Well, context error there. What I forgot to ask was......what sexual assault? Other than sexual assault, none of that is torture.aardfrith wrote:
The thread was: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=47775usmarine2005 wrote:
Show me where I said what I said word for word in your sig? If I said those exact same words, then it was taken out of context, but I remember saying something different.aardfrith wrote:
If it wasn't accidental, it sounds awfully like murder to me.
If you remember post #16And then you said in post #21aardfrith wrote:
Electric shocks, stress positions, sexual assault, sleep deprivation, denial of religion, exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light, etc.usmarine wrote:
Name the torture we used? Examples please. Panties on the head? Barking dogs? Sleep deprivation? Ohhhhhhhhhhh.Satisfied?usmarine2005 wrote:
Nope. I still do not see where we tortured anyone. We used interrogation techniques we see fit, within our laws. Last time I heard, we did not mutilate anyone.
i'm guessing he's referring to Abu Ghraib, you know, where a bunch of guys started a riot in the prison yard and couldn't understand why they got strip searched, nevertheless, the sig leads you to believe that was the way you actually worded it
Ah yes...panties on the head.....such torture.kr@cker wrote:
i'm guessing he's referring to Abu Ghraib, you know, where a bunch of guys started a riot in the prison yard and couldn't understand why they got strip searched, nevertheless, the sig leads you to believe that was the way you actually worded it
Context error where? You said everything used in Abu Ghraib and other detention centres were interrogation techniques within your laws. You also said the only thing you considered torture was cutting off body parts, mutilation, etc. Doesn't sound like sexual assault fits in there. Changing your story like the US Army changed their story on Pat Tillman?usmarine2005 wrote:
Well, context error there. What I forgot to ask was......what sexual assault? Other than sexual assault, none of that is torture.aardfrith wrote:
The thread was: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=47775usmarine2005 wrote:
Show me where I said what I said word for word in your sig? If I said those exact same words, then it was taken out of context, but I remember saying something different.aardfrith wrote:
If it wasn't accidental, it sounds awfully like murder to me.
If you remember post #16And then you said in post #21aardfrith wrote:
Electric shocks, stress positions, sexual assault, sleep deprivation, denial of religion, exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light, etc.Satisfied?usmarine2005 wrote:
Nope. I still do not see where we tortured anyone. We used interrogation techniques we see fit, within our laws. Last time I heard, we did not mutilate anyone.
So, have you ever killed anyone in a friendly fire incident or do you actually take the time to identify the enemy?
Oh I'm sorry, I just put two sentences together. Both in context with each other.kr@cker wrote:
i'm guessing he's referring to Abu Ghraib, you know, where a bunch of guys started a riot in the prison yard and couldn't understand why they got strip searched, nevertheless, the sig leads you to believe that was the way you actually worded it
Anyway, I'm done with this. If you want to find a Mod willing to remove "sexual assault" from my sig, you're welcome to try.
what makes the coroner any kind of expert on A)chaos of a battlefield B) expert in military ROE C) expert in OIF ROE and lastly how the fuck is he gonna say it was unlawful when all he does is examine the body after the fact...this aint CSI.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-13 12:14:16)
or combine em together for a VBIEDusmarine2005 wrote:
There are plenty of times where insurgents make a vehicle look like an ambulance just so they can transport weapons and ammo.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-13 12:15:34)
what is the "VB" for? can't remember
vehicle born
I SAID ETC................. If you want me to list everything, I won't. Yes, rape would be torture, but not panties on the head.aardfrith wrote:
Context error where? You said everything used in Abu Ghraib and other detention centres were interrogation techniques within your laws. You also said the only thing you considered torture was cutting off body parts, mutilation, etc. Doesn't sound like sexual assault fits in there. Changing your story like the US Army changed their story on Pat Tillman?
So, have you ever killed anyone in a friendly fire incident or do you actually take the time to identify the enemy?
speaking of which, I just saw Gov't code GTMO in a company messagel, maybe i can weasel my way down there next summer!
In the law firm i work at, several of our attorneys are representing gitmo detainees. my firm has several matters against the doj and dod over gitmo detainees, though i'm not alowed to discuss such matters here, naturally.
OK. The coroner who conduted the inquest is an expert in military inquests, which is why he conducted it. There was eye witness testimony from British troops who saw the incident as well as video footage, which the inquest determined (after forensic examination) was probably edited by the US troops. Before the shooting occured the Iraqis had surrendered and US troops were heard shouting "it's some media personnel! That's media down there!". Lloyds cameraman Daniel Demoustier also testified as an eye witness.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what makes the coroner any kind of expert on A)chaos of a battlefield B) expert in military ROE C) expert in OIF ROE and lastly how the fuck is he gonna say it was unlawful when all he does is examine the body after the fact...this aint CSI.
There were numerous expert witnesses at the scene and video footage which had been suspiciously tampered with, the only people with access to it to tamper with it were US troops.
The fact that their identity as media had been established prior to the shooting and the fact that the firefight had ended as well as the tampering with the video evidence suggests foul play. Which is why the inquest came to a verdict of unlawful killing.
First off...there are no "experts" in a warzone. Second, a lot, and I mean a lot of surrenders are just traps for an ambush or IED.Bertster7 wrote:
OK. The coroner who conduted the inquest is an expert in military inquests, which is why he conducted it. There was eye witness testimony from British troops who saw the incident as well as video footage, which the inquest determined (after forensic examination) was probably edited by the US troops. Before the shooting occured the Iraqis had surrendered and US troops were heard shouting "it's some media personnel! That's media down there!". Lloyds cameraman Daniel Demoustier also testified as an eye witness.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what makes the coroner any kind of expert on A)chaos of a battlefield B) expert in military ROE C) expert in OIF ROE and lastly how the fuck is he gonna say it was unlawful when all he does is examine the body after the fact...this aint CSI.
There were numerous expert witnesses at the scene and video footage which had been suspiciously tampered with, the only people with access to it to tamper with it were US troops.
The fact that their identity as media had been established prior to the shooting and the fact that the firefight had ended as well as the tampering with the video evidence suggests foul play. Which is why the inquest came to a verdict of unlawful killing.
In any crime eye witness testimony is what you go on. There was plenty of it. The video footage being tampered with is also highly suspicious. The witnesses were journalists who specialised in reporting from warzones and soldiers, they are all reliable witnesses who are used to being in combat situations.usmarine2005 wrote:
First off...there are no "experts" in a warzone. Second, a lot, and I mean a lot of surrenders are just traps for an ambush or IED.Bertster7 wrote:
OK. The coroner who conduted the inquest is an expert in military inquests, which is why he conducted it. There was eye witness testimony from British troops who saw the incident as well as video footage, which the inquest determined (after forensic examination) was probably edited by the US troops. Before the shooting occured the Iraqis had surrendered and US troops were heard shouting "it's some media personnel! That's media down there!". Lloyds cameraman Daniel Demoustier also testified as an eye witness.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what makes the coroner any kind of expert on A)chaos of a battlefield B) expert in military ROE C) expert in OIF ROE and lastly how the fuck is he gonna say it was unlawful when all he does is examine the body after the fact...this aint CSI.
There were numerous expert witnesses at the scene and video footage which had been suspiciously tampered with, the only people with access to it to tamper with it were US troops.
The fact that their identity as media had been established prior to the shooting and the fact that the firefight had ended as well as the tampering with the video evidence suggests foul play. Which is why the inquest came to a verdict of unlawful killing.
A stationary Red Cross minibus with a stretcher being loaded into the back of it can hardly be classified as an immediate threat. Especially after it had been established that there were media personnel there.
There are experts in a warzone. I appreciate your point, but some people are more qualified than others to report on occurences in combat and they would be regarded as expert. A soldier would provide more accurate testimony than a 9 year old girl for example.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-10-13 13:05:32)
When you think you have it all figured out in a combat area, you better leave, because you will get yourself and your men killed. There is SO much confusion and radio chatter with conflicting information, I can see something like this happening. It is VERY easy to sit back and "monday morning quarterback" the situation.Bertster7 wrote:
There are experts in a warzone. I appreciate your point, but some people are more qualified than others to report on occurences in combat and they would be regarded as expert. A soldier would provide more accurate testimony than a 9 year old girl for example.
like wise, I could seriously see some shit like this happening with the confusion of battle. no plan ever survives first contact. especially if these jokers were going in as independent instead of embedded. embedded means you have a certain blanket of safety from the multi-national forces. going in any other way means you are taking a huge risk and if I were an insurance agent, id drop your policy.
That is not what I meant. I was highlighting the difference in witness statement quality between those who have been in numerous combat environments and those who have not.usmarine2005 wrote:
When you think you have it all figured out in a combat area, you better leave, because you will get yourself and your men killed. There is SO much confusion and radio chatter with conflicting information, I can see something like this happening. It is VERY easy to sit back and "monday morning quarterback" the situation.Bertster7 wrote:
There are experts in a warzone. I appreciate your point, but some people are more qualified than others to report on occurences in combat and they would be regarded as expert. A soldier would provide more accurate testimony than a 9 year old girl for example.
There is lots of evidence that has been presented to the inquest. Certainly enough to reach a verdict, they have reached a verdict and it is of unlawful killing. The tampering with video evidence also suggests that to be the case. I could quite easily imagine a US soldier realising he'd screwed up and tampering with the evidence.
Itchy trigger fingers are to blame. Which seems to be a common occurence for US troops. Why is it that no other nations military have the same problems. More time needs to be invested on training in this area by the US military.
Of course there will be some incidents like this, but the numbers should be far lower (as they are for most other military forces).
You want to know why there are more traffic accidents in LA versus Omaha, Nebraska? More cars and more people.Bertster7 wrote:
but the numbers should be far lower (as they are for most other military forces).
Absolutely. It's a dangerous job, but unilateral, unbiased reporting is VERY important.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
like wise, I could seriously see some shit like this happening with the confusion of battle. no plan ever survives first contact. especially if these jokers were going in as independent instead of embedded. embedded means you have a certain blanket of safety from the multi-national forces. going in any other way means you are taking a huge risk and if I were an insurance agent, id drop your policy.
If he had died from the gunshot he sustained during the firefight, I would agree with you entirely. But he did not. He was shot after the battle had finished and he was being loaded into an ambulance. I cannot see how a stationary ambulance with the doors open and someone being loaded into it represents a valid target or any sort of immediate threat.
There is multiple independent eye witness testimony proving that to be the case. If it were just one eye witness, again I would agree with you, but several, all saying the same thing - I find it highly unlikely they all got it wrong.
Don't you find the tampered with video evidence slightly indicative of guilt as well?
I have alreay pointed out that US friendly fire incidents are far more common, even taking into account the number of troops on the ground. I can't recall the exact figures - I'll try and find them - but I seem to remember it was something like 10x the number of friendly fire incidents by the British, that's after offsetting to account for increased numbers of US troops.usmarine2005 wrote:
You want to know why there are more traffic accidents in LA versus Omaha, Nebraska? More cars and more people.Bertster7 wrote:
but the numbers should be far lower (as they are for most other military forces).
Between 10-15% of British deaths in Iraq have been due to friendly fire incidents involving US troops. I doubt this gets reported much in the US, but in the UK there is a lot about it.
What's your opinion on the US soldier who left Patriot missiles activated which led to a British plane being shot down. The planes were authorised to be overflying the area and the missiles were not supposed to be turned on. I call that negligence, don't you?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-10-13 13:41:06)
Yes, it is negligence. What is wrong with you people, do you want me to go back thru all of history and find friendly fire incidents? i am sure a stray arrow hit a good guy back in the 1800's FFS.Bertster7 wrote:
What's your opinion on the US soldier who left Patriot missiles activated which led to a British plane being shot down. The planes were authorised to be overflying the area and the missiles were not supposed to be turned on. I call that negligence, don't you?
I don't know for sure, but your reasoning seems a bit suspect to me? Think about it - in Iraq 1, most Americans who died, which was low low low number in comparison to the Iraqi death-count, was due mostly to friendly fire. If their is a problem now - it seems to me that it is more likely a coordination/communication problem, rather than just being "trigger-happy." Which means IMO that there is a problem but necessarily the specific culpable one you're considering.Bertster7 wrote:
I have already pointed out that US friendly fire incidents are far more common, even taking into account the number of troops on the ground. I can't recall the exact figures - I'll try and find them - but I seem to remember it was something like 10x the number of friendly fire incidents by the British, that's after offsetting to account for increased numbers of US troops.usmarine2005 wrote:
You want to know why there are more traffic accidents in LA versus Omaha, Nebraska? More cars and more people.Bertster7 wrote:
but the numbers should be far lower (as they are for most other military forces).
Between 10-15% of British deaths in Iraq have been due to friendly fire incidents involving US troops. I doubt this gets reported much in the US, but in the UK there is a lot about it.
What's your opinion on the US soldier who left Patriot missiles activated which led to a British plane being shot down. The planes were authorized to be overflying the area and the missiles were not supposed to be turned on. I call that negligence, don't you?
Last edited by topal63 (2006-10-13 13:54:13)
That's not what I meant either. Just because I regard this particular incident as being caused by trigger happy troops - the exact words of the inquest into the incident - does not mean I believe the same about all instances of friendly fire. Throughout this thread I have been going on and on about training standards in this area, which is what I believe is the primary issue. The US have adopted a new traing policy in this area, if everything I have read is correct, and have borrowed a number of British vehicles to conduct further training in what they look like. This anti-fratricide training I thoroughly approve of and is exactly what should be done to prevent such occurences.topal63 wrote:
I don't know for sure, but your reasoning seems a bit suspect to me? Think about it - in Iraq 1, most Americans who died, which was low low low number in comparison to the Iraqi death-count, was due mostly to friendly fire. If their is a problem now - it seems to me that it is more likely a coordination/communication problem, rather than just being "trigger-happy." Which means IMO that there is a problem but necessarily the specific culpable one you're considering.Bertster7 wrote:
I have already pointed out that US friendly fire incidents are far more common, even taking into account the number of troops on the ground. I can't recall the exact figures - I'll try and find them - but I seem to remember it was something like 10x the number of friendly fire incidents by the British, that's after offsetting to account for increased numbers of US troops.usmarine2005 wrote:
You want to know why there are more traffic accidents in LA versus Omaha, Nebraska? More cars and more people.
Between 10-15% of British deaths in Iraq have been due to friendly fire incidents involving US troops. I doubt this gets reported much in the US, but in the UK there is a lot about it.
What's your opinion on the US soldier who left Patriot missiles activated which led to a British plane being shot down. The planes were authorized to be overflying the area and the missiles were not supposed to be turned on. I call that negligence, don't you?
I agree, more or less - I didn't mean to be selective about the "trigger-happy" idea; it was just standing-out like a sore-thumb.