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

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Proud_Syrian, Dec 12, 2003.

  1. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    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.
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    Sadly:

    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...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    Report it.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    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.

    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.

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

    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 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.

    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'.

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

    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 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.

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

    Messages:
    3,122
    Assertions...where's the beef?

    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:

    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?

    http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?h...dam+1979&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off

    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.


    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...
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2003
  9. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Um, yes they are. I put their roles in contention.

    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...

    :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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That's your problem.
     
  10. nico Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,122
    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.


    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.
     
  11. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

    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.

    Sure, I can give you a general timeframe.

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.
     
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Wasn't this thread about a US Marine?
     
  13. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    Understanding the ebb and flow of Sciforums will come with time. Welcome to Sciforums, Undecided!
     
  14. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    it was until nico posted in it. gg.
     
  15. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    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...
     
  16. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    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.

    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.

    This isn't about a rotten apple - it's about an orchard where rotten apples are accepted instead of being sought out and removed.

    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.
     
  17. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    ....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)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BTW: do y'all think that if Colin Powell was still in charge of the army we would see less of these brutalities?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2003
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    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.
     
  19. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    What's missing here?

    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.
     
  20. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
  21. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    One night only...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    A man died.

    Absolutely.

    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?

    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.

    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.

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

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

    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

    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.

    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.

    1) It's war. He is defending his country. Of course he will point his weapon at the marines. Until he is shot an injured, anyway, and unarmed, at which point he is protected by laws which those marines then broke.

    2) That's a neat trick. Shooting yourself in the back three times with an M16 from a hundred yards away, while injured and unarmed. Interesting method of suicide.

    He was injured, laying face-down, head pointed away from the marines, unarmed, and the marine shot him three times in the back. Which bit of biased editing are you referring to?

    So how many illegal acts does it take before the administration responsible is guilty?

    Yeahm mentioning that other people also kill innocents does wonders for me. It really makes me want to simply accept this murder and move on. Idiot.

    1) I would prefer not to be involved in a war in the first place.

    2) Being captured by the USA would mean either: 1) being shot in the back, as we saw in that film; 2) being sent to Cuba, to sit in prison for years without a charge, without trial, without legal representation, sitting in a little wire cage with no contact from the outside world, and with regular doses of KUBARK... I think I would prefer Iraq.

    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?

    Indeed. In fact, the USA was supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war when the USS Vincennes fired two missiles and shot down an airliner, killing another 290 innocent civilians. To which George Bush Senior said “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

    The USA has a long history of supporting Iraq. Including when George Bush senior shook hands with Saddam Hussein over a deal to develop chemical weapons.

    Personally I have never seen evidence of OBL being responsible. Only soundbytes from Bush saying that is the case. And of course the almighty experts on internet message boards throwing it around as well.

    Hitler did not run the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

    1) Assuming OBL was responsible for 11/9, then that is equivalent to Bush ordering his military to take Iraq.

    2) A few people who were not OBL crashed planes into buildings. A marine who is not Bush murdered that woudned Iraqi soldier.

    3) In both cases, innocent people were killed for politics. Neither is "right".

    No, it is not justified at all. For two reasons. 1) The man was wounded, laying face-down, unarmed, head away from them. He was barely moving. In fact, it looked like he was rolling around a bit in extreme pain. He could not have put his hands up regardless. 2) Whether the man understands or not, puts his hands up or not, has no bearing on the fact that the marines broke a law their goverenment has agreed to abide by. Deal with it.

    The video doesn't have to show more than that one act. That one act is against the law. Nothing changes that.

    The USA currently has 320,000 soldiers in other countries. The USA invaded Iraq, bombed the crap out of its capital, and has threatened other nations. Bush even suggested he might use nukes against civilians again ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html ). If it is "in vogue" to blame the USA for being a war-like nation, then rightfully so.

    No information outside the marine shooting the injured man is necessary. He broke the law. He committed murder. He cheered and laughed about it with his football pals.

    The USA did more than nod and wink during that war. The USA fought on Iraq's side. See my earlier mention of the Vincennes.

    USS Vincennes. 290 innocent people killed.

    I suggest you read the international law again the USA agreed to. Here it is:
    Yes, the man was covered by international law. Yes, the marine broke it.

    There's no more to prove. The law does not require what your bent perspective requires. You're simply wrong.

    As a former soldier, I feel completely justified in saying you're full of crap.

    What the marine was talking about is 100% irrelevent. He murdered that man. He broke the law. He cheered.

    And he could have been an evil exploding robot from Jupiter, too, right? Stop stretching, reaching desperately for any reason to save your precious view of the US administration and its tools. The guy was laying there wounded after a gunfight, at which time he fell under the international law mentioned. He was wounded, laying face-down, head pointed away from them, unarmed, and they shot him in the back. Use your common sense.

    And the US government, and the actions of its military, are under the jurisdiction of the Geneve Convention, until or unless the USA withdraws from that law. There is no getting around this.

    Having worked with many military forces, I must disagree with your assessment of US military training. But that is not part of this topic.

    Oh. Handing out water balances the murder, so it's okay. I see.

    IN CONCLUSION...

    There are really only two matters of important in this discussion. The law, and morality.

    1) Under an international law which the USA signed up for, the marine is guilty.

    2) The man was wounded, laying face-down, unarmed, head away from the marines. He was barely moving. They shot him three times in the back, and laughed and cheered.

    Everything else is a feeble attempt at justification.

    PS: No, I am not going to post regularly again. I was asked to read this thread in particular, and find the quality of discussion somewhat repugnant.
     
  22. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    Wesmorris: "bright move, pointing AKs at marines with live ammo. looks like suicide to me."

    adam" "That's a neat trick. Shooting yourself in the back three times with an M16 from a hundred yards away, while injured and unarmed. Interesting method of suicide."

    incredible! the sheer depths of deparavity and moral bankruptcy that one must sink in order to justify an utterly bogus shooting! it was cold and calculated murder! the perps must hang! and their supporters!

    what are your last words, wessie?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Good to have you back whenever it happens, Adam.
     

Share This Page