So let me get this straight. You think the US does not kill wounded soldiers ever?lowing wrote:
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.
1) He was a proven US soldier.lowing wrote:
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.
Thats my point exactly. I dont know their conditions, you dont know if that soldier was a threat. Neither has anything to do with Bubbalo's point. Yet you felt compelled to bring it up.lowing wrote:
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.Havazn wrote:
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'.lowing wrote:
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.
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.
I hate to play the devil's advocate here but look at reasons why some people take to extremism like this, it's not just religion, that insurgent may have lost his home and family in a bombing by the west. It's a good enough motive to think that way (not act) don't you think? When the enemy sees soldiers they think of what they lost and it motivates them, they don't neccessarily see people under the combat gear. They see an American flag and blood must boiltopthrill05 wrote:
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.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-17 18:06:48)
What if they started using anti tank mines on road? Those wouldn't be IEDs.. How would that change the stances against them? Does USA still use mines? (not trying to pick fight I'm curious)GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
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.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
That's a pretty sweeping statement... I'm sure we've argued about this beforeGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
IED's are against geneva conventions
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.
So they are animals cause they killed a wounded soldier who invaded their land.=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.
You seriouse m8?stryyker wrote:
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.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.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.
your thoughts?
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-07-17 18:50:26)
i whole-heartedly disagree withcha. the insurgent fighter will never defeat a military. the insurgents true weapons are not AK's and RPG's. the insurgents weapons are the beating fearful hearts of the family that would rather see the sun rise the next morning than interfere with a bunch of assholes for neighbors. If victory will be achieved by terrorism, it nots through the ironsights of a kalishnakov, it will be through the image on the evening news. whether Al-Jazeera or CNN.jonsimon wrote:
...our military is doomed to defeat.
they do use anti tank mines, and they arent considered IED's. you will find more mines being used by the predominantly shiite areas of southern iraq, since thats the area that a large majority of regular Iraqi army munitions were stolen. but for the purpose of their fight, IED's remain the more practical, non conventional weapon.Spumantiii wrote:
What if they started using anti tank mines on road? Those wouldn't be IEDs.. How would that change the stances against them? Does USA still use mines? (not trying to pick fight I'm curious)GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
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.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
They're animals for hiding amongst women and children.oug wrote:
So they are animals cause they killed a wounded soldier who invaded their land.=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.
On the other hand your government just decide some country is "bad" and you embark on fucking PREEMPTIVE wars.
Plus having seen this movie again in Vietnam, you people only figure you're doing something wrong when your kids come back in a plastic bag. Then you start complaining. Who is the animal now.
I'll remember that it's a a tactically correct move to shoot wounded soldiers, in the eyes of Bubbalo.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.
Don't forget the US.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
I'll remember that it's a a tactically correct move to shoot wounded soldiers, in the eyes of Bubbalo.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.
That was in reference to soldiers leaving Kuwait, which were no threat. The soldier may well have been a threat, if not immediately then soon after. You're now comparing tactics with strategy.kr@cker wrote:
wasn't he just arguing against shooting fully armed, fully healthy retreating combatants a few threads ago?
...Bubbalo wrote:
That was in reference to soldiers leaving Kuwait, which were no threat. The soldier may well have been a threat, if not immediately then soon after. You're now comparing tactics with strategy.kr@cker wrote:
wasn't he just arguing against shooting fully armed, fully healthy retreating combatants a few threads ago?
You mean " lawfully" defend your country as in when your enemy starts a war by flying airplanes into buildings?? Oh wait that must be different.JohnnyBlanco wrote:
You seriouse m8?stryyker wrote:
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.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.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.
your thoughts?
Its true to say insurgents do not abide by roe but then again they are defending there country, you guys unlawfully invaded iraq remember? Now don't get me wrong its not that poor kids fault, but in the grand scheme of things his life ended quickly, i'm sure there are iraqi soldiers out there who have died in agony over several days but the reason you dont give a fuck is because of your painfully one sided view on the subject. To be honest i'm sick and tired of hearing shit like this, how can you demonise someone for lawfully defending there country? Everyday us soldiers murder countless men, women and children and then we hear bullshit like this. Thats something to cry about.
Yeah I know, bubbalo has made it perfectly clear that killing anyone is wrong, unless of course, they are a wounded American soldier then it becomes "tactically correct". Nice huh??Alexanderthegrape wrote:
I'll remember that it's a a tactically correct move to shoot wounded soldiers, in the eyes of Bubbalo.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.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-18 03:55:34)
Well since you have been quoted as saying "tactically correct" about 10 times in here, WHERE you said it should be easy to find. By saying it was the "correct" thing to do, shows NOTHING but support for this action.Bubbalo wrote:
No. It doesn't "become" tactically correct. Where did I say I approved of it? It is morally unacceptable, but tactically smart.