GQ_jumper 4 #76 April 27, 2005 How about a couple of the people in this thread start their own, i haven't seen any moention of the helicopter incident in about the last 6 or so posts.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #77 April 27, 2005 QuoteI only wanted to point out the double standard. What did you think about that U.S marine that killed the wounded insurgent, do you think he is a hero? The Iraqi was attempting to deceive the American troops by playing dead, just as others had done in previous days, just before they detonated explosives, wounding Allied Troops. It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback and say he was unarmed. This particular soldier saw an 'unarmed' soldier (just like this one) detonate an explosive in the exact same scenario the previous day. It killed at least one if I remember correctly. As I mentioned before, if the Iraqi had been sitting there, with his hands up when the Marines entered, he probably wouldn't have been shot. No, I guess I don't really consider him a 'hero', since he didn't go above and beyond his duty. He certainly wasn't in the wrong though; and obviously the same legal system that just convicted several soldiers of wrong doing, felt the same way. I probably would have done the same thing. I won't risk my life over someone who is deceiving me, especially after they just tried to kill me. I definitely would not have executed the pilot in this recent situation. Hypothetically, if I were having a bad day, perhaps I would have roughed him up a little, but that's the extent of it... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #78 April 27, 2005 I'm on your side dude, but it's extremely likely that they were mercenaries.... There are a number of companies that contract with the U.S. Gov't (CIA, DEA, etc.) to carry out work/missions that the U.S. can't (or doesn't want to) be associated with. JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #79 April 27, 2005 Botellines: If you have never worn your country's uniform, you have no dog in this fight. Spain chose to tuck tail and run after AQ spanked them. We understand you hate America. Let it go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #80 April 27, 2005 QuoteI'm on your side dude, but it's extremely likely that they were mercenaries.... It's a possibility, but I guess I'm stuck in that "innocent until proven otherwise" mindset. Quote There are a number of companies that contract with the U.S. Gov't (CIA, DEA, etc.) to carry out work/missions that the U.S. can't (or doesn't want to) be associated with. While the people in the chopper may have been associated with the companies hired by the gov't, I still don't see how it would effect the event. I find it hard to believe that the company the guy worked for was ever a factor in the decision to shoot him. I think it was more along the lines of "He's American, kill him" as opposed to "He works for a company that hires mercenaries, and is a threat to our goals, kill him" I think the only reason where it could be justified is if he was a threat to the people that shot him. If he was armed, OK. If not, I find it hard to believe that anyone that was unarmed and injured could be seen as a threat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #81 April 27, 2005 I'm on your side dude, but it's extremely likely that they were mercenaries.... There are a number of companies that contract with the U.S. Gov't (CIA, DEA, etc.) to carry out work/missions that the U.S. can't (or doesn't want to) be associated with. Quote That's total bull, I know tons of the contractors over here, most of them came from my unit, i see them everyday, there are no mercenaries being hired by the US. Blackwater does site security, personal security, and i'm not sure whether or not they have any contracts for training police or security guards over here. just because these guys walk around in beards and with equipment and weapons doesn't make them mercenaries, they carry the kit for self defense, and the guys that grow beards are usually former SEAL's that think it makes them look cool. Everyone on my team has recieved job offers from pretty much every one of the contracting companies over here and not a single person has had an offer to be a mercenary. where the hell do you guys get your info?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,450 #82 April 27, 2005 >there are no mercenaries being hired by the US. There are people, not members of the US military, who are in Iraq working for the US government. They carry guns and regularly use them. They have, on occasion, tortured Iraqis for information. So I guess we need a new word to define them - something that means "mercenary" but is politically correct. Coercion facilitators? Armed force expeditors? Non-peaceful-means unofficial enforcement agents? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #83 April 27, 2005 Like I said, take the dollar takes yer chances. You can play with semantics all you like but these men knew the risks and put themselves in harms way. If its sympathy your looking for you'll find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #84 April 27, 2005 There are people, not members of the US military, who are in Iraq working for the US government. They carry guns and regularly use them. They have, on occasion, tortured Iraqis for information. So I guess we need a new word to define them - something that means "mercenary" but is politically correct. Coercion facilitators? Armed force expeditors? Non-peaceful-means unofficial enforcement agents?*** they use their weapons for self defense, they are unlawful combatants and it would be illegal for them to pursue or execute a planned attack against enemy forces. now the torturing for information shit you talk about, i have heard of only one account of this and it was some guy who was arrested funding his own little mission to capture UBL. And guess what that story was in Maxim magazine so how true do you really think it was. The only people out there actively pursuing the terrorists are those of us that call ourselves Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Back up this stuff you're talking about would you? i'd like to see the proof.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,450 #82 April 27, 2005 >there are no mercenaries being hired by the US. There are people, not members of the US military, who are in Iraq working for the US government. They carry guns and regularly use them. They have, on occasion, tortured Iraqis for information. So I guess we need a new word to define them - something that means "mercenary" but is politically correct. Coercion facilitators? Armed force expeditors? Non-peaceful-means unofficial enforcement agents? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #83 April 27, 2005 Like I said, take the dollar takes yer chances. You can play with semantics all you like but these men knew the risks and put themselves in harms way. If its sympathy your looking for you'll find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #84 April 27, 2005 There are people, not members of the US military, who are in Iraq working for the US government. They carry guns and regularly use them. They have, on occasion, tortured Iraqis for information. So I guess we need a new word to define them - something that means "mercenary" but is politically correct. Coercion facilitators? Armed force expeditors? Non-peaceful-means unofficial enforcement agents?*** they use their weapons for self defense, they are unlawful combatants and it would be illegal for them to pursue or execute a planned attack against enemy forces. now the torturing for information shit you talk about, i have heard of only one account of this and it was some guy who was arrested funding his own little mission to capture UBL. And guess what that story was in Maxim magazine so how true do you really think it was. The only people out there actively pursuing the terrorists are those of us that call ourselves Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. Back up this stuff you're talking about would you? i'd like to see the proof.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,450 #85 April 28, 2005 >they are unlawful combatants and it would be illegal for them >to pursue or execute a planned attack against enemy forces. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03271/226368.stm --------------- Much of the work conducted by the contractors is secret. Western security officials in Iraq say the companies aren't yet going out on combat operations as they do in Colombia and other countries. Mostly they safeguard sites, but occasionally they are needed for a specific task -- say, quietly snatching a suspected loyalist to Saddam Hussein. ------------- >now the torturing for information shit you talk about, i have heard >of only one account of this . . . http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/ibrahimtitan72704cmp.html ---------- Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents, while forcibly detained under United States custody in Iraq, were unlawfully tortured by agents or employees of the Defendants, who were under contract with the United States government to provide security and intelligence services and to maintain facilities for the incarceration of said detainees, with the result being that said Plaintiffs or their decedents suffered significant physical injury, emotional distress, and/or wrongful death for which the Defendants are liable for compensatory and punitive damages. ----------- http://www.arena.org.nz/iraqwc23.htm ---------- Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation. The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees. According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon. ---------- http://www.notinourname.net/war/torture-25jan05.htm ---------------- A government contractor who was interviewed by U.S. investigators said that as many as 90 incidents of possible abuse took place at the palace, but only a few were detailed in the hundreds of pages of documents released Monday. --------------- http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10828 ------------- Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, "[m]ade a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses." Further, investigators found, Stephanowicz encouraged Military Police to terrorize inmates, and "clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse." Israel, apparently misled investigators, denying that he witnessed any misconduct. The report says that Israel should not even have been in the place because, he "[d]id not have a security clearance." (It's not clear whether Israel works for CACI or Titan but CACI officials have denied employing Israel.) Nakhla was questioned about the treatment of several detainees accused of rape and quotes him as saying that two Army sergeants made the prisoners, who were naked, do "strange exercises" and then "started to stack them on top of each other" after handcuffing them and shackling their legs. One civilian stands accused of raping a juvenile Iraqi inmate but the name of the civilian is not revealed in the report. "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib," military investigators concluded. ------------------ >Back up this stuff you're talking about would you? See above. Although now the standard right-winger answer is to say "that's the lying liberal press." Of course to do that you'd have to call the author of one of the reports mentioned (General Taguba) a liar, but hey, all's fair in love and war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #86 April 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI am sure you remember because it was the U.S who turned it into a war zone. Wow.. All I have to say is WOW! I need to go back to college so I can get a better GRIP on things.. Yeah, not only you will get a better grip on things, but also you will learn more vocabulary that just "Wow" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #87 April 28, 2005 QuoteNot so, because if the guy HAD been wearing a turban, you'd be crucifying the US, as usual. we don´t know that, do we? QuoteBut since the victims were US allies -- they suddenly became "legitimate targets". Not suddenly, they became legitimate targets since they decided to go to a foreign country where they are not welcomed to provide support to an invading and ocupaying force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #88 April 28, 2005 QuoteMY GOD ARE YOU SERIOUS?? Actually being in Iraq at the moment silly little details like that completely slip my mind, silly me I'd loose my head if it wasn't attached!! See, i knew we could find some common ground. So I take you agree with me that it was the U.S who started and took the war (on terrorism or whatever) to Iraq. It is very important to have this clear because you cannot hold to the same moral standards the guys who attack than to the guys who defend. Some example Kennedy will love. To kill someone with a gun is bad, to kill someone with a gun in self defense, it is not so bad. Same action, diferent circumstances. QuoteThey fall under the category of noncombatants, they are not allowed to actively pursue the enemy for any reason, and they don't, i see the blackwater guys every day. They are allowed to defend themselves, that is the only reason a blackwater employee would be engaged with the enemy. Look it up in the Geneva convention, the definition of a lawful combatant. I am sure you are right about that, but i don´t understand why you bring the geneva convention up if the U.S. has gotten around it with the definition of unlawful combatants. Anyway, you will concede that contractors do provide logistics and other services to the U.S military, and that not all military engage in combat (doctors, nurses, etc) so the diference beetwen a contractor and a soldier is, to say the least, very blurry. I am not surprise that Iraquis don´t get into semantic games and make no effort to get the distinction. QuoteAnd again, you say there are 3 sides, terrorists, US, and charity, so i'm going to ask you this question again, is the little Iraqi guy that pumps my sh$t every day a legitimate target because his paycheck comes from the US. According to you he is. That is a good question, and it doesn´t have an easy answer. That little Iraqi guy probably the only thing he wants is to get out of this war alive and be able to feed his family, so i understand him perfectly, but i can understand as well how some insurgents see him as a traitor. If my family was killed by an invading force and i saw later on my neighbour working with them i would be royally pissed. Wouldnt you kill any fellow american that helped Canada to invade the U.S, no matter how little help that was? QuoteNobody ever said they expected the insurgents to help them find their way home, I believe I speak for the majority of the people here when I say we were expressing our disgust for them killing a man who was plainly surrendering and begging for help(hands up=surrender/ don't kill me) And as i said in another post on this thread I am as well disgusted by that. So you can count me on in hat majority. QuoteAnd I know you are going to bring up the incident with the guy playing dead in fallujah, so lets address that beforehand and save you the trouble of arguing a completely unsimilar incident. Marines are killed searching insurgents playing dead, Marines find another insurgent playing dead, there is no sign of surrender only signs of deception. I'm not going to argue whether that Marine is right or wrong that is for another thread, but don't try and compare the two. See, I don´t think they are so unrelated. Each army defends with wathever ways they have available. After 10 years of embargo, Iraq doesn´t have the means to defend properly against the U.S so they have to resort to those dirty tactics. Now, i understand that soldiers, marines are scared to death to aproach a body, but the fact is that the insurgent was wounded and unarmed just like the guy in the chopper. QuoteFunny cause you are the only one, where is this double standard you speak of? I am not the only one, many people see them, i will give you some examples. when they kill a civilian, it is bad, but the civilians the U.S killed are regarded as collateral damage and therefore necesary. If they use dirty tactics is bad, but the U.S can attack with almost any weapons even if they are very poorly armed. When Irak invaded Kuwait, it was bad, now the U.S invade Iraq and is all good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #89 April 28, 2005 Quote The Iraqi was attempting to deceive the American troops by playing dead, just as others had done in previous days, just before they detonated explosives, wounding Allied Troops. It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback and say he was unarmed. This particular soldier saw an 'unarmed' soldier (just like this one) detonate an explosive in the exact same scenario the previous day. It killed at least one if I remember correctly. Yes, i know that, but considering the embargo they had before this war, they have to resort to those dirty tactics. You would do the same thing if Mexico and Canada ganged up against the U.S and killed your family. Give them proper weapons and you will see how they do not resort anymore to booby trap themselves. QuoteAs I mentioned before, if the Iraqi had been sitting there, with his hands up when the Marines entered, he probably wouldn't have been shot. Maybe he was wounded enough that he could not sit himself and raise his hands. QuoteNo, I guess I don't really consider him a 'hero', since he didn't go above and beyond his duty. He certainly wasn't in the wrong though; and obviously the same legal system that just convicted several soldiers of wrong doing, felt the same way. He was considered as a hero by many posters here. and regarding to the legal system, unfortunately it takes into account other things than just those regarding to the issue at hand, like troop morale, public relations, etc. One way and the other, so those trials could often be biased. QuoteI probably would have done the same thing. I won't risk my life over someone who is deceiving me, especially after they just tried to kill me. I definitely would not have executed the pilot in this recent situation. Hypothetically, if I were having a bad day, perhaps I would have roughed him up a little, but that's the extent of it... Jeff i don´t know what i would have done in either situation, but i can tell right from wrong no matter which of those i would do. I would like to think that i wouldn´t have killed neither the mercenay nor the insurgent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #90 April 28, 2005 QuoteBotellines: If you have never worn your country's uniform, you have no dog in this fight. As i have said before, you don´t need to be in the military to tell right from wrong. QuoteSpain chose to tuck tail and run after AQ spanked them. Get over it, Spain did never support the U.S oil adventure in Irak, it was just a clown with a big moustache who happened to be the president of Spain who got us into this so he could pose in the pictures with clown cowboy and the british clown, thank you. By the way, have you forgotten how AQ spanked the U.S? they drove you to loose all international support, get into a huge deficit, loose a lot of lives in warsw, and increase terrorist recruitments all over the world. I don´t remember how the saying goes, it goes along the lines of the straw in someone else´s eye... QuoteWe understand you hate America. Let it go. Do you think America is only Bush or the Iraq war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #91 April 28, 2005 say, quietly snatching a suspected loyalist to Saddam Hussein. Quote I hate to break it to ya bro, but that's my job, there is no quiet snatching, we do it all openly, if someone was loyal to saddam and are continuing to support pro saddam or anti US or Iraqi efforts they are captured, plain as day, with cameras watching and all those fun little door charges and flashbangs that go along with it just so everyone in the area knows what happens if they help the enemy. Just because it's in the paper doesn't mean its true, i'm not going to claim liberal biased papers, even conservative papers f#ck up and say some pretty retarded things, its all the media not just the liberal media that always screws up the story. Look at how much the media screws up any story they do about skydiving, anytime a whuffo writes an article on it the article is full of inaccruacies, and information on skydiving is readily available, so imagine what happens when a reporter tries to write a story on the military where information is not publicly available. and anyone giving info claiming they worked in these secret projects, or as mercenaries on missions the Us didn't want to claim involvement with they just proved they as full of it. anytime someone has access to classified info they first sign a nondisclosure agreement. a document where they agree to prison time if they talk about what they know, so if these people were giving out info than the Us government would publicly arrest them just to make an example out of them. The only one of those articles i see to hold any weight is the one on abu ghareeb. I don't know all the details of the scandal but from what i do know the "contractors" were special agents, a title which means you work for a government agency. and if they did cross the line such as in abu ghareeb they were punished, just as those soldiers were. no one at the white house picked up the phone and said, "go build naked pyramids out of iraqis until they talk." I do respect that you provided references to back up your argument but look into where people really get their info.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #92 April 28, 2005 Give them proper weapons and you will see how they do not resort anymore to booby trap themselves. Quote yes they still would, actually for the most part in fallujah they had the same weapons as the Marines did. small arms and grenades, and they still resorted to booby traps, and dirty tactics. as for your claim that we throw geneva out the window, no we don't, i have spent countless hours instilling the discipline to follow the rules in the geneva convention in these iraqi soldiers. and i follow the rules to the letter. all units do, now there are times when individual soldiers break the rules, either by mistake in the stress of combat or on purpose(simply because they are dirtbags). but as seen in every such event so far the US immedeatly moves to find the facts and determine if punishment is necessary. The US even goes as far as to punish soldiers who think they are doing the right thing. such as the soldier who killed a man out of mercy who was burning alive in a car and there was no way to save him. he felt it was the right thing to do to end his suffering and he is now in prison.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #93 April 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteNot so, because if the guy HAD been wearing a turban, you'd be crucifying the US, as usual. we don´t know that, do we? Yea, "we" are petty sure. QuoteQuoteBut since the victims were US allies -- they suddenly became "legitimate targets". Not suddenly, they became legitimate targets since they decided to go to a foreign country where they are not welcomed to provide support to an invading and ocupaying force. They are welcomed by many in Iraq - most notably the local residents who directed US forces to the terrorists who shot the chopper down. Shweeet. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #94 April 28, 2005 QuoteSee, I don´t think they are so unrelated. Each army defends with wathever ways they have available. After 10 years of embargo, Iraq doesn´t have the means to defend properly against the U.S so they have to resort to those dirty tactics. Now, i understand that soldiers, marines are scared to death to aproach a body, but the fact is that the insurgent was wounded and unarmed just like the guy in the chopper. He is where you little argument falls to shit. Both were wounded....BUT The guy in the Helicopter case was trying to SURENDER. The guy shot by the Marine was still trying to FIGHT. That makes the difference...And it is A BIG difference. One was a wounded man trying to get aid, the other was a wounded man that was still a PRESENT THREAT."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #95 April 28, 2005 I saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #96 April 28, 2005 QuoteI saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways. How many Iraqi's were surendering?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #97 April 28, 2005 They didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Or how about this one? Yea, sure he had a chance to surrender http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htmWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #98 April 28, 2005 QuoteThey didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Well if they didn't have the chance to surender, how do you know if they were still alive? I mean it takes no time to put your hands up. I mean this Heli guy was clearly trying to surrender. But they made him stand and then killed him. BIG difference. Between a team going into a building they just had to fight their way into, running into a guy that is playing dead that refuses to surrender. And a guy that was just shot out of the sky and is trying to surrender... If you can't see the CLEAR difference there is no point in continuing this. I would see your side if the US wounded had a reputation of playing dead and then attacking...Or even if the Iraqis that were killed my the Marines were trying to surrender.. But in this case you have an American that does not have a reputation of playing dead trying to surrender vs a guy that was just shooting at the Marines playing dead and having a reputation of playing possum and then killing. There really is no comparision."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #99 April 28, 2005 Botellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #100 April 28, 2005 QuoteBotellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... And amazing how the media always seems to know where to set up to see the convoy getting blasted by an IED.... but of course, they can't say where they got the info from, because they have to be able to protect their sources, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GQ_jumper 4 #92 April 28, 2005 Give them proper weapons and you will see how they do not resort anymore to booby trap themselves. Quote yes they still would, actually for the most part in fallujah they had the same weapons as the Marines did. small arms and grenades, and they still resorted to booby traps, and dirty tactics. as for your claim that we throw geneva out the window, no we don't, i have spent countless hours instilling the discipline to follow the rules in the geneva convention in these iraqi soldiers. and i follow the rules to the letter. all units do, now there are times when individual soldiers break the rules, either by mistake in the stress of combat or on purpose(simply because they are dirtbags). but as seen in every such event so far the US immedeatly moves to find the facts and determine if punishment is necessary. The US even goes as far as to punish soldiers who think they are doing the right thing. such as the soldier who killed a man out of mercy who was burning alive in a car and there was no way to save him. he felt it was the right thing to do to end his suffering and he is now in prison.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #93 April 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteNot so, because if the guy HAD been wearing a turban, you'd be crucifying the US, as usual. we don´t know that, do we? Yea, "we" are petty sure. QuoteQuoteBut since the victims were US allies -- they suddenly became "legitimate targets". Not suddenly, they became legitimate targets since they decided to go to a foreign country where they are not welcomed to provide support to an invading and ocupaying force. They are welcomed by many in Iraq - most notably the local residents who directed US forces to the terrorists who shot the chopper down. Shweeet. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #94 April 28, 2005 QuoteSee, I don´t think they are so unrelated. Each army defends with wathever ways they have available. After 10 years of embargo, Iraq doesn´t have the means to defend properly against the U.S so they have to resort to those dirty tactics. Now, i understand that soldiers, marines are scared to death to aproach a body, but the fact is that the insurgent was wounded and unarmed just like the guy in the chopper. He is where you little argument falls to shit. Both were wounded....BUT The guy in the Helicopter case was trying to SURENDER. The guy shot by the Marine was still trying to FIGHT. That makes the difference...And it is A BIG difference. One was a wounded man trying to get aid, the other was a wounded man that was still a PRESENT THREAT."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #95 April 28, 2005 I saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #96 April 28, 2005 QuoteI saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways. How many Iraqi's were surendering?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #97 April 28, 2005 They didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Or how about this one? Yea, sure he had a chance to surrender http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htmWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #98 April 28, 2005 QuoteThey didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Well if they didn't have the chance to surender, how do you know if they were still alive? I mean it takes no time to put your hands up. I mean this Heli guy was clearly trying to surrender. But they made him stand and then killed him. BIG difference. Between a team going into a building they just had to fight their way into, running into a guy that is playing dead that refuses to surrender. And a guy that was just shot out of the sky and is trying to surrender... If you can't see the CLEAR difference there is no point in continuing this. I would see your side if the US wounded had a reputation of playing dead and then attacking...Or even if the Iraqis that were killed my the Marines were trying to surrender.. But in this case you have an American that does not have a reputation of playing dead trying to surrender vs a guy that was just shooting at the Marines playing dead and having a reputation of playing possum and then killing. There really is no comparision."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #99 April 28, 2005 Botellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #100 April 28, 2005 QuoteBotellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... And amazing how the media always seems to know where to set up to see the convoy getting blasted by an IED.... but of course, they can't say where they got the info from, because they have to be able to protect their sources, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skydyvr 0 #93 April 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteNot so, because if the guy HAD been wearing a turban, you'd be crucifying the US, as usual. we don´t know that, do we? Yea, "we" are petty sure. QuoteQuoteBut since the victims were US allies -- they suddenly became "legitimate targets". Not suddenly, they became legitimate targets since they decided to go to a foreign country where they are not welcomed to provide support to an invading and ocupaying force. They are welcomed by many in Iraq - most notably the local residents who directed US forces to the terrorists who shot the chopper down. Shweeet. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #94 April 28, 2005 QuoteSee, I don´t think they are so unrelated. Each army defends with wathever ways they have available. After 10 years of embargo, Iraq doesn´t have the means to defend properly against the U.S so they have to resort to those dirty tactics. Now, i understand that soldiers, marines are scared to death to aproach a body, but the fact is that the insurgent was wounded and unarmed just like the guy in the chopper. He is where you little argument falls to shit. Both were wounded....BUT The guy in the Helicopter case was trying to SURENDER. The guy shot by the Marine was still trying to FIGHT. That makes the difference...And it is A BIG difference. One was a wounded man trying to get aid, the other was a wounded man that was still a PRESENT THREAT."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #95 April 28, 2005 I saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #96 April 28, 2005 QuoteI saw the video of the fighter in the Mosque, he wasn't trying to fight he was just shitting himself and hoping they would leave him alone. I have seen more than one news video of US soldiers (Marines in particular) exectuing injured Iraqis, all of which were shown on Channel 4 news here in the Uk. I understand why the US Soldiers shot them but I also understand why the Iraqis shot this guy as well. Thing is you can't have it both ways. How many Iraqi's were surendering?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #97 April 28, 2005 They didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Or how about this one? Yea, sure he had a chance to surrender http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htmWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #98 April 28, 2005 QuoteThey didn't get the chance to. 'Got one alive here 'BANG'! Well if they didn't have the chance to surender, how do you know if they were still alive? I mean it takes no time to put your hands up. I mean this Heli guy was clearly trying to surrender. But they made him stand and then killed him. BIG difference. Between a team going into a building they just had to fight their way into, running into a guy that is playing dead that refuses to surrender. And a guy that was just shot out of the sky and is trying to surrender... If you can't see the CLEAR difference there is no point in continuing this. I would see your side if the US wounded had a reputation of playing dead and then attacking...Or even if the Iraqis that were killed my the Marines were trying to surrender.. But in this case you have an American that does not have a reputation of playing dead trying to surrender vs a guy that was just shooting at the Marines playing dead and having a reputation of playing possum and then killing. There really is no comparision."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #99 April 28, 2005 Botellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 April 28, 2005 QuoteBotellines would like this to be a fair fight. Why would any military force intentionally create a fair fight? You go in with overwhelming force & decimate the enemy. You also dont take parasitic, OPSEC killing media crew into the AOR with you. What a clusterfuck the media has created... And amazing how the media always seems to know where to set up to see the convoy getting blasted by an IED.... but of course, they can't say where they got the info from, because they have to be able to protect their sources, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
