stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6963|California

This may seem like a rant, but its not, so bear with me.

Last night i went to visit my cousin before he went back home to Michigan.

   My cousin just returned from a Military hospital in Germany. For Chirstmas last year, we sent him a small 'bullet camera' so he could record what it was like. He taped it to his helmet. He was in a HMMVEE on a patrol in Northern Iraq. An IED, a big one, went off about 20 feet from the car, flipping the HMMVEE upside down, ejecting all the passengers some distance behind the blast zone. We know this because the camera on his helmet was rolling, and his helmet was thrown off to the side of the road, facing a severely injured soldier. At this point in the video, something happens that suprised me. Armed insurgents shoot the severely injured soldier.

Let me rephrase that last sentence. Armed insurgents EXECUTED that kid. At this point in the video, i started crying. I thought of what was going through that soldiers mind; My leg is full of shrapnel, I still has shellshock, and someone runs up to me and shoots me in the head with an AK-47, while i am injured.


This video caused me to question one of the most important rules of the Armed Forces, the Rules of Engagement. These rules were concieved in the time that "civilized warfare" was still used. Organized armies used tactics to defeat one another, and for the most part, both sides followed some universal rules.

The ROE deal with four issues:

    * When military force may be used,
    * Where military force may be used,
    * Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and
    * How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.

The ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.
There is a problem with these rules now. The enemy of today is a ghost. They hide in crowds, in churches, in schools. They give no clemency to the injured or captured. I mean for god sakes, a man surrenders under the white flag, and then detonates himself when he is detained. I think the Military has yet to realize that the enemy of tomorrow doesnt have rules for fighting, they will always shoot first, and there will always be an enemy.

your thoughts?
=JoD=Corithus
Member
+30|6801
The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.  The wounded soldier you mention was no longer a threat to them or their goals, his execution is nothing but a perfect example of the lack of humanity these insurgent creatures have.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6979|Salt Lake City

But that is supposed to be what separates us from them.  If we succumb to their tactics, then we are no better than they are.  Yeah it sucks, but if we want the world to accept us as a nation of ideals that walks the walk, and talks the talk, we have to take the high road.

Remember, we aren't out to intentionally kill civilians, and they could care less.  The ROE is there for a reason, and I believe we need to continue to adhere to it.
topthrill05
Member
+125|6821|Rochester NY USA
There really isn't anything to say. It's almost too sad to think about.

I will say this though. Maybe some of you will now see why our troops do bad things. If I was a soldier and that happened to someone that I knew, I might do something "Bad".

That guy gets to run home and live. If a US soldier did that, people from all over would throw a hissy fit and bitch about the US and the liberals would too. Then the guy would go to jail for life.

Justice is blind.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6772|Global Command
If the combatants insist on fighting from neighborhoods, it is because they want the blood of their own children to offer up as justification for the evil things they do.
Havazn
Member
+39|6936|van.ca
Ahh, ROE, a touchy subject. I agree with the previous posts that ROE should be adhered to lest you become  "no better than they are." The way I see it, the US military has three options.

1) Adhere to the ROE as it stands now and bare the burden of accepting casualties as it is exploited.

2) Disregard the ROE and kill any and all that get in the way while being critized on an international level.

3) Admit that they cannot do both and abandon the mission completely.
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6770|Portland, OR USA

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.  The wounded soldier you mention was no longer a threat to them or their goals, his execution is nothing but a perfect example of the lack of humanity these insurgent creatures have.
Yup.  It may not be the most tactically sound approach, but anything else would be becoming the beast, which is ultimately their goal in the first place.  The point of terrorism isn't the direct losses or casualties so much as it is the fear and dissent that breeds in its wake.

All of that aside, as I've mentioned previously, our founding fathers were simply guerilla warriors.  Rather pissed off the British too.  We'd hide, strike out of nowhere, resort to "ungentlemenly" tactics of the day, and generally did not play by their rules.  They did not adapt, and well ... we exist.  So, there is that very real (yet different) side to the coin too.

Winning without honor is no win at all for me.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6886

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

If the combatants insist on fighting from neighborhoods, it is because they want the blood of their own children to offer up as justification for the evil things they do.
perfectly said.  being sticklers to ROE is what gets american servicemen and women killed.  the nature of the beast.

But.........



Mission will always dictate ROE.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-17 15:06:36)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6886
IED's are against geneva conventions
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6896

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IED's are against geneva conventions
That's a pretty sweeping statement... I'm sure we've argued about this before  

When used to target specificially military personel as guerilla ops then it's okay to improv with whatever you can get... but building booby traps to target civilians wouldn't be okay.  After all, what's the difference between trip wire attached to a grenade (IED) and a trip wire attached to a claymore (regular booby trap)?  And the same with anti-vehicle:  Is a arty shell embedded under a road which is fired into a vehicle manually or by pressure sensor any more or less legitimate than a conventional anti-tank mine?  I don't think so.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6804

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.  The wounded soldier you mention was no longer a threat to them or their goals, his execution is nothing but a perfect example of the lack of humanity these insurgent creatures have.
I agree with the first half, but:

How long would it have taken the soldier to be healed and back in service?  Your enemy don't have prisons, they can't take prisoners.
PRiMACORD
Member
+190|6868|Home of the Escalade Herds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2V2_OoZc8

That guy was wounded and US forces executed him.

Just saying, i'm not sure how much the ROE is hindering US forces at the moment. Should it? I would say yes as we should be showing the world how high our moral grounds are.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6886

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IED's are against geneva conventions
That's a pretty sweeping statement... I'm sure we've argued about this before  

When used to target specificially military personel as guerilla ops then it's okay to improv with whatever you can get... but building booby traps to target civilians wouldn't be okay.  After all, what's the difference between trip wire attached to a grenade (IED) and a trip wire attached to a claymore (regular booby trap)?  And the same with anti-vehicle:  Is a arty shell embedded under a road which is fired into a vehicle manually or by pressure sensor any more or less legitimate than a conventional anti-tank mine?  I don't think so.
the reason I say that is because it is against geneva to modify conventional munitions against the set purpose they were designed for.  Artillery shells are meant to be projected, not jerry rigged and if this was a conventional armed force, who ever is responsible for the manafacture of said weapons would be held accountable for war crimes.  this stems from an argument i had with somebody long ago about whether being hit by an IED would count as direct contact and therefore the criteria for a CIB (combat infantry badge) would be filled.  It wont.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6894|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.  The wounded soldier you mention was no longer a threat to them or their goals, his execution is nothing but a perfect example of the lack of humanity these insurgent creatures have.
I agree with the first half, but:

How long would it have taken the soldier to be healed and back in service?  Your enemy don't have prisons, they can't take prisoners.
Tragic, I knew someone would have to chime in on the side of the terrorists,and justify their actions. I am not surprised it was you, bubbalo.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6804
All I'm saying is it was a tactically correct move.  Dead enemies don't shoot back.  The US and allies can take prisoners, guerilla fighters can't.  The same was done to Japanese by guerillas supported by Australia.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6793|CH/BR - in UK

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

But that is supposed to be what separates us from them.  If we succumb to their tactics, then we are no better than they are.  Yeah it sucks, but if we want the world to accept us as a nation of ideals that walks the walk, and talks the talk, we have to take the high road.

Remember, we aren't out to intentionally kill civilians, and they could care less.  The ROE is there for a reason, and I believe we need to continue to adhere to it.
Yes, they have different principles, but animals? Surely you aren't that superior to everyone else...
They do not have the most ingenious people above, they have not grown up in the same enviroment, for christs sake, their country is a wreck! Do you honestly expect them to act the same as the US military does?
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6770|Portland, OR USA
I hate to say it.  I really do.  I mean, I'm physically ill.  But Bubbalo has a point.  Terrorism is pure tactics.  We have a moral majority to appeal to as well as convey some semblence of a world wide image as a civilized nation.  Resorting to the tactics of the guerillas is a tactically superior approach, but has far too great a collateral price to be acceptable.
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6925|Stillwater, Ok

PRiMACORD wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2V2_OoZc8

That guy was wounded and US forces executed him.

Just saying, i'm not sure how much the ROE is hindering US forces at the moment. Should it? I would say yes as we should be showing the world how high our moral grounds are.
You do realize that armed combatants like that are valid targets to be shot.  The wounds he would have recieved from the initial attack were severe enough that he would not have lived. No medic could have gotten there in time to tend to him and its not like the chopper pilots can land it get out and then do a treatment on him.  Choppers can't take prisoners.  Those men were valid military targets....there is a difference when you can take prisoners and execute them than not being able to and killing them.  Chopper...vehicle for two with no room and infantry which can take wounded prisoners.

Also bubbalo they could have easily taken him prisoner. They take prisoners/hostages all the time.  There was no tactic in that except simply to kill.

Last edited by 2ndLt.Tucker (2006-07-17 15:48:30)

PRiMACORD
Member
+190|6868|Home of the Escalade Herds

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2V2_OoZc8

That guy was wounded and US forces executed him.

Just saying, i'm not sure how much the ROE is hindering US forces at the moment. Should it? I would say yes as we should be showing the world how high our moral grounds are.
You do realize that armed combatants like that are valid targets to be shot.  The wounds he would have recieved from the initial attack were severe enough that he would not have lived. No medic could have gotten there in time to tend to him and its not like the chopper pilots can land it get out and then do a treatment on him.  Choppers can't take prisoners.  Those men were valid military targets....there is a difference when you can take prisoners and execute them than not being able to and killing them.  Chopper...vehicle for two with no room and infantry which can take wounded prisoners.

Also bubbalo they could have easily taken him prisoner. They take prisoners/hostages all the time.  There was no tactic in that except simply to kill.
Point taken, i do agree with what you say about this apache attack.

How do you explain stuff like this tho? I just don't think the ROE is much a hinderance for US forces.

Also, watch this. You'll see a US soldier shooting a wounded and a lot of other disturbing stuff

Last edited by PRiMACORD (2006-07-17 16:10:52)

konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6793|CH/BR - in UK

I'm gonna have nightmares now.... :S
syntaxmax642
Member
+32|6867|Seattle

PRiMACORD wrote:

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2V2_OoZc8

That guy was wounded and US forces executed him.

Just saying, i'm not sure how much the ROE is hindering US forces at the moment. Should it? I would say yes as we should be showing the world how high our moral grounds are.
You do realize that armed combatants like that are valid targets to be shot.  The wounds he would have recieved from the initial attack were severe enough that he would not have lived. No medic could have gotten there in time to tend to him and its not like the chopper pilots can land it get out and then do a treatment on him.  Choppers can't take prisoners.  Those men were valid military targets....there is a difference when you can take prisoners and execute them than not being able to and killing them.  Chopper...vehicle for two with no room and infantry which can take wounded prisoners.

Also bubbalo they could have easily taken him prisoner. They take prisoners/hostages all the time.  There was no tactic in that except simply to kill.
Point taken, i do agree with what you say about this apache attack.

How do you explain stuff like this tho? I just don't think the ROE is much a hinderance for US forces.

Also, watch this. You'll see a US soldier shooting a wounded and a lot of other disturbing stuff
Problem is that their forces hardly even qualify as Soldiers. Combatants possibly not much more. More like animals.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6793|CH/BR - in UK

excuse me for saying this, but I don't think that anyone who's posted would keep a cool head with bullets flying his head... I sure know: hell yeah, I'd panick - hell yeah, I'd fight back!
Both sides do this, the insurgents just haven't progressed from their terrorist- to napalm-tactics...
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6894|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

All I'm saying is it was a tactically correct move.  Dead enemies don't shoot back.  The US and allies can take prisoners, guerilla fighters can't.  The same was done to Japanese by guerillas supported by Australia.
Ahhh so you can justify the terrorists killing in cold blood as "tactically" sound, but you CAN NOT justify the detention of people with possible terroristic ties until their involvement is proved or disproved, cuz that is just cruel?? By your argument you are saying that it would be tactically correct to just kill them, instead of hold them. I guess it all depends on which side you are though huh?? Bubbalo, you are one twisted individual.
Havazn
Member
+39|6936|van.ca

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

All I'm saying is it was a tactically correct move.  Dead enemies don't shoot back.  The US and allies can take prisoners, guerilla fighters can't.  The same was done to Japanese by guerillas supported by Australia.
Ahhh so you can justify the terrorists killing in cold blood as "tactically" sound, but you CAN NOT justify the detention of people with possible terroristic ties until their involvement is proved or disproved, cuz that is just cruel?? By your argument you are saying that it would be tactically correct to just kill them, instead of hold them. I guess it all depends on which side you are though huh?? Bubbalo, you are one twisted individual.
There is a difference between executing detainees which are of no threat, and executing a soldier with the weaponry to kill 50 people at once. Stryyker did not post the video nor did he elaborate whether or not the wounded soldier was firing or posing a threat. It is just unknown whether they had a reason to kill him or not. However, Bubbalo is explaining the tactics used, not whether it was a 'civilized engagement'.

You can't take the position "We are going to invade your country and kill you if you resist, but you cant shoot us when we are down."

I am not justifying the insurgents actions, simply stating that you cant expect to start a war and expect them to follow your rules. You are fighting a desperate people with almost no military capability to form any kind of absolute resistance. They are going to kill everyone of your soldiers given the chance.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6894|USA

Havazn wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

All I'm saying is it was a tactically correct move.  Dead enemies don't shoot back.  The US and allies can take prisoners, guerilla fighters can't.  The same was done to Japanese by guerillas supported by Australia.
Ahhh so you can justify the terrorists killing in cold blood as "tactically" sound, but you CAN NOT justify the detention of people with possible terroristic ties until their involvement is proved or disproved, cuz that is just cruel?? By your argument you are saying that it would be tactically correct to just kill them, instead of hold them. I guess it all depends on which side you are though huh?? Bubbalo, you are one twisted individual.
There is a difference between executing detainees which are of no threat, and executing a soldier with the weaponry to kill 50 people at once. Stryyker did not post the video nor did he elaborate whether or not the wounded soldier was firing or posing a threat. It is just unknown whether they had a reason to kill him or not. However, Bubbalo is explaining the tactics used, not whether it was a 'civilized engagement'.

You can't take the position "We are going to invade your country and kill you if you resist, but you cant shoot us when we are down."

I am not justifying the insurgents actions, simply stating that you cant expect to start a war and expect them to follow your rules. You are fighting a desperate people with almost no military capability to form any kind of absolute resistance. They are going to kill everyone of your soldiers given the chance.
and you have no idea under what circumstances the Gitmo prisoners were captured under, but you seem excited to give the enemy of western civilization the benefit of the doubt. How sad for the free world.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard