Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 238

Thread: From WikiLeaks, Collateral Murder

  1. #16
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Mar 10
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What sanctions were placed on Moscow after the devastation in Grozny?
    Alright, fair point.. Cant really do much about the Ruskies.
    But if we can sanction Syria for assisinations and Iran for sponsoring terrorism and building nukes i dont see why the same standards shouldnt apply to Israel.

  2. #17
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    All right then, how about China in Tibet and Xinjiang?

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    Alright, fair point.. Cant really do much about the Ruskies.
    But if we can sanction Syria for assisinations and Iran for sponsoring terrorism and building nukes i dont see why the same standards shouldnt apply to Israel.
    Ah, so you've changed the topic of the conversation completely. There goes a completely perfect post to waste... Oh well, here goes:

    To start off with, Israel is a pro-western democracy, and the USA likes those more than they like dictatorships.

    Second of all, Israel has been a proxy of the US in the Middle East, and for a time the only US proxy in the Middle East, and like I said before, it's fairly hard to impose sanctions if you don't have the US on your side, especially since as a general rule the UK falls in line with the USA. There's 40% of the permanent members of the UNSC right there, the ones with veto powers.

    Third of all, there's the Arab League boycott of Israel. Moreover, while they may not be official or UN sanctioned, Israel is almost always the victim of some sort of boycott or another, be it an embargo against Israeli education and professors, against Israeli products (Usually in France), or just random Antisemitism all over Europe: Grave site desecration, Neo-Nazi graffiti, it's there. There was even an attempt to boycott Israeli films at a San Diego film Festival
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  4. #19
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    slip up 'occasionally'?!!

    You make it sound like its accidental! If it were any other country theyd be under sanctions and rightly so.
    Tell me, did the US soldiers in the video purposely target these people, knowing full well they (allegedly) were unarmed civilians? Do you have any proof that the US soldiers positively identified they were civilians, conveyed that information, and then opened fire anyways?

    Have you ever been in a car "accident" before? Or did you purposely hit the other guy knowing full well that you could have avoided the collision?

    Have you ever had to make a split second decision with your own life before?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #20
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    I think our friend Marko is very good at making tall claims but is very poor at backing them up with rational, facts or support for his opinions.

    Maybe he should read the Survival Guide again...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  6. #21
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    [QUOTE=bigross86;728166]Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention:[/quote to add the rest of it, like the part where civilians are not suposed to be fired on. The guy on the ground was down and out, no one gettign out of the van was armed, its not unreasonable to suspect that after a mass causlty event neighbors would rush out to tend the wounded.

    Neither the van nor the people in the van carried any distinguishing markings or internationally recognized markings designating them as combat medics or medical personnel and therefore non combatants. They were aiding people who were injured in an attack on armed insurgents (the RPG is plainly noticeable). As far as I read it, the helicopter crew were completely within the letter of the law to shoot at the van.
    The lack of distinquishing marks should have marked them as civilians. With no visible weapons the presumption should ahve been to withhold fire.

    Besides, with all due respect to the moral high ground, and this is the same problem that Israel has, if the other side isn't gonna play fair, there's no reason for you to play fair either. Choosing to play fair is commendable, but if you slip occasionally, well, them's the breaks. Don't forget, we can also play unfair, and then you're in for a world of hurt.
    Playing by the rules lets us call them terrorist. As for fair, your kidding right? Our troops go into battle in body armor, linked to massive firepower only a radio call away. Medevac flights are on stand by, they are covered by the guns and armor of tanks. The sheer destruction of an aircraft bomb rivals anythign they can cook up in a garage. There is nothing "fair" about the way we fight.

    IED's and EFP are illegal, and the lack of a uniform or visible standard is illegal, but give the other side a bit of credit. They are out gunned, outnumbered and overmatched, nothing they can do is "unfair".

    However, we we shoot vans tryign to collect the wounded, that is unfair. Unless your willign to simply say every Iraqi is an insurgent we have to draw the line.Persoanlly, I am fully capable of yanking all the laws of war and going in to curb stomp the entire population. It works and saves lives in the longrun. But if the US/west doesn;t want the villian hat then its up to us not them to play by the ruls.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    I don't mean fair as in both sides have parity in weaponry. That's just stupid, trying to fight without some sort of advantage in some category. Numbers, weaponry, maneuvering room, something. I mean fair as in playing by the rules. And due to that, I think that if the soldiers there slip up, unfortunate as it is, that's what war is all about.

    If the Iraqi's really want the Americans to leave, they should stop fighting. Once the Americans leave they can go back to whatever they like.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  8. #23

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,819

    I.d.

    Last I saw those pilots I.D.ed both RPGs and AKs among those un-uniformed combatants.

    Did the van have a Red Cross on it? Who knows who was inside?

    Kids? What is this? A playground? Either human shields or irresponsible parents. Not our fault.

    Much ado about nothing. It's war. So it goes. The rest is the usual tiresome B.S. by those pre-disposed to hate America at every turn.

    Fcuk you.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  9. #24
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Mar 06
    Posts
    93
    Rules of Engagement

    Appallingly, a U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad killed the wrong people. But was it illegal?


    By Katie Paul | Newsweek Web Exclusive
    Apr 6, 2010


    Yesterday, in a short piece on the WikiLeaks footage of an attack in Baghdad in 2007, I raised questions about the legality of the incident and the legitimacy of presenting it as an "indiscriminate" assault. The footage is horrific; the attack killed 12 people and injured two children, none of whom appear to have been engaged in combat. Two of the men killed were Iraqi civilians employed by Reuters. All the while, the voices of the U.S. military personnel can be heard radioing back and forth about the shooting, demonstrating a cavalier disdain for the lives they are ending. At one point, they chuckle about a tank rolling over a dead body.
    SUBSCRIBE

    It's stomach-churning, but is it a crime, as WikiLeaks contends? As I pointed out, the pilot was very clearly following a military protocol, which explains, for example, why he was looking for a weapon before firing upon a wounded man (he never found one, but got permission to fire after a van showed up to take the man away). Still, that doesn't necessarily mean he was following the protocol correctly, nor that the protocol lives up to international laws of war. In addition, WikiLeaks presented the video without a great deal of context, so we're equally hindered by what we don't know: who the other men are, whether any of them in fact had weapons, and whether there was good reason to believe they had been engaged in hostile activities before the film started rolling.

    Late last night, The New Yorker posted a legal analysisthat provides some preliminary answers. Even without context, they say, the video contains enough material to raise questions about the legality of the attacks, citing four issues: proportionality, positive identification of the combatants, the role of the commander, and the treatment of injured combatants. The attack may not have been as "indiscriminate" as WikiLeaks presented it to be, but it appears there still may be a legal case to be made regarding the military's conduct.
    The WikiLeaks Attack: Was It Illegal? - Newsweek.com

  10. #25
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote Originally Posted by S-2 View Post
    Last I saw those pilots I.D.ed both RPGs and AKs among those un-uniformed combatants.
    No complaints for that attack

    Did the van have a Red Cross on it? Who knows who was inside?

    Kids? What is this? A playground? Either human shields or irresponsible parents. Not our fault.
    clearly unarmed civilians rendering aid to a man who is obviously out of the fight and unarmed. No one in that group displayed any hostile intent. They gave no signs they were anything other than what they were, civilians tryign to help an injured man.

    Much ado about nothing. It's war. So it goes. The rest is the usual tiresome B.S. by those pre-disposed to hate America at every turn.
    That attitude invites reprisals.

    Fcuk you.
    Really?

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    clearly unarmed civilians rendering aid to a man who is obviously out of the fight and unarmed. No one in that group displayed any hostile intent. They gave no signs they were anything other than what they were, civilians tryign to help an injured man.
    In a hostile environment where there just was a shooting, you can do one of two things:

    You can sit tight and wait for the proper authorities to show up. The upside is that you're not putting yourself at risk, the downside is that the people who were attacked may die.

    You can go to the scene and try and administer aid. The upside is that if you're quick enough and good enough, you may be able to save the wounded. The downside is that you're putting yourself at risk and may die yourself, especially if you don't have any proper markings which designate you as a non-combatant, A maiore ad minus in an environment where one side has no uniform and carries out attacks in civilian clothing

    The men in the van chose for option 2, knowing full well all the risks involved. Bringing kids with them was just stupid.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  12. #27

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,819

    Zraver Reply

    "clearly unarmed civilians rendering aid to a man who is obviously out of the fight and unarmed. No one in that group displayed any hostile intent."

    Assisting other un-uniformed combatants? Van marked? No sympathy here. Stay away from a battlezone or enter at your own risk. Price paid.

    "That attitude invites reprisals."

    Oh? And what attitude wouldn't?

    "Really?"

    Really. Don't ask me to repeat myself. I'm certain of what I've seen and find no cause for this mock angst. Too fcukin' bad that they dragged kids into a battlezone replete with un-uniformed combatants. Too fcukin' bad that REUTERS embedded with the irhabis. Too fcukin' bad that the van was unmarked.

    We've too many instances today in Afghanistan of irhabis taking pot-shots at our guys and putting down their weapons before walking right in front of our gunsights...usually with women and children included if they can be corraled.

    All hail the ROIs.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  13. #28
    Contributor Hitman817's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 08
    Posts
    339
    Disgusting behaviour on part of the US-Soldiers, not only did they kill those civilians without any reason -since they didn't shoot at the US-soldiers- they also seem to have enjoyed the act of killing itself.

  14. #29
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Ask anyone who has ever been under fire, has killed someone or seen someone killed. Pretty much any combat soldier. Humor is one of the brain's mechanisms of retaining your sanity.

    Do you think we didn't used to make jokes about a missile hitting our tank and all of us frying? We would call ourselves "Fries". Loaders had a running joke about the cannon recoil hitting them and flattening them against the inside wall of the tank, turning them into "posters". Paratroopers used to call themselves "pancakes" as a term of endearment.

    If we're that cavalier about our own deaths, do you really think we give a flying rat's ass about someone who's trying to kill us?

    Edit: And yeah, when I finally got the chance to fire my main gun in anger against two Hezbollah asswipes, you can bet your ass that I was glad for the opportunity. The opportunity to do what my I had been trained to do, to serve my country, and to bring a swift and vengeful death to those who were shooting at my countrymen, innocent civilians way the fcuk behind any conceivable enemy lines. Yeah, I was glad, and I'd do it again in a split second.
    Last edited by bigross86; 06 Apr 10, at 22:04.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  15. #30
    Contributor Hitman817's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 08
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    If we're that cavalier about our own deaths, do you really think we give a flying rat's ass about someone who's trying to kill us?
    Am I missing something, did those civilians try to kill the US-Soldiers?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Murder Heating Up McCain's Campaign
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Apr 10,, 13:09
  2. Can a dog mauling be murder?
    By THL in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19 Apr 07,, 21:27
  3. What makes a Muslim radical?
    By astralis in forum International Economy
    Replies: 263
    Last Post: 22 Dec 06,, 17:38
  4. 7 Marines, 1 sailor charged with murder
    By leib10 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22 Jun 06,, 00:19

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •