed that the media seems to never miss a chance to pick up on a story like this? The unfortunate fact of war is out guys are in a "Kill or be killed" situation. If that wounded insurgent had rolled over, pulled out a gun and started shooting out men, do you think the story would have been that our troops are poorly trained and allowed this to happen? It seems like no matter what our military does, it's wrong. The fact is, war is ugly, and people die! I prefer our guys make it home again!!!!!!!!!!!

hondo
11-17-2004, 06:33 AM
Amen! I agree one hundred percent with your take on this.

Has anyone beside me noticed that the media seems to never miss a chance to pick up on a story like this? The unfortunate fact of war is out guys are in a "Kill or be killed" situation. If that wounded insurgent had rolled over, pulled out a gun and started shooting out men, do you think the story would have been that our troops are poorly trained and allowed this to happen? It seems like no matter what our military does, it's wrong. The fact is, war is ugly, and people die! I prefer our guys make it home again!!!!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
11-17-2004, 06:44 AM
When there were few deaths they were listing them
but when Americans started dying right &amp; left
in George's little war they stopped. They are
allowed to report local casualties.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-17-2004, 06:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>
...Has anyone beside me noticed that the media seems to never miss a chance to pick up on a story like this?...
<hr /></blockquote>

I heard a far-right radio talk show host saying that NBC aired this because they despise the military. I'm not sure I buy that. I just think it is compelling video.

I do believe a couple of things:

The video should not have been shown because it gives the Arabs another reason to hate us.

The people who would criticize this soldier for what he did are not worthy of carrying his jock strap.

The guy that got shot is allied with the guys who set off car bombs and kill dozens of innocent men, women, and children and therefore deserves little, if any, consideration.

Some of you may call me sick but I thought the video was funny in a dark way.

<font color="red">"He's f***ing faking he's dead"

"He's f***ing faking he's dead"

*BAM*

"He's dead now" </font color>

Sooy, I have little compassion for people that cut the heads off of innocent civilians.

hondo
11-17-2004, 07:16 AM
Gayle, we usually agree but not necessarily here.
Read pooltchr's take on this. That is the reality
of the situation. Our guys were dragged over there
and are trying to survive. I'd shoot anybody
who looked cross-eyed at me.

quote=Gayle in MD] Probably part of Little Bushy's new "Secret rules of War" program.

Don't worry, when my new book hits the market, "How to Talk To A Bushyite, If You Must." I will send you a free signed copy friend, LOL.

Anne Coulter....Just because she looks like an Afghan Hound, doesn't meant she understands Afghanistan, LOL.

Gayle in Md., The Great Blue State!!!! Red is such an appropriate color for the Repubs. <hr /></blockquote>

SnakebyteXX
11-17-2004, 08:58 AM
Is it ever reasonable to accept the seemingly unacceptible on the basis of, "They have done THIS so we are justified in doing THAT?"

It feels like an endless loop to me. How far back would you have to go to find the beginning of the loop and is it as simple as that? Is there a guilty party who started the whole thing? My guess would be if you are an American that the answer would be that the guilty party who started the loop is THEM. Ironically, there are many, many Muslims who believe just as fervently that the opposite is true - including the suicidal terrorists who commandeered the planes on 9/11. Where do you suppose their loop started?

If we accept the argument that, "You have done terrible things to us so it is okay for us to do terrible things to you." - and clearly that argument swings both ways - where does it end?

Can it end?

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 09:33 AM
First, let me say, had I been in the shoes of that soldier, I would have done exactly what he did, and without hesitation.

Second, I do think that Sid's post is the best take on the situation our troops find themselves in, and nothing I say or feel about this F***ed up administration has any reflection whatsoever on our courageous young men who have been thrust into yet another unwinnable war by misguided, wrong minded, political leaders, aka, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, having each taken a "Bye" when their opportunity knocked to fulfill their duty to America, and face the perils which they have so aggressively and shortsightedly thrust upon our men and our country.

Third, I love my country, and not trying to be dramatic, I sit before my TV every night, hearing the short biographies of, and letters from, these fine men, and I listen in tears. It absolutely breaks my heart to think of the loss, and breaks it even more because I feel that this war is a tragic mistake undertaken under false information and lies created and distributed by the Bush Administration. I think it is notable also, that Powell, the only one in the loop with actual war experience, advised against this pre-emptive strike, and to me Powell was the one hero in this administration, and the only voice of reason present, other than Richard Clark, whose warnings of Bin L.'s intentions of 9/11 were ignored by Bush, Cheney and Rice, which is the reason why Bush fought so hard to limit the investigation into 9/11.




Fourth, while I understand the unfortunate and untimely exposure of this film, I also think that there are, according to some things I have read, and no I am not going to try to remember which article, which interview, some steps by this administration to "Ease" the rules of the Geneva convention, the rules of war. And I also think that there will be forthcoming more on this in the news.

And finally, I think that when, for whatever the reason, you find yourself fighting a war against religeous fanatics, who are heathens with no conscience, you are in a trick bag of having to become just as heathenistic in order to survive. This I think is also a double edged sword, since our only way out is through Iraqi participation in the quest, and maintaining that committment and participation from them will be very difficult, if not impossible, given that we are considered by so many of them as uninvited occupants of their country, who have come there and destroyed their neighborhoods, and drawn this great evil presence into their world, in spite of the fact that one evil man has been removed.

This having been a condition of other wars in which we have fought, but fought at a time when media coverage was much less vigorous and more manageable, is strikingly simular to what happened during the Vietnam War, we the occupiers, albiet for different reasons, another unwinable war, IMO, and also fought in full view of the world, given extensive media coverage, to be evermore yet another dark portrayal of Americans.

When all is said and done, Powells words, "You break it, you own it" will no doubt become the most intelligent words spoken regarding Bush's "Rush To War"...

The answer is yes, things are out of hand, just as Powell advised, things are out of hand!!!!!

The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, exactly.

Gayle in Md.

nAz
11-17-2004, 10:24 AM
hello Gayle how are you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

your post is very unamerican, i think you should move to a "blue state'" /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BTW thing were never in hand so how could they be getting out of hand?
but this is how wars goes chaos and war go hand in hand. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
11-17-2004, 11:23 AM
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041117.asp

2. Chris Matthews: Iraqi Insurgents "Not Bad Guys Especially"
More moral equivalence from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. A month after he suggested a "parallel" between the insurgents in Iraq and the colonial fighters of America's Revolutionary War, Matthews on Monday night described the insurgents based in a Fallujah, who have conducted terrorist attacks which have killed thousands of Iraqis in their quest for autocratic power, as "not bad guys especially, just people that disagree with us. They are, in fact, the insurgents fighting us in their country."

Matthews offered his description in a discussion of the much-hyped video of a Marine shooting an injured Iraqi insurgent inside a mosque: "If we saw one of them do what we saw our guy do to that guy, would we consider that worthy of a war crimes charge?" NBC military analyst Ken Allard insisted: "We probably would."

<font color="blue">actually a heck of a lot of them are foreign terrorists, the rest are Saddam loyalists and they blow up innocent women and children and cut people's heads off.

not bad guys? </font color>

hondo
11-17-2004, 11:36 AM
All I was saying is that in their situation I'd be
scared s...less. So I can understand his reaction,
not justify it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> Is it ever reasonable to accept the seemingly unacceptible on the basis of, "They have done THIS so we are justified in doing THAT?"

It feels like an endless loop to me. How far back would you have to go to find the beginning of the loop and is it as simple as that? Is there a guilty party who started the whole thing? My guess would be if you are an American that the answer would be that the guilty party who started the loop is THEM. Ironically, there are many, many Muslims who believe just as fervently that the opposite is true - including the suicidal terrorists who commandeered the planes on 9/11. Where do you suppose their loop started?

If we accept the argument that, "You have done terrible things to us so it is okay for us to do terrible things to you." - and clearly that argument swings both ways - where does it end?

Can it end?

<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
11-17-2004, 11:49 AM
How anybody can justify our kids being murdered
over there as us fighting for our freedom is
just incomprehensible to me. I'm one of those
48% far left un- Americans who is just way out
of the mainstream. I keep telling myself that
after the Iraqui elections George will pat himself
on the back, say well done and get the hell out
but then I see Rumsfeld and I know this won't be
over for years. What a tragic, senseless waste of
American lives.

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 12:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
actually a heck of a lot of them are foreign terrorists, the rest are Saddam loyalists and they blow up innocent women and children and cut people's heads off.

not bad guys? <hr /></blockquote>

Americans have blown up hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, so don't try to claim some "moral high ground" on that one.

"Not bad guys?"

Peace
~DC

Ross
11-17-2004, 12:43 PM
Some here seem to be seeing all Falluja combatants as the same. My guess is that a large part of the young men fighting with the insurgents are not hostage takers, beheaders, or car bombers. Like in any war, there are the leaders and the followers. Probably 2/3 of the insurgents are just young men were previously bricklayers, carpenters, even poolplayers, who have been brainwashed into thinking they are fighting for a noble, religious cause.

The evil ones are the ones that are the head of the snake. They are the planners who decide that there are to be car bombings, kidnappings, filmed beheadings, etc. They include Al Zakhari (sp?) and his followers that think that "infidels" should be destroyed as well as the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Sunni religious leaders that refuse to lead their people toward peace.

Obviously in a war you fight to win and to protect your own safety. And if that was truly the US soldiers motivation then he did exactly what he had to do. But if instead he was taking out his rage about the beheadings, etc, against a random combatant who very well may have not been involved with that in any way, then that is wrong and evil in its own way.

The argument that "THEY" do this and "THEY" do that so we have the right to treat just any enemy soldier like they aren't human beings requires you to demonize all of the men you are fighting as being equivalently evil. A large proportion of the time, the soldier in front of you didn't do any of those things. So you fight them like you would fight any enemy soldier, killing when you have to, taking prisoners when you don't.

On the other hand if you know you have the beheader in front of you or the one who ordered such violence against innocents, then I can at least understand the lack of empathy for them. I still don't find the killing of anyone funny or an occasion for glee, but even my empathy for these guys if pretty damn low.

War is hell and it is easier to fight if you stereotype your enemy as all evil. I understand that. But we need to remember that just because it is easier that way, and even understandable why it happens, that it doesn't make it true.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:15 PM
Dear Ross,
Again, Your post is right on. IMO, As Americans, we should strive to obey the Geneva Convention, eventho "Fear in the moment" can often blind anyone to correct decisions.

I wish I knew you, as you express my own feelings often much better than I.

I am against this war, no question, it is, IMHO, not the right course to take. As an American, I support our troops, and hope for their success, but I do not think those who have put them there were correct to do so. This is why I voted for Kerry.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
11-17-2004, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>...some steps by this administration to "Ease" the rules of the Geneva convention, the rules of war.<hr /></blockquote>Gayle, you should actually read the Geneva Conventions. They are, as you say the "rules of war". They apply to signatory nations. They require reciprosity. That is to say, if one side violates the rules, the other side is not held to the same standard. The use of mosques, schools, and civilians as shields is directly contrary to the conventions. The conventions only apply to signatory States. The recognized (by the UN) government of Iraq is the IIG, with Allawi at the head as IPM.

The insurgents and terrorists in Iraq do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They are not a uniformed armed force of a signatory state. Secondly, if they were, they have abrogated the conventions by fighting from mosques, schools, hospitals, siezing and executing civilian hostages, false surrender for purposes of ambush, etc.

As far as the Marine in question, IIRC it is Article 2 that specifies conduct on the battlefield. A soldier in combat is not required to give assistance to a wounded enemy. In fact, it is completely legal for that soldier to walk across the battlefield and shoot every wounded enemy in the head. The conventions recognize that a combat infantryman is not a medic, and his sole duty is to press the advance in battle. They also recognize that an army cannot be expected to leave wounded enemy soldiers free to operate in it's rear, nor can it be expected to deplete itself by taking infantry away from the battle to care for wounded enemies.

After the battle is over, when it is safe for medics to tend the wounded, you can no longer kill them.

The US is fighting in Iraq with one hand tied behind it's back. In this respect, it is somewhat like Vietnam. We know that every act by our soldiers will come under the microscope. But Fallujah is a battlefield. In this incident, the soldier was within his rights. The battle was not over, since the mosque had been reinfiltrated and a skirmish had just taken place, with 10 enemy KIA's. The area was not secured, and the enemies were fighting from a proscribed area (the mosque).

Had this Marine walked into a field hospital and killed a wounded enemy, he would have committed a war crime. Killing them on the battlefield is not a crime. People tend to misinterpret the Genneva Conventions, and try to apply them universally. It doesn't work that way.

The real criminals in Iraq are not these dumb soldiers who are fighting us. It's their leaders, who skipped town before the fighting started. They have to be the worst generals in the history of war. They are sending these poor slobs out to face AC-130 gunships, Apaches, F-16's, and M1A2's, armed with nothing but AK-47's and RPG's. It's a slaughter. the kill ratio in Fallujah was 400 to 1. If I was an Iraqi, I would go up to that leader and shoot him in the head.

The only conclusion I can make is that human life means nothing to these Arabs that are instigating this war. If they would have kept their noses out of it, Iraq would be halfway rebuilt by now.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:20 PM
Bravo my friend! Perfect!

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:24 PM
Thank God you're not a General!
Gayle In Md. No child should ever be murdered, Excuse you? There is no excuse for one who could think as you.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:28 PM
Excellent post, I agree.
Gayle in MD.

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 01:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The only conclusion I can make is that human life means nothing to these Arabs that are instigating this war. If they would have kept their noses out of it, Iraq would be halfway rebuilt by now. <hr /></blockquote>

This is not only funny, but hypocritical. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Who instigated what? Who put their noses where? Why does it NEED to be rebuilt?

Peace
~DC------------&gt;Just another one-liner..........

highsea
11-17-2004, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>This is not only funny, but hypocritical. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Who put their noses where? Why does it NEED to be rebuilt?
<hr /></blockquote>David, I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. First you try to drag Hiroshima into the debate, then you come back with this witticism. I'm not about to go back into the reasons for the war. You can sift through the back threads and read my comments, there is no reason for me to repeat them.

The topic is Fallujah.

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:36 PM
Hi there friend, lol. And how are you, good to hear from you always,
Take Care now,
Gayle

Wally_in_Cincy
11-17-2004, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Americans have blown up hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, so don't try to claim some "moral high ground" on that one.
<hr /></blockquote>

Of course you are right. I see the light now. The terrorists of Fallujah and the American military are on an equal moral plane.

my bad

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 01:52 PM
Well said Hondo, I agree completely. A total waste. As the London newspaper headline read, how can so many be so dumb?
Gayle in Md.

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 01:52 PM
It's nice to see you come around.

~DC

Wally_in_Cincy
11-17-2004, 01:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> It's nice to see you come around.

~DC
<hr /></blockquote>

in your dreams

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 02:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
David, I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. First you try to drag Hiroshima into the debate........ <hr /></blockquote>

Who said anything about Hiroshima? I was referring to the accumulated terrorist acts carried out by American government over the years. Nicuragua, Venezuela, Chile, Bosnia....etc. No one wants to mention that in their self righteous hunt for moral superiority.

Peace
~DC

Gayle in MD
11-17-2004, 02:01 PM
Hi there and thank you for your, as usual, very informative post. I would like to read the Geneva Convention, I have only general understanding of it, and have never actually read it in it's entirety.

Actually, my remark about "Secret Rules of War" and came out of something I read about the investigation into what happened in the prison. I don't think we have it all yet, but probably will be hearing more in days to come.
have nice day,
Gayle in Md.
I always enjoy your posts, BTW.
Gayle In Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-17-2004, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Americans have blown up hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, so don't try to claim some "moral high ground" on that one.

"Not bad guys?"

Peace
~DC <hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure the soldiers you claim to care so much about will be glad to know they do not occupy a higher moral ground than a bunch of Arab terrorists and Saddam loyalists.

Good grief

*rolls eyes*

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 02:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> It's nice to see you come around.

~DC
<hr /></blockquote>

in your dreams <hr /></blockquote>

Ahhwww, cummon, admit your wrong, I'll buy ya a beer, and we can shoot a few racks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~DC

SecaucusFats
11-17-2004, 02:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thank God you're not a General!
Gayle In Md. No child should ever be murdered, Excuse you? There is no excuse for one who could think as you. <hr /></blockquote>

Excuse, excuse? I don't need no steeenking excuse from a daft old lefty twit like you. I never advocated killing children. IMO, you need to take a reading comprehension course so that maybe you can understand sarcasm.

Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&amp;m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&amp;s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain &lt;tired of continual sarcasms&gt;
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm &lt;this is no time to indulge in sarcasm&gt;

SF

crawdaddio
11-17-2004, 02:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Americans have blown up hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, so don't try to claim some "moral high ground" on that one.

"Not bad guys?"

Peace
~DC <hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure the soldiers you claim to care so much about will be glad to know they do not occupy a higher moral ground than a bunch of Arab terrorists and Saddam loyalists.

Good grief

*rolls eyes* <hr /></blockquote>

This a perfect example of a very poor self righteous attitude toward the rest of the people of the world that is held by many, many americans. You cannot judge an entire people by the actions of a few. What is that?......Oh yeah, racism.
You are entitled to be a self righteous racist if you want to. But don't tell me "your religeous, or moral values" are better or "right" as compared to theirs, because you're just wrong.

And no, I don't think our Christian boys over there do "occupy a higher moral ground" than their combatants. To do so would be most un-christian.

Peace
~DC *doesn't care if you roll your eyes*

highsea
11-17-2004, 03:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...I would like to read the Geneva Convention, I have only general understanding of it, and have never actually read it in it's entirety.<hr /></blockquote>It's pretty dry reading, Gayle. In the terms of the Conventions, the US is a "High Contracting Party". The insurgents in Iraq are not. This does not take away their rights per se, but they are required to follow the "rules and customs of war" if the conventions are to be applied to them. From the First Convention, Chapter 1, General Provisions: [ QUOTE ]
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.<hr /></blockquote> The insurgents do not accept and apply the provisions of the conventions. They target civilians, fight from mosques, hospitals, schools, etc.

From Chapter 2, Article 13 (partial):[ QUOTE ]
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.<hr /></blockquote>Again, they do not meet the minimum standards for the conventions to apply. This does not mean that the US doesn't still follow the conventions, we do. Like I mentioned previously, these treaties set rules of conduct after the battle, they are not rules of engagement.

You can read the full texts of the conventions here:
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/texts.html#MoreTreaties

eg8r
11-17-2004, 03:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot judge an entire people by the actions of a few. What is that?......Oh yeah, racism.
<hr /></blockquote> Racism? Once again, another liberals misuse of the word racism. I think the word you are looking for is Stereotyping. The people's race has nothing to do with this and should be left out of the discussion.

eg8r

Ross
11-17-2004, 03:48 PM
As Highsea said there are several Geneva Conventions. They have also been modified by additional protocols and they are written in a way that even a neutral lawyer might have difficulty sorting it all out.

I guess the main one is the 1949 Geneva Convention III. Following are Articles 1, 2, and 3 from that document. From reading it I cannot tell who is covered and who isn't. Most of this Convention is related to prisoners of war, but Article 3 applies to combatants. The US soldier may have violated what is mentioned in the first sentence in subpart 1 of that article. The insurgents have certainly violated rules a, b, c, and d of Article 3 as well.

1949 Geneva Convention III:

PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

ARTICLE 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

ARTICLE 3
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.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-18-2004, 06:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> And no, I don't think our Christian boys over there do "occupy a higher moral ground" than their combatants. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm going to save this. I need to look at it a few times to make sure I am not dreaming.

Wally &lt;~~ pinches self

crawdaddio
11-18-2004, 09:30 AM
Allow me to venture a guess at your stance here Wally:
"My god can kick your god's ass."

Peace
~DC~~~*shaking head in amazement*

Gayle in MD
11-18-2004, 10:20 AM
Thank you Ross, interesing post.

Gayle in Md.

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 03:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> The use of mosques, schools, and civilians as shields is directly contrary to the conventions. The conventions only apply to signatory States. The recognized (by the UN) government of Iraq is the IIG, with Allawi at the head as IPM.

The insurgents and terrorists in Iraq do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They are not a uniformed armed force of a signatory state. Secondly, if they were, they have abrogated the conventions by fighting from mosques, schools, hospitals, siezing and executing civilian hostages, false surrender for purposes of ambush, etc.

<hr /></blockquote>

Just a question Highsea. Jules Lobel is a law professor in PA.

[ QUOTE ]
Jules Lobel, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He teaches at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. He is the author of the new book Success Without Victory.

AMY GOODMAN: Great to have you us with, Jules. Can you talk about this videotape that is now being seen around the world?

JULES LOBEL: Yes. If it is correct what it apparently shows, which is that a soldier was executing a prisoner, then it's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. But I think that the whole problem of the U.S. Government here in the war crimes area is that they're focusing on the individual. You know, there was another incident which was recorded also by a United Kingdom video crew on Channel 4 in Britain, in which another soldier was doing apparently the same thing. And if you look at Sites' website, he --

AMY GOODMAN: This is Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman --

JULES LOBEL: Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman, what he does is he shows that -- he puts up quotes from different Marines. He says the Marines say they were operating under rules of engagement, which said this was a weapons-free zone. And what they meant by weapons-free was that they could shoot at anything. They didn't have to determine whether it was hostile. Anything that they saw was deemed to be hostile in Fallujah. It reminds you of the free-fire zones in Vietnam. Under the Geneva Conventions, commanders have a responsibility to ensure that civilians are not indiscriminately harmed and that prisoners are not executed. The real problem here is coming from the top, not from the individual soldiers. I think the investigation should really be on what the rules of engagement were that these Marines were operating under, and whether they were given instructions not to kill prisoners, not to discriminate between insurgents and civilians, and my hunch is that they weren't.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, is there a distinction between an innocent civilian who's killed and a resistance fighter who was wounded, who is unarmed? Kevin Sites, the NBC journalist said that he didn't pose a threat, and he was unarmed.

JULES LOBEL: <font color="blue"> Yeah. There's a distinction, but both of them are protected. An unarmed fighter, who is wounded, is considered to be out of combat and therefore treated as if they were a civilian. Therefore, to kill a combatant who's wounded and unarmed and is not taking part in the fight, is similar, is identical to killing a civilian, and both of them are protected under the Geneva Conventions. </font color>

AMY GOODMAN: The Channel 4 videotape, which I haven't seen, is this also a case in Fallujah?

JULES LOBEL: It's a case in Fallujah. It's almost the same thing. I don't think in a mosque, but almost the same thing. The only thing they didn't capture was the actual killing of the person. You saw a marine shooting at a -- at an unarmed, wounded insurgent, and you don't see what happened, but the marine says, he's done for.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what does it mean to say that it violates international law? I mean, are these the laws that the U.S. Marines abide by, have to answer to?

JULES LOBEL: Well, for 50 years, the United States has ratified the Geneva Conventions and believed that the Geneva Conventions protect both our soldiers, and are the rules of combat which our soldiers should fight by. <font color="blue"> In this conflict, as we saw from the top, there's this whole effort by Gonzales and other people to say, well, the Geneva convention's provisions are now quaint. That was Gonzales's word in his memo. And not to abide by them.</font color> And it's very disturbing, and you know, amnesty international has called for an investigation of this. Louise Arbor, top U.N. Official, has called for an investigation. I really think that the investigation should start from the top. As to how these soldiers are being trained and told to fight in this conflict. But the Geneva Conventions was passed after World War II, and it was designed to overcome the terrible abuses that we saw that occurred in World War II. If we're going to go back to the era, the world is in for a very sorry state. <hr /></blockquote>

Now, I am inclined to take his position over yours, if not because of my own opinion, then because he is a lawyer. Does the Geneva convention apply in today's world or not? I guess that is the most pertinent question here. Any thoughts?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1524257

Peace
~DC

eg8r
11-19-2004, 09:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. There's a distinction, but both of them are protected. An unarmed fighter, who is wounded, is considered to be out of combat and therefore treated as if they were a civilian. Therefore, to kill a combatant who's wounded and unarmed and is not taking part in the fight, is similar, is identical to killing a civilian, and both of them are protected under the Geneva Conventions.
<hr /></blockquote> We don't know if the soldier was positive the terrorist was unarmed (or not) and he really had no reason to believe he was. In the middle of war, you don't take the terrorists "word".

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-20-2004, 07:48 AM
Why are we obligated to observe these rules when the other side clearly is not?

If this guy had taken off his shirt to show he was not boobytrapped and raised his hands he probably would not have been shot. Instead he played possum. The Marines were not going to take any chances.

crawdaddio
11-20-2004, 12:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Why are we obligated to observe these rules when the other side clearly is not?
<font color="blue">I think, mainly, because we are supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law. If our gov. wants to keep up the pretense that WE are not terrorists, and are JUST in our cause here, then we need to hold ourselves up to international law, even when the bad guys don't. </font color>
If this guy had taken off his shirt to show he was not boobytrapped and raised his hands he probably would not have been shot. Instead he played possum. The Marines were not going to take any chances. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I have no idea what actually happened, and I place no blame on the marine here. However, from the video that I saw, the man appeared to be seriously injured. I think the guilt(if any) lies in the commanders setting the ROE and the "weapons free zones" without regard for int. law and civilians lives.

Peace
~DC </font color>