You cannot understand, CPoe. You weren't being fired at and as far as I know, you have never been a soldier. I've got buddies over there fighting right now who've been in exactly that situation and one has a purple heart from an IED explosion. I rarely say this but you really need to shut the fuck up. How dare you judge a soldier who was under fire when you weren't there.CameronPoe wrote:
Hang on just one minute here all you justifiers of murder:
- He said firing at the men was justified because he had identified them as military-age males in a car close to where a roadside bomb had just exploded.
- Those who died included a 76-year-old man and a three-year-old child. There were also several women among the dead. Military-age males?
This guy is just a murderer who saw red when his buddies got blown up by a roadside bomb sveral hours earlier. That's about the height of it - you can pretty it up all you want but he killed non-threatening unarmed civilians and ordered others to do so as well. He can rot in jail for his crimes.
I can understand why he might have done it, from a rage point of view, and I can understand that the heat of battle is intense - but this guy is clearly a substandard soldier. He fucked up and must pay the price for his ineptitude and unprofessionalism.
I can judge him in the same manner you have judged me. Anyone is capable of passing judgement on another - it's quite simple. I don't think it was premeditated murder per se but I think it showed that he made a grave error - for which he must be punished. I'm sure if some Iraqi soldier did likewise to a bunch of American civilians you'd be baying for his blood.Stingray24 wrote:
You cannot understand, CPoe. You weren't being fired at and as far as I know, you have never been a soldier. I've got buddies over there fighting right now who've been in exactly that situation and one has a purple heart from an IED explosion. I rarely say this but you really need to shut the fuck up. How dare you judge a soldier who was under fire when you weren't there.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-16 09:30:58)
They thought? Not a very convincing statement as far as I am concerned. Also it is used in this context in a similar fashion as "believe." Which amounts to “not really sure,” so we did it anyway.GATOR591957 wrote:
"The Marines attacked the first house with the permission of a superior officer because they thought two or three shots were fired at them from it. ...
Exactly:topal63 wrote:
They thought? Not a very convincing statement as far as I am concerned. Also it is used in this context in a similar fashion as "believe." Which amounts to “not really sure,” so we did it anyway.GATOR591957 wrote:
"The Marines attacked the first house with the permission of a superior officer because they thought two or three shots were fired at them from it. ...
So who do you trust more - the victims or this soldier? Let me remind you of the following:BBC wrote:
An initial marine press statement said that some civilians were killed in the initial explosion and others in crossfire by insurgents.
But local people say that there were no bullets fired other than by the marines.
There was no full US investigation into what happened until three months later when video footage taken by a local human rights activist of the aftermath reached Time Magazine. Once their report showed flaws in the initial marine statement, an investigation began.
Looks like he thought he could get away with it and he nearly did before this video surfaced - doesn't make him very trustworthy in my book.
I can make you a pretty good UFO video too, would you believe that if I showed it to you. I bet you believed the Alien Autopsy video was real too! Any video footage taken by a local human rights activist without being authenticated is simply usless!CameronPoe wrote:
Exactly:topal63 wrote:
They thought? Not a very convincing statement as far as I am concerned. Also it is used in this context in a similar fashion as "believe." Which amounts to “not really sure,” so we did it anyway.GATOR591957 wrote:
"The Marines attacked the first house with the permission of a superior officer because they thought two or three shots were fired at them from it. ...So who do you trust more - the victims or this soldier? Let me remind you of the following:BBC wrote:
An initial marine press statement said that some civilians were killed in the initial explosion and others in crossfire by insurgents.
But local people say that there were no bullets fired other than by the marines.
There was no full US investigation into what happened until three months later when video footage taken by a local human rights activist of the aftermath reached Time Magazine. Once their report showed flaws in the initial marine statement, an investigation began.
Looks like he thought he could get away with it and he nearly did before this video surfaced - doesn't make him very trustworthy in my book.
I think it's what drove the investigation actually.... or can't you read? The tape seemed authentic enough for your precious military to start proceedings against these guys with it....SFCCDailey wrote:
I can make you a pretty good UFO video too, would you believe that if I showed it to you. I bet you believed the Alien Autopsy video was real too! Any video footage taken by a local human rights activist without being authenticated is simply usless!
It's this kind of bullshit that has caused the US Military's recruitment rate to be down over 44%. They ask us to do our job, give us an order, then prosecute us for following THEIR orders!
Hey man, maybe your military needs to look at who gets promotions then - because their orders seem to have a habit of destroying the 'hearts & minds' element of any war the US engage in. And you can't win a war through force alone (unless you actually are 'the bad guys').SFCCDailey wrote:
It's this kind of bullshit that has caused the US Military's recruitment rate to be down over 44%. They ask us to do our job, give us an order, then prosecute us for following THEIR orders!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-16 09:48:32)
Just like any Civilian company, the military has their share of bad Officers just like a company has bad managers and CEO's. That will never change. But when a soldier acts in good faith as he was trained to and is following direct orders they should not be charged with a crime.
I'd look more to the Walter Reed situation and constant deployments as to why recruitment is down. It's been that way at least since the Vietnam war and recruitment has really only started to decline in the last 4 years or so.SFCCDailey wrote:
It's this kind of bullshit that has caused the US Military's recruitment rate to be down over 44%. They ask us to do our job, give us an order, then prosecute us for following THEIR orders!
4 consecutive tours in a combat zone and shitty treatment while wounded tends to have that effect.
I agree, more or less, with this... but you would have to agree that there has to be a line, a limit, somewhere, were personal responsibility for your actions comes into play.SFCCDailey wrote:
Just like any Civilian company, the military has their share of bad Officers just like a company has bad managers and CEO's. That will never change. But when a soldier acts in good faith as he was trained to and is following direct orders they should not be charged with a crime.
But all of life is like this... not just the military… cops face these personal judgment calls as well (just not to this extent, or daily)… in urban environments. It is an exception not a rule, this incident if it is an exception is: reason(s), argument(s), proof, investigation, etc, as to how conduct the military (R.O.E.) in an urban civilian environment. This can either help adapt the R.O.E. or not, but it is not worth ignoring.SFCCDailey wrote:
It's this kind of bullshit that has caused the US Military's recruitment rate to be down over 44%. They ask us to do our job, give us an order, then prosecute us for following THEIR orders!
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-16 09:58:05)
What he did was 100% according to training.CameronPoe wrote:
I can judge him in the same manner you have judged me. Anyone is capable of passing judgement on another - it's quite simple. I don't think it was premeditated murder per se but I think it showed that he made a grave error - for which he must be punished. I'm sure if some Iraqi soldier did likewise to a bunch of American civilians you'd be baying for his blood.Stingray24 wrote:
You cannot understand, CPoe. You weren't being fired at and as far as I know, you have never been a soldier. I've got buddies over there fighting right now who've been in exactly that situation and one has a purple heart from an IED explosion. I rarely say this but you really need to shut the fuck up. How dare you judge a soldier who was under fire when you weren't there.
Punished for what: following procedures?
Ridiculous.
You just do not have a stomach for war.
Agreed! But the US Military has a very obscure ROE. For example: If I am in a combat situation and you fire at me, I am allowed to fire back. However, if I hit you in the leg and you go down I am not allowed to keep firing at you since you are now considered a non-combatant. The Military's thought process there is that it takes two men to take care of a wounded man and zero men to take care of a dead man. The problem with that thought process is that most of our enemies would just as soon shoot one of their wounded men rather than carry them to safety and treat the wound. This was observed over and over in Vietnam. There are quite a few BS ROE's that the US Military is supposed to follow but are never trained on. It's only when the US Military gets embarrassed that they go back to these grey areas of the ROE and make decisions.topal63 wrote:
But all of life is like this... not just the military… cops face these personal judgment calls as well (just not to this extent, or daily)… in urban environments. It is an exception not a rule, this incident if it is an exception is: reason(s), argument(s), proof, investigation, etc, as to how conduct the military (R.O.E.) in an urban civilian environment. This can either help adapt the R.O.E. or not, but it is not worth ignoring.SFCCDailey wrote:
It's this kind of bullshit that has caused the US Military's recruitment rate to be down over 44%. They ask us to do our job, give us an order, then prosecute us for following THEIR orders!
I've plenty of stomach for justifiable war. They shot the shit out of a car containing 'men of military age' (actually included women and children) when there is still much dispute over whether they were indeed ever fired upon - someone needs to change 'procedure' if you ask me.ATG wrote:
What he did was 100% according to training.
Punished for what: following procedures?
Ridiculous.
You just do not have a stomach for war.
Tbh - you need quite a thick hide to be able to come on TV and justify the killing of civilians when the circumstances are still hotly disputed.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-16 10:04:03)
"The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates."
how the hell can you defend that?!?!?!?!??! there is something very wrong with the person killing a baby that is 1 yrs old...
whats even more disturbing is that there are people that think (even here...) that dont think its such a big deal...
you make me sick.
how the hell can you defend that?!?!?!?!??! there is something very wrong with the person killing a baby that is 1 yrs old...
whats even more disturbing is that there are people that think (even here...) that dont think its such a big deal...
you make me sick.
TBH, it's not so much a US military ROE, but a rule written in the (First) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.SFCCDailey wrote:
Agreed! But the US Military has a very obscure ROE. For example: If I am in a combat situation and you fire at me, I am allowed to fire back. However, if I hit you in the leg and you go down I am not allowed to keep firing at you since you are now considered a non-combatant. The Military's thought process there is that it takes two men to take care of a wounded man and zero men to take care of a dead man. The problem with that thought process is that most of our enemies would just as soon shoot one of their wounded men rather than carry them to safety and treat the wound. This was observed over and over in Vietnam. There are quite a few BS ROE's that the US Military is supposed to follow but are never trained on. It's only when the US Military gets embarrassed that they go back to these grey areas of the ROE and make decisions.
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Last edited by Pierre (2007-03-16 10:12:20)
The problem with the Geneva Convention is that most of our enemies don't adhere to it. The countries that have signed it are mostly our allies!Pierre wrote:
TBH, it's not so much a US military ROE, but a rule written in the (First) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.SFCCDailey wrote:
Agreed! But the US Military has a very obscure ROE. For example: If I am in a combat situation and you fire at me, I am allowed to fire back. However, if I hit you in the leg and you go down I am not allowed to keep firing at you since you are now considered a non-combatant. The Military's thought process there is that it takes two men to take care of a wounded man and zero men to take care of a dead man. The problem with that thought process is that most of our enemies would just as soon shoot one of their wounded men rather than carry them to safety and treat the wound. This was observed over and over in Vietnam. There are quite a few BS ROE's that the US Military is supposed to follow but are never trained on. It's only when the US Military gets embarrassed that they go back to these grey areas of the ROE and make decisions.
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Last edited by SFCCDailey (2007-03-16 10:14:01)
The damn grenade probably killed the children! It's not like our soldiers went in there and used the butt of their rifles to bash in the children's heads. DAMN, al least be realistic! By-the-way how many troops does Sweden have over there? For that matter, when was the last time Sweden's military helped out with any conflict in the world. You guys just keep making chocolatte and and have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up on me!spacepelle wrote:
"The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates."
how the hell can you defend that?!?!?!?!??! there is something very wrong with the person killing a baby that is 1 yrs old...
whats even more disturbing is that there are people that think (even here...) that dont think its such a big deal...
you make me sick.
Is there a definitive time line for that afternoon? Some reports say that the Marines attacked those houses several hours after the IED went off. If that's true, it lends credibility to the argument that the Marines snapped when their squad member died and just went on a rampage. However, if an IED went off and then gunshots were popping out of a building in the confusion, I don't think you could blame the Marines for killing anything dumb enough to move, whether the men were "military aged" or old, even if they were running away. I don't think you can blame someone for what happens in the heat of combat. However, if it's true that several hours passed between the IED and the raiding of the houses, that's a problem. If they had time to cool down, think, and premeditate, then it would have been murder to charge into houses that you don't have solid intel on, in my opinion.
Show me an option. They were fired upon. What did you want them to do, send an invitation to be questioned. I forgot. exactly what uniform or flag is Al Queda wearing these days. I would like all of the nay sayers here to explain to me and the US Military how you would fight a war without uniforms to identify the opposition. You guys really need to think this out further than your comfy chairs in front of your computers.spacepelle wrote:
"The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates."
how the hell can you defend that?!?!?!?!??! there is something very wrong with the person killing a baby that is 1 yrs old...
whats even more disturbing is that there are people that think (even here...) that dont think its such a big deal...
you make me sick.
That is debatble - that they were fired upon.GATOR591957 wrote:
Show me an option. They were fired upon. What did you want them to do, send an invitation to be questioned. I forgot. exactly what uniform or flag is Al Queda wearing these days. I would like all of the nay sayers here to explain to me and the US Military how you would fight a war without uniforms to identify the opposition. You guys really need to think this out further than your comfy chairs in front of your computers.spacepelle wrote:
"The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates."
how the hell can you defend that?!?!?!?!??! there is something very wrong with the person killing a baby that is 1 yrs old...
whats even more disturbing is that there are people that think (even here...) that dont think its such a big deal...
you make me sick.
"Evidence suggests Haditha killings deliberate: Pentagon source", Associated Press, Wed, 02 Aug 2006.
Trained to do what? Throw explosives into civilian buildings before bursting in to shot women and children? Is that Procedure. To massacre a room house full off people because some random says he looks like a guy who was close to a car when it blew up?ATG wrote:
What he did was 100% according to training.
Punished for what: following procedures?
Ridiculous.
You just do not have a stomach for war.
You got a live fire ranges with pop up card kids in Texas?
These solders did wrong. They are guilty and should be punished according to the law of the country the crime was committed. The blame however lays with the people who put them in the situation in the first place. Street by street fighting is always going to end up in gun hoe jocks shotting some unarmed civilians.........Its not the way to fight this war.
Thought Bush said it was over anyways.
There are more ways to apply force than militarily. We should have slapped him, and his elite, with every sanction under the sun, and then some. We should have also sent in an army of humanitarian workers, politicians and diplomats. Only if that hadn't worked should we then have sent in the military.lowing wrote:
THet tried asking him to give up his power, I think, but he refused.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I am not saying that we should not have removed Saddam. I just don't believe that ever required us to use military force. It most definately did not require us to massacre innocent men, women and children in the process.lowing wrote:
because, this incident is not the reason why Saddam should not have been removed from power forcefully. Suggesting it is, is not coherent or rational.
wait, so punishing them would fall into the geneva convention, or maybe the hague......anyway i dont see why they should be held accountable if no one else is.
i mean come on, there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there, but i bet not a fucking one of you has been in a combat situation to make that call.
its so easy to sit on the sidelines and pull the old "shoulda, coulda, woulda"......i just love how the people that feel so strongly about this have NEVER been in that type of situation.........what is it? oh yes, armchair quarterbacks FTW!
i mean come on, there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there, but i bet not a fucking one of you has been in a combat situation to make that call.
its so easy to sit on the sidelines and pull the old "shoulda, coulda, woulda"......i just love how the people that feel so strongly about this have NEVER been in that type of situation.........what is it? oh yes, armchair quarterbacks FTW!
perhaps somebody has said this before but:
wuterich (=wüterich) is german and means:
tartar (someone who rages)
kinda fitting (and somehow funny)
wuterich (=wüterich) is german and means:
tartar (someone who rages)
kinda fitting (and somehow funny)