Killing And Battle

[jimbms]

But that still does not justify the shooting of someone helping the wounded, there is no proof in that video that anyone in that van was armed especially not the children, the US voiceovers even said they saw no weapons, by your definition any civilian helping the wounded is an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Convention does apply to civilians helping wounded of any kind and the UN protocol (Which I note you did not mention that the US troops broke) and Geneva Convention both forbid the deliberate shooting at of unarmed children. Although the initial fire order could be justified the rest broke the UN Protocol on engagement in Iraq and was just the US as usual doing things their own inhumaine way.

[P.K.]

But that still does not justify the shooting of someone helping the wounded,

Wrong. As soon as help was offered he sided with the insurgency and therefore became a target. That was why they held fire until it actually happened. For all they knew he was going to remove weapons from the body. Also I would have to wonder at taking kids into a killing zone. Stupid just doesn't do it justice.

 

According to the Geneva Convention every insurgent the US capture they can simply put up against a wall. Although preferably it should be a corner because of the danger of ricochets.

[jimbms]

Again you fail to cite the UN protocol, but aside from that, according to what you say if a member of the British force or a journalist goes to help a wounded insurgent then the US have the right to shoot them, bollocks they do. Nowhere in the Geneva convention does it say troops have the right to fire upon wounded insurgents of persons helping wounded insurgents, that is just the wrongful US interpretation of what it does say, in fact you only have to look at the case of the Canadian officer Capt Robert Semrau who was charged with second-degree murder for firing upon a wounded insurgent. In fact the third Geneva convention specifically states that ALL wounded no matter what their combative state should be given treatment wherever possible and that ALL persons seen to be assisting wounded no matter what their combative status shall not be fired upon or hampered in any way. Please don't lower yourself to the level of the USA.

[P.K.]

As I stated earlier US SOP's, which their troops HAVE to obey, say something different. I also noticed you ignored the simple fact that the insurgents operate outside of the Geneva Convention. But you could get the situation where the US captures a wounded insurgent, nurses them back to full strength and then shoots them by firing squad as per the convention.

 

Now US troops have faced General Court Martial for shooting wounded insurgents in Iraq, notably Falluja. They were acquitted on the grounds that the wounded could still pose a threat. How can you tell that from a helicopter? You can't. Did the man helping pose a threat? Well he's offering aid to an insurgent which to me is reason enough to engage.

[mæŋksmən]

This is whats wrong with todays world, how can anyone justify doing that in a country they dont have any right to be in.

That shit is the only reason americans pay $3 a gallon for fuel, murdering theiving bastards may aswell fuel their cars on blood.

 

pk. your sick in the head m8.

[P.K.]

incidently I would say a zeroed bolt action is far deadlier in the right hands.

Well jimbms got this right. Loading each round individually into an L42A at a range of 200 metres I could put 5 rounds in a 2-inch group in the centre of a figure-11 in just 25 seconds. Everyone around me was very glad I was on their side...

[mæŋksmən]

Did you get a bonus in your pay packet for each persons life you took pk.

Maybe treat the wife and kids with it.??

Did it pay more for head shots etc.

And with accuracy like that you could take out as many kids insurgents as neede.

[P.K.]

Did it pay more for head shots etc.

Head shots are far too risky as any fule kno.

 

The rule is "Two aimed rounds through the centre of the target."

 

Amen.

[Sidney]

incidently I would say a zeroed bolt action is far deadlier in the right hands.

Well jimbms got this right. Loading each round individually into an L42A at a range of 200 metres I could put 5 rounds in a 2-inch group in the centre of a figure-11 in just 25 seconds. Everyone around me was very glad I was on their side...

 

Bloody hell that's pretty impressive, I was always a pretty crap shot and only just scraped through my APWT's. Good job I was a medic, really.

Regarding the video and the attitude of the yank controlling the gun, following orders which involve the taking of a human life for whatever reason is one thing; actively enjoying it is another thing entirely. I found the whole thing quite sickening.

[jimbms]

At the end of the day let's face it if Saddam had been the leader of an African nation with no oil then no way would anyone have invaded to oust him, I cite Zimbabwe and Mugabe as a prime example, as such the only reason the conned by the USA coalition invaded was for oil and as such in reality the invasion was illegal and just for the benefit of the USA. I just wish we would pull all troops out bar the US ones and let them make their usual fuck up as they did in Vietnam. What baffles me is how people are so stupid as to support a government that allows our lads to get murdered for the sake of the US economy.

[P.K.]

So has Mugabe invaded two of his neighbours, developed and used WMD on his neighbours and his own and destabilised a strategically important region?

 

Oh no, he hasn't...

[slinkydevil]

At the end of the day let's face it if Saddam had been the leader of an African nation with no oil then no way would anyone have invaded to oust him, I cite Zimbabwe and Mugabe as a prime example, as such the only reason the conned by the USA coalition invaded was for oil and as such in reality the invasion was illegal and just for the benefit of the USA. I just wish we would pull all troops out bar the US ones and let them make their usual fuck up as they did in Vietnam. What baffles me is how people are so stupid as to support a government that allows our lads to get murdered for the sake of the US economy.

 

We have pulled them out of Iraq. Are you talking about Afghanistan? How are those Afghan oilfields doing? Whats that you say? There arn't any...

[mæŋksmən]

Their there to protect the c.i.a./wall streets opium production slinky thats what he means, worth several hundred billion a year.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Having just watched that all I can say is it is typical US gung ho attitude, no brain just fire on anything that moves if it doesn't look American, they have the usual American attitude of they are always in the right and their way is best, it is that attitude that makes me say well boo hoo for a couple of buildings in New York demolished, they deserved it, for years they have funded terrorists, examples being the Taliban and the IRA and now their puppet has turned and bit them, but in saying that I do not for one minute condone any other attacks outside the USA.

But come one, you'd almost think from your post that Britain behaves in a different manner to the USA in how it conducts its foreign policy. Britain just does it on a smaller scale.

 

Chinahand - I don't know what you really expected of me in a response. You know I think the war is wrong and immoral, and that the use of force by the military against civilians is terrorism if 'collateral' is something that the military machine accepts, though maybe tries to mitigate. But I think your question is more for an ex-squaddie to answer, as you have stated.

[jimbms]

Having just watched that all I can say is it is typical US gung ho attitude, no brain just fire on anything that moves if it doesn't look American, they have the usual American attitude of they are always in the right and their way is best, it is that attitude that makes me say well boo hoo for a couple of buildings in New York demolished, they deserved it, for years they have funded terrorists, examples being the Taliban and the IRA and now their puppet has turned and bit them, but in saying that I do not for one minute condone any other attacks outside the USA.

But come one, you'd almost think from your post that Britain behaves in a different manner to the USA in how it conducts its foreign policy. Britain just does it on a smaller scale.

 

Chinahand - I don't know what you really expected of me in a response. You know I think the war is wrong and immoral, and that the use of force by the military against civilians is terrorism if 'collateral' is something that the military machine accepts, though maybe tries to mitigate. But I think your question is more for an ex-squaddie to answer, as you have stated.

LDV for once in your life do try to keep on the subject, the video was about Amarican troops, no mention was made of any other nationality nor was any implied by myself, chinahand or P.K. We are not even discussing how Britain or any one else reacts. The subject in question is about American troops actions, now please keep to the subject of this incident or are we next going to have you diversiftying by saying 80% of troops in Iraq are homophobic.