U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines :

-:WARNING:-

This video should only be viewed by a mature audience :
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Proud Syrian

This issue is currently under discussion in the topic, "Having fun in Irag (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31313)" (sic). You'll find a good deal of outrage available there.

I did not check this thread, but thanks for attracting my attention to it.

It is really outrageous, if this viedo were to be broadcast on Al jazeera, it will make an UPROAR in the arab and the muslim world.

:mad:

This one seems a bit creepy, but it's hard to tell from this brief clip what happened. However, from the military that firebombed Dresden and used cluster munitions on schools in the Balkans, such an action would be no surprise.

Execute? What are you talking about. That looked like a firefight. Poor bastard probably got what he deserved. War ain't pretty.

spidergoat:

It would do you well to read the other thread about this issue since there is some information about the Geneva Convention. Hate to break it to you, but a wounded person is to be treated humanely. That wasn't humane, and I would love to see that SOB soldier get his. Maybe he will...murdered in his own home by a criminal, since his act was criminal. That would be justice.

Originally posted by spidergoat
Execute? What are you talking about. That looked like a firefight. Poor bastard probably got what he deserved. War ain't pretty.

You are just DISGUSTING creature.

it is good to hear that the boys are having an 'awesome' time in Iraq.

If it were a fire fight...where is the wounded man's gun? Where are his compardres? As Norad has already said that was a grievous violation of the Geneva convention. But NOOO we have to give a shit when they show some fat chick captured in Iraq, and scream bloody murder don't we. Your nothing but a moronic, simplistic indivdual with obvious little to no respect for human life.

Thanks, ProudSyrian, for bringing this to our attention.

If in a video-clip we should see men raping a woman do you suppose anyone would suggest that we ought to get the whole story before we point an accusing finger? In this clip we see Americans huddled behind a masonry wall methodically "finish-off" a severely wounded man. I saw all I needed to see. It was simply murder, and those Americans that killed him are murderers.

Another aspect to consider is that those cheering Americans have invaded and occupied that dead Iraqi man's country. The American military considers the Iraqi resistance as terrorists. The direct implication is that if America were invaded and occupied, then our acts of resistance would likewise be acts of terrorism. Think of the brave Norwegians who died in resistance against the Quisling government. I’m thinking of men such as saboteur, Jan Baalsrud; hunted across his own country by the German invaders and Norwegian Quisling sympathizers alike, he suffered horribly (read, for example: We Die Alone: A World War Two Epic of Escape and Endurance).

I only hope that if I were Iraqi then I would have had the balls to resist Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (as thousands did), as I hope that I would now have the balls to ambush American soldiers. To stand against aggression, no matter what guise it assumes, requires courage and honor. That said, I don't much feel like cheering, having watched the video-clip of that Iraqi being killed. I can only hope he wasn’t another Jan Baalsrud, but an apparatchik of Saddam's killing machine. But I've no way of knowing that. Neither did those cheering American soldiers who murdered him.

Michael

RE: orthogonal

Thank you for your fair comments, it is about HUMAN compassion and mercy, it is about the democrasy and the human rights those barbaric americans are talking about.

As an arab and muslim, I feel OUTRAGED, I feel very angry seeing one of my brothers being murdered like that at the hands of those american terrorists.

:mad:

As an arab and muslim, I feel OUTRAGED, I feel very angry seeing one of my brothers being murdered like that at the hands of those american terrorists.

How about the muslim arab-american soldiers being killed by Saddam's hired goons? Or are only victims your brother?

gosh...now you went just a little but too far...


your brother killed...


some of your brother Iraqis had no problems killing Iranian brothers

or kuwait brothers...

or iraqi brothers.

or american brothers...


Arabs are not each other brothers. They are a diverse group of people with each their own wishes, which not always go along with those of others. And yes they kill each other, and your iraqi brother will kill you if that suits his needs. And you will probably kill him if properly motivated.

edit: na ja...I have a similar post as spidergoat I see.

Originally posted by orthogonal

If in a video-clip we should see men raping a woman do you suppose anyone would suggest that we ought to get the whole story before we point an accusing finger?

Your analogy is flawed. If we saw a clip of a man having sex with a woman, and assumed it was rape, that would be like making assumptions about this video clip.

We don't know what this dude was doing besides being wounded. If you're trying to prove that coalition armies don't always act according to the geneva convention, try doing some research on US/UK use of cluster munitions.

Hello Proud_Syrian,

I share you outrage. I'm an American but I consider that murdered Iraqi to be my brother as well.

Think how much worse it is for me! Not only do I share your outrage, but I'm also burdened with an overwhelming sense of shame over what is being done by my government.

Of course a country is neither morally good nor bad; it's the people of the country that are morally culpable for their actions. Millions of Americans consider Bush to be a moral abomination. Despite all the Voice of America propaganda you might hear, please don't think that all Americans march in lock-step with this monster! Nearly everyone that I know here shares my disgust with this current administration. Bush is a nightmare from which I hope we will awaken in November of 2004.

Best Wishes,
Michael

Originally posted by orthogonal

I share you outrage. I'm an American but I consider that murdered Iraqi to be my brother as well.
Think how much worse it is for me! Not only do I share your outrage, but I'm also burdened with an overwhelming sense of shame over what is being done by my government.

I understand your point, but you know, I consider myself a moderate man, a man who believs in dialouge and understanding between the muslim world and America, but these acts of murder dont help at all.

Of course a country is neither morally good nor bad; it's the people of the country that are morally culpable for their actions. Millions of Americans consider Bush to be a moral abomination. Despite all the Voice of America propaganda you might hear, please don't think that all Americans march in lock-step with this monster! Nearly everyone that I know here shares my disgust with this current administration. Bush is a nightmare from which I hope we will awaken in November of 2004.

Best Wishes,
Michael

Thank you so much, I am very proud of you, and I know generalization is wrong, I really hope you will get rid of this man in the white house soon, he is leading you toward certain disaster.

Originally posted by spidergoat
How about the muslim arab-american soldiers being killed by Saddam's hired goons? Or are only victims your brother?

I have never heard of arab american soldiers being killed, the most famous ARAB AMERICAN solider is GENERAL JOHN ABI ZAID, the commander of the central command in the U.S. Army and he is still alive !

anyway, you proved you are DISGUSTING CREATURE, so BUG OFF, I have no time for criminals like you.

Hello Craig,

I wasn't speaking of a video in which people were having sex, I suggested a video where men were engaged in raping a woman. If you can't easily see a distinction between the two, then I can understand how my analogy won't work for you.

BTW, I had a friend that once came upon a woman who had just been raped. Someone had dragged her behind the bushes on a quiet residential street. My buddy said it was the most awful thing he'd ever seen; clumps of bloody hair torn-out by the roots laying about, the woman sobbing uncontrollably, shivering, barely able to speak... Even though he only arrived in the aftermath, my friend had no problem making a distinction.

Michael

anyway, you proved you are DISGUSTING CREATURE, so BUG OFF

logical fallacy- Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) Whether I am disgusting or not is irrelevant.
I was trying to make a point, not that muslim arab-americans HAVE been killed, but that there are muslim arab-american soldiers fighting the iraqis, so your outrage for your so-called muslim brothers might be misplaced. You don't know really who is muslim and who is not.

A man cheering at another man's death is...sick, no matter what the cirumstances.

Originally posted by 10-10-220
A man cheering at another man's death is...sick, no matter what the cirumstances.

EXACTLY and this is what Spidergoat is all about, sick.

Originally posted by William Tecumseh Sherman
War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.


You didn't have that in mind while watching the WTC attack or the barracks bombing in Beirut or the POWs during the first gulf war or even when reading the history surrounding Pearl Harbour, did you? No, you were screaming that it was unfair and the height of infamy and an example of why you had to kill the other guy.

Well, guess what. The rest of the world decided that being cruel past necessity in war is a bad thing, came up with a set of rules for war and everyone signed up. Including the US. Those rules (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) are even supposedly enshrined in the US Unified Military Code of Justice. And these marines broke those rules live on CNN. And others have broken them and confessed to doing so on the front page of the Washington Post.

Just because your government decides it can't spin a trial so it doesn't reflect badly on them does not change the fact that these men are now war criminals, guilty of war crimes. Just the same as those Iraqis who beat US POWs or interrogated them on live TV during the invasion.

In fact, the US is now having a war crimes tribunal for those iraqis in Iraq. So not including the US troops guilty of war crimes not only shows how little your government should be trusted, but how much stock anyone should put in these tribunals.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
You didn't have that in mind while watching the WTC attack or the barracks bombing in Beirut or the POWs during the first gulf war or even when reading the history surrounding Pearl Harbour, did you? No, you were screaming that it was unfair and the height of infamy and an example of why you had to kill the other guy. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you knew me then.

A man cheering at another man's death is...sick, no matter what the cirumstances.

Certainly, it is distasteful, and I have complained on this forum when people have cheered americans getting killed, that is equally bad, but does it automatically make the incident wrong? No.

War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

Very true.

You didn't have that in mind while watching the WTC attack or the barracks bombing in Beirut or the POWs during the first gulf war or even when reading the history surrounding Pearl Harbour, did you? No, you were screaming that it was unfair and the height of infamy and an example of why you had to kill the other guy.

Faulty reasoning, because war is cruel, cruelty should be accepted? No, just that the situation should be resolved quickly.

Originally posted by spidergoat
Very true.
No, very untrue. And over a hundred years of negotiations have taken place because it's very untrue, and the end result was the Hague and Geneva Conventions, amongst other treaties that the US signed because in 1947, everyone knew what war really was - today it seems to be seen as a fun video game that other kids get to play...

Faulty reasoning, because war is cruel, cruelty should be accepted? No, just that the situation should be resolved quickly.
No, the reasoning is that because humans can go completely off the deep end, we put rules in place to try to limit the cruelty of war and to protect those who cannot defend themselves during war. And the US signed them. And now breaks them on a regular, systemic, offically-ordered basis.

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/hh.gif

yep stokes , it was funny , but .....

there shouldn´t be WAR on the helmet , there should be USA

Does anyone bother to read the included article?

CNN Presents: Fit to Kill (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm)

Machine guns fire and shell explode, so many die. Numbers for the world to see.

But what we don't see, what we don't talk about honestly when it comes to war, is the actual act of killing. That is taboo -- a taboo that we break now.

Welcome to CNN PRESENTS. I'm Aaron Brown.

No one really knows how many thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war to topple Saddam Hussein. But if history is a guide, some of those soldiers and marines who did the killing will come home to face one more battle -- a battle with their past, their memories. How do they cope with the ghosts of war?

The answers can only come from the soldiers who know first hand -- those "Fit to Kill." Their stories, however, are at times disturbing. They are graphic. And so, consider that a warning, as CNN's Candy Crowley takes us now from the dark corners of the battlefield to the long road home...


Read the rest.

You take a ~10 second video clip, without any combat experience, and judge the actions of others. That is a luxury the warriors in the field don't have.

There's a difference between what happened in the clip and what happened on 9/11. On 9/11, Al Qaida successfully completed a planned attack. On the video, the soldiers in question were engaged in combat with an armed enemy.

Gotta go. Just my $.02

Dyslexiawalt, had to use a prop again! :rolleyes:

Just wondering shouldn't that fucker be tried by at least a US military tribunal? That is why I find the US assertion that they will "deal" with the deviant soldiers. This just lends credence to the ineffectiveness of subjectivism on the side of the US. What is needed is a effective ICC to deal with the issue. If America had nothing to hide...why not join?

Why, then, were we shocked at the horrors of 9/11?
War is cruelty

Judging by the clip, I agree that the incident should be investigated.

Why, then, were we shocked at the horrors of 9/11?

Because that was Osama's intention. That is the whole meaning of terrorism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism) : "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Are you suggesting the soldiers planned this attack in advance, and killed the Iraqi with the intent to terrorize the Iraqi population? I can guarantee you his CO didn't tell him "go out, find some Iraqi's shooting at you, disable one of them, then take him out when he's wounded."

See the difference?

Just wondering shouldn't that fucker be tried by at least a US military tribunal? That is why I find the US assertion that they will "deal" with the deviant soldiers. This just lends credence to the ineffectiveness of subjectivism on the side of the US.

Do you know what happened to the soldier? How are you so sure he wasn't investigated?

If it were a fire fight...where is the wounded man's gun? Where are his compardres?

Does anyone read the articles?

CNN Presents: Fit to Kill (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5369.htm):

"U.S. Marines, Sergeant Riddle's team, searching an industrial area near Baghdad. Along the road they encounter Iraqis who point their AK-47s at the Marines.

RIDDLE: One of my guys got up on his hood and took the first guy out, shot him right in the heart. And he dropped instantly.

CROWLEY: Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer."

bright move, pointing AKs at marines with live ammo.

looks like suicide to me.

I just meant to comment that it doesn't seem like those who would be "outraged" at the content of that tape are uhm.. well, very bright.

It was quite obvious that you don't get the whole picture.

It's interesting how if you hate bush or the war, you're prone to look right past the horrifically biased editing.

But nevertheless what was commited was a human rights abuse. The man posed no threat to US forces, those men were laughing and cheering...oh yes what a war zone. They obviously killed that man for fun, not because of some real need. Slobodan do I hear you?

What makes you think you can handle it differently if you were that marine? Have any of you actually fought in any battle and seen blood from both friend and foe? If yes, then your comment on this video will be more realistic than mine.

It was not the intention of the idiot soldier to kill that man? Difference?

Are you suggesting the soldiers planned this attack in advance, and killed the Iraqi with the intent to terrorize the Iraqi population?

Planning has little to do with it, the fact remains that the act was committed. The Iraqi population was indeed terrorized by US bombs from March 19- April 15 (I think). Using your criteria the war against Iraq was a clear and tacit terrorist action.

Enjoy (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/libir.jpg)

Do you know what happened to the soldier? How are you so sure he wasn't investigated?

Haven't heard differently, so through deduction... I can make that statement, unless you care to show otherwise.

Wha? Somebody beat me to telling that the movie was fake about the Marine talking.

Anyway nico, I agree with you there. If a man is down and presents no threat, there is no need to kill him and cheer. But the cheering is something both sides are guilty off.

However, although this movie was fake, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people like that, which I bet there are.

What makes you think you can handle it differently if you were that marine? Have any of you actually fought in any battle and seen blood from both friend and foe? If yes, then your comment on this video will be more realistic than mine.

Appeal to authority, and ignorance...next please.

Appeal to authority, and ignorance...next please. Authority of personal experience? And ignorance of video evidence that might be fake?

Authority: Only a soldier would know... appeal.

Ignorance: My supposed ignorance... appeal.

=

no argument. :D

All I have to say to Americans is think about Viet Nam. There is a certain village that the U.S. pillaged; killing 200 innocent women, children, and elderly. So brave, eh? Bunch of morons....I can't wait for tourist season! :) I hope you enjoy a kick in the groin and being pummeled with my fists afterwards! Too bad, you have to face me like a man instead of a weapon welding coward.

One illegal act and all are guilty, huh? That is just stupid. What happened is wrong, now go look at the totality of the atrocities committed by the north, the same in Iraq. Get over yourselves! Tell me this, who would you rather be captured by, the Americans or the Iraqi or in the Vietnam era the VC or northern regulars? No contest.

Originally posted by truth
One illegal act and all are guilty, huh? That is just stupid. What happened is wrong, now go look at the totality of the atrocities committed by the north, the same in Iraq. Get over yourselves! Tell me this, who would you rather be captured by, the Americans or the Iraqi or in the Vietnam era the VC or northern regulars? No contest.
You left out an important variable in that question truth - when I'm captured in this hypothetical situation, what colour's my skin?
If it's not the same as my captors, give me the Iraqis. If it is, the US.

who would you rather be captured by, the Americans or the Iraqi or in the Vietnam era the VC or northern regulars? No contest.

Ask someone at Guantanamo about that Truth, or the captured who are sent to Syria, or Saudi Arabia. To be captured by the US could very well mean being in Damascus the next day in a basement. Or in ever so fashionable orange jumpsuits in the hot carribeano sun. Couldn't I be captured by the Brits? ;)

You left out an important variable in that question truth - when I'm captured in this hypothetical situation, what colour's my skin?
If it's not the same as my captors, give me the Iraqis. If it is, the US.

Try and convince the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead buried in the Iraqi desert, or maybe even former members of the Iraqi national soccer team under Uday. I don't think color made the slightest difference.

Try and convince the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead buried in the Iraqi desert, or maybe even former members of the Iraqi national soccer team under Uday. I don't think color made the slightest difference

And none of this could have been possible without you America! *shedding a tear*

So how does one accumulate so much hatred for another country, or an alternative point of view in such a short amount of time nico?

And I really don't think skin color mattered to much to Saddam either. He was an equal opportunity killer.

So when does your plane leave for Karachi?

And none of this could have been possible without you America! *shedding a tear*

Yes, and Saddam was treated badly as a child so it was only natural that he grew up as a misunderstood dictator. And it's all America's fault. Never mind that his military was built with French jets, Russian tanks and missiles, bunkers built by the Germans, and an attempted nuclear program kickstarted by the French, let's just blame the Americans because it's a helluva lot more fun.

Never mind that his military was built with French jets, Russian tanks and missiles, bunkers built by the Germans, and an attempted nuclear program kickstarted by the French, let's just blame the Americans because it's a helluva lot more fun.

But Spyke baby, Saddam had CIA friends who helped him along the way 1958, 1968, 1979. It wasn't France, or Russia, or Germany. They just benefitted from your actions. ;) So again thank USA.


So how does one accumulate so much hatred for another country, or an alternative point of view in such a short amount of time nico?


Oh grand more idiocy, I don't hate the US. Where here have I shown that I "hate" the US you freaking cancerous reject.

It was not the intention of the idiot soldier to kill that man? Difference?

Did Osama actually kill people on 9/11, or did he plan the attack?

In this instance, the soldier acted on his own. My point was that his superior didn't tell him to go out and execute people. Therefore, it IS different than 9/11. On that same note, his shooting can't be proven to be an execution by the video clip provided. The soldier didn't have control over the attacker. For instance, if they shouted 'put your hands up' in the native language and the attacker complied but they still shot him, that would be criminal. On the other hand, if they shouted 'put your hands up' in the native language and he didn't comply, it is justified that they shot him.

We both have our different opinions about the incident, based on a small video clip which doesn't show the whole incident in its entirety. I can admit that, based on the clip, the soldier might have violated the Geneva Convention. I also think there might be a good reason for the soldier shooting the man. It is good to consider all possibilities before condemning someone. If the facts do reveal the soldier was violating the Geneva Convention, I feel he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

I know you have an opinion about the US being in Iraq, and that is why you have chosen your stance on this matter. The clip did sicken me when I watched it. It looks like the soldier did in fact violate the Geneva Convention. Not only that, but the US soldiers involved seemed to enjoy the killing. I don't think you'd ever act like that in the same situation, but unless you're in their shoes (thousands of miles away from home, in a country where a majority of people want you dead, hearing news of your comrades dying around you daily, tired from sleep deprivation because you're so damn scared you might die on your next patrol), you don't know what might happen.

But Spyke baby, Saddam had CIA friends who helped him along the way 1958, 1968, 1979. It wasn't France, or Russia, or Germany. They just benefitted from your actions. So again thank USA.

You're a bit off on your date. Saddam's first contact with the CIA was '59, when he was part of a CIA-sponsored hit team to take out the PM Qasim, who had himself preempted the Baathists when he overthrew the monarchy in a very bloody coup. Then he pulled out of the anti-Soviet pact, which made the US very nervous. But Saddam failed to kill Qasim, and was wounded himself and fled to Syria. And yes, the CIA encouraged, and maybe even helped fund the '68 coup of Kassim. However, it was more than likely happening anyway. The Baathists had finally overthrown Qasim in '63, only to lose power in '64 to a countercoup. so they only finished what they started when they recountered in '68 against the Soviet-leaning Kassim. As far as 1979, I don't think there is any real evidence of a CIA connection with his seizure of power. The US and CIA was pre-ocuppied with Khomeni's seizure of power in Iran, and from everything I've seen, the relationship between the CIA and Saddam didn't begin to intensify until 1980. And the Europeans were strong supporters of the Iraqis in the war with Iran, and were the ones who created his military. But again, I realize it's more fun to blame the Americans. It's in vogue after all.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
On that same note, his shooting can't be proven to be an execution by the video clip provided. The soldier didn't have control over the attacker. For instance, if they shouted 'put your hands up' in the native language and the attacker complied but they still shot him, that would be criminal. On the other hand, if they shouted 'put your hands up' in the native language and he didn't comply, it is justified that they shot him.


Yes, that makes so much sense. I wonder why they didn't put that in the Convention? Hmmm.

Oh, wait, I know...

Could it be something to do with the fact that that section of the convention applies to people who've just been shot and injured so badly they can't continue to fight???
It's hard to put your hands up with three high-velocity 5.56 rounds in your upper chest, and shouting "I surrender" is hard when your voicebox is missing...
:rolleyes:

The rules were written that way for a reason. And this soldier's actions break those rules. Hence, they're a war crime. End of story.

Sparks dealt with you.

spyke

At the previous meeting in 1979, before he [Saddam] took power from Bakr, he also went to Amman and possibly met some CIA agents.


Source: Frontline. *would they lie*

Surely the Europeans were scum, surely the Soviets were in for the hard currency, and the US was in Iraq for Iran. But notice that Saddam met or is suspected to have met with the CIA in 1979 prior to taking power, not the French secret service, not the KGB, not the North Korean Secret services. After the accession into power the intrigue had begun:

Saddam took several trips to Jordan and Saudi Arabia immediately before the war with Iran. The trips had two purposes: to get these countries' support -- and indirectly, to get the support of the West because these countries are solidly pro-West -- and also to back him in his plans to replace Bakr who was still then president and could do something to intercept Saddam's plans. That was really the period of developing the classic alliance of convenience between Saddam and the West. They were talking to each other through intermediaries, but major intermediaries. We're talking about kings and presidents.


So there is pre- US, post- the west. ;)

I'm not going to continue arguing the opinion that the soldier might be guilty. Based on the clip, it seems there is no justification for shooting the Iraqi.

Can we all agree to that much?

Can we also agree that the clip doesn't show the complete firefight?

According to the article, the soldiers killed someone else in this firefight.

So, why didn't InformationClearingHouse (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm) show the whole firefight? According to the website, InformationClearingHouse is:
One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.

Great. Correct the distorted perception by distorting the perception by only showing a small clip of a firefight, when the whole firefight was captured on video.

Why?
...to provide more depth and understanding to current issues.

What better way to provide more depth and understanding than to give ALL the details. Oh wait, he didn't O_o.

The rest of the firefight is irrelevant to the FACT that the man was on the ground, obviously in pain and injured. He was facing the OTHER WAY and the soldiers still kill the man. That is what is in contention here, no gives a shit about the firefight, the only thing that counts is that man was killed like you would kill a child. Callous and cowardly, not to mention that it was a human rights abuse.

There's no doubt that the U.S. had a hand in Saddam's success, as did France, Germany and Russia. The ties are there for all the world to see. What do you want to see come out of all of this?

Are you suggesting a massive trial of literally hundreds, maybe thousands of diplomats, special envoys, kings, princes, heads of state, what have you, just to prove that Hussein has been a pawn in the game for forty years? What would that accomplish? He's no more a pawn in the game than the Saud family has been since the days of Lawrence. Certainly it would hard to account for how many people have disappeared in the Saudi deserts at the hands of that family.

Are you hoping for some sort of blanket indictment of the West to come out of all of this? I think it's a generally accepted fact (as stated by Bush) that the West's overall attitude of neglect toward this region has led up to where we are today.

Seriously can you please make a point? And what is this effinity for me now? Should I get a restraining order? I mean just asking erronous questions that have no answer based on reality is not going to work. I know how the socratic method works. Nice try.

Originally posted by VAKEMP
So, why didn't InformationClearingHouse (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm) show the whole firefight? According to the website, InformationClearingHouse is:

The full clip is the property of CNN, not InformationClearingHouse. I'd welcome seeing the full clip too - but I can't order CNN to divulge it.

If you want a fully-documented war crime to consider though, look at the policy of kidnapping the families of wanted men in Iraq, which has been covered in, amongst other places, the front page of the Washington Post.
]

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
There's no doubt that the U.S. had a hand in Saddam's success, as did France, Germany and Russia. The ties are there for all the world to see. What do you want to see come out of all of this?

Trials for the senior officals involved.
A public apology from the present administration to the Iraqi people for their part in the overthrowing of the Iraqi government in the late 50s/early 60's, and their support of Saddam over the next three decades, and for the 10,000 innocent civilian deaths in the current invasion.
A policy decision preventing such action by the CIA in the future.
A committment to upholding international law, beginning with the full and complete support of the ICC, with the caveat that a US judge be selected to serve on the bench (which would have happened in the beginning had they supported it then).
Immediate withdrawl of US troops, delayed only long enough to allow UN troops to take their places.
The US to pay its UN dues on time.
And the same for each and every other government - UK, French, Russian, German, Italian, Irish, you name it.
The gradual withdrawl of US troops from bases overseas.
The transfer of the so-called "War on Terror" to a civilian law-enforcement agency.


That should do for starters.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19

Are you suggesting a massive trial of literally hundreds, maybe thousands of diplomats, special envoys, kings, princes, heads of state, what have you, just to prove that Hussein has been a pawn in the game for forty years? What would that accomplish? He's no more a pawn in the game than the Saud family has been since the days of Lawrence. Certainly it would hard to account for how many people have disappeared in the Saudi deserts at the hands of that family.

Sounds good to me.
What would it accomplish? Aside from justice, it would serve to show that people in high places can't get away with committing terrible crimes through other people with no risk to themselves.
Try the Saudis, and their foreign backers too, and all the other world leaders that do these sorts of things.

At the previous meeting in 1979, before he [Saddam] took power from Bakr, he also went to Amman and possibly met some CIA agents

Key word: possibly

Saddam took several trips to Jordan and Saudi Arabia immediately before the war with Iran. The trips had two purposes: to get these countries' support -- and indirectly, to get the support of the West because these countries are solidly pro-West --

He was seeking not just the US' support, but the West.

But assuming he actually did meet with CIA agents, so what does that mean? He was already a high ranking Baathist official in '79. He moved up when the ailing al-Bakr retired, and at that point began consolidating his power, becoming both chairman of the party and president. He didn't need the CIA for any of that. He was ruthless enough to get rid of his adversaries within the party on his own. It was only after the modern-day Nebuchadnezzar wannabe decided to invade Iran that the CIA again saw some value in him.

So you’re telling me that the CIA was innocent in Saddam accession into power? LOL! Now about your quote about the west, I said that was AFTER (post) accession into power. Pre was the US, not France, not Russia. This implies American support for Saddam getting into power. Do you think Saddam could have gone to war with Iran without tacit American support?

After the revolution Saddam was still vice president and in July of 1979, he makes a visit to Amman. And, at the same time, he meets with CIA agents there. What is he doing? And what are the consequences of this trip?

---
There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam discussed his plans to invade Iran with King Hussein. There is considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents that King Hussein prevailed on him to meet with. After that he flew to Saudi Arabia and there is a record of him telling King Fahd that he is going to invade Iran, and then after that, I think he had a stop-over in Kuwait and he did the same thing. What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.

So let's see in order for Saddam's purchases of European and Soviet arms, he needed a nice war. The war was propped up the US, the US is the cause, the Europeans and friends were only the reaction to it.

So you’re telling me that the CIA was innocent in Saddam accession into power? LOL!

Yep. Precisely. CIA had no effect on it happening. They may have approved of it, but they weren't involved. Saddam acted on his own ruthless quest for power.

Do you think Saddam could have gone to war with Iran without tacit American support?

Without US support? Sure. The only reason he wouldn't have attacked Iran is if maybe the US said they would retaliate on behalf of Iran, and we know that is not likely. Again, the US might have tacitly have approved of the invasion, but the CIA didn't talk him into it. Again, his Nebuchadnezzar mentality created the desire to conquer Persia.


1979 - The shah of Iran is overthrown in an Islamic revolution in February. The new Islamic Republic of Iran is headed by the Shi'ite cleric Ayat Allah Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, who Hussein had expelled from Iraq in 1977.

On 11 July the Revolutionary Command Council transfers the presidential powers from Bakr to Hussein. When Bakr officially resigns on 16 July, Hussein initiates steps to secure the presidency without having to face a vote within the party. Bakr is placed under house arrest. He dies in 1982 still in custody.

On 22 July he invites all the members of the Revolutionary Command Council and hundreds of other Baath Party leaders to a conference hall in Baghdad and announces that a coup plot had been uncovered involving members of the audience. Sixty-six "traitors" are identified on the spot, arrested and removed.

Among those arrested are five members of the Revolutionary Command Council. They and 17 others are publicly executed. The purge of the party, government and military will continue for the next few weeks.

With any opposition now silenced, Hussein is formally appointed as president. He also becomes secretary-general of the Baath Party Regional Command, chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

Saddam didn't need anyone's help.

So let's see in order for Saddam's purchases of European and Soviet arms, he needed a nice war. The war was propped up the US, the US is the cause, the Europeans and friends were only the reaction to it.

Possibly giving a nod and a wink is not nearly the same thing as propping up the war with Iran. But the Europeans didn't mind capitalizing on it. But like poor Saddam, they just got dragged along by the actions of the US, huh?

Originally posted by nico
The rest of the firefight is irrelevant to the FACT that the man was on the ground, obviously in pain and injured. He was facing the OTHER WAY and the soldiers still kill the man. That is what is in contention here, no gives a shit about the firefight, the only thing that counts is that man was killed like you would kill a child. Callous and cowardly, not to mention that it was a human rights abuse.

I have sent an e-mail to the owner of InformationClearingHouse, asking him if he knows the outcome of this event. If he tells me that to the best of his knowledge this incident hasn't been reported to HQMC or the Gov't, I will report it myself.

Whether this incident is a crime or not is not for me to say. But it is everyone's responsibility to report these types of incidents.

I suggest you do the same if you feel this was a crime.

By the way, Nico, I hope when you said:
...that man was killed like you would kill a child.
you weren't literally referring to me.

Feel guilty? Obviously not.

Yep. Precisely. CIA had no effect on it happening. They may have approved of it, but they weren't involved. Saddam acted on his own ruthless quest for power.

Approving it is enough to be an accomplice in the action. If the US knew that Saddam was going to overthrow which he did, and didn't do anything to counter that, in a court the US would be found guilty (of a lesser crime)

Without US support? Sure.

No.

Again, the US might have tacitly have approved of the invasion, but the CIA didn't talk him into it. Again, his Nebuchadnezzar mentality created the desire to conquer Persia.

Again the act of approval is enough to charge the US with tacit support of Saddam Hussein. The CIA surely didn't talk him out of it either so the US was a protagonist here as well again. I don't know about the last part because Nebu never conquered Iran.

Saddam didn't need anyone's help.

But he needed support to follow through with the plan.

Possibly giving a nod and a wink is not nearly the same thing as propping up the war with Iran. But the Europeans didn't mind capitalizing on it. But like poor Saddam, they just got dragged along by the actions of the US, huh?

I find it Ironic that you are bitching and complaining about me talking about the US when you’re doing the exact same thing with Europe. Not very objective are we. As I have repeatedly said Euro, USA, USSR, etc. = shit. Did the US mind capitalizing on the war with Iran? That is the greater question here; the Europeans were doing what a capitalist does, unless you are against capitalism? The US was playing politics, dirty politics. Europe didn't know what Saddam was going to do with those F-1's or other weapons, apart from fighting war. The US KNEW what Saddam was going to do. Difference, big one.

Originally posted by nico
Feel guilty? Obviously not.

Ok Nico, obviously you are just trolling.

You didn't bother to read the rest of my post, did you?

I don't know what happened to the Marine in question. Because of that, I'm going to do something you've never dreamt of doing because you're too damn busy accusing people of being stupid because they're Americans or they support America's actions. I'm going to report it to HQMC. Why? Because I don't know what happened, but I do think there's a possibility a crime was committed, and I want to know if it has been investigated.

You troll these boards, insulting me because I don't agree with your opinion. At the same time, you do nothing to prevent or resolve the situations you are so frustrated about.

If you really are concerned about what happened in the clip, stop calling me a baby killer and accusing me of supporting the Marine, and report it too.

Otherwise, your opinions are worthless to me, troll. -_-

By the way, Nico, I hope when you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...that man was killed like you would kill a child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


you weren't literally referring to me.

I said no....what a insult. TROLL TROLL TROLL! :bugeye: Can you explain to me what the hell you're talking about? :bugeye:

Originally posted by nico
I said no....what a insult. TROLL TROLL TROLL! :bugeye: Can you explain to me what the hell you're talking about? :bugeye:

Hmm...I must've misread this:

Feel guilty? Obviously not.

I didn't know that meant no. :bugeye:

Approving it is enough to be an accomplice in the action. If the US knew that Saddam was going to overthrow which he did, and didn't do anything to counter that, in a court the US would be found guilty (of a lesser crime)

That's ridiculous. If so, why aren't you including Jordan and Saudi Arabia since you linked an article that claimed he met with King Hussein and King Fahd and asked how they felt about it? You're trying to convict the US on some sort of Good Samaritan rule; if the US knew in advance what Saddam was going to do, and told him it was ok by them, then the US is guilty of some 'lesser crime? Can you point the article out in the UN Charter that specifies that so I will be clear on it?

Without US support? Sure.

No.

Then show how the US actually supported Iraq's invasion of Iran, other than saying 'we approve'. The US gave no more support than did Britain, France, or any of those other key Arab states.

But he needed support to follow through with the plan.

No, he didn't. He just needed to know that no one would act against him.

I find it Ironic that you are bitching and complaining about me talking about the US when you’re doing the exact same thing with Europe.

Bitching and complaining? Is that what you call disagreeing with you?. I'm not blaming the Europeans over anything. They have their own interests same as everyone else. I just pointed out that despite your keen desire to blame the Americans for everything, the Americans didn't cause Saddam's takeover of the Baathist party, nor his acquisition of the presidency, nor did their tacit approval of his invasion of Iran make them any more guilty than France, Britain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

Not very objective are we.

You level the blame at only the US and then say I'm not very objective?:bugeye:

As I have repeatedly said Euro, USA, USSR, etc. = shit. Did the US mind capitalizing on the war with Iran? That is the greater question here; the Europeans were doing what a capitalist does, unless you are against capitalism? The US was playing politics, dirty politics.

That's so naive that I find it hard to believe that even you would say it. Why do you think Britain and France gave their approval of the invasion in 1980? Do you really believe it was just so the Europeans could sell weapons to Iraq? None of the Western states wanted a powerful fundamental Muslim state destabilizing the Middle East, particularly as there was already the problem of dealing with Soviet interests there.

Europe didn't know what Saddam was going to do with those F-1's or other weapons, apart from fighting war. The US KNEW what Saddam was going to do. Difference, big one.

And what exactly did the US know that Saddam was going to do with 'those F-1's or other weapons' that the Europeans didn't? And I'm particularly interested why you think the British were not interested in what had happened in Iran with Khomeni. After all, they had been as involved as the Americans in helping the Shah gain power; it had been the British who had their oil company nationalized by Mossadegh in 1953. If you think the British and French both weren't politically involved in the Mideast you're simply fooling yourself.

Nico's trolling aside, I'm just going to post what I did in the other thread about this to get back to the topic. The other one slipped under the radar envelope a couple days ago. Thread is here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31313&perpage=20&pagenumber=3).

What happened was NOT a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare. The man was not a EPW, nor was he secured. The marines had not created any sort of security, nor were they able to conduct a proper search of the enemy soldier. As such, he was still a valid target...the chances were excellent he had a grenade or some other such device and was waiting for an American soldier to get close enough to detonate it. So long as the line of advance was not past the Iraqi soldier, he was a valid target. If anyone wants to try and prove he wasn't, be my guest.

This was completely taken out of context. US forces had a LOT of problems in Iraq with soldiers playing dead, then as soon as the unit shifted their attention, would jump up, grab a gun, and shoot the Americans in the back. Thus, US forces initiated a "double-tap" policy to ensure this doesn't happen. These aren't cops we're talking about, these are soldiers for whom deadly force is the ONLY force.

I would add also, that the footage has a quick edit in the first few seconds. Watch the ticker jump. I wonder what didnt fit their view of the event that took place that made them have to edit that part out. The interview with the marine at the end is not contiguous either, inferring that his remarks may have also been taken out of context.

Welcome to warfare 101 by very distant (proxy) sciforums members. The LoLW can be found here: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm

The interview with the marine at the end is not contiguous either, inferring that his remarks may have also been taken out of context.

That's what I questioned. It's impossible to know that the marine was talking about that particular incident.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
What happened was NOT a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare.
Which is totally irrelevant. The fact is Stokes, that whether you like it or not, whether Bush likes it or not, the Geneva Convention takes precedence over the LoLW.

And it does not matter what happened prior to the video clip; nor what was found afterwards. That short segment of tape catches a war crime. The man is down, he is wounded and then a marine aims and kills him deliberately. That's a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

You might not like the idea, but there it is in living colour for you to watch as often as you want. There is no excuse, there is no mitigation, there is no defence. You cannot breach the rules because the other guy might have a grenade. Is that dangerous? OF FUCKING COURSE IT'S DANGEROUS, HE'S A FUCKING SOLDIER!!!. If you want a safe job, go be a librarian. IF you volunteer to be a soldier (which he did), then having to operate according to the rules of the Convention is a part of the job. In the middle of the fucking Congo right now, there are Irish Blue Berets (doing a job US troops ought to be doing I'll add), with friends of mine putting their necks on the line. It's their job and they do it with a great deal of pride. And they follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and their Rules of Engagement, and if they don't, they are prosecutable in the ICC.

Mind you, so far, even when being attacked, no Irish Blue Beret has ever committed a crime on a level with what you see in that tape, let alone the other acts we're seeing coming in from Iraq from US troops.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why just US troops? Why don't UK troops do this kind of thing in Iraq, or Irish troops in the Congo (a far, far more dangerous environment - the last Irish troops in the Congo left in more pieces than they arrived in thanks to machetes) do these things?

The man is down, he is wounded and then a marine aims and kills him deliberately.

You don't know that he was wounded, he could have laid down to present a smaller target. Common sense and personal safety precede the Geneva Convention. Its not a courtroom, it a battle field.

some people say "what are you picking on US for selling weapons to saddam - euros did the same" !

at the time euros sold weapons to saddam , they just did it because usa said it´s ok -- of course , they wanted to make money ...... just like usa did
you sold weapons to saddam , so we thought it´s ok to do the same :D

good news that we arent´t in the same boat anymore !
( yours is leaky :cool: )

Oh jeepers Batman!

That's ridiculous.

Well there goes my arguments, so much...TO THE BAT CAVE!

If so, why aren't you including Jordan and Saudi Arabia since you linked an article that claimed he met with King Hussein and King Fahd and asked how they felt about it?

B/c riddler (you're the riddler) they aren't in contention here, we all know about their compliance, just like American compliance. But we are talking about AMERICAN compliance,not Arab. So why should I include them? So you don't feel alone?

if the US knew in advance what Saddam was going to do, and told him it was ok by them, then the US is guilty of some 'lesser crime?

Why of course it is, in a court of law (in a fair trial) if a murderer comes up to u and says I am going to kill someone, and you agree to the principle of that murder, you are a accomplise and you had prior knowledge, and refused to stop it. Then you would be guilty of negligance, or simply being a accomplice. Europe wasn't that accomplice, the gun owner doesn't get in trouble for sellling the gun. ;)


Then show how the US actually supported Iraq's invasion of Iran, other than saying 'we approve'.

I don't have to, now you're just being selfish! That is enough to convict.

The US gave no more support than did Britain, France, or any of those other key Arab states.


The Arabs yes I agree, the French? I don't think so, that would be like charging a gun seller for selling the guns. No,no it wasn't France who pulled the trigger, and it wasn't France who supported the murders it was the US in 1979.

No, he didn't. He just needed to know that no one would act against him.


That action made him able to do what he did. Thus accomplice.

I just pointed out that despite your keen desire to blame the Americans for everything, the Americans didn't cause Saddam's takeover of the Baathist party, nor his acquisition of the presidency, nor did their tacit approval of his invasion of Iran make them any more guilty than France, Britain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.


I don’t blame the Americans for everything; I blame America for what she did. If that’s a lot then it’s not my fault for the propinquity. The approval of the invasion was MUCH more then what France did, not the Arabs you’re right. But the French are much less guilty then the US.

You level the blame at only the US and then say I'm not very objective

I blame the US what it has done, you don’t like it, deal with history.

it. Why do you think Britain and France gave their approval of the invasion in 1980?

Show me they approved an invasion. Giving weapons is not tacit support for Iraq. Because they gave support to Iran as well.

Do you really believe it was just so the Europeans could sell weapons to Iraq?

Do you believe otherwise?

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ira-n-q2.gif

Interesting. Those Euros supported both…so then the answer to your question is yes.

None of the Western states wanted a powerful fundamental Muslim state destabilizing the Middle East, particularly as there was already the problem of dealing with Soviet interests there.

Nice circumstantial, that’s all it is. Show me this European support for the war.

And what exactly did the US know that Saddam was going to do with 'those F-1's or other weapons' that the Europeans didn't?

The US knew nothing about what he was going to do with those weapons. But the US knew unlike France that Iraq in 1979 was going to do something and supported it. That is the jist of this whole thing.

If you think the British and French both weren't politically involved in the Mideast you're simply fooling yourself.

Obviously they were playing a game of “on the fence”…

You don't know that he was wounded, he could have laid down to present a smaller target. Common sense and personal safety precede the Geneva Convention. Its not a courtroom, it a battle field.

So I assume being shot doesn't mean your wounded as well. Not only do conservatives break all logic, they have now broken physics...amazing. Common sense is that a man who is down on the ground facing the other way, who was obviously to far away to even throw a phatom grenade should not have been shot. The US signed the Geneva convention child, if you don't like that FACT then cry to mama, cause no one cares. If the US doesn't like international law, then withdraw from those conventions.

I reported this to HQMC. I haven't received a response back about whether or not the incident has been investigated, but they did say that if it hasn't, it will be investigated according to the LoLW.

Also, I researched the original story by CNN:
CNN Presents: Fit to Kill (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.fit.to.kill.html)

The Marine interviewed at the end of the small clip is in there, but nowhere on the site does it talk about this incident. I have no idea whether it might be in the actual story that they air on CNN.

I fail to see the relevance of comparing diplomatic relations between the U.S., U.K, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Iraq to a murder trial. What sort of asshat comparison is that? Utterly ridiculous...

Spyke, let me pose a hypothetical to you. Let's suppose you were teaching a class about the history of Iraqi-US relations and nico were your student. What sort of grade would he be getting at this point?:D

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Which is totally irrelevant. The fact is Stokes, that whether you like it or not, whether Bush likes it or not, the Geneva Convention takes precedence over the LoLW. No. The LoLW derives many of its line items from the Geneva Conventions, but it is what the US military trains to adhere to in battle.Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why just US troops? Why don't UK troops do this kind of thing in Iraq, or Irish troops in the Congo (a far, far more dangerous environment - the last Irish troops in the Congo left in more pieces than they arrived in thanks to machetes) do these things? American soldiers are trained to fight and win wars, and we have become quite proficient at doing so. We are not law enforcement. What you are observing is symptomatic of a larger problem. I posit to you that your vitriol would be aptly directed at the application of military force by politicians, rather than the soldiers themselves.

No. The LoLW derives many of its line items from the Geneva Conventions, but it is what the US military trains to adhere to in battle

Irrelevant, the US is still adherring to the Geneva convention, to break it is to break US law. LoLW or not...

If you feel this was a crime, report it.

I reported it. I will post what I find out.

However, HQMC will investigate this incident according to the LoLW. Question now is, who would we have to report this to to have it investigated according to the Geneva Convention?

I've looked. The UN only accepts complaints from Countries, not individuals.

If someone knows otherwise, let me know so I can report this to the proper authority.

B/c riddler (you're the riddler) they aren't in contention here, we all know about their compliance, just like American compliance. But we are talking about AMERICAN compliance,not Arab. So why should I include them? So you don't feel alone?

Well, you neglected to mention their role at all until I brought them up, despite the fact that it was those states providing Iraq with massive loans so that he could invade Iran. The US finally decided that it suited US' interests to see the Iranian theocracy fall, which was no earlier than '82.

if the US knew in advance what Saddam was going to do, and told him it was ok by them, then the US is guilty of some 'lesser crime?

Why of course it is, in a court of law (in a fair trial) if a murderer comes up to u and says I am going to kill someone, and you agree to the principle of that murder, you are a accomplise and you had prior knowledge, and refused to stop it. Then you would be guilty of negligance, or simply being a accomplice. Europe wasn't that accomplice, the gun owner doesn't get in trouble for sellling the gun.

That analogy doesn't fit. You can't use domestic law as a comparison here. One nation knowing what another nation is going to do in advance, and even approving of it, is not the same as being an accomplice in a crime. There is no article in the UN Charter to convict a nation because it knew in advance of what another nation was going to do. If so, you would still need to convict Jordan and Saudi Arabia for providing the funds for the attack, not the US.

Then show how the US actually supported Iraq's invasion of Iran, other than saying 'we approve'.

I don't have to, now you're just being selfish! That is enough to convict.

Yes, you do have to show it. The US saying it approved is not convictable in a world court.

I blame the US what it has done, you don’t like it, deal with history.

I'm giving you history. You want to revise it. I'm well aware of past US indiscretions in the Mideast. Putting Saddam in power and abetting his invasion of Iran neither fit those indiscretions. It was Saddam that tore up the 1975 treaty with Iran, brokered by the US and Britain, because he thought the time was right to gain full control of the Shatt Al Arab waterway. He had all those military toys the Soviets had been providing Iraq and he knew that the US had cut off military aid to Iran after the revolution. While the US certainly didn't mind Saddam invading Iran, they did not actively back him, and more importantly, did not tell him to do it. They didn't even renew diplomatic relations with Iraq until 1984.

No, he didn't. He just needed to know that no one would act against him.

That action made him able to do what he did. Thus accomplice.

No, he had already made the decision to do it when he met with Hussein and Faud. He knew the US would likely not protest his invasion of Iran. In the early going the US certainly didn't mind the two fighting, as it would weaken both, but by '82 the US decided it was in its best interests to back Iraq and see the Khomeni regime fall.

I don’t blame the Americans for everything; I blame America for what she did. If that’s a lot then it’s not my fault for the propinquity. The approval of the invasion was MUCH more then what France did, not the Arabs you’re right. But the French are much less guilty then the US.

Saddam didn't seek the US' approval. And the US giving a wink and a nod at the most does not make them an accomplice to any sort of 'crime'.

Show me they approved an invasion. Giving weapons is not tacit support for Iraq. Because they gave support to Iran as well.

:bugeye: Oh yeah. Gotta love the French's neutrality.

Do you really believe it was just so the Europeans could sell weapons to Iraq?

Do you believe otherwise?

Yes. Although the Europeans are every bit as greedy as the Americans, they play politics every bit as hard, and the Europeans had just as big a stake in the Mideast as the US.

The US knew nothing about what he was going to do with those weapons. But the US knew unlike France that Iraq in 1979 was going to do something and supported it. That is the jist of this whole thing.

The jist of it? No, the jist of it is that the US is neither responsible for Saddam's gaining power, nor is it responsible for Saddam invading Iran. The US didn't even begin providing loans until 1982, when the Reagan administration finally decided it was in the US best interests to see the Khomeni regime fall.

Obviously they were playing a game of “on the fence”…

Yes, how noble. Wanting the Khomeni regime to fall, but still happy to sell them weapons until they did.

Well, you neglected to mention their role at all until I brought them up

B/c again their role is not in contention.

The US finally decided that it suited US' interests to see the Iranian theocracy fall, which was no earlier than '82.


Of course you don't actually believe that... the CIA and the US obviously gave her support to Iraq way back when:

What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.

IN 1979 my dear, not 1982. The US was the first western nation to support the invasion of Iran, even before it happened.

One nation knowing what another nation is going to do in advance, and even approving of it, is not the same as being an accomplice in a crime.

Tis indeed, why not? Because you say so? Where's the beef?

The USA will thus begin a policy d?hostility towards l?Iran. In June 1979, with l?appui and l?aide of the CIA, Saddam Hussein deposits A hmed Hassan Al-Bakr and will purge all its political enemies. Knowing the claims of Hussein for Chatt Al-Arab (Iran), l?intention of the CIA was to destabilize the mode of l?Ayatollah. Indeed, September 22, 1980, l?Irak of Saddam invades l?Iran and starts the Iran-Iraq war which will last eight years.

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://membres.lycos.fr/larebellion/saddamhussein.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcia%2Bsaddam%2B1979%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D %26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff

It's in French, so...

If so, you would still need to convict Jordan and Saudi Arabia for providing the funds for the attack, not the US.


Moral approval is worse then the money. He wouldn't have even thought of invading Iran with American acquiesce... those loans wouldn't have happened... the fingers point to someone I know.

The US saying it approved is not convictable in a world court.



A decision by the prosecution not to prosecute an accomplice
on any charge in return for testimony against a principal suspect
will be subject to review by the appropriate chamber (see Section
II.B.3 below). A decision by the prosecutor not to prosecute an
accomplice on one or more charges in return for a plea of guilty
on other or lesser charges or, in addition, for testimony against
a principal suspect will also require the trial chamber to
determine whether the plea was knowing and voluntary (see Section
IV.C.1.n below concerning compelled testimony and coerced
confessions).


From the ICC, we have established the US is a accomplice to the fact, all she has to do is fess up and avoid trouble.

Revise history moi?

The US finally decided that it suited US' interests to see the Iranian theocracy fall, which was no earlier than '82

Juche History vs. reality:

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."<29> In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation.

He had all those military toys the Soviets had been providing Iraq and he knew that the US had cut off military aid to Iran after the revolution.

Really?

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.<30> In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.<31> That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks. *IN 1981, one year before your 1982 theory* <32> The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.<35> In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.<36>

Yummy!

While the US certainly didn't mind Saddam invading Iran, they did not actively back him, and more importantly, did not tell him to do it.

You have yet to prove to me that you did not; there is evidence to the contrary. You aren't providing a adequate defense.

The rest is really non-sensical euro bashing, and dribble...

Well, you neglected to mention their role at all until I brought them up

B/c again their role is not in contention.

Um, yes they are. I put their roles in contention.

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN 1979 my dear:eek:, not 1982. The US was the first western nation to support the invasion of Iran, even before it happened.

He was going to have the financial support from those Arab states regardless of the US. And Iraq had been getting both Soviet arms (Iraq's staunchest ally during the 70s) and French arms leading up to the war in 1980...

During first half 1980s, Iraq was the world's biggest importer major weapons systems it remained second, behind India, 1986 1987. A report by SIPRI 1987 identified twenty-six countries which had supplied arms both Iraq Iran. These countries were: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, France, West Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, North Korea, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, Soviet Union Yugoslavia. In addition, twelve countries had supplied only Iran four countries had sold only Iraq - Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan and Philippines. Not these deals were done with the knowledge support government country concerned.

SOVIET UNION AND FRANCE

The long list above however conceals fact just two countries supplied most Saddam's arsenal. According to the SIPRI Yearbook 1989, equipment Soviet Union accounted 47% France 28% Iraq's major weapons systems during Iran-Iraq War. Soviet supplies included tanks, artillery systems, helicopters missiles, as well advanced MiG aircraft. (Jane's Defence Weekly, 18.8.90) Mirage Super Etendard aircraft Exocet missiles well helicopters missiles were sold by French companies.

In November 1980, however, Soviet Union had stopped its arms supplies these were not resumed until after the Israeli air-raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor Osirak July 1981. (Financial Times, 11.11.80 6.7.81) Soviet embargo, although short, made Iraq look elsewhere its weapons. served boost Saddam's ambitions to build own arms industry thus lessen dependence on outside military supplies. France had its own problem with Iraq - extracting payment weapons became difficult towards end 1980s. Ironically, this problem have been solved on day invasion of Kuwa when French government due sign a cred deal with Iraq cover latter's £2.16 billion debts French arms companies. (Times, 4.8.90)
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/gaias-cafe/2003-March/000914.html

Moral approval is worse then the money.

:bugeye: Uh, no. He could still invade without 'moral approval'; he would have been less likely to invade Iran without the money from the Arab states.

He wouldn't have even thought of invading Iran with American acquiesce... those loans wouldn't have happened... the fingers point to someone I know.

It's simply hard for me to believe you actually even believe what you are saying. He did not go to war based on what the US' attitude was, and you have yet to produce anything that says differently.

A decision by the prosecution not to prosecute an accomplice on any charge in return for testimony against a principal suspect
will be subject to review by the appropriate chamber (see Section
II.B.3 below). A decision by the prosecutor not to prosecute an
accomplice on one or more charges in return for a plea of guilty
on other or lesser charges or, in addition, for testimony against
a principal suspect will also require the trial chamber to
determine whether the plea was knowing and voluntary (see Section
IV.C.1.n below concerning compelled testimony and coerced
confessions).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the ICC, we have established the US is a accomplice to the fact, all she has to do is fess up and avoid trouble.

LOL! That's what you are using to back up your claim? You highlight a couple of spots where it mentions 'accomplice' and 'lesser charges', but never defines what makes someone, or state, an accomplice or defines what a lesser charge is in relation to. It doesn't even establish if it is talking about persons or states. Weak.

One nation knowing what another nation is going to do in advance, and even approving of it, is not the same as being an accomplice in a crime.

Tis indeed, why not? Because you say so? Where's the beef?

No, because there is nothing in the Charter that calls it a violation. And there is nothing in the ICC that does so either, for that matter.
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm

Revise history moi?

The US finally decided that it suited US' interests to see the Iranian theocracy fall, which was no earlier than '82

Juche History vs. reality:

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."<29> In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation.

All that did was back up what I said, thank you. I said the US decided that the US had wanted the two to weaken themselves in a war, and then decided eventually that it was in the best interests of the US for the Khomeni regime to lose. And nothing there proves that Saddam acted only because the US told him it was ok.

He had all those military toys the Soviets had been providing Iraq and he knew that the US had cut off military aid to Iran after the revolution.

Really?

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.<

Yes, see above. The Soviets were Iraq's biggest suplier through the '80s, and only severed sales until July '81:

In November 1980, however, Soviet Union had stopped its arms supplies these were not resumed until after the Israeli air-raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor Osirak July 1981

November '80 to July '81. The Soviets cut off military sales for less than one year.

That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks. *IN 1981, one year before your 1982 theory*


Wow! In March 1981 Haig saw the possibility of improving relations with Iraq, and sometime later, although the article doesn't actually tell us when ( 2 months? 2 years?), sale of five Boeing jetliners to Iraq were approved. Jetliners? Unless, Saddam was going to fly them into the skyscrapers of Tehran, I fail to see the military significance of that sale.

The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.

Yes, but that said that the loans were approved after Washington took Iraq off its list of terrorist states, which was in 1982, as I said.

While the US certainly didn't mind Saddam invading Iran, they did not actively back him, and more importantly, did not tell him to do it.

You have yet to prove to me that you did not; there is evidence to the contrary. You aren't providing a adequate defense.

Er, no. I don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. And you've come nowhere doing so.

The rest of what I say is really non-sensical America bashing, and I dribble on my chin...
:D That's your problem.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

From the Charter both were broken by the US actions of knowledge and they didn't do this:

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Did the US give the UN the info needed to at least prevent the war? The US knew and is signatory to the Charter. You are in vain trying to prove a point with France and the USSR's military co-operation with Iraq. They had them with Iran as well, does that make them different? The US had military sales to Iraq, whether or not it was 1% or 10% the US still actively supported the war, and categorically puts in the same pot as the USSR and France. Unlike the former two, they didn't know the war was going to happen previously. Frankly the USSR tried to stop it.

It's simply hard for me to believe you actually even believe what you are saying. He did not go to war based on what the US' attitude was, and you have yet to produce anything that says differently.


What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.

Are you being a idiot on purpose? Do you not SEE for yourself that Saddam exclusively asked the US, not France or other states ,for a back up. I produce long ago, you obviously can't read, or you purposely ignored it.

November '80 to July '81. The Soviets cut off military sales for less than one year.


More then what the rest did I can assure you of this. What they did was the right thing to do, they supported Iraq because if they didn't Iran could have won.

I fail to see the military significance of that sale.


I am not trying to make one either, don't make things up. I dictate the argument here, if you don't like then don't argue. The significance is more important then some cold military transaction, it was a moral approval of Saddam's actions, prior to even recognizing Iraq.

Yes, but that said that the loans were approved after Washington took Iraq off its list of terrorist states, which was in 1982, as I said.


I am sure you can show me the date of when the loan was approved. And the recognized Iraq in 1984.

Er, no. I don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. And you've come nowhere doing so.

Numerous times, you just ignored it and deviate blame to Euros, or the Arabs. Who are not in contention here regardless if you brought them up.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

From the Charter both were broken by the US actions of knowledge

Sorry. Not applicable to any state in this situation other than Iraq. According to that Charter article Iraq should have taken any concerns it had with the Iranian revolution and its desire for the Shatt Al Arab waterway to the UN rather than invading Iran. That article has nothing to do with the US, France, Britain, USSR, Jordan or Saudi Arabia in this case, it is only designed to prevent one nation from using force against another to settle a dispute.

and they didn't do this:

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Did the US give the UN the info needed to at least prevent the war? The US knew and is signatory to the Charter.

Your continuous misinterpretation of the Charter is noted. Members are required to give the UN assistance in any preventive or enforcement actions it takes. In all the resolutions regarding the Iraq-Iran war, beginning with Res. 479 to Res. 612, the UN never authorized either preventive measures or enforcement action against either Iraq or Iran as outlined in Ch. VII of the Charter. That has nothing to do with giving information to the UN.

Did the US give the UN the info needed to at least prevent the war? The US knew and is signatory to the Charter. You are in vain trying to prove a point with France and the USSR's military co-operation with Iraq. They had them with Iran as well, does that make them different? The US had military sales to Iraq, whether or not it was 1% or 10% the US still actively supported the war, and categorically puts in the same pot as the USSR and France.

Thanks for making my point. I said from the beginning that the US was no more to blame than anyone other nation, and you just stated that for me. And the fact is France and the USSR were providing Iraq with the weapons necessary for Saddam's invasion. He was later able to keep the war effort alive after 1982 from loans from the US, but he was already receiving military aid from the USSR again by July of 1981, despite their initial desire for the war to not take place.

What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran.

But that says nothing as to whether the invasion hinged on American support, whcih it didn't, and you have yet to show otherwise despite your attempt to cling to it. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms. More important was the second part of the statement...

Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.

He was more concerned with getting massive funding from those key Arab oil states, and mainly hoping to secure later weapons from the US if the Soviets cut their supplies off. But even if the CIA promised him as such, which is not known, it would be later before the US administration would decide it was in the US' interests to support Iraq.

Are you being a idiot on purpose?

Aren't you the one always fussing about silly ad hominem namecalling?

Do you not SEE for yourself that Saddam exclusively asked the US, not France or other states ,for a back up. I produce long ago, you obviously can't read, or you purposely ignored it.

What I see is that possibly meeting with the CIA and scoping out US reaction is a long way from the active support before the war you are so desperately seeking.

November '80 to July '81. The Soviets cut off military sales for less than one year.

More then what the rest did I can assure you of this. What they did was the right thing to do, they supported Iraq because if they didn't Iran could have won.

And yet you call me an idiot. The US had not even started military support of Iraq as yet.

I fail to see the military significance of that sale.


I am not trying to make one either, don't make things up. I dictate the argument here, if you don't like then don't argue.

LOL! All hail Lord Nico. He gets to dictate the arguments here. Hey. It was your worthless link I laughed at.

The significance is more important then some cold military transaction, it was a moral approval of Saddam's actions, prior to even recognizing Iraq.

Moral approval? You have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. All you've presented is an article that said King Hussein suggested Saddam meet with CIA agents becuae he wanted US 'support'. I don't know that if such a meeting ever took place, what the CIA told him if such a meeting did take place, or in the event the CIA did tell him anything it was with any forehand approval of the administration. This was at the end of the Carter administration, and quite frankly I doubt the administration had any knowledge of Iraq's intentions. Al Haig later claimed that Carter had given the green light to Saddam, but there is no documented poroof, and I think most analysts blow that off to Haig trying to take some pressure off the Reagan administration during the Iran-Contra affair. If later de-classified materials show it to be true, then I would stand corrected. But at this point, you're argument doesn't float.

Yes, but that said that the loans were approved after Washington took Iraq off its list of terrorist states, which was in 1982, as I said.

I am sure you can show me the date of when the loan was approved. And the recognized Iraq in 1984.

Sure, I can give you a general timeframe.

Spring of 1982 marked the beginning of tilt toward Iraq by Reagan. This tilt was formalized in a secret National Security Decision Directive issued in June 1982. While the US was officially neutral, this NSDD declared that the US would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing its war against Iran.

Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.

This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq.

Beginning in 1982, as I said.
http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

And the recognized Iraq in 1984.

Yes, I already said the Reagan adminstration renewed relations with Iraq in 1984. But in 1982 they took Iraq off the list of terrorist states that Carter put them on in 1979, again, as I already said.:rolleyes:

Er, no. I don't have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. And you've come nowhere doing so.

Numerous times, you just ignored it and deviate blame to Euros, or the Arabs. Who are not in contention here regardless if you brought them up

Um, no, I've simply asked for you to give more than a mention that Hussein suggested Saddam meet with the CIA, and that any alleged support the US might have given is the reason he invaded Iran. You have failed to do so. And I'm not deviating blame to the Arabs or Euros; I'm simply saying if you want to throw blame around, as you are quick to do, at least make sure it hits everyone. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam made his own decision, wanted to know that he had the loans he needed for his invasion, via the Arab oil states. All other blame for actively supporting one side or the other can be leveled after the invasion.

Wasn't this thread about a US Marine?

Understanding the ebb and flow of Sciforums will come with time. Welcome to Sciforums, Undecided!

Originally posted by Undecided
Wasn't this thread about a US Marine? it was until nico posted in it. gg.

Outrageous behaviour like this is not the exclusive domain of US marines and can not be used to tag the whole American army...

You could also dig up some videoclips about some American soldiers showing acts of compassion, like giving water to a thursty child...

It is just which propaganda channel you prefer to watch.

Just ask the little child soldiers in Liberia and look what happened in Yugoslavia and you will come to the conclusion that in every bag you will find some rotten apples....

Things get scary when leaders of armies decide to recruite the most rotten apples they can find for their repressive apparatus, like the Waffen-SS, Robert Mugabe & his machette wielding posse and Saddams Feyadeen...

Originally posted by Vortexx
Behaviour like this is not the exclusive domain of US marines and can not be used to tag the whole American army...
If it was prosecuted where found, no - but that's not the case. And there's evidence (in the form of interviews with the officers concerned) that there are systematic, offically-sanctioned, ordered breaches of the Geneva Convention in Iraq, to say nothing of Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

You could also dig up some videoclips about some American soldiers showing acts of compassion, like giving water to a thursty child...
Yes, but these incidents are far outweighted by reports from the soldiers who were there of children being denied medical aid by US army medical facilities, or indeed of being killed outright either as "collatoral damage" (an phrase that will go down in the annals alongside phrases like "ethnic cleansing" and "ultimate solution" IMO) or actually targetted and shot deliberately.

Just ask the little child soldiers in Liberia and look what happened in Yugoslavia and you will come to the conclusion that in every bag you will find some rotten apples....
This isn't about a rotten apple - it's about an orchard where rotten apples are accepted instead of being sought out and removed.

Things get scary when leaders of armies decide to recruite the most rotten apples they can find for their repressive apparatus, like the Waffen-SS, Robert Mugabe & his posse and Saddams Feyadeen...
Funny quote - given that the US has now sent Serbian troops (whose record on war crimes against muslim people in former yugoslavia is very shady indeed) to ]i]police afghanistan[/i]. Which is right up there with sending german troops to police Israel, but in 1950 rather than today.

....That is very scary indeed.....

If there is indeed an officially supported "wild bunch" army within the army, me wonders what kind of trouble these ill trained/behaved marines gonna stir up if you let them loose again back into the american soceity.

Me understands to a certain extend you need some roughnecks who fight fire with fire to get the job done, but if all rules are ignored the cure might become worse than the disease...

Who's should be held most responsible (besides the individual marines) ?

- That crazy new Amercian general who thinks he is a sword
in the hand of God ?

- Secretary Rumsfeld ?

- Dean Wolvowitz?

- Bush himself for having a split personality, you know the REALLY ignorant part that doesn't see what's happening and the other SEMI-ignorant part that doesn't want to see what's happening ?

- Deputy Dick (no not him, he is just in it for the money, he wouldn't give someone an extra shot in the head that would be a waste of valuable bullets)
:p

BTW: do y'all think that if Colin Powell was still in charge of the army we would see less of these brutalities?

All of them in the Administration: We don't have a perfectly funcitioning democracy in the USA. Nor do we have the most well-informed population in real time-

But every member of the Bush administration will be purged, once through more perfect hindsight the American public understands they have been misled. A grave national challenge required our government to act in a responsible and honest manner, and the Bush Administration failed us. Americans will express their understanding, when it arrives, of this betrayal of duty at the polls. I'm agitating and hoping that this will occur in 2004, which likely head off further damage to our national interests. Sooner or later, the foreign policy juggernaut set in motion by the present cabal is going to run off the tracks. The question is how long the American majority will choose to ride with it.

The military is being wrongfully perverted by their misguided mission, and by the creeping savagery of being made to occupy where they are not wanted, fomenting ever greater misunderstanding and viciousness.

The military will heel to more responsible masters after the Busheviks are discarded. While America's all-volunteer military personnel do not get to choose when and where they kill and die, they should expect to be held accountable for their personal conduct, specifically in the discipline they maintain in the taking of lives, even in terrible situations.

If military misconduct is revealed in the form of indiscriminate use of force, it will reflect on every member of the US armed forces. This will be regrettable, and the blame for this and all coming blowback will need to be continually assigned to the imperious group that guided America's faulty course.

Those Americans who now volunteer for service, now that US foreign policy has turned course, are responsible for understanding what they are getting into. The longer America continues to be misled so recklessly, the greater our divisiveness will grow: "Us and Them" is going to painfully divide "Us" too, for as long as the ruse continues.

Plenty of accusations of widespread misconduct by U.S. troops but no sources. Where are the sources?

Sparks, can you link a source to your statement about officially sanction violations? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
Plenty of accusations of widespread misconduct by U.S. troops but no sources. Where are the sources?
Reuters, AP, UPI, BBC, RTE, the Washington Post, and many others.

Sparks, can you link a source to your statement about officially sanction violations? Thanks in advance.
Short memory?
Forgotten Guantanamo Bay allready?
Or do you just mean the violations in Iraq?
Well, there's kidnapping:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54345-2003Jul27?language=printer
and
http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1067288p-7480085c.html
Which I suspect is what you mean. But the full list....

Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base (http://ads.guardian.co.uk/html.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&location=middle&spacedesc=06&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=108920&country=irl&rand=4234355)

US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2479.htm)

Shots in Falluja echo round the world (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=31624)

How to justify the murder of a 10 year old boy (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1604624.php)

Tank captain admits firing on media hotel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,940311,00.html)

Embedded Photographer: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2970.htm)

A US commander has admitted that American troops did shoot and kill a number of Iraqis during a protest in the northern city of Mosul (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2951789.stm)

Horror for family as three shot by marines (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/11/1049567875725.html)

Geneva Convention breached, says UN (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/page.cfm?objectid=12835951&method=full&siteid=50143)

International Federation of Journalists says eye witnesses say journalists may have been deliberately targeted (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=30451&c=w)

Girl, 2, among three killed in shooting at checkpoint (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5554161.htm)

'Butterfly' bomblets rip into Iraqi children (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=vn20030403055521976C738560&set_id=1)

Even on the internet, I've rarely seen such intellectual and moral bankruptcy. If you will put in the effort to actually read my words, then please also consider them rationally.


Spidergoat: "Execute? What are you talking about. That looked like a firefight."

The Iraqi was laying on the ground, face-down, head pointed away from the US marines, with the gun on the ground over to his right. He was also wounded. There was no firefight in that video.


Spidergoat: "Poor bastard probably got what he deserved."

1) On what basis do you make that assumption?

2) Why should I not then make the assumption that you deserve to be shot in the back?

3) The man was defending his country against an invader that bombed Baghdad, killing over 8,000 Iraqi civilians. Given teh large portion of the Iraqi population which lives in Baghdad, there is a high possibility that he has family there. He may have lost family in the bombing. Why should he not defend against the invaders?

4) The Quran says something along the lines of "The least evil we do to any human, we do to all of humanity." Now, while I don't follow any particular religion, I agree with the sentiment. There is no separation between "me" and "us", when it comes to the state of our humanity. You can't walk around raping women and saying "Humans are good. Humans only do nice things." And I believe that patriotically ranting "That sucka deserved to die!" is not only an attempt to assuage your conscience about the murderous activities of an illegitimate government, but it also adds to a culture of acceptance of things which should not be accepted. Worse, it encourages activities like killing.


Spidergoat: "War ain't pretty."

While this oft-employed platitude/excuse may look good ont he back of a video casette's jacket, it basically says nothing. War is a bad thing, yes. However, there are organisations which have attempted to formulate rules which may prevent the worst of it. The USA signed on to abide by these rules. These rules prohibit shooting defeated and unarmed men in the back. The USA broke the laws it agreed to abide by, and made war more ugly that it needs to be.


Orthogonal: "I saw all I needed to see. It was simply murder, and those Americans that killed him are murderers."

As you are no doubt aware, those who defend the act will do so by arguing that the circumstances make the act acceptable. For example, they might say "During war, men are under great stress, can't make rational decisions, and thus it's okay if they grab a few girls from the local village for a rape-party." I believe this is what the supporters of those marines are trying to say.


Orthogonal: "I only hope that if I were Iraqi then I would have had the balls to resist Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (as thousands did), as I hope that I would now have the balls to ambush American soldiers."

Personally, I would not want to kill even invaders. Most would be there due to the machinations of politicians, believing the propaganda they have been fed, unaware of the real situation, and most of them too young to know any better. However, there are some things that must be done. I could not simply walk by and ignore it if there was a woman being raped over in the bushes. I could not walk by and ignore it if I saw some marines shooting a wounded man in the back like they did in that film. See, I have this idea that my own personal preferences about killing and such should never be more important that the safety of fellow humans. Make sure everyone is alive, then worry about your own ideals. But I would not be eager about it.


Spidergoat: "How about the muslim arab-american soldiers being killed by Saddam's hired goons? Or are only victims your brother?"

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy. We all know he is a nasty man, and his people did nasty things. Does that make it acceptable for American soldiers to do nasty things?


Spidergoat: "logical fallacy- Argumentum ad hominem"

A man died.


10-10-220: "A man cheering at another man's death is...sick, no matter what the cirumstances."

Absolutely.


Stokes Pennwalt: "Originally posted by William Tecumseh Sherman: War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

A man died. The war in Iraq continues. How many must die before the price is too high? When comparimng cruelties and bodycounts to the resources expended and the length of a conflict, at what point does the equation balance? Kill a million innocents with nukes, the war is over in a few minutes, so it was quick and that makes it better? Kill half a million innocents in an hour, is that good but not quite as good as the other? Kill a hundred thousand innoconts in a week? Ten thousand innocents in a month? One thousand in two months? Ten innocent people in a year? What about killing one innocent person, regardless of the time? Which is better? Which is best? And why? Before you answer, tell me this: Which one of the million dead innocents is worth more than the single dead innocent?


Spidergoat: "Certainly, it is distasteful, and I have complained on this forum when people have cheered americans getting killed, that is equally bad, but does it automatically make the incident wrong? No."

Legally, yes it does. Morally, well, that depends on your own personal morals, if you have such. Read the statements and questions I have posed thus far. Consider.


Vakemp: "You take a ~10 second video clip, without any combat experience, and judge the actions of others. That is a luxury the warriors in the field don't have."

1) Warriors in the field do, however, have: 1) Training; 2) procedures; 3) officers. All three things should have prevented that act.

2) The soldiers in the film were laughing, talking, and aiming at a wounded man who was face-down, head away from them, unarmed. They had all the time in the world.


Vakemp: "There's a difference between what happened in the clip and what happened on 9/11. On 9/11, Al Qaida successfully completed a planned attack. On the video, the soldiers in question were engaged in combat with an armed enemy."

The man was unarmed, and by law was no longer a valid enemy target.


Vakemp: "Because that was Osama's intention. That is the whole meaning of terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Like dropping a thousand cruise missiles plus aircraft-deployed bombs on Baghdad?


Vakemp: "Are you suggesting the soldiers planned this attack in advance, and killed the Iraqi with the intent to terrorize the Iraqi population?"

That's precisely what happened. They even wrote a book about it, and planned the attack from the book. Here it is: http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html


Vakemp: "Do you know what happened to the soldier? How are you so sure he wasn't investigated?"

Whether he was investigated prior to being murdered is irrelevent. He was wounded, unarmed, laying face-down, head away from them. The laws of war prohibit the act committed by those marines. It was murder. Whether he was investigated by a biased authority beforehand, or whether he had his entire life on a website, does not change the act itself.


Vakemp: "Does anyone read the articles?"

Do you read the articles? Once again, because apparently it isn't sinking in THE MAN WAS WOUNDED, UNARMED, LAYING FACE-DOWN, HEAD AWAY FROM THEM. They shot him in the back. This is prohibited under laws which the USA agreed to.


Wesmorris: "bright move, pointing AKs at marines with live ammo. looks like suicide to me."

1) It's war. He is defending his country. Of course he will point his weapon at the marines