Al Jazeera Showing Tortured and Assassinated US Mechanics on TV

[Jedi Knight]

Al Jazeera is showing captured US troops from the 507th Maintenance Company on television. Some of them were unarmed and shot to death by Iraqi soldiers.

Gunning down innocent unarmed mechanics is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

The US Army will avenge them.

JK

[DrBenway]

At this point, I wish we had a media black out. Let the military respond specifically to news presented by the Iraqis. But let's stop informing the Iraqi command of every detail regarding the coalition plans and experiences. Loose lips sink ships.

[Reginald]

I'm almost afeared to ask............


links?

[My Final Spider]

CNN's talking about it right now.

[Jedi Knight]

The Iraqi army is going to pay for this. They are going to burn.

JK

[My Final Spider]

Here we are:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.info.minister/index.html

[aerocontrols]

Al Jazeera (http://www.ish.com/news/Al-Jazeera.html#) has been showing video.

(parts may well be graphic)

[svero]

It's interesting to compare al-jazeera coverage with cnn. At least the pictures... as I don't read arabic and haven't bothered looking for a translation.

Al Jazeera images - bodies with heads blown off, injured babies crying, wounds, brains scattered, scalps mangled, dead amonst rubble and so on...

CNN - iraqis waving white flags, tanks rolling across the desert, planes taking off from ships.

It's really shameful the way the media has jumped on the bandwagon and glorified and sanitized this massacre. Watching the explosions rock Bagdad during the first shock and awe attak some guy on cnn is saying "wow! did you get a look at that one! wow that was a biggie!" as if it were a fireworks display at Disneyland. Tragic. It's one thing to think this war is necessary, and support it as a a necessary evil. It's another thing entirely to be a callous idiot. It's like hiring a clown for entertainment at a funeral.

[My Final Spider]

Was 1991 like this?

I was 9, so I don't remember too much.

[tim]

Originally posted by My Final Spider
Was 1991 like this?

I was 9, so I don't remember too much.

Yeah, it was pretty much. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War, which was, I think, the first to be put under the media spotlight. Prior to that war was sort of sanitized. In WWII film was censored by the authorities. (and no, I'm not old enough to remember that one!)
Casualties were far, far higher back then. As I understand it from my dad, people were rather more philosophical about it. It was war, and people get killed in wars. I'm not suggesting that every death wasn't a tragedy for the individual and his family, but it was an accepted fact of life. These days it's very different.
I had a friend who was a keen sportsman and he joined the British Army - the opportunities for sport are very good. He got sent to Northern Ireland and I shall never forget his bitter complaint - "But I didn't join the army to get shot at!"

[Jedi Knight]

Here is a clip of US unarmed mechanics assassinated by Iraqi troops (http://www.drudgereport.com/AJ.jpg) being shown on Al Jazeera, the allah propaganda machine in the middle east.

It is time to drop the hammer on the bad guys. Bring on MOAB!

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
.... a violation of the Geneva Convention.
And since when did you care about such details?

I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked. JK, 3 weeks ago. :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And since when did you care about such details?

JK, 3 weeks ago. :(

Electro-shock treatment is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Terrorists are combatants. Unarmed mechanics are not combatants.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Electro-shock treatment is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Terrorists are combatants. Unarmed mechanics are not combatants.

JK

I was about to enlighten bjorn on this point, but now i see I must enlighten both of you.

An armed combatant still falls within the Geneva convention as they are combatants, whether they are armed or not is irrelevant. So what unit they are from and what job they hold is a moot point to attempt to argue when it comes to treatment of POWs

A terrorist is not a combatant of a war, regardless of how they desire to classify themselves, ie "war against infidels" etc. the Genevea conventions purpose was to ensure the proper treatment of POWs between warring nations or countries. It does not establish rules for those individuals that do not represent their country when they committ acts of violence against another country.

and to be even more specific we're talking about the convention adopted on 12 August 1949. Simply stating "The Geneva convention" is incorrect as there have been other conventions there, one of which covered child labor. Just a little FYI there

[Denise]

I think this whole thing is going to backfire on Iraq and cause the coalition to become even stronger. I believe the opinion polls will show far more people for the war then ever before. My two cents.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


I was about to enlighten bjorn on this point, but now i see I must enlighten both of you.

An armed combatant still falls within the Geneva convention as they are combatants, whether they are armed or not is irrelevant. So what unit they are from and what job they hold is a moot point to attempt to argue when it comes to treatment of POWs

A terrorist is not a combatant of a war, regardless of how they desire to classify themselves, ie "war against infidels" etc. the Genevea conventions purpose was to ensure the proper treatment of POWs between warring nations or countries. It does not establish rules for those individuals that do not represent their country when they committ acts of violence against another country.

and to be even more specific we're talking about the convention adopted on 12 August 1949. Simply stating "The Geneva convention" is incorrect as there have been other conventions there, one of which covered child labor. Just a little FYI there

If a soldier is not armed and surrenders, you cannot shoot them in the forehead with an AK-47. That is a war crime. That is what is covered by the Geneva Convention. What occured was a war crime. The soldiers in the mechanic company attacked by Iraqi troops were not fighting the Iraqis. They were repairing vehicles. When they were captured they were not armed. That is why all of them were shot in the forehead with AK-47's.

The only way multiple prisoners all get shot in the forehead is when they are unarmed and captured and held by their captors to be shot in the forehead.

JK

[Bjorn]

Thanks Troll,

However, my point was more to quote just one line of Jedi's description of his wet dream about torture - and his cry for justice once rumours are saying one of our own could have been a victim of it.

I still think this is far from a fully valid method:

I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked. :(

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If a soldier is not armed and surrenders, you cannot shoot them in the forehead with an AK-47. That is a war crime. That is what is covered by the Geneva Convention. What occured was a war crime. The soldiers in the mechanic company attacked by Iraqi troops were not fighting the Iraqis. They were repairing vehicles. When they were captured they were not armed. That is why all of them were shot in the forehead with AK-47's.

The only way multiple prisoners all get shot in the forehead is when they are unarmed and captured and held by their captors to be shot in the forehead.

JK

I'm not denying that their treatment is criminal. simply correcting the way you originally worded it the first time. And once caught I hope those responsible either die in the attempt to capture them or suffer the severist of punishments allowed for their crimes.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Thanks Troll,

However, my point was more to quote just one line of Jedi's description of his wet dream about torture - and his cry for justice once rumours are saying one of our own could have been a victim of it.

I still think this is far from a fully valid method:

:(

There is nothing to thank Troll for. He doesn't understand the very concept of the treaty he quoted.

It is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. It is not shooting them in the forehead with an AK-47, thus killing them. Mechanics are not terrorists. Those mechanics were not combatants the instant they surrendered.

The mechanics were disarmed, taken away to a remote location and shot in the forehead by their captors. That is completely different than extracting information from terrorists non-lethally.

Name one terrorist held by Americans in Cuba that was shot in the forehead as a non-combatant.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Thanks Troll,

However, my point was more to quote just one line of Jedi's description of his wet dream about torture - and his cry for justice once rumours are saying one of our own could have been a victim of it.

I still think this is far from a fully valid method:

:(

still can't agree with you either though. I support any and all non-lethal means to extract information that may save 100's of thousands if not more lives from a threat. But I'm also one to make sure this is done on the right person. I'm a stickler for being sure then doing whatever it takes. But terrorists are not the trained warriors of a nation, they are merely the worst of the criminal element in the world.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


I'm not denying that their treatment is criminal. simply correcting the way you originally worded it the first time. And once caught I hope those responsible either die in the attempt to capture them or suffer the severist of punishments allowed for their crimes.

There was nothing to correct. The soldiers surrendered and then were executed. That is a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime.

Not to worry though. They will be avenged. Count on it. Even now word of what happened to them is filtering through the ranks of special operations troops, armor troops and the US Marines. They will correct the Iraqi dishonor personally, I predict.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There is nothing to thank Troll for. He doesn't understand the very concept of the treaty he quoted.

It is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. It is not shooting them in the forehead with an AK-47, thus killing them. Mechanics are not terrorists. Those mechanics were not combatants the instant they surrendered.

The mechanics were disarmed, taken away to a remote location and shot in the forehead by their captors. That is completely different than extracting information from terrorists non-lethally.

Name one terrorist held by Americans in Cuba that was shot in the forehead as a non-combatant.

JK

I'm going to quote Jello Biafra from and old Dead Kennedys song. "Your emotions make you a monster"

I have gone out of my to display my belief in the difference between terrorists and warriors. I agree with you on the mechanics as to their treatment. But they are enemy soldiers and therefore fully capable of being POWs captured by the rival forces. This is a far cry from saying they were treated fairly under this particular conventions decisions. If all of this is found to be true then those responsible for their treatment/deaths are indeed guilty of war crimes.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There was nothing to correct. The soldiers surrendered and then were executed. That is a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime.

Not to worry though. They will be avenged. Count on it. Even now word of what happened to them is filtering through the ranks of special operations troops, armor troops and the US Marines. They will correct the Iraqi dishonor personally, I predict.

JK

You did indeed state the following:

[quote]Electro-shock treatment is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Terrorists are combatants. Unarmed mechanics are not combatants.[quote]

Italics emphasis are mine. The mechanics are allowed to be considered combatants as members of the rival force. They can and are authorized to take up weapons and fight. So just because they were in the motor pool does not negate their ability to become POWs, they are combatants, they just were unarmed and surrendered. Why they were not armed is beyond my scope of knowledge. All our motor pool guys in the Marines were issued weapons

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


I'm going to quote Jello Biafra from and old Dead Kennedys song. "Your emotions make you a monster"

I have gone out of my to display my belief in the difference between terrorists and warriors. I agree with you on the mechanics as to their treatment. But they are enemy soldiers and therefore fully capable of being POWs captured by the rival forces. This is a far cry from saying they were treated fairly under this particular conventions decisions. If all of this is found to be true then those responsible for their treatment/deaths are indeed guilty of war crimes.

You lost me. I pointed out that the Iraqi assassination of US unarmed mechanics was a war crime, you pointed out some obscur interpretation of the Geneva Convention and Bjorn hops into it with no knowledge about the subject whatsoever.

You two are emotional. I wouldn't go as far as saying you are monsters because you guys are harmless newbies regarding these issues, but I sense emotional leftism from you guys in response to me merely pointing out the obvious war crime facts by the heroes of the left in America--the Iraqi regime.

I wonder how long it will be before the leftist San Fran Saddamonites pour into the streets to "celebrate" the deaths of the unarmed US servicemen.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


You did indeed state the following:

[quote]Electro-shock treatment is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Terrorists are combatants. Unarmed mechanics are not combatants.[quote]

Italics emphasis are mine. The mechanics are allowed to be considered combatants as members of the rival force. They can and are authorized to take up weapons and fight. So just because they were in the motor pool does not negate their ability to become POWs, they are combatants, they just were unarmed and surrendered. Why they were not armed is beyond my scope of knowledge. All our motor pool guys in the Marines were issued weapons

Terrorists are combatants. They are combatants for simply being part of terrorists groups.

Mechanics are issued weapons, but in war when prisoners are taken and soldiers disarmed, to shoot them in the forehead is a war crime. Captured, disarmed soldiers are not combatants.

Terrorists are combatants in undeclared perpetual war. I am a terrorism expert. Terrorists are combatants 24/7 365.

All I am saying is that you need to get a clue about what you are talking about. The same with Bjorn.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
It is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Definition:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession .....

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Convention is ratified by the US.

You write that you pointed out that the Iraqi assassination of US unarmed mechanics was a war crime.

Your thread title, however, is: Al Jazeera Showing Tortured and Assassinated US Mechanics on TV.

Jedi, you have shown that you give a f**k about the convention and would use torture without hesitation. Why cry then, if it used against one of ours? They're just doing the same as you would have done! :(

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You lost me. I pointed out that the Iraqi assassination of US unarmed mechanics was a war crime, you pointed out some obscur interpretation of the Geneva Convention and Bjorn hops into it with no knowledge about the subject whatsoever.

You two are emotional. I wouldn't go as far as saying you are monsters because you guys are harmless newbies regarding these issues, but I sense emotional leftism from you guys in response to me merely pointing out the obvious war crime facts by the heroes of the left in America--the Iraqi regime.

I wonder how long it will be before the leftist San Fran Saddamonites pour into the streets to "celebrate" the deaths of the unarmed US servicemen.

JK


No. And it saddens me to say this as a republican, but you're getting too emotionally involved in your topics. I feela great deal of passion for many things but to be honest, I only go off half-cocked and fully assuming when I'm drunk. I'm sober at the moment and you need to realize that you're an extremist and one that makes things harder for the rest of us.

I do believe in the use of torture for terrorists. I beleive in punishing those that do not follow the convention and it ruling as to treatment of prisoners. But people here will assume I'm as looney as you are because I agree with you on those terms and that affects my standing in this particular society.

what I am saying here is that the unarmed mechanics are indeed combatants or at the very leat have the ability to be so and are therefore legitimate targets for capture and the status of POW. their treatment however is a war crime .

And you came along the same time I did on this forum bud. Wanan talk newbie? See what I mean? You have some weird and twisted sort of investment that others don't and they use that freed up lack of emotional behavior to deliver a little logic and forethought into the topics at hand.

If you were smart, you'd stop ragging on my ass as you can't take me alone and so far I'm mostly on your side. In short, simple terms you may better understand, Stop being so french about this.:D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Troll
No. And it saddens me to say this as a republican, but you're getting too emotionally involved in your topics.

JK's an idiot. So many posts he participate in quickly degenerate into discussions of what's wrong with him, the way he argues, the insane things he believes.

Any other troll wouldn't be fed like JK is, but for some reason people like to argue with him as if he had something valuable to bring to our conversations.

You'll notice that this discussion is almost entirely about JK's hypocrisy (as if that was something just recently 'exposed') about torture.

I recommend putting him on 'ignore'.

MattJ

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Definition:

Convention is ratified by the US.

You write that you pointed out that the Iraqi assassination of US unarmed mechanics was a war crime.

Your thread title, however, is: Al Jazeera Showing Tortured and Assassinated US Mechanics on TV.

Jedi, you have shown that you give a f**k about the convention and would use torture without hesitation. Why cry then, if it used against one of ours? They're just doing the same as you would have done! :(

You and Troll just don't get it. The Geneva Convention Treaty applies to nation-states that are at war between each other.

Terrorists do not represent nation-state systems and are therefore treated completely differently in the international political arena. The international community has a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism. Terrorists can be killed indiscriminately at will by any foreign government power without fear of repercussions from the United States and the United Nations.

What you tried to say was "Gosh, Jedi supports torturing terrorists, but complains when soldiers are executed on the battlefield." They are two different animals. I am merely pointing out where you went wrong with what you believed was a sophisticated attack to rebut my position on the soldiers that were executed against the laws of war.

Terrorists are never protected by the laws of war because they operate outside the norms of war and are not identified with a government support system. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention on the handling of war prisoners.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Definition:

Convention is ratified by the US.

You write that you pointed out that the Iraqi assassination of US unarmed mechanics was a war crime.

Your thread title, however, is: Al Jazeera Showing Tortured and Assassinated US Mechanics on TV.

Jedi, you have shown that you give a f**k about the convention and would use torture without hesitation. Why cry then, if it used against one of ours? They're just doing the same as you would have done! :(

Not entirely true. One convention addresses the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners. The other addresses the use of torture in general. So in JK's behalf I submit to you the disregard of two conventions by the Iraqis military. One neing the bad treatment of prisoners through execution and torture and the other simply being torture itself.

While some like JK and myself may support the use of torture in very specific cases not involving combatants, it does not mean that any comments along those lines support the wholesale use of torture.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


JK's an idiot. So many posts he participate in quickly degenerate into discussions of what's wrong with him, the way he argues, the insane things he believes.

Any other troll wouldn't be fed like JK is, but for some reason people like to argue with him as if he had something valuable to bring to our conversations.

You'll notice that this discussion is almost entirely about JK's hypocrisy (as if that was something just recently 'exposed') about torture.

I recommend putting him on 'ignore'.

MattJ

Appeal to popularity logic fallacy. Why don't you run off and find some kids to play with, child.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You and Troll just don't get it. The Geneva Convention Treaty applies to nation-states that are at war between each other.

Terrorists do not represent nation-state systems and are therefore treated completely differently in the international political arena. The international community has a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism. Terrorists can be killed indiscriminately at will by any foreign government power without fear of repercussions from the United States and the United Nations.

What you tried to say was "Gosh, Jedi supports torturing terrorists, but complains when soldiers are executed on the battlefield." They are two different animals. I am merely pointing out where you went wrong with what you believed was a sophisticated attack to rebut my position on the soldiers that were executed against the laws of war.

Terrorists are never protected by the laws of war because they operate outside the norms of war and are not identified with a government support system. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention on the handling of war prisoners.

JK

I agree with this comment, well except for the me not getting it part. I got it the first time. You're just failing to admit that you were less than clear and concise at that time. But then this was better worded than the one I was refering to earlier.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll



No. And it saddens me to say this as a republican, but you're getting too emotionally involved in your topics. I feela great deal of passion for many things but to be honest, I only go off half-cocked and fully assuming when I'm drunk. I'm sober at the moment and you need to realize that you're an extremist and one that makes things harder for the rest of us.

I do believe in the use of torture for terrorists. I beleive in punishing those that do not follow the convention and it ruling as to treatment of prisoners. But people here will assume I'm as looney as you are because I agree with you on those terms and that affects my standing in this particular society.

what I am saying here is that the unarmed mechanics are indeed combatants or at the very leat have the ability to be so and are therefore legitimate targets for capture and the status of POW. their treatment however is a war crime .

And you came along the same time I did on this forum bud. Wanan talk newbie? See what I mean? You have some weird and twisted sort of investment that others don't and they use that freed up lack of emotional behavior to deliver a little logic and forethought into the topics at hand.

If you were smart, you'd stop ragging on my ass as you can't take me alone and so far I'm mostly on your side. In short, simple terms you may better understand, Stop being so french about this.:D

Look, it is clear that you not only have no understanding of the intent of the Geneva Convention Treaty, but now you are spiraling into the gutter with personal attacks.

Here is where you and Bjorn went wrong and my reply to the laughable perceptions that you guys have:

Originally posted by Jedi Knight:

You and Troll just don't get it. The Geneva Convention Treaty applies to nation-states that are at war between each other.

Terrorists do not represent nation-state systems and are therefore treated completely differently in the international political arena. The international community has a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism. Terrorists can be killed indiscriminately at will by any foreign government power without fear of repercussions from the United States and the United Nations.

What you tried to say was "Gosh, Jedi supports torturing terrorists, but complains when soldiers are executed on the battlefield." They are two different animals. I am merely pointing out where you went wrong with what you believed was a sophisticated attack to rebut my position on the soldiers that were executed against the laws of war.

Terrorists are never protected by the laws of war because they operate outside the norms of war and are not identified with a government support system. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention on the handling of war prisoners.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


I agree with this comment. But then it was better worded than the one I was refering to earlier.

That is all I have said the whole time. What you did was get distracted with a quote I made about terrorist combatants and information extraction that Bjorn linked to attack me in the thread. That is the usual radical leftism I experience on the forum, but nothing new.

So tell me, when are the marches in New York and San Fran by the Saddomonites goin to take place supporting the deaths of the US servicemen who were shot in the forehead?

Oh wait, they are taking place right now. The Iraqi regime is their heroes. All those useful idiots in the streets of America supporting Saddam. They are all Saddomonites.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight




You and Troll just don't get it. The Geneva Convention Treaty applies to nation-states that are at war between each other.

Terrorists do not represent nation-state systems and are therefore treated completely differently in the international political arena. The international community has a zero-tolerance policy for terrorism. Terrorists can be killed indiscriminately at will by any foreign government power without fear of repercussions from the United States and the United Nations.

What you tried to say was "Gosh, Jedi supports torturing terrorists, but complains when soldiers are executed on the battlefield." They are two different animals. I am merely pointing out where you went wrong with what you believed was a sophisticated attack to rebut my position on the soldiers that were executed against the laws of war.

Terrorists are never protected by the laws of war because they operate outside the norms of war and are not identified with a government support system. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention on the handling of war prisoners.

JK

never disagreed withthe treatment of terrorists. I've stated the opposite a few time already.

Now detach yourself emotionally and think.

I have said that the mechjanics are indeed eligle for combatant /POW stautus

I have said that their treatment is a war crime.

I have said I suport the use of torture against terrorists because they do no represent a country or nation legally as a combatant of said country or nation.

You have not seen these words because your emotions have made you a blinded monster looking to attack anything in your way even if it offers you some sort of alliace or comfort.

[Bjorn]

Jedi
What you tried to say was "Gosh, Jedi supports torturing terrorists, but complains when soldiers are executed on the battlefield." No, that is not what I tried to say, nor what I said.

You are supporting torturing terrorists, but cry when it seems like it could have been used against one of ours. I think that is called hypocrisy.

:(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi
No, that is not what I tried to say, nor what I said.

You are supporting torturing terrorists, but cry when it seems like it could have been used against one of ours. I think that is called hypocrisy.

:(

You just don't get it Bjorn. Sorry. Take a political theory class sometime. Try to take one at a non-leftist college so you don't get only 1/2 an education though.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


never disagreed withthe treatment of terrorists. I've stated the opposite a few time already.

Now detach yourself emotionally and think.

I have said that the mechjanics are indeed eligle for combatant /POW stautus

I have said that their treatment is a war crime.

I have said I suport the use of torture against terrorists because they do no represent a country or nation legally as a combatant of said country or nation.

You have not seen these words because your emotions have made you a blinded monster looking to attack anything in your way even if it offers you some sort of alliace or comfort.

You don't get it. When a soldier is captured on the battlefield he becomes a non-combatant. That is the core purpose of the Geneva Convention on the disposition of war prisoners.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You just don't get it Bjorn. Sorry. Take a political theory class sometime. Try to take one at a non-leftist college so you don't get only 1/2 an education though.

JK Hehe.

Once those who disagree with you are called leftists, I know you're out of ammo. :p Have a nice day.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is all I have said the whole time. What you did was get distracted with a quote I made about terrorist combatants and information extraction that Bjorn linked to attack me in the thread. That is the usual radical leftism I experience on the forum, but nothing new.

So tell me, when are the marches in New York and San Fran by the Saddomonites goin to take place supporting the deaths of the US servicemen who were shot in the forehead?

Oh wait, they are taking place right now. The Iraqi regime is their heroes. All those useful idiots in the streets of America supporting Saddam. They are all Saddomonites.

JK

No. what I did was correct you about the terms of terrorist and combatants. See? you're so freaking emotionally involved that you just countered your previous comments about terroists not being able to achieve the status of combatant and the protection under the convention that you just said"a quote I made about terrorist combatants and information extraction " There are no terrorist comabtants, only terrorists. Combatants fight for a country as authorized by that country.

I really need to go eat now so don't assume my depature is in anyway capitualtion.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You don't get it. When a soldier is captured on the battlefield he becomes a non-combatant. That is the core purpose of the Geneva Convention on the disposition of war prisoners.

JK

untrue. Under the guidelines for US military personell yu arestill obligated o attempt to and support by all means, which means you are still a combatant, merely a captured one that has rights as an unarmed prisoner.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


No. what I did was correct you about the terms of terrorist and combatants. See? you're so freaking emotionally involved that you just countered your previous comments about terroists not being able to achieve the status of combatant and the protection under the convention that you just said"a quote I made about terrorist combatants and information extraction " There are no terrorist comabtants, only terrorists. Combatants fight for a country as authorized by that country.

I really need to go eat now so don't assume my depature is in anyway capitualtion.

You have completely confused everything I explained. Take your time, a deep breath, and go back and read it. It was very clear and you keep saying I am being emotional about it--no, you are the one being emotional about it. If you do not understand something I said, ask for clarification. When class is in session and I am the teacher, I don't have a problem with students asking questions.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


untrue. Under the guidelines for US military personell yu arestill obligated o attempt to and support by all means, which means you are still a combatant, merely a captured one that has rights as an unarmed prisoner.

Completely incorrect. I recommend that you study the Geneva Convention Treaty and then come back when you have a less fluid understanding of what it means.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hehe.

Once those who disagree with you are called leftists, I know you're out of ammo. :p Have a nice day.

Bjorn, I am never out of ammo. I just shot down your quote of mine you used in the thread to spin the meaning of what was put on the plate here and you have added nothing but :( :( :( thingies to your posts.

That doesn't add any credibility or factual content to your posts my friend. Just because you throw a sad face in there doesn't change the truth that terrorist combatants are not covered lawfully under the Geneva Convention for war dispostion.

But look, keep coming back. I am not going anywhere. I am right here. Go eat with your pal Troll and then come back and let's do an all-nighter.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That doesn't add any credibility or factual content to your posts my friend. Just because you throw a sad face in there doesn't change the truth that terrorist combatants are not covered lawfully under the Geneva Convention for war dispostion.
JK Are you really believing that the US has not ratified conventions that makes it illegal to torture terrorists?

Please check before you answer. Maybe you could find out where this quote is from:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Hint: Is is not about POWs. :( :( :(

[Leif Roar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The soldiers surrendered and then were executed.

That might have been what happened, but there is no way you can know that for a fact.

The major news services are still uncertain about wether the corpses shown were in fact US soldiers, and currently the official response from the US military is umbrage at the filming of the captured soldiers.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The soldiers surrendered and then were executed.

That might have been what happened, but there is no way you can know that for a fact.

The major news services are still uncertain about wether the corpses shown were in fact US soldiers, and currently the official response from the US military is umbrage at the filming of the captured soldiers.

I have seen all the photos of the executed soldiers and they are Americans. I have also seen the photos of the captured soldiers under interrogation. They are also Americans.

It was a war crime (http://www.muslm.net/vbnu/showthread.php?threadid=74439). The enemy must pay for this.

If you have any questions whether or not they were American, those questions end with this photo (http://www.muslm.net/vbnu/showthread.php?threadid=74439&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) and these pictures (http://www.muslm.net/vbnu/showthread.php?threadid=74439&perpage=15&pagenumber=3).

You will have to scroll down through this pro-Iraqi anti-US website to see the pictures.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Any other leftists doubt what happened?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Come on leftists. Tell me how cool it is to march with Saddomonites in San Francisco to benefit the terror state of Iraq. The same state that shot your fellow Americans through the head and executed them with assault rifles.

Tell me about it leftists. Tell me how subversion against the US government is "cool and fashionable".

I can only hope that everyone who marches in those pro-Iaqi protests in the US are sent to jail for a long time and punished for aiding and comforting the enemy.

I also hope the enemy soldiers that executed those harmless mechanics burn. Burn brightly.

JK

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Any other leftists doubt what happened?

Well, that's why I am against this war. You hawks sent our soldiers into this mess, and then you're surprised that soldiers die and are tortured. How is your support helping them now? They should've stayed home, and not have been sent overseas to fight in an unjust war like this one.

[tim]

Originally posted by fidiot


Well, that's why I am against this war. You hawks sent our soldiers into this mess, and then you're surprised that soldiers die and are tortured. How is your support helping them now? They should've stayed home, and not have been sent overseas to fight in an unjust war like this one.

I can't agree I'm afraid. If the US (or the UK come to that) just isolates itself from the world and pretends stuff isn't happening, when the brown stuff hits the fan it don't half make a mess. WWII anyone? If we'd whacked Hitler earlier, perhaps things might have been rather different..............

[fidiot]

Originally posted by tim
WWII anyone? If we'd whacked Hitler earlier, perhaps things might have been rather different..............

It's too late to argue about this now, but this comparison doesn't apply to the Iraq situation. In 1930's the circumstances and the whole situation were completely different. Especially keeping in mind that with all the inspections that were taking place, Iraq had no way to build new WMD's, etc. Whereas Hitler had the whole military industry going, helping Germany build up sufficient military power.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Al Jazeera is showing captured US troops from the 507th Maintenance Company on television. Some of them were unarmed and shot to death by Iraqi soldiers.

Gunning down innocent unarmed mechanics is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

The US Army will avenge them.



JK


And what was the "sin" of this inoccent soldiers???

Let me guess......they shoot to some inoccent people and send bombs to houses too.


Geneva convention is for wars....not for invations.

Keep on going Jedi "Hitler" Knight.



I want to know your opinion if Iraki planes send bombs to USA territory,..and one of them fall down.....are you going to recieve them with the Genove convention???

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Completely incorrect. I recommend that you study the Geneva Convention Treaty and then come back when you have a less fluid understanding of what it means.

JK


ANd what about UN Convention???

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Completely incorrect. I recommend that you study the Geneva Convention Treaty and then come back when you have a less fluid understanding of what it means.

JK

I resent what I am about to say in advance, merely based upon the fact that we both despise the worst of our liberal US side.

But bite me you freaking idiot. I studied it. that's why I say , and safely so, that mechanics are still considered to be combatants.

I dunno. Maybe it's you idiots from the army that think, " Hey i don't have a gun, treat me special" but in the freaking Marines, we're all considered to be a rifleman first then our MOS or Military Occupational Specialty.

so an electronics tech in the Marines is indeed a combatant. If he were to imitate the freaking army and surrender, then he is a POW and should be afforded treatment as such. That means, fed, not tortured and not killed while in a prisoner status. But he is still considered an enemy combatant, thus his ability to claim thew status of POW.

why is he or she still a combatant? Because he or she may waste your ass in an attempt to escape. they are not forbidden to kill thus they are still a combatant.

So to keep it simple for you, as I see must be done in order for you to understand anyone not you, even when they freaking tell you they agree with you ( moron) If you wear a freaking uniform, you are a combatant. You may be taken as a POW. You must be treated as such.

these guys, at least according to the media, were not treated as such and therefore the ones that mistreated the legitimate POWs wrongfully, are in fact guilty of war crimes.

you may not torture a POW. You should not torture anyone. But the rest of the world blows those facts off so screw the morality we can to. And I swear to you, ya little raving looney, I could torture you into saying Clinton was the freaking Messiah.

Yeah, I'm a sadist. I believe that if I can save the lives of those around me, then I'll gladly take the life of one of those that would destroy them. been there and done that already.

I would torture a terrorist to save lives and prevent his or her attack. I would not do so to a POW as to remain true to the concept of a warrior fighting the good fight and obeying the laws of war.

they did. Kill them slowly when we get them. But they killed and tortured POWs. Combatants. Thus they are guilty of war crimes and not guilty of killing non-combatants.

I'm speaking english here, JK. are you understanding the freaking words?

[Troll]

Originally posted by latinijral



ANd what about UN Convention???

screw the UN, they can't even support their own convictions let alone substaniate the Geneva conventions

[Troll]

Originally posted by latinijral



And what was the "sin" of this inoccent soldiers???

Let me guess......they shoot to some inoccent people and send bombs to houses too.


Geneva convention is for wars....not for invations.

Keep on going Jedi "Hitler" Knight.



I want to know your opinion if Iraki planes send bombs to USA territory,..and one of them fall down.....are you going to recieve them with the Genove convention???

wars have invasions. You're sorta new to the thought process, huh?

i know that sounds harsh but to be honest with ya,i don't care because you sound like one of those that would say "No war ever no matter what" which means closedmindedness as war or violence must always be left as a last option when diplomacy fails

and what's with your type always saying and claiming that innocents were targeted? Name one point in the past 30 years that the US targeted the home of Joe Anycountry, just becsause his government pissed us off?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
I think this whole thing is going to backfire on Iraq and cause the coalition to become even stronger. I believe the opinion polls will show far more people for the war then ever before. My two cents.

not everyone gets the news the way the US citizens do. And if some pundits are correct, this is not the last war we will be seeing for a while.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


screw the UN, they can't even support their own convictions let alone substaniate the Geneva conventions

So, screw the US. Two can play at that game. Do you wonder where this leads us?

[schplurg]

It's frustrating to me when these threads get thrown off-track because someone chooses to argue semantics, or the way someone worded a statement. I know wording is very important here, and sometimes that makes a big difference, but jeez already. After 2 pages of bickering, the point of the thread is lost. Actually, what was the point? ;) It seems like some people just want to take any opportunity to disagree with JK. I'm not accusing anybody specifically (or defending), it's just what I've seen in my days lurking (and now commenting) on this board.

It seems most agree that these US soldiers were killed as POW's, not in the midst of a battle. So they're enemy combatants, or maybe they are not? Call 'em what you want. They were supposedly disarmed and then killed. 'Nuff for me to comment.

I think Iraq is just going to piss off the "coalition" even more with this footage. I don't know who they are trying to impress...well I do, but it seems self defeating. These images make great propaganda for BOTH sides.

I don't care if the Iraqi's violate the Geneva Convention, or a Tupperware Convention. These images just prove how stupid and sick they are. It seems like something a little kid would do. "Look we killed some of yours too! No, lemme get in the picture!"

And what do these images change? Nothing. These pics are not shocking to me, or unexpected. I'm not at all surprised or shocked by what the Iraqi's do anymore. We'll keep pounding them, and, Geneva Convention or not, these guys won't be tried for war crimes because they'll be dead most likely. Business/war as usual.

The guy in the pictures looks pretty happy about things, but I'm afraid the party's about over pal. It saddens me deeply to see these attrocities, but we knew what we were getting into.

Do these images change the way you feel about this conflict at all? That's probably the only question worth asking about them in this thread...to try and get back on track.

EDIT:
Interesting how I have to go to the DrudgeReport to read anything at all about this on US websites (so far). Is this running on TV at all? I find no mention of this on any of the big news sites.

All I see in CNN's article...
"Army maintenance unit were unaccounted for, and some were shown on Iraqi state television as prisoners."

[bangdazap]

Getting killed while trying to surrender is unfortunately part of all wars, it shouldn't be this way and that's why we have the laws of war to curb the worst excesses. Until the time that there is a international court to judge war criminals, no matter which country the come from, or what cause they fought for, these crimes will continue.

Image from Reuters.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, screw the US. Two can play at that game. Do you wonder where this leads us?

why screw the US? I gave reason behind my post. do so for yours

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by bangdazap
Getting killed while trying to surrender is unfortunately part of all wars, it shouldn't be this way and that's why we have the laws of war to curb the worst excesses. Until the time that there is a international court to judge war criminals, no matter which country the come from, or what cause they fought for, these crimes will continue.

Image from Reuters.

That's laughable. The international court would only be used against the State of Israel and America.

Where were all those righteous Europeans when Rwanda was caught up in an ethnic cleansing killing spree? I didn't hear any leftist whining for criminal court action over that.

Better yet, what about Yugoslavia? It took Europe over ten years to finally ask the US for help to deal with that murder-spree. We got Milosovic handed to the ICC and the Europeans couldn't even handle it because they have Israel in their sights.

The ICC, if it ever appears with any legitimacy, will just be yet another radical leftist tool to attack the US and other democracies like Israel.

JK

[Pyrrho]

Jedi Knight is correct. We can't ignore this war crime, regardless of our feelings about the war in general. There is no excuse for executions of unarmed prisoners.

And people think the bombing has been excessive...if we wanted to we could flatten Baghdad and every other city in Iraq. Holding back is costing American lives.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Jedi Knight is correct. We can't ignore this war crime, regardless of our feelings about the war in general. There is no excuse for executions of unarmed prisoners.

And people think the bombing has been excessive...if we wanted to we could flatten Baghdad and every other city in Iraq. Holding back is costing American lives.

The greatest lesson that I am taking from this war is how the Iraqi regime is dooming its own people rather than surrendering. How can people not protest the Iraq regime to surrender, rather than forming mobs in San Francisco that celebrate Iraq and attack the United States amazes me.

Very soon there will be several US military divisions surrounding Baghdad. If Baghdad doesn't surrender, what is going to come is going to make the first few days of this war look like a training exercise.

Iraq needs to surrender before they doom their own people even more than they already have. Iraq is a dangerous leftist nation-state and this should be a lesson to all of us why we shouldn't allow dangerous leftist grips on power.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Jedi Knight is correct. We can't ignore this war crime, regardless of our feelings about the war in general. There is no excuse for executions of unarmed prisoners.

depends on
1. If its true.
2. At what level it was ordered and how long after the fighting it happened, There is a difference, sorry but more info is required here.



And people think the bombing has been excessive...if we wanted to we could flatten Baghdad and every other city in Iraq. Holding back is costing American lives.

Actually, Invading is what is costing American lives, You knew about that before you went in, its no good going all agro when the bill arrives.

so in order to save Iraqis from saddam you will flatten the place? Hmmmm, loose sight of the forrest and the trees?



And while we are on the topic, can we end all this tripe about "mechanics" Its completely irrelevant .They were soldiers on a battlefield.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Jedi Knight is correct. We can't ignore this war crime, regardless of our feelings about the war in general. There is no excuse for executions of unarmed prisoners.

And people think the bombing has been excessive...if we wanted to we could flatten Baghdad and every other city in Iraq. Holding back is costing American lives.

this sounds a lot like saying the only deaths that matter are those of americans.

[Tmy]

Have any of you seen seen the footage?? I end up watching RPT (Portugese News Networks) cause the news and footage isnt watered down like with CNN and the rest.

I didnt see any executions, though they did show dead bodies. Im not sure if they were killed during the ambush.

I saw the interview with the soliders. To be honest, it wasnt as bad as I had assumed after hearing the news reports. Obviously they were scared and confused, they were being asked questions like "where are you from" and the like. I felt bad for them. Especially the women soilder.

They also showed the mother of one of the POW's. She made a number of anti war comments, which I hadnt heard in the local news reports.

It's Less than a week into this war and Ive learned to be very suspect of "breaking news". The stories are always speculative, misleading, or flat out wrong. I reserve judgemnt for a couple days later, by that time the real facts tend to come out.

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Jedi Knight is correct. We can't ignore this war crime, regardless of our feelings about the war in general. There is no excuse for executions of unarmed prisoners.

And people think the bombing has been excessive...if we wanted to we could flatten Baghdad and every other city in Iraq. Holding back is costing American lives.
In my limited understanding or war, I in-part agree too it is a war crime and those involved should be brought to justice.

As for flattening Iraq yes there is enough weaponry I guess available to do it, but come on not all in Iraq are the enemy are they?

I believe when you sign up to be in the military you know you may be very well signing away your life as well it goes with the job so to bluntly speak.

Excuse me but America is not the only people out there fighting you have my side of the pond out there fighting as well.

So please show a little respect here and acknowledgment, England has lost people over there too.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


this sounds a lot like saying the only deaths that matter are those of americans.

Using that logic we wouldn't risk lives in Iraq to free the Iraqi people.

JK

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Using that logic we wouldn't risk lives in Iraq to free the Iraqi people.

JK

Well, those who decided to attack Iraq don't risk their own lives, do they?

[Tmy]

JK (or anyone else) did Al J show the POW's being tourtured/executed?? I havent seen this. Im wondering if the story is hyped up propaganda.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tmy
JK (or anyone else) did Al J show the POW's being tourtured/executed?? I havent seen this. Im wondering if the story is hyped up propaganda.

The pictures show neither. It's just JK lying again.

[svero]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Well, those who decided to attack Iraq don't risk their own lives, do they?

Nor do their sons and daugters apparently. I read there's just one of 500 or so US congressmen that has a child in the armed forces.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
JK (or anyone else) did Al J show the POW's being tourtured/executed?? I havent seen this. Im wondering if the story is hyped up propaganda.

I linked the pictures. The soldiers captured were shot in the forehead. In war, the chances for a group of soldiers to all be shot in the forehead are 1,000,000,000,000 : 1.

They were all executed and the ones allowed to live were selected because of their camera value.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

I linked the pictures in this thread to every soldier that was shot in the forehead and tortured but a moderator stealth-nuked them.

If you read the thread yesterday you would have seen them. I am not going to link them again.

JK

[Tmy]

I checked the link. It was apicture of a dead body. Taken from the video I saw. Agian, on its own it does not = tourtured/assinated as described in your heading.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


In war, the chances for a group of soldiers to all be shot in the forehead are 1,000,000,000,000 : 1.JK

Did you calculate this youreself? I'd like to see the calculations, please.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Electro-shock treatment is a fully valid method to extract information from terrorists. Terrorists are combatants. Unarmed mechanics are not combatants.

JK
If you're a member of the armed forces in uniform you're a combatant and subject to the Geneva Convention (assuming your adversary both signed and adheres to the convention. Not every country has signed on to this). If you're out of uniform you're a spy and may be shot out of hand.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Tmy
JK (or anyone else) did Al J show the POW's being tourtured/executed?? I havent seen this. Im wondering if the story is hyped up propaganda.

I've seen the pictures. It's conjecture that the deceased were tortured; however, it was plain that they had been shot in the forehead. All of them. Their clothing was not bloody enough for them to have been shot in the body. The bodies were not photographed on the battlefield, but in a building where they had been taken. These weren't news photos; they were propaganda photos.

Originally posted by armageddonman


Did you calculate this youreself? I'd like to see the calculations, please.

Obvious hyperbole, but probably not far off. The chances would be astronomical.

[Tmy]

Im sure your right. When I heard the story I got the impression that the shooting and tourture was filmed. I guess not.

How do you define what is propaganda and what is news.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Biker Babe

In my limited understanding or war, I in-part agree too it is a war crime and those involved should be brought to justice.

As for flattening Iraq yes there is enough weaponry I guess available to do it, but come on not all in Iraq are the enemy are they?

I believe when you sign up to be in the military you know you may be very well signing away your life as well it goes with the job so to bluntly speak.

Excuse me but America is not the only people out there fighting you have my side of the pond out there fighting as well.

So please show a little respect here and acknowledgment, England has lost people over there too.

A grievous oversight on my part. I apologize.

My point is that to the extent our military is trying to wage a "kinder, gentler" war, such an effort costs coalition lives that otherwise would not be lost. As an example, the recent fake surrender by Iraqi soldiers.

Yes, when you join the military you had better be prepared for the worst. That said, if you go to war, prosecute that war to your fullest capability. The longer it takes, the more people will die on both sides. When politicians try to limit engagements it is the common soldier who pays the price, as well as the innocent civilian.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im sure your right. When I heard the story I got the impression that the shooting and tourture was filmed. I guess not.

How do you define what is propaganda and what is news.


It's hard to tell, usually, but when someone shoves his smiling face into the picture, holds a dead face in position for the camera, and prods dead bodies with his foot, its usually propaganda.

Originally posted by Troll


Name one point in the past 30 years that the US targeted the home of Joe Anycountry, just becsause his government pissed us off?


Panamà !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USA `s ex.parter NORIEGA.

[jj]

This isn't surprising, they've been taught from birth that the jelly-spined infidels will collapse and cry at the first sign of a real threat.

That's part of what makes them dangerous, they still think that when a line of 50 M1A1's rolls over the horizon with 2 drone spotters and backup A10's. That's also part of what makes them extinct.

Why CNN don`t show the Iraq`s babies and inoccent people dead????

Who believe in CNN?

Originally posted by latinijral
Why CNN don`t show the Iraq`s babies and Innocent people dead????

Who believe in CNN?
Sorry but I saw some of those images yesterday, on the beeb news yesterday, they came from the iraqi's themselves showing some reporters around a local hospital, so they are shown.

If you dont believe CNN go out there and report it yourself.

Originally posted by Biker Babe


If you dont believe CNN go out there and report it yourself.

CNN is a sock puppet of the invaders.

Report myself???? I don`t need it, because I can see European TV, so I can make my own criteria about the invation and babiy killers.


Do you believe in CNN??

[tim]

Originally posted by latinijral


CNN is a sock puppet of the invaders.

Report myself???? I don`t need it, because I can see European TV, so I can make my own criteria about the invation and babiy killers.


Do you believe in CNN??

Bloody hell, mate!
What are you so angry about? If you care about Iraqi men, women and children then you'll want to see the last of Saddam. That bloke kills more people in a week than this entire war is likely to cost in innocent lives.
So why the anti-American rant? Have a go at us Brits as well, why don't you? And the Australians. And the Spanish. etc. etc.

[Troll]

Originally posted by latinijral



Panamà !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USA `s ex.parter NORIEGA.

And who was targeted? Noriega the guy in charge. Not the homes of his people.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by latinijral


CNN is a sock puppet of the invaders.

Report myself???? I don`t need it, because I can see European TV, so I can make my own criteria about the invasion and baby killers.


Do you believe in CNN??
So, it is alright for the Iraqi dictator and his son to starve and brutalize his people that's including babies and unleash chemicals on them, but not the the UK and America(please note that the UK military are fighting over there as well as being shot down my the Americans 'accidentally' too) to try and free them and let them have a better life then is it?

CNN sock puppets of the invaders do you think all the reporters sit together and plan what to show and stage it, and hope they are not contadicted by any of the other country reporters out there too, oh do grow up.:mad:

[Scared Chicken]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Here is a clip of US unarmed mechanics assassinated by Iraqi troops (http://www.drudgereport.com/AJ.jpg) being shown on Al Jazeera, the allah propaganda machine in the middle east.

It is time to drop the hammer on the bad guys. Bring on MOAB!

JK

If this is true, its a clear warcrime, and who ever is responsible should be punished. However 2 things:

1) Imagine if China invaded the US for possibly not complying with whatever UN resolution, bombed all your major cities, thereby killing your wife, your children, and countless friends/fellow soldiers. If you would get your hands on a few Chinese soldiers, ask yourself how humanely you would treat them. This is hardly a sustification of anything, but killing soldiers of an invading enemy army would justify "dropping the hammer", while nuking or bombing civilians would be called "collateral damage" ?

2) Have a look : here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16240). (third pragraph) here is a quote:

Apache attack helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and artillery units from the 24th Division pummelled the five-mile-long Iraqi column for hours, destroying some seven hundred Iraqi tanks, armored cars, and trucks, and killing not only Iraqi soldiers but civilians and children as well. Many of the dead were buried soon after the engagement, and no accurate count of the victims could be made. <snip>
The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey's offensive, two days into a ceasefire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of the retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks travelled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed and secured, in a position known as travel-lock

[Tmy]

These clips are not just being shown by Al Jezzeer. There being shown by almost every news organization outside the US.

In a way , I resent the US stations for not showing the clips. They had no problems showing Iraqi troops surrendering days eariler. That borders on propaganda. We have cameras smack in the middle of the troops for christsakes. Its a friggen reality TV show! I say anything goes. War is not pretty. Show a disclaimer before any graphic footage. That way people can turn off if they wish. As for me, I want to see whats going on. Even if it angrys up my blood.

[Frostbite]

Hey folks, guess what! This is war! There will be the murdering of innocent, unarmed bystanders. There will be massive casualties on both sides. There will be rape. There will consequences...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Hey folks, guess what! This is war! There will be the murdering of innocent, unarmed bystanders. There will be massive casualties on both sides. There will be rape. There will consequences...

And if I were still in the Army and manning a weapon in Iraq I would waste every living thing that got in my way. After using the tactics the Iraqis have...how can any of them expect to surrender successfully? They've f#cked themselves now.

-zilla

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


And if I were still in the Army and manning a weapon in Iraq I would waste every living thing that got in my way. After using the tactics the Iraqis have...how can any of them expect to surrender successfully? They've f#cked themselves now.

-zilla

hurra for the liberation army :rolleyes:

well, I thought you were a little brighter than that, but I was mistaken.

Your country is invading Iraq. It is rumored that your country commited war crimes there in the last GW.
If it is rumored here, than THERE is certainly considered a fact.
What is certainly a fact is that Bush I left the Iraqui people to be slaughtered after he urged them to rebel.
So don't expect any simpathy from the natives.

BTW, they're f#cked a long time ago...

Originally posted by rikzilla


And if I were still in the Army and manning a weapon in Iraq I would waste every living thing that got in my way. After using the tactics the Iraqis have...how can any of them expect to surrender successfully? They've f#cked themselves now.

-zilla

No you wouldn't. You would perform in precisely the manner your commanding officer instructed you, or you'd face a court-martial.

Sure is easy shooting from that armchair. :p

Read the "Irish nemesis" thread to see how honorable soldiers behave. You might find it instructional.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by sundog


No you wouldn't. You would perform in precisely the manner your commanding officer instructed you, or you'd face a court-martial.

Sure is easy shooting from that armchair. :p

Read the "Irish nemesis" thread to see how honorable soldiers behave. You might find it instructional.

The laws of war prevent soldiers from following illegal orders, regardless of who issues them and the rank they have. Americans are really good at that and have lawyers, special agents and others standing by to act on those situations when they occur.

Rank only matters in war if the orders issued by that rank are lawful.

Just clearing up your severe misconception of the inner workings of the military.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The laws of war prevent soldiers from following illegal orders, regardless of who issues them and the rank they have. Americans are really good at that and have lawyers, special agents and others standing by to act on those situations when they occur.

Rank only matters in war if the orders issued by that rank are lawful.

Just clearing up your severe misconception of the inner workings of the military.

JK

Nope. All those mechanisms are in place precisely to avoid the OPPOSITE scenario: someone like Rik in charge who orders his subordinates to commit war crimes by doing something like shooting civilians or captured troops.

You can't know much about the military, regardless of your experience, if you think you can disobey your superior's orders not to shoot someone and get away with it.

Read the Irish Nemesis thread. THOSE are the people in charge, thank God, not people who think like you and Rik. You're the classic loudmouth armchair warriors.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by sundog


Nope. All those mechanisms are in place precisely to avoid the OPPOSITE scenario: someone like Rik in charge who orders his subordinates to commit war crimes by doing something like shooting civilians or captured troops.

You can't know much about the military, regardless of your experience, if you think you can disobey your superior's orders not to shoot someone and get away with it.

Read the Irish Nemesis thread. THOSE are the people in charge, thank God, not people who think like you and Rik. You're the classic loudmouth armchair warriors.

Let me tell you something, cherry. I have been to war more than once and I was constantly correcting cherry LT's in war for their stupid combat decisions.

Rank doesn't matter when it comes to illegal orders. If someone gives you an illegal order in war you can tell them to shove it up their ass and there are hundreds of field-grade officers standing by to support you.

You must be thinking of a communist army and not the US Army.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Let me tell you something, cherry. I have been to war more than once and I was constantly correcting cherry LT's in war for their stupid combat decisions.

Rank doesn't matter when it comes to illegal orders. If someone gives you an illegal order in war you can tell them to shove it up their ass and there are hundreds of field-grade officers standing by to support you.

You must be thinking of a communist army and not the US Army.

JK

Appeal to authority, gumdrop.

Come on, you aren't dumb. Are you seriously telling me that there are times when an order NOT to shoot is an illegal order?

Your assertion is, that if you wanted to kill someone and your superior told you not to, that you could go ahead and kill the person and claim that the order not to was illegal?

Complete BS and you know it.

You must be thinking about the Nazi Army, not the U.S. Army.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by sundog


Appeal to authority, gumdrop.

Come on, you aren't dumb. Are you seriously telling me that there are times when an order NOT to shoot is an illegal order?

Your assertion is, that if you wanted to kill someone and your superior told you not to, that you could go ahead and kill the person and claim that the order not to was illegal?

Complete BS and you know it.

That's covered in existing rules of engagement. You do not fire unless fired upon. If you are not fired upon but you see an enemy soldier with a weapon you can fire.

You do not fire at civilians or cause collateral damage. The policy makes everything you said moot. If you are given orders to do an illegal act, you can lawfully disobey those orders with the full support of the commissioned officers in your division. The officer issuing those orders can be relieved of their command on the spot by any soldier of any rank. If it takes the butt-stock of your weapon and a pair of handcuffs to get that done, so be it.

Just because a person outranks you in war does not give them the authority to order you to conduct crimes against humanity.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That's covered in existing rules of engagement. You do not fire unless fired upon. If you are not fired upon but you see an enemy soldier with a weapon you can fire.

You do not fire at civilians or cause collateral damage. The policy makes everything you said moot. If you are given orders to do an illegal act, you can lawfully disobey those orders with the full support of the commissioned officers in your division. The officer issuing those orders can be relieved of their command on the spot by any soldier of any rank. If it takes the butt-stock of your weapon and a pair of handcuffs to get that done, so be it.

Just because a person outranks you in war does not give them the authority to order you to conduct crimes against humanity.

JK

Who do you think is arguing with any of that? That's what I was saying all along! Rik can't get his rocks off by killing POW's, and he can't order his subordinates to.

I'm not sure what that was all about, but thanks for helping me make my point.

:rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Sundog

I was just speaking out loud what every soldier on the line is now thinking for himself. There's an old saying in Texas...(you should be familiar with it) ..."Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.".

I'll say it again...if I were a soldier on point and I saw Iraqis waving a white flag I would not let them approach my position...if this means wasting them I would if I could do it without being in direct violation of an order not to.

I assure you that very few officers are out there telling their men they may not fire on suspect Iraqis. If an officer is out there doing this,..then the first time he loses a man to this illegal Iraqi tactic he will either "forget" his order, or his men will no longer follow him in combat. Every war has it's stories of officers fragged by their own men. Usually these are officers whose orders are getting their men killed.

Wake up Sundog....remember "Full Metal Jacket"??
The scene when they're riding in the chopper, and the door gunner is shooting everyone he can see:

Joker: "How can you shoot women...and children...??
Gunner: "You don't lead 'em as much!"

Attrocities happen in war when the rules of war are disregarded. The Iraqis have now made it very dangerous indeed to accept surrendering soldiers. If they use women and children as human bombs like the North Vietnamese did...then the flip side is the homicidal door gunner..."You just don't lead 'em as much."

War sucks....war without rules is worse. :mad:

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla
War sucks....war without rules is worse. :mad:

-zilla

Exactly.

Five minute irony break. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Exactly.

Five minute irony break. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

...and if you don't got 'em...bum one of'n Sundog :D

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and if you don't got 'em...bum one of'n Sundog :D

Dammit Rik, every time I'm about to dismiss you as hopeless, you do something human.

:D

You wouldn't like my brand. Makes you mellow.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Sundog

I was just speaking out loud what every soldier on the line is now thinking for himself. There's an old saying in Texas...(you should be familiar with it) ..."Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.".

I'll say it again...if I were a soldier on point and I saw Iraqis waving a white flag I would not let them approach my position...if this means wasting them I would if I could do it without being in direct violation of an order not to.

I assure you that very few officers are out there telling their men they may not fire on suspect Iraqis. If an officer is out there doing this,..then the first time he loses a man to this illegal Iraqi tactic he will either "forget" his order, or his men will no longer follow him in combat. Every war has it's stories of officers fragged by their own men. Usually these are officers whose orders are getting their men killed.

Wake up Sundog....remember "Full Metal Jacket"??
The scene when they're riding in the chopper, and the door gunner is shooting everyone he can see:

Joker: "How can you shoot women...and children...??
Gunner: "You don't lead 'em as much!"

Attrocities happen in war when the rules of war are disregarded. The Iraqis have now made it very dangerous indeed to accept surrendering soldiers. If they use women and children as human bombs like the North Vietnamese did...then the flip side is the homicidal door gunner..."You just don't lead 'em as much."

War sucks....war without rules is worse. :mad:

-zilla

The problem with the attacks on US Marines by guerrillas posing as POW's, I hate to say it, is a training deficiency.

Any person giving themselves up as a POW is to be ordered on the ground, face first with their arms to their sides. They are then to be searched by two soldiers, one with an M-16 pointing at the captured prisoner's head while the other searches them for contraband.

In the case of a platoon or company-sized surrender, enemy officers are to be immediately separated from their enlisted and all those soldiers should be first placed inside a containment area covered by crew-served weapons and at least a squad of troops. Then they can be handled securely.

The Marines made the grave mistake of letting surrendering troops pass through their lines. That is a training issue that needs to be corrected.

A highly proficient command task force will always have an element predetermined for prisoner disposition. 10 Marines died because that did not occur in the Marine task force.

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The problem with the attacks on US Marines by guerrillas posing as POW's, I hate to say it, is a training deficiency.

Any person giving themselves up as a POW is to be ordered on the ground, face first with their arms to their sides. They are then to be searched by two soldiers, one with an M-16 pointing at the captured prisoner's head while the other searches them for contraband.

In the case of a platoon or company-sized surrender, enemy officers are to be immediately separated from their enlisted and all those soldiers should be first placed inside a containment area covered by crew-served weapons and at least a squad of troops. Then they can be handled securely.

The Marines made the grave mistake of letting surrendering troops pass through their lines. That is a training issue that needs to be corrected.

A highly proficient command task force will always have an element predetermined for prisoner disposition. 10 Marines died because that did not occur in the Marine task force.

JK

Thanks for clearing that up JK...

I was never trained in a combat arms MOS....but I know enough not to allow "surrendering" enemy troops to overrun my position! Hopefully future Iraqi surrenders will be handled in the manner you described. If not, I can only imagine that far fewer are going to be able to surrender successfully. I guess this is what the SRG is trying to do....harden us so that we kill everything in sight...thus it will stop their weaker brethren from running towards American lines. :mad:

Originally posted by tim


Bloody hell, mate!
What are you so angry about? If you care about Iraqi men, women and children then you'll want to see the last of Saddam. That bloke kills more people in a week than this entire war is likely to cost in innocent lives.
So why the anti-American rant? Have a go at us Brits as well, why don't you? And the Australians. And the Spanish. etc. etc.


I don`t care about Saddam.
I care about inoccent people.

I am not Antiamerican...I love America...but some people are really stupid and assasins...not all.

Remeber this: USA cares about Saddam when Irak fight against Iran...they gave to Saddam the chemical and biological wheapons.

Originally posted by Troll


And who was targeted? Noriega the guy in charge. Not the homes of his people.

The family of a neighbor died in Panamà.
The "intelligent wheapons" were fool again.

Sorry, I am sure you didn`t see it in CNN.

[Oliver]

It's interesting to compare al-jazeera coverage with cnn. At least the pictures... as I don't read arabic and haven't bothered looking for a translation.

Al Jazeera images - bodies with heads blown off, injured babies crying, wounds, brains scattered, scalps mangled, dead amonst rubble and so on...

CNN - iraqis waving white flags, tanks rolling across the desert, planes taking off from ships.

It's really shameful the way the media has jumped on the bandwagon and glorified and sanitized this massacre. Watching the explosions rock Bagdad during the first shock and awe attak some guy on cnn is saying "wow! did you get a look at that one! wow that was a biggie!" as if it were a fireworks display at Disneyland. Tragic. It's one thing to think this war is necessary, and support it as a a necessary evil. It's another thing entirely to be a callous idiot. It's like hiring a clown for entertainment at a funeral.


Why is that? Why is the TV-Media in the US so censored and mendacious? :confused:

And if the TV-Media cherry-picks about war - who knows in which Areas they're doing exactly the same? No average American would ever know the difference. :D

[Darth Rotor]

Why is that? Why is the TV-Media in the US so censored and mendacious? :confused:

And if the TV-Media cherry-picks about war - who knows in which Areas they're doing exactly the same? No average American would ever know the difference. :D
WTF with this thread necromancy Oliver? Are you looking for old clips of Baghdad Bob?

DR

[jsiv]

Why is that? Why is the TV-Media in the US so censored and mendacious? :confused:
US? Most, if not all, western media is like that.

What's with this obsession with trying to portray everything American as censored and full of lies? I think you hold some kind of record for the most threads about the same topic.

War coverage in the west is always sanitized, we don't want to see graphic death and destruction. As for mendacious.. All news networks show bias in their reporting, From FOX News to CNN to the BBC to France 24. They're all biased and spin the stories to fit their agenda. This is a worldwide phenomena.

The english version of Al Jazeera is also "censored" as you put it, yet it still manages to deliver the same message with the same bias as the arabic original -- albeit in a slightly more toned down and subtle manner.

[Oliver]

US? Most, if not all, western media is like that.

What's with this obsession with trying to portray everything American as censored and full of lies? I think you hold some kind of record for the most threads about the same topic.

War coverage in the west is always sanitized, we don't want to see graphic death and destruction. As for mendacious.. All news networks show bias in their reporting, From FOX News to CNN to the BBC to France 24. They're all biased and spin the stories to fit their agenda. This is a worldwide phenomena.

The english version of Al Jazeera is also "censored" as you put it, yet it still manages to deliver the same message with the same bias as the arabic original -- albeit in a slightly more toned down and subtle manner.


Well, I'm highly interested about this Issue and I also tend to believe it's very true that the American Broadcaster are indeed showing the most patriotic way as possible. But as I said: You probably wouldn't see the difference anyway - unless you also would have watched your own Media from "outside" for several months now.

But maybe other "Foreigners" in here share the impression.

[jsiv]

Well, I'm highly interested about this Issue and I also tend to believe it's very true that the American Broadcaster are indeed showing the most patriotic way as possible. But as I said: You probably wouldn't see the difference anyway - unless you also would have watched your own Media from "outside" for several months now.

But maybe other "Foreigners" in here share the impression.

As you might be able to tell by looking below my username, I am in Norway and not the United States.

Of course the media plays a role in wartime propaganda, that goes without saying. You can't rally support at home if you spend too much time focusing on the death and destruction.

You can see the same kind of propaganda on this side of the Atlantic, where some of the media devote all their time and effort to the exact opposite.. Showing only the failures in an attempt to rally support for their political beliefs and against America.

The United States does of course deserve criticism for a lot of stuff, but much of what you focus on are things that are in no way unique to the US.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We are reminded of what an idiot JK was. He was fun to laugh at!

[Cain]

For some reason this clip was on my youtube homescreen page:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVFrryFNfEA

I remember seeing Ms. Fahkry when the Daily Show did a piece on Al Jazeera English.

[gumboot]

I just noticed the OP in this thread is wrong, though I am sure others have already pointed it out. Enemy forces do not need to be armed to be legitimately engaged.

-Gumboot

[Tricky]

We are reminded of what an idiot JK was. He was fun to laugh at!
Yeah, it really takes me back. None of our current crop of trolls would have the chutzpah to say, "It's okay to kill nuns if they give you a failing grade."

[billydkid]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to read the story, but these are "our" Iraqi soldiers killing our servicemen? I'm confused.

[Metullus]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to read the story, but these are "our" Iraqi soldiers killing our servicemen? I'm confused.Nah. Oliver just decided to resurrect another long dead thread. The OP was 4 years ago.

[gumboot]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to read the story, but these are "our" Iraqi soldiers killing our servicemen? I'm confused.


I was confused too. Check the date. :) This thread is from 2003. Oliver raised it from the dead for some reason.

It needs a stake through the heart, a silver bullet, and a decapitation.

-Gumboot

ETA. Doh. Too slow.