Dispassion sucks - but it's also a necessity to react in worst-case scenario. What's even worse is reintegrating the man with the soldier when it's all over and it's time to go home.
Collateral Murder
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
Dispassion sucks - but it's also a necessity to react in worst-case scenario. What's even worse is reintegrating the man with the soldier when it's all over and it's time to go home.
Mach, I don't have the time to show your post the respect it deserves. I will however answer it tomorrow. Have a good night.
Wow, you have an amazing imagination, or would care to quote where you were called such?
:roll:
well mate, the thread is titled collateral murder and the vid I posted is just that, if want to go off on a tangient, thats your problem
You're leaving, I guess, but I'll point out the Amin line was a joke. It seemed like that's where you were going with that list of all those things you respect more than me. But enough of this... Back on topic.
The US military is a backwards society that shoots Iraqi children, covers up what they did by refusing to comply with FOIA requests, and then never accepts blame for it. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to join? Am I right?
The US military is a backwards society that shoots Iraqi children, covers up what they did by refusing to comply with FOIA requests, and then never accepts blame for it. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to join? Am I right?
Here's a little song for all you soldier haters to dream on tonight....and you all have a good one.......
YouTube - THE FIGHTIN' SIDE OF ME
YouTube - THE FIGHTIN' SIDE OF ME
There's a difference between a soldier-hater and someone who expects a soldier to abide by the rule of law.
Does anyone else find it odd that some are always seem more concerned about soldiers' feelings during times like this? I don't think people grasp the magnitude of what happens. Innocent people, including children, were shot by an Apache helicopter, but let's not condemn that because we might come off as being unfair to our troops.
All applicable laws. For a soldier in Iraq, that would include international and Iraqi laws. And depending on the local government, possible some local laws or bi-laws too unless US soldiers are explicitly exempted from some of those laws. But whatever laws they're expected to abide by, they ought to learn those laws, learn to abide by those laws, and be aware of the consequences of not abiding by those laws. And of course those laws ought to be enforced to the full extent of the law.
I don't know what the laws are that govern US soldiers but I don't see how that last part in the video with unarmed me helping an unarmed injured man with children in a truck could be considered within the confine of any law I can imagine. But of course I'm open to an explanation if there's anything I've missed.
Haven't you been reading my posts? Yes I'm trying to give those soldiers the benefit of the doubt and have admitted my ignorance on specific fronts. However, I don't see how any of my posts ave been giving soldiers a free ride.
My last post wasn't directed at you. Rather it was more of an exasperation about all people in general collectively, and how they usually react to this kind of stuff.
Actually, seeing as most Americans can't tell a Canadian from an American, and given that Canadians are expert at mimicking US accents, It would be more effective to cross the border into the US and carry out resistance activities there.
The WikiLeaks Video and Terrorist Blowback
by Jacob G. Hornberger
I can’t improve on Glenn Greenwald’s analysis of the WikiLeaks video depicting the slaughter of Iraqi citizens. See here and here and here.
However, there is one part of the WikiLeaks video that I wish to address — the reaction of the helicopter pilots upon learning that there were two children who were shot and injured during the melee. Their reaction, in fact, perfectly exemplifies the mindset that has long characterized U.S. officials, including those in the Pentagon.
When the pilots discovered that they had shot the two Iraqi kids, here was their exchange:
“Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
“That’s right.”
No remorse, no anguish, no regret, no concern. Just callous indifference to the possibility that the lives of two innocent children might have just been snuffed out.
What will be the reaction of the relatives of those two Iraqi children, who lost their father in the attack? Surely, even the most ardent pro-war advocates would not deny the obvious: the relatives will be filled with anger and rage.
Welcome to the world of U.S. foreign policy and terrorist blowback.
In fact, this most recent episode in Iraq is a minor déjà vu of what took place during the Persian Gulf War and the 11-year period following it. During that war, the Pentagon conducted a secret study that concluded that if Iraq’s water and sewage facilities were destroyed, this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.
So, the order was given: Drop the bombs on those facilities.
Then, to ensure that the facilities couldn’t be repaired, the U.S. government induced the UN to impose one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history on Iraq.
The Pentagon proved to be right, with the deadly consequences of drinking the polluted water falling most heavily on Iraqi children. Year after year, tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying. Two high UN officials even resigned their posts in protest to what they termed “genocide.”
What was the reaction of U.S. officials to those deaths? It was the same reaction expressed by those pilots in the WikiLeaks video: callous indifference. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright reflected the mindset of U.S. officials when she told “Sixty Minutes” (and the people of the Middle East) that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”
It is impossible to measure the depth of anger and rage that spread not just in Iraq but also the Middle East over the deaths of the Iraqi children, year after year, and over the mindset of callous indifference that characterized U.S. officials. When Ramzi Yousef was sentenced for the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC, he angrily cited the sanctions and the deaths of the Iraqi children as one of the things that drove him to commit his terrorist attack.
That WTC attack in 1993 was followed by the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, of course, the 9/11 attacks.
We all know what U.S. officials said: Oh, it’s not because of what the U.S. government has done to people in Iraq and the Middle East, including the sanctions and our indifference to the deaths of the Iraqi children, the Persian Gulf intervention, the unconditional financial and military support to the Israeli government, or the intentional stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands. People in the Middle East don’t care about all that. They just hate us for our freedom and values.
Mark my words: they’ll say the same thing if relatives of those two Iraqi children — or the children themselves — end up retaliating for what was done to the children’s father and other victims of the most recent slaughter.
Finally, let us never forget: Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government participated in the 9/11 attacks or ever attacked the United States. That makes the U.S. government the unlawful aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier in this conflict, which means that U.S. soldiers have no right, moral or legal, to be killing anyone in Iraq, including those Iraqis who are simply trying to rid their country of an illegal aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
I can’t improve on Glenn Greenwald’s analysis of the WikiLeaks video depicting the slaughter of Iraqi citizens. See here and here and here.
However, there is one part of the WikiLeaks video that I wish to address — the reaction of the helicopter pilots upon learning that there were two children who were shot and injured during the melee. Their reaction, in fact, perfectly exemplifies the mindset that has long characterized U.S. officials, including those in the Pentagon.
When the pilots discovered that they had shot the two Iraqi kids, here was their exchange:
“Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
“That’s right.”
No remorse, no anguish, no regret, no concern. Just callous indifference to the possibility that the lives of two innocent children might have just been snuffed out.
What will be the reaction of the relatives of those two Iraqi children, who lost their father in the attack? Surely, even the most ardent pro-war advocates would not deny the obvious: the relatives will be filled with anger and rage.
Welcome to the world of U.S. foreign policy and terrorist blowback.
In fact, this most recent episode in Iraq is a minor déjà vu of what took place during the Persian Gulf War and the 11-year period following it. During that war, the Pentagon conducted a secret study that concluded that if Iraq’s water and sewage facilities were destroyed, this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.
So, the order was given: Drop the bombs on those facilities.
Then, to ensure that the facilities couldn’t be repaired, the U.S. government induced the UN to impose one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history on Iraq.
The Pentagon proved to be right, with the deadly consequences of drinking the polluted water falling most heavily on Iraqi children. Year after year, tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying. Two high UN officials even resigned their posts in protest to what they termed “genocide.”
What was the reaction of U.S. officials to those deaths? It was the same reaction expressed by those pilots in the WikiLeaks video: callous indifference. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright reflected the mindset of U.S. officials when she told “Sixty Minutes” (and the people of the Middle East) that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”
It is impossible to measure the depth of anger and rage that spread not just in Iraq but also the Middle East over the deaths of the Iraqi children, year after year, and over the mindset of callous indifference that characterized U.S. officials. When Ramzi Yousef was sentenced for the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC, he angrily cited the sanctions and the deaths of the Iraqi children as one of the things that drove him to commit his terrorist attack.
That WTC attack in 1993 was followed by the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, of course, the 9/11 attacks.
We all know what U.S. officials said: Oh, it’s not because of what the U.S. government has done to people in Iraq and the Middle East, including the sanctions and our indifference to the deaths of the Iraqi children, the Persian Gulf intervention, the unconditional financial and military support to the Israeli government, or the intentional stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands. People in the Middle East don’t care about all that. They just hate us for our freedom and values.
Mark my words: they’ll say the same thing if relatives of those two Iraqi children — or the children themselves — end up retaliating for what was done to the children’s father and other victims of the most recent slaughter.
Finally, let us never forget: Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government participated in the 9/11 attacks or ever attacked the United States. That makes the U.S. government the unlawful aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier in this conflict, which means that U.S. soldiers have no right, moral or legal, to be killing anyone in Iraq, including those Iraqis who are simply trying to rid their country of an illegal aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier.
There had been armed clashes between ground forces and insurgents throughout the day. The Apache's were there to find these pockets of men and terminate the threat. This video, though tragic, is simply what happens in war, when you have an armed force, that mingles with civilians, and doesn't wear a uniform.
Simple, it is common practice of insurgents, to sterilize a scene.
You would think so, since it was pretty quick on the scene.
Is it reasonable to take your kids with you in to a hot firefight?
There's no obligation to do so.
You know those were kids, because they were identified to you, by the editing in the video.
No it wasn't. That video is an issue all it's own. Which was my point.
This is a tangent, because this thread isn't about a claim of encompassed war crimes Stretch, it's about a specific incident. I can understand how you would want to obfuscate that issue.
Wrong Mach, there are two rule books and they are the only rule books applicable in war, 1, The Laws of Armed Conflict. 2, The Rules of Engagement. All else is nullified.
And in combat they are. On R&R, is another matter altogether.
Mach, this is nonsensical. You show a complete lack of knowledge of what a war zone is like.
You'ld be surprised what constitutes a combatant.
To be honest Mach. I don't think you're up to it, and I know I'm not. It would be futile and likely to end badly.
Yep, and they were quite right.
