Guns for Hire?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Your right, it is 72....I adjusted for inflation

I think Dave has a better idea, 100 Bi sexual College chicks...Who wants virgins? You have to teach them.

You wouldn't really complain though would you.

I figure it beats sitting on a cloud with a harp, in my estimation at least.

[Ron 7]

Quote

What if thos people were just walking down the road when some fuckwit forigener with no discipline or control starts shooting people for fun from a roof top.

Then the fuckwit forigener is a fuckwit.

But several were WAY to quick to jump on him and Americans in general (as normal) without any facts other than one person account of a video they only saw part of.

Also, the person who posted this who only saw PART of the video has no Law enforcement or Military training.

So we have people who are making a judgement off of one person, who has no training at all in this type of situation, that only saw part of a video.

And they are quick to claim that Americans are massacring innocnet people.

Quote

Like the U.S troops are not masacrating innocent civilians...

First off this statement other than just being inflamatory:

1. He assumes that they are Americans.
2. He assumes that they were unarmed.
3. He assumes they were innocent.

If this is a case of some jackass taking pot shots at *innocent* people...thne they should crush his nuts.

But there is little to no evidence to support that, but that does not stop him from making the claim.

Its just like that video that was on here a few years ago about the Helicopter taking down some "Farmers". What people failed to know was that these "Farmers" were arms dealers.

But the video sure made the US look bad, unless you knew the whole story.

Same here, but it never stops the haters from jumping on the bandwagon anyway.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

Quote

Also, the person who posted this who only saw PART of the video has no Law enforcement or Military training.

Not that it matters, but I did two years of ROTC in college and considered the military an option. However, that was two decades ago and is practically no military training.

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

Quote

Just because they are dressed as civilians doesn't mean that they're innocent.

I've agreed that I don't have all the facts.

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

And they are quick to claim that Americans are massacring innocnet people.

How many Iraqi civilians that had nothing to do with SH or the insurgency have been killed in the US led invasion of Iraq? 10,000? 20,000?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

How many Iraqi civilians that had nothing to do with SH or the insurgency have been killed in the US led invasion of Iraq? 10,000? 20,000?

Do you know a number or are you just fishing?

I'd bet you are fishing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

All i am saying is that anyone not currently holding a weapon may not be a criminal and therefore shouldn´t be sniped at without further checking.

I agree. So what makes you so sure that the men in the video didn't have information you and I don't, or hadn't already checked? Why assume the worst of people?

Quote

Quote

ps - fyi - it is"says" in English, not "sais" and "massacring" not masacrating

Gee, thanks dude, i was wondering who would be the first poster in this thread to bring up my spelling in the english language.
Note to self: do not forget to write the post in spanish as well so kennedy doesn´t get lost in the spelling and grammar.

Hey, sorry if it pushes a touchy button with you, but I was trying to help. When I get up the guts to post or speak in German, I thank people who help me with my grammar, pronounciation, etc.

You'll also notice that I put the spelling at the end, and in no way tied it to the value of your post. Well fuck me for trying to help. It is true, after all, that no good deed goes unpunished.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

This comes from the BBC - Dated: October 29,2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

Quote

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

'Precise fashion'

"This conflict has been prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare", he said.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

HAVE YOUR SAY
It's going to be very hard for the US and UK authorities to ignore this report
John, Canada

The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.

They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

'Conservative assumptions'

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

He said his team's work proved it was possible to compile data on public health "even during periods of extreme violence".

The sample included randomly selected households in Baghdad, Basra, Arbil, Najaf and Karbala, as well as Falluja.

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."

Civilian toll estimates at 10/04

Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000

Brookings Inst: 10-27,000

UK foreign secretary: >10,000

People's Kifah >37,000

Lancet: >100,000

It seems like 10,000 is a conservative estimate.

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[Ron 7]

Quote

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

10,000 to 37,000 thats quite a range.

Quote

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

So by asking 1,000 homes you can find 10,000 to 37,000 *innocent* deaths...Thats 10-37 deaths per household.

Also notice that whenever a serial Killer is found the neighbors all say "what a nice guy" he was?

So you think those 10-37 deaths per household were all *innocent*?

Quote

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

Wanna bet that if the US Army released numbers that they would be lower?

Quote

It seems like 10,000 is a conservative estimate

Maybe..But how many were *innocent*? And never forget that if Saddam had complied or the UN done its job NO ONE would have died.

And if the terrorists didn't blow up bombs all over the place...Some TARGETED AT CIVILIANS..then the death toll would have been lower.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

I agree that there is quite a range. Taking the low end of the range is a conservative estimate.

Quote

And never forget that if Saddam had complied or the UN done its job NO ONE would have die

I agree with this too.

Some things I've learned from this thread:

There may be no way to tell who's innocent and who's guilty in a hostile environment.
Civilian casualties (although tragic) are unavoidable.
War just completely sucks.

Oh, and from now on...when someone says, "You don't want to watch this." I'm going to believe him.

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[BenHall 0]

Silly people . . . there's no such thing as an "innocent civilian"

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

And never forget that if Saddam had complied or the UN done its job NO ONE would have died.

Well, not at the hands of the Allies, anyway. Don't forget about the mass graves.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[KevinMcGuire 0]

Quote

One mans 'Terrorist'is another mans Freedom Fighter.

Thats catchy may I use it some time?

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Lets not forget that the mission in war is to kill your enemy. Not coddle him.

Interestingly the mission of war is NOT to kill people….. The British army used the (until around 1990ish) the SLR 7.62 rifle, however changed this to the SA80 5.56. The reason for the drop in calibre was that it was decided that it was better to injure then to kill. The reason being an injured soldier will typically take 3 people off the field, where as with a dead soldier you only remove one from the field.

In the context of any armed conflict, the topic of war crimes inevitably arises, especially in reports of civilian and military casualties and the taking of prisoners of war. The idea of a "war crime" seems to be pretty redundant: Most of us are familiar with the phrase "All is fair in love and war," and in an armed conflict, in which the killing of enemy troops is considered an acceptable means to an end, it may seem that the concept of a "crime" is out of place. But there are countless treaties that declare otherwise, signed by almost every nation in the world.

The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions are some of the most widely applied of these international agreements. These treaties address, among other issues, the participants of war, the victims of war, occupation by hostile forces and the status of cultural property. In the 2003 war in Iraq, Iraqi troops waved a white flag and then opened fire on the U.S. soldiers who approached to accept their surrender; this act is prohibited under the Hague laws. In World War II, the Nazis in Germany performed medical experiments on civilians; this act is prohibited in all of the Geneva Conventions.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Ron 7]

Quote

The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions are some of the most widely applied of these international agreements. These treaties address, among other issues, the participants of war, the victims of war, occupation by hostile forces and the status of cultural property. In the 2003 war in Iraq, Iraqi troops waved a white flag and then opened fire on the U.S. soldiers who approached to accept their surrender; this act is prohibited under the Hague laws. In World War II, the Nazis in Germany performed medical experiments on civilians; this act is prohibited in all of the Geneva Conventions.

Lets not forget that you are not allowed to dress as civilians, or the other Armies soldiers and attack.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpjunkie2004 0]

Quote

Lets not forget that you are not allowed to dress as civilians, or the other Armies soldiers and attack.

Does this mean that all military groups (government paid) are required to have distinct uniforms?

Jump, Land, Pack, Repeat...

[mr2mk1g 10]

You can dress anyway you like so long as you have "a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance".

If you're spontaniously taking up arms to defend your country from invasion you don't even need that - you just need to cary arms openly.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Does this mean that all military groups (government paid) are required to have distinct uniforms?

Under Geneva:


(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly;

Quote

Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Quote

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets not forget that you are not allowed to dress as civilians, or the other Armies soldiers and attack.

Does this mean that all military groups (government paid) are required to have distinct uniforms?

Precisely. If you are captured on enemy territory while wearing your army's uniform you are a POW and have to be treated accordingly (i.e. you cannot be killed in cold blood once you have surrendered). If you are dressed in civvies or even worse a uniform not of your army's you forfeited your POW status. Usually you are considered a spy and possibly face a death sentence.
Cheers,

Valentino