NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2385


I'm sure the apologists will pick up on the the ex-serviceman Congressman's political hue, but the news report is fairly damning. Watch it if your bandwidth allows.

...shot by edgy soldiers.
So obviously they weren't in 'cold blood' then, were they.[/apologist]

No, seriously, I'm interested as to what will be the excuse this time.

Ooooooh....

Some people will say this is what happens in war. Which makes me say maybe we should stop having fricking wars.

Preparing for Apologists in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

It's well known the US military targets civilians and tries to blame it on the resistance fighters of Iraq. The US purposely targeted an office of Al Jazeera a couple of years ago and killed a cameraman even though Al Jazeera gave their co-ordinates to the US military. The excuse was that there was firing in the vicinity of the bureau of Al Jazeera.

It's well known the US military targets civilians and tries to blame it on the resistance fighters of Iraq. The US purposely targeted an office of Al Jazeera a couple of years ago and killed a cameraman even though Al Jazeera gave their co-ordinates to the US military. The excuse was that there was firing in the vicinity of the bureau of Al Jazeera.

There doesn't need to be any deliberate targeting of civillians for this to occur. To paraphase Mao, an insurgent swims through the sea of the people. They need to be defeated by police work but for the most part the U.S. forces can't even speak the language and are only trained to handle matters militaristicly. The situation is made worse by the leaders of the nation say things along the lines of, "Who will rid me of this Bishop of Canterbury?" by doing things such as failing to condem torture and extrajudicial rendition.

There doesn't need to be any deliberate targeting of civillians for this to occur. To paraphase Mao, an insurgent swims through the sea of the people. They need to be defeated by police work but for the most part the U.S. forces can't even speak the language and are only trained to handle matters militaristicly. The situation is made worse by the leaders of the nation say things along the lines of, "Who will rid me of this Bishop of Canterbury?" by doing things such as failing to condem torture and extrajudicial rendition.


Not to mention by making a mockery of proceedings to curb any abuses....
*thinks 'Abu Ghraib'*

Some people will say this is what happens in war. Which makes me say maybe we should stop having fricking wars.

Yes, it's what happens in war. And as soon as your country completely disbands its military, and disarms all of its police and citizens, and forswears war, we'll do the same.

Yes, it's what happens in war. And as soon as your country completely disbands its military, and disarms all of its police and citizens, and forswears war, we'll do the same.

I said stop having wars. Not disarm. That's a bit of a leap you got going there. The U.S. wasn't faced with a choice between invading Iraq and disbanding its military and disarming all of its police and citizens. It could have not invaded Iraq and kept all its military. In fact it would have kept the 2,000 or so who have died so far. I can't really see how invading Iraq has benefited the U.S. or made its citizens safer. I think this is one war the U.S. would definately have been better off not having.

I said stop having wars. Not disarm. That's a bit of a leap you got going there. The U.S. wasn't faced with a choice between invading Iraq and disbanding its military and disarming all of its police and citizens. It could have not invaded Iraq and kept all its military. In fact it would have kept the 2,000 or so who have died so far. I can't really see how invading Iraq has benefited the U.S. or made its citizens safer. I think this is one war the U.S. would definately have been better off not having.

No, if you don't want any more wars, you have to disarm everyone.

Otherwise, you'll have one sooner rather than later.

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.

No, if you don't want any more wars, you have to disarm everyone.

Otherwise, you'll have one sooner rather than later.

You know, France and Germany have gone for the longest period without attacking each other for over two thousand years. And now they a war between them seems as unlikely as a war between the U.S. and Canada. But they achieved that without disarming. Indeed about a hundred and fifty years ago the U.S. and Canada were on the verge of war but are now peaceful without having disarmed. It seems that peace doesn't seem to hinge on disarmament. (Not that I'm saying disarmament couldn't help.)

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.

You do know the Terrorists that did the 9/11 mass murder were mostly from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq, don't you? You attacked the wrong country. It's the big sandy one a bit further down. I would go as far to say that most of the people in Iraq who hate America hate America because America invaded Iraq. But that's just a theory of mine. I'm sure you can explain how I'm wrong.

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.
I really hope you're getting paid for spreading this quality of bullshit, because if you actually believe it, well, you're more simple than dishonest. And I'd rather see you as a lying sack than as a simpleton.

If the army investigation comes out and identifies this as a illegal killing of unarmed civilians. Then there are procedures in the army itself to handle this as a criminal case. If it did happen in a manner that was criminal. The soldiers involved can be facing a long prison stay.

You know, France and Germany have gone for the longest period without attacking each other for over two thousand years. And now they a war between them seems as unlikely as a war between the U.S. and Canada. But they achieved that without disarming. Indeed about a hundred and fifty years ago the U.S. and Canada were on the verge of war but are now peaceful without having disarmed. It seems that peace doesn't seem to hinge on disarmament. (Not that I'm saying disarmament couldn't help.)



You do know the Terrorists that did the 9/11 mass murder were mostly from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq, don't you? You attacked the wrong country. It's the big sandy one a bit further down. I would go as far to say that most of the people in Iraq who hate America hate America because America invaded Iraq. But that's just a theory of mine. I'm sure you can explain how I'm wrong.

No, you're not wrong on that count.

But, figure it this way. It's a much shorter trip for a young jihadi to go to Iraq (he can even walk there). It's like stirring up an ant or hornet nest - the ants and hornets defend the nest and ignore everything else.

So, the US just had to sit down SOMEWHERE in the Middle East, knock over a government, and wait.

I sometimes think that the real reason we did Iraq was that after we did Afghanistan, we didn't get the reaction we wanted. Now, we seem to have done too well in that regard.

But, they're all really busy in Iraq now.

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.

Why do they hate the US?

Why do they hate the US?
If you read the material that al-Qaeda distributes you would realize that it's not just the US that they hate (although we're at the top of their list).

They believe that the only solution to the problems that Arabs and Muslims have is the establishment of Dar al-Islam on a worldwide basis.

Right now, they feel that if they defeat the US, the rest will follow.

According to their own literature, steps like agreeing not to attack Spain anymore as long as Spain gets out of Iraq are merely temporary truces - allowable and beneficial to them until the US is destroyed.

Then they'll destroy the rest of the world.

So, go ahead and keep thinking that if you appease them, they'll let you go. They have no intention of doing anything except killing you and your family.

So, go ahead and keep thinking that if you appease them, they'll let you go. They have no intention of doing anything except killing you and your family.

Hey, who mentioned anything about appeasement? Wasn't me.

You know, France and Germany have gone for the longest period without attacking each other for over two thousand years.
forgive me if i'm wrong... but i believe france surrendered to Germany in ww2. less than the 2000 years you quoted...

forgive me if i'm wrong... but i believe france surrendered to Germany in ww2. less than the 2000 years you quoted...

I think it was meant to be construed as 'now for the longest period in the last 2000 years France and Germany haven't been at war with each other' - glossing over the fact that neither nation has existed for 2000, obviously.

Cold blooded murder of innocent people? I will not be surprised...

Three more articles about this case:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/wl_afp/usiraqrightsmarines_060518015159

I think it was meant to be construed as 'now for the longest period in the last 2000 years France and Germany haven't been at war with each other' - glossing over the fact that neither nation has existed for 2000, obviously.

I guess I should try to be more precise. The period from the end of World War II till now is the longest period of time that warring armies or tribes have not crossed the Rhine for over two thousand years.

I guess I should try to be more precise. The period from the end of World War II till now is the longest period of time that warring armies or tribes have not crossed the Rhine for over two thousand years.

And I bet you can thank the US, UK, and Russians for that.

I really hope you're getting paid for spreading this quality of bullshit, because if you actually believe it, well, you're more simple than dishonest. And I'd rather see you as a lying sack than as a simpleton.

Actually isn't this quite evident ? where were a large portion of the terrorist activities prior to Iraq ? (Israel)... Since the onset of the Iraq War suicide bombings in Israel have plumeted... which arguably can be directly related to the war. Now Terrorists can more directly strike at the west, not through a proxy (Israel) but directly in Iraq.

And to say terrorists are now busy in Iraq is not to say Iraq had any role in 911 but merely noting the reality, this is now the focus of terrorists activities.

Hey, who mentioned anything about appeasement? Wasn't me.

So, when are you off to fight 'em?

Cold blooded murder of innocent people? I will not be surprised...

Three more articles about this case:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/wl_afp/usiraqrightsmarines_060518015159

I think its worth mentionig these actions are not government sanctioned, since it works directly against their objectives, and only further soils their good name. By merely stating murder in cold blood you give the impression this is the goal of the Coalition, which clearly it is not (name one war where such activites were not taken )

Innocent until proven otherwise.

Murtha is NOT a friend of the marines or ANY branch of the service.

There's more to this than the story will say, and Murtha saying the marines killed them in cold blood sort of damns them from the get go.

I think its worth mentionig these actions are not government sanctioned, since it works directly against their objectives, and only further soils their good name. By merely stating murder in cold blood you give the impression this is the goal of the Coalition, which clearly it is not (name one war where such activites were not taken )
Read the articles, read my post - I disagree that I create the impression you've mentioned. But let me restate it then:

American soldiers going into homes and executing innocent women and children, murdering unarmed people in cold blood, as an uncontrolled and unsanctioned act of retribution for an attack by insurgents who were long gone? I am not surprised.

Better?

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.
Give me a hug, my little plaything...

Murtha is NOT a friend of the marines or ANY branch of the service.

it must be really nice to be able to just make shit up as you go along and not even feel bad about it.

Give me a hug, my little plaything...
*hugs Satan*

Hey, long time, no see!

Innocent until proven otherwise.

Of course.

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.

*Blows whistle* Ok, that's enough, back on topic you. Your opinion or whatever you have to say about the soldiers implicated in this killing. I haven't heard it yet DK, just a lot of sidetracking.

It's well known the US military targets civilians and tries to blame it on the resistance fighters of Iraq. The US purposely targeted an office of Al Jazeera a couple of years ago and killed a cameraman even though Al Jazeera gave their co-ordinates to the US military. The excuse was that there was firing in the vicinity of the bureau of Al Jazeera.
Man, I wish people like you were more vocal in your accusations and attacks against the USA. If more people heard your side of the story the US's side would seem alot more credible by comparison.

*Blows whistle* Ok, that's enough, back on topic you. Your opinion or whatever you have to say about the soldiers implicated in this killing. I haven't heard it yet DK, just a lot of sidetracking.

1. It's under military investigation. If true, someone will get punished.
2. It's not official US doctrine to kill people in retaliation like that.
3. If the order to do so was given by an officer, it was an illegal order.

On topic enough?

So, when are you off to fight 'em?

Painting the world in black and white again, are we? Either appeasement or signing up? The world is much more complex than that.


Aside from that I am too old by four years to join the British Army under normal circumstances, anyhow.

You can TG me with white feathers, if you want.

it must be really nice to be able to just make shit up as you go along and not even feel bad about it.


It's not made up-Murtha will say he supports troops but stabs them in the back. he held a town meeting and a Staff sgt came and tore Murtha several new holes.

Of course.

Noone shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process. Especially marines.

It's not made up-Murtha will say he supports troops but stabs them in the back. he held a town meeting and a Staff sgt came and tore Murtha several new holes.

Funny how one can be ex-military in support of a bad war and get lionized as a patriot. While if you're ex-military (with decorations), against a bad war, a member of congress (with deeper knowledge of said bad war that the public), and of the opposite party, you are suddenly "making things up".

Pardon me if I take your opinion as a load of bunk.

Noone shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process. Especially marines.

Unless they're Iraqi of course...

Unless they're Iraqi of course...

They aren't US citizens, it's Iraqi courts for them unless they're alqaeda, then it's off to Gitmo for them.

It doesn't surprise me. A patrol faces yet another random attack, yet again with no targets at which it can return fire. Sooner or later, people lose their minds and open up. It happens in every long war, to soldiers of every country. Whatever the circumstances of this case, it's pretty dumb to deny it can happen.

They aren't US citizens, it's Iraqi courts for them unless they're alqaeda, then it's off to Gitmo for them.

And obviously only US citizens deserve basic human rights and liberties such as 'innocent until proven guilty' and habeas corpus. :rolleyes:

And obviously only US citizens deserve basic human rights and liberties such as 'innocent until proven guilty' and habeas corpus. :rolleyes:

Those in Gitmo were caught during the quick fight in afghanistan and it takes a fair bit of work on their part to get there. They've already started some tribunals, if they are found guilty they are punished, if innocent set free. Some of them already have been set free due to this.

Those in Gitmo were caught during the quick fight in afghanistan and it takes a fair bit of work on their part to get there. They've already started some tribunals, if they are found guilty they are punished, if innocent set free. Some of them already have been set free due to this.

Do you know how many of them got there?

Many of them dared to speak out against the warlords who were running Afghanistan after (and before to a lesser extent) the invasion. The US was offering cash bounties with no questions asked for captured 'Taliban fighters'. Anyone who stood up to the warlords was sold to the US.

And you didn't answer my question: do 'innocent until proven guilty' and habeas corpus only apply to US citizens and why?

Cold blooded murder of innocent people? I will not be surprised...

Three more articles about this case:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/wl_afp/usiraqrightsmarines_060518015159
Except cold-blooded murder implies no emotion, and from what I garner such was not the case. Murder, yes. Cold-blooded, not fucking likely.

I think it was as hot-blooded as you can get.

It doesn't surprise me. A patrol faces yet another random attack, yet again with no targets at which it can return fire. Sooner or later, people lose their minds and open up. It happens in every long war, to soldiers of every country. Whatever the circumstances of this case, it's pretty dumb to deny it can happen.

War: putting the laugh back in slaughter.

Yes, it's what happens in war. And as soon as your country completely disbands its military, and disarms all of its police and citizens, and forswears war, we'll do the same.

Maybe we should set the example first?

I think it was as hot-blooded as you can get.

Check it and see...
I've got a fever of a hundred and three.

Relax people, they only slaughtered innocent civilians including babies because they were stressed out and on edge, see its justified. oh wait...

Relax people, they only slaughtered innocent civilians including babies because they were stressed out and on edge, see its justified. oh wait...
No, this isn't justified... but can you point to how this indicates policy for US Military as a whole as the OP clearly is trying to imply?

Figure it this way. It's a much shorter trip for a young jihadi to go to Iraq (he can even walk there). It's like stirring up an ant or hornet nest - the ants and hornets defend the nest and ignore everything else.

So, the US just had to sit down SOMEWHERE in the Middle East, knock over a government, and wait.

I sometimes think that the real reason we did Iraq was that after we did Afghanistan, we didn't get the reaction we wanted. Now, we seem to have done too well in that regard.

But, they're all really busy in Iraq now.
Interesting analogy. We start a war in Iraq in order to draw all the violence and terrorism there like a magnet, leaving America pristine. Very, very interesting.

One question, though: what about the millions of innocent people who happen to live in Iraq? I guess all they can do is join al-Qaeda and get shot and bombed to death. Or not join al-Qaeda... and still get shot and bombed to death.

But hey, as long as America is safe, it's alright. Purposely "knocking over a government" and destabilizing the security of millions of innocents solely to increase our own security is perfectly acceptable. And the countless thousands of civilians, the men, women, and children who get caught in the crossfire? Well, I guess it's their fault for being born there.

Right?

Except cold-blooded murder implies no emotion, and from what I garner such was not the case. Murder, yes. Cold-blooded, not fucking likely.
If this allegation proves to be correct:
The Marines raided a third house, which belongs to a man named Ahmed Ayed. One of Ahmed's five sons, Yousif, who lived in a house next door, told Time that after hearing a prolonged burst of gunfire from his father's house, he rushed over. Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. "They told me, 'There's nothing you can do. Don't come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.' The Americans didn't let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning." Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue. "But we could tell from the blood tracks across the floor what happened," Ayed claims. "The Americans gathered my four brothers and took them inside my father's bedroom, to a closet. They killed them inside the closet."
...then I would indeed call it cold blooded murder.

Relax people, they only slaughtered innocent civilians including babies because they were stressed out and on edge, see its justified. oh wait...

Seriously doubt the kids were directly targeted-current us m855 ammo will change direction after entering flesh and pop out someplace else.

ETA: Perhaps the marines beleived that one of the women had a suicide belt on her and was planning to detonate it? It happened in Northern iraq or Afghanistan during the opening stages of the war if I remember correctly. Killed two marines.

Seriously doubt the kids were directly targeted-current us m855 ammo will change direction after entering flesh and pop out someplace else.

They took them in a motherfucking closet!

They took them in a motherfucking closet!

that's if you can believe them :p

They took them in a motherfucking closet!

I was talking about Murtha and the alleged slaughter of Iraqi civilians.

There had better be a good reason for shooting them in a closet...

Well, sick humour aside, all the speculation about the inability of the 5.56 to work effectively in CQB seems to be taken care of.

I was talking about Murtha and the alleged slaughter of Iraqi civilians.

There had better be a good reason for shooting them in a closet...
Same cases... The one I've mentioned above is the same as Murtha is talking about.

There had better be a good reason for shooting them in a closet...

Maybe there were WMDs in the closet. ;)

There had better be a good reason for shooting them in a closet...
I guess it's one of those stories where you just had to be there. :rolleyes:

Maybe there were WMDs in the closet. ;)

If they just went and shot several innocent iraqis, they should be stripped of rank, given a DC, then shot.

If those were iraqi insurgents/foreign terrorists, they should be punished...somewhat. A week's pay and no booze for the entire deployment?

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2385


I'm sure the apologists will pick up on the the ex-serviceman Congressman's political hue, but the news report is fairly damning. Watch it if your bandwidth allows.
The soldiers were overworked and not given adequate rest.
Shit like that happens all the time in war. If you go on myspace you see all kinds of videos that soldiers post on there.
One shows a wounded Iraqi being shot to bits by a gunship as he crawls from a truck to a pickup.
In another video, british troops grab Iraqi youth, drag them behind a compound wall and beat the shit out of them while the guy holding the videorecorder makes odd remarks mocking the youth who are being beaten.
In the first case, the guy looked like he was concealing something. In the latter, the kids were throwing rocks on the British troops who apparently got pissed off and retaliated.
War is hell.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2385


I'm sure the apologists will pick up on the the ex-serviceman Congressman's political hue, but the news report is fairly damning. Watch it if your bandwidth allows.


That'd be easier if they even managed to give the congressman's name.

The soldiers were overworked and not given adequate rest.
Shit like that happens all the time in war. If you go on myspace you see all kinds of videos that soldiers post on there.
One shows a wounded Iraqi being shot to bits by a gunship as he crawls from a truck to a pickup.
In another video, british troops grab Iraqi youth, drag them behind a compound wall and beat the shit out of them while the guy holding the videorecorder makes odd remarks mocking the youth who are being beaten.
In the first case, the guy looked like he was concealing something. In the latter, the kids were throwing rocks on the British troops who apparently got pissed off and retaliated.
War is hell.

Both are justified-if you want to see an unjustified shooting, read the incident where a navy medic (Or army) put a wounded insurgent out of his misery. Bad.

i've been overworked and not had adequete sleep because of handing in electronics coursework, can i go beat some people?

ETA: Perhaps the marines beleived that one of the women had a suicide belt on her and was planning to detonate it? It happened in Northern iraq or Afghanistan during the opening stages of the war if I remember correctly. Killed two marines.
And perhaps they believed nothing of the sort and just shot her because she was Iraqi, and by definition not as important or valued as say a marine?

Both are justified-if you want to see an unjustified shooting, read the incident where a navy medic (Or army) put a wounded insurgent out of his misery. Bad.
so by throwing a few rocks its ok for them to get the shit beat out of them?

If they just went and shot several innocent iraqis, they should be stripped of rank, given a DC, then shot.

If those were iraqi insurgents/foreign terrorists, they should be punished...somewhat. A week's pay and no booze for the entire deployment?
Don't worry, even the military acknowledges that they were not insurgents or terrorists:
The military has classified the 15 victims in the first two houses as noncombatants.
(Not even the dead 2-year old is classified as a terrorist.)

so by throwing a few rocks its ok for them to get the shit beat out of them?

Yes

Not even the dead 2-year old is classified as a terrorist.

damn, i was sure that at least that one would be. perhaps we can say that it certainly would have grown up to be a terrorist had it survived this bit of murder, and therefore it was all for the best anyway?

It's not made up-Murtha will say he supports troops but stabs them in the back.

evidence?

Yes
seems a little cruel/ immoral but ok

so by throwing a few rocks its ok for them to get the shit beat out of them?

You've changed your tune UNA. Where's the flag-waving, patriotic dribble you usually come out with? Suddenly decided to stop mucking about?

To the subject: If the details are true, then the soldiers should be discharged and imprisoned for life. Shooting a suspected terrorist in the heat of the moment is one thing; placing people in a closet and opening fire is murder, short and simple. There's no excuse for that, none at all.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2385


I'm sure the apologists will pick up on the the ex-serviceman Congressman's political hue, but the news report is fairly damning. Watch it if your bandwidth allows.
umm ya that happens in all wars along with rape and alot of other stuff thats war most people thing ooh were america were better then that no thats not true war is no game its not the palce to play nice guy im sick of all these people who are all shocked about what happens in war and are mad cuz like 5 people died in 1 day well they need to get there head out of there asses, it was way worse in WW2 and even worse than that in Veitnam in veitnam there were thousands killed and murdered every day and in ww2 millions so befor you all go thats not right its you people the world can do with out you tree hugging hippies:sniper: :mp5:

You've changed your tune UNA. Where's the flag-waving, patriotic dribble you usually come out with? Suddenly decided to stop mucking about?

To the subject: If the details are true, then the soldiers should be discharged and imprisoned for life. Shooting a suspected terrorist in the heat of the moment is one thing; placing people in a closet and opening fire is murder, short and simple. There's no excuse for that, none at all.

no thats not true they will not be put in to prision they might be givin a bronze star becasue deadth of civs is normal in war and if they were throwing rocks that is a act of agression and they should of been fired upon

You've changed your tune UNA. Where's the flag-waving, patriotic dribble you usually come out with? Suddenly decided to stop mucking about?

Proof that UNA is not as good of a parrot as Jesussaves.

You've changed your tune UNA. Where's the flag-waving, patriotic dribble you usually come out with? Suddenly decided to stop mucking about?

To the subject: If the details are true, then the soldiers should be discharged and imprisoned for life. Shooting a suspected terrorist in the heat of the moment is one thing; placing people in a closet and opening fire is murder, short and simple. There's no excuse for that, none at all.
meh, I figure I will play devils advocate for little while. Try to come up with arguments that the left would use.

damn, i was sure that at least that one would be. perhaps we can say that it certainly would have grown up to be a terrorist had it survived this bit of murder, and therefore it was all for the best anyway?
Leave that to the rest of the traumatized and newly-orphaned children, and the families and friends of the people killed.

meh, I figure I will play devils advocate for little while. Try to come up with arguments that the left would use.
Touche. With this you managed to keep 2nd place in the parrot rankings.

no thats not true they will not be put in to prision they might be givin a bronze star becasue deadth of civs is normal in war and if they were throwing rocks that is a act of agression and they should of been fired upon
and a new troll emerges from the woods...

no thats not true they will not be put in to prision they might be givin a bronze star becasue deadth of civs is normal in war and if they were throwing rocks that is a act of agression and they should of been fired upon

So pushing civilians into a closet and gunning them down is worth a Bronze Star? Rather unusual reward system the US Army has there. The deaths of civilians may, unfortunately be normal, but that doesn't mean they should be avoided when possible and investigated when it occurs. Also, have you heard of 'Proportional Reponse'? Throwing rocks should not entail being gunned down. Knocked about a bit maybe, but firing at them is unncessary and brutal. Fire when fired upon, buit not when you have stuff thrown at you.

umm ya that happens in all wars along with rape and alot of other stuff thats war most people thing ooh were america were better then that no thats not true war is no game its not the palce to play nice guy im sick of all these people who are all shocked about what happens in war and are mad cuz like 5 people died in 1 day well they need to get there head out of there asses, it was way worse in WW2 and even worse than that in Veitnam in veitnam there were thousands killed and murdered every day and in ww2 millions so befor you all go thats not right its you people the world can do with out you tree hugging hippies:sniper: :mp5:
...



What? :confused:

seems a little cruel/ immoral but ok

I think that up until that point when he becomes incapacitated from being hit with rock..... the more rocks a person is pelted with the more proper the option of beating down the rock thrower seems to him. Plus it sets a bad precedent for an occupying army to allow an occupied people to physically assault them very much.

umm ya that happens in all wars along with rape and alot of other stuff thats war most people thing ooh were america were better then that no thats not true war is no game its not the palce to play nice guy im sick of all these people who are all shocked about what happens in war and are mad cuz like 5 people died in 1 day well they need to get there head out of there asses, it was way worse in WW2 and even worse than that in Veitnam in veitnam there were thousands killed and murdered every day and in ww2 millions so befor you all go thats not right its you people the world can do with out you tree hugging hippies:sniper: :mp5:

You're funny.

umm ya that happens in all wars along with rape and alot of other stuff thats war most people thing ooh were america were better then that no thats not true war is no game its not the palce to play nice guy im sick of all these people who are all shocked about what happens in war and are mad cuz like 5 people died in 1 day well they need to get there head out of there asses, it was way worse in WW2 and even worse than that in Veitnam in veitnam there were thousands killed and murdered every day and in ww2 millions so befor you all go thats not right its you people the world can do with out you tree hugging hippies:sniper: :mp5:
no thats not true they will not be put in to prision they might be givin a bronze star becasue deadth of civs is normal in war and if they were throwing rocks that is a act of agression and they should of been fired upon

I give you a 3 out of 10. You've got to be a bit more coherent and slightly more subtle.

meh, I figure I will play devils advocate for little while. Try to come up with arguments that the left would use.

Whilst your motives aren't exactly pure, I'd welcome any attempt for you to actually become less biased and realise that those left of vastly right-wing do occassionally have good points.

So pushing civilians into a closet and gunning them down is worth a Bronze Star? Rather unusual reward system the US Army has there. The deaths of civilians may, unfortunately be normal, but that doesn't mean they should be avoided when possible and investigated when it occurs. Also, have you heard of 'Proportional Reponse'? Throwing rocks should not entail being gunned down. Knocked about a bit maybe, but firing at them is unncessary and brutal. Fire when fired upon, buit not when you have stuff thrown at you. a solder is not ment to think they are ment to do there job with no hesitation and if some civs want to get in there way by throwing rocks at them preventing them from doing there job by possibly injuring a member of the squad they are on the hostile list

Yes, it's what happens in war. And as soon as your country completely disbands its military, and disarms all of its police and citizens, and forswears war, we'll do the same.
Ha Ha! No, we will not.

a solder is not ment to think they are ment to do there job with no hesitation and if some civs want to get in there way by throwing rocks at them preventing them from doing there job by possibly injuring a member of the squad they are on the hostile list
how old are you?

a solder is not ment to think they are ment to do there job with no hesitation and if some civs want to get in there way by throwing rocks at them preventing them from doing there job by possibly injuring a member of the squad they are on the hostile list

Utter rubbish. Soldiers are meant to think, not just to pull a trigger. Whilst not a soldier myself, I'm sure the ex-soldiers on here will readily tell you that soldiers are supposed to gauge reactions to situations, to analyse situations and how to respond to them, then act on them. They should not be putting people into closets and shooting them in cold blood.

Again, 'Proportional Reponse'. Gunning down civilians is not accepted practice, nor should it ever be. Rocks should not be responded to with gunfire - that's called a massacre, unless there's thousands of them. I can accept beatings - as the British soldiers did on camera a few months ago- as a fair reaction, albeit rather too violent, but shooting them is wrong.

how old are you?
why should it madder? this conversation has nothing to do with age

No, if you don't want any more wars, you have to disarm everyone.

Otherwise, you'll have one sooner rather than later.

The only benefit I see is that it's kept terrorists who hate the US busy in Iraq, rather than busy over here.

then people will use their fists and hand made weapons, and society will start all over again. It's human nature to war, no matter what weaponry you are using.

Whilst your motives aren't exactly pure, I'd welcome any attempt for you to actually become less biased and realise that those left of vastly right-wing do occassionally have good points.

Malarky!


Only unbiased centrists like myself have good points. All the rest are just proving they are asylum-bait;)

then people will use their fists and hand made weapons, and society will start all over again. It's human nature to war, no matter what weaponry you are using.

"I do not know with which weapons World War Three will be fought, but I know World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones"

- Albert Einstein

Utter rubbish. Soldiers are meant to think, not just to pull a trigger. Whilst not a soldier myself, I'm sure the ex-soldiers on here will readily tell you that soldiers are supposed to gauge reactions to situations, to analyse situations and how to respond to them, then act on them. They should not be putting people into closets and shooting them in cold blood.

Again, 'Proportional Reponse'. Gunning down civilians is not accepted practice, nor should it ever be. Rocks should not be responded to with gunfire - that's called a massacre, unless there's thousands of them. I can accept beatings - as the British soldiers did on camera a few months ago- as a fair reaction, albeit rather too violent, but shooting them is wrong.

what would you call the atom bombs we droped on japan those piolts all got the medal of honor while killing millions that was a massacre, that was done with no thought, and it was cold blood of the military but if there was thought dont u think the piolts wouldent drop that bomb? and it was cold blooded but thats what you got to do to win a war, war is not a game in war there is no rules, the military would perfer a full fleged army of robots that could get the objective done with out question hesitation and go above the call of duty. as the old motto says loose lips sink ships.

why should it madder? this conversation has nothing to do with age
because i find your lack of intelligence on the matter of this conversation lacking... therefore it does matter.

Quit spouting dribble.

what would you call the atom bombs we droped on japan those piolts all got the medal of honor while killing millions that was a massacre, that was done with no thought, and it was cold blood of the military but if there was thought dont u think the piolts wouldent drop that bomb? and it was cold blooded but thats what you got to do to win a war, war is not a game in war there is no rules, the military would perfer a full fleged army of robots that could get the objective done with out question hesitation and go above the call of duty. as the old motto says loose lips sink ships.

War is indeed not a game, but there are rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is, I believe, the rulebook by which the US Military bases its conduct on. I'm sure Deep Kimchi will back me up on this, as he has debated it with me before.

As to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are not really a good comparison. Dropping weapons of mass destruction on what were at least partially military targets in the hope of ending a massive conflict and avoid even more casualties than the weapons would conflict is entirely different to putting non-combatants into a closet and pulling the trigger and killing them. The Iraqi civilians were not military targets and presented no threat, wheras the Japanese civilians were near military targets, and many were more than likely working in the factories and docks that supplied the Japanese war effort.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't the British soilders in that video being attacked with grenades and not just rocks by those kids that they beat?

I just seem to remeber first people saying rocks, and then it being revealed that actually grenades were involved as well. Which kinda justifies their reaction a little more.

Putting children into closets and shooting them, however, is never a justified reaction - no matter what they did to you first. If they were able to put them in a closet they were able to just knock them unconcious if they were putting up a fight. Just seems like Mai Lai all over again.

because i find your lack of intelligence on the matter of this conversation lacking... therefore it does matter.

Quit spouting dribble.
well i find your lack of intelligence very disturbing as you are to ignorant to get your head out of your ass and see what the real world is about

Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't the British soilders in that video being attacked with grenades and not just rocks by those kids that they beat?

I just seem to remeber first people saying rocks, and then it being revealed that actually grenades were involved as well. Which kinda justifies their reaction a little more.

Putting children into closets and shooting them, however, is never a justified reaction - no matter what they did to you first. If they were able to put them in a closet they were able to just knock them unconcious if they were putting up a fight. Just seems like Mai Lai all over again.

Aye, that was fairly bad, no matter what was getting thrown at them (although I can imagine that the red mist would descend if you were being attacked by people, essentially because they didn't like your government).



And it wasn't as bad as My Lai, I would say that the most My Lai-esque event was probably Fallujah.

War is indeed not a game, but there are rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is, I believe, the rulebook by which the US Military bases its conduct on. I'm sure Deep Kimchi will back me up on this, as he has debated it with me before.

As to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are not really a good comparison. Dropping weapons of mass destruction on what were at least partially military targets in the hope of ending a massive conflict and avoid even more casualties than the weapons would conflict is entirely different to putting non-combatants into a closet and pulling the trigger and killing them. The Iraqi civilians were not military targets and presented no threat, wheras the Japanese civilians were near military targets, and many were more than likely working in the factories and docks that supplied the Japanese war effort. the bombs did not hit military targets they hit peoples homes in a effort to get the goverment to back down by making all the people fear us into giving up and there is no difrence from shoving them in a closent and shooting them cuz we pinned them all down onto there islad with no where to go

the bombs did not hit military targets they hit peoples homes in a effort to get the goverment to back down by making all the people fear us into giving up and there is no difrence from shoving them in a closent and shooting them cuz we pinned them all down onto there islad with no where to go

If you're going to debate, please use punctuation and capitalisation. I can barely understand what you're saying.

The nuclear weapons did hit military targets; both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were areas that had factories producing munitions, docks with munition and troop transports and other military vessels, and military personnel in them. The fact that civilians were in the city was rather unavoidable.

As I have repeatedly stated, there is a difference between the bombings and this incident. Dropping weapons of mass destruction on what were at least partially military targets ,in the hope of ending a massive conflict and avoid even more casualties than the weapons would inflict, is entirely different to putting non-combatants into a closet and pulling the trigger and killing them.

The Iraqi civilians were not military targets and presented no threat, wheras the Japanese civilians were near military targets, and many were more than likely working in the factories and docks that supplied the Japanese war effort.

Some people will say this is what happens in war. Which makes me say maybe we should stop having fricking wars.

Because massive injustice, human rights abuses and death aren't prevalent in peace time?

If you're going to debate, please use punctuation and capitalisation. I can barely understand what you're saying.

The nuclear weapons did hit military targets; both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were areas that had factories producing munitions, docks with munition and troop transports and other military vessels, and military personnel in them. The fact that civilians were in the city was rather unavoidable.

As I have repeatedly stated, there is a difference between the bombings and this incident. Dropping weapons of mass destruction on what were at least partially military targets ,in the hope of ending a massive conflict and avoid even more casualties than the weapons would inflict, is entirely different to putting non-combatants into a closet and pulling the trigger and killing them.

The Iraqi civilians were not military targets and presented no threat, wheras the Japanese civilians were near military targets, and many were more than likely working in the factories and docks that supplied the Japanese war effort.

And the fact that the invasion of the main Japanese islands would cost around half a million men. Not to mention all the Japanese soldiers/civilians that would fight to death as long as their emporer still commanded them.

Because massive injustice, human rights abuses and death aren't prevalent in peace time?
Well during peace time there tends to be, ya know, peace. Not having two or more armies trying to defeat each other tends to lower the death rate just a tad.

Well during peace time there tends to be, ya know, peace. Not having two or more armies trying to defeat each other tends to lower the death rate just a tad.
Yes, and if you don't react to people flying planes into your buildings, they get the impression that it's OK to do it, so they do more of it.

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to shut down the al-Qaeda training camps and their Taliban sponsors, eh?

Yes, and if you don't react to people flying planes into your buildings, they get the impression that it's OK to do it, so they do more of it.

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to shut down the al-Qaeda training camps and their Taliban sponsors, eh?
What the Zombie Jesus does that have to do with my post?

What the Zombie Jesus does that have to do with my post?
I was wondering about that myself, and after careful consideration I've come to the conclusion that the answer must be: Absolutely nothing.

I was wondering about that myself, and after careful consideration I've come to the conclusion that the answer must be: Absolutely nothing.
Ifrean said
"Well during peace time there tends to be, ya know, peace. Not having two or more armies trying to defeat each other tends to lower the death rate just a tad."

Well, if the US didn't send its troops overseas, as Ifrean seems to imply, we wouldn't be killing anyone.

In fact, we might as well pack in the US military, and not respond militarily to anything, no matter what is done to the US.

Or, do you not speak English?

And the fact that the invasion of the main Japanese islands would cost around half a million men. Not to mention all the Japanese soldiers/civilians that would fight to death as long as their emporer still commanded them.
Kinda like how they fought the Red Army round about that time.

Ifrean said
"Well during peace time there tends to be, ya know, peace. Not having two or more armies trying to defeat each other tends to lower the death rate just a tad."

Well, if the US didn't send its troops overseas, as Ifrean seems to imply, we wouldn't be killing anyone.

In fact, we might as well pack in the US military, and not respond militarily to anything, no matter what is done to the US.

Or, do you not speak English?
The US not sending troops overseas does not equal peace.

I was responding to Genaia3 who said "Because massive injustice, human rights abuses and death aren't prevalent in peace time?"
My point was that there would be less death during peace time than during war. I was speaking in general terms, not about any specific war or peace time.

I do.
Some people will say this is what happens in war. Which makes me say maybe we should stop having fricking wars.Because massive injustice, human rights abuses and death aren't prevalent in peace time?Well during peace time there tends to be, ya know, peace. Not having two or more armies trying to defeat each other tends to lower the death rate just a tad.Yes, and if you don't react to people flying planes into your buildings, they get the impression that it's OK to do it, so they do more of it.

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to shut down the al-Qaeda training camps and their Taliban sponsors, eh?

I can't see that Ifreann was implying anything with that comment, and I don't quite see the connection to your statement. Maybe Ifreann was implying something, but that's not for me to say anything about.

So... How's your english then?

And the fact that the invasion of the main Japanese islands would cost around half a million men. Not to mention all the Japanese soldiers/civilians that would fight to death as long as their emporer still commanded them.
Well, invading a country that has already offered surrender (On the exact same terms we let them surrender on), isn't exactly normally done.

Where EXACTLY does it say the U.S. Miltary "supports" these actions? I want proof, and I want it NOW!

Where EXACTLY does it say the U.S. Miltary "supports" these actions? I want proof, and I want it NOW!
Nobody, as far as I can tell, is saying that the US military directly supports these actions - but I for one want to know why they tried to cover it up.
But the military stood by its initial contention—that the Iraqis had been killed by an insurgent bomb—until January when Time gave a copy of the video and witnesses' testimony to Colonel Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. After reviewing the evidence, Johnson passed it on to the military command, suggesting that the events of Haditha be given "a full and formal investigation."

You'd have to be very naive not to know why they're trying to cover it up.

If this allegation proves to be correct:

...then I would indeed call it cold blooded murder.
Execution style is != to cold blooded. In order for it to be cold blooded murder it would have to be premeditited and planned out over a period of time. 24 hrs. would not qualify. Now, if it had happened a week after their comrades were killed, then you could say cold-blooded. As it is, their blood was still quite hot and they could not be considered to be in the rational state of mind that is a prerequisite for a cold-blooded killing.

You'd have to be very naive not to know why they're trying to cover it up.
I know what I think, but I want to hear them say it...

Execution style is != to cold blooded. In order for it to be cold blooded murder it would have to be premeditited and planned out over a period of time. 24 hrs. would not qualify. Now, if it had happened a week after their comrades were killed, then you could say cold-blooded. As it is, their blood was still quite hot and they could not be considered to be in the rational state of mind that is a prerequisite for a cold-blooded killing.
I strongly disagree. "Cold blooded murder" is not a legal term, and I do not believe that any long-term planning is necessary for the term to be applicable - only that the actions were premeditated and deliberate. If the allegations are correct, and people were led to a closet and killed inside, then this didn't happen "in the heat of the moment"; rather, the conditions mentioned were met and it was, as such, cold blooded murder.

Execution style is != to cold blooded. In order for it to be cold blooded murder it would have to be premeditited and planned out over a period of time. 24 hrs. would not qualify. Now, if it had happened a week after their comrades were killed, then you could say cold-blooded. As it is, their blood was still quite hot and they could not be considered to be in the rational state of mind that is a prerequisite for a cold-blooded killing.

Prove it please?

in cold blood

Deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


in cold blood

In a purposely ruthless and unfeeling manner, as in The whole family was murdered in cold blood. This expression alludes to the notion that blood is the seat of emotion and is hot in passion and cold in calm. The term therefore means not "in the heat of passion," but "in a calculated, deliberate manner." [Late 1500s]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

in cold blood

adv 1: in a cold-blooded manner; "he cold-bloodedly planned the murder of his boss" [syn: cold-bloodedly] 2: in a cold unemotional manner; "he killed her in cold blood" [syn: coldly, without emotion]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Here's the definitions from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in%20cold%20blood), at least...

Prove it please?
As somebody noted above, not a legal term. Nor was I really using it in that sense. Just because something is premeditated, does not mean it is cold blooded. I've been royally pissed off about something before for more than twenty-four hours. If I were to plan and kill somebody connected, even by the most tenuous of threads, to what I was pissed off about in that time, you could not rationally say I did it in cold blood. Planned it out, yes. Thought about it beforehand yes. But not in cold blood.

As somebody noted above, not a legal term. Nor was I really using it in that sense. Just because something is premeditated, does not mean it is cold blooded. I've been royally pissed off about something before for more than twenty-four hours. If I were to plan and kill somebody connected, even by the most tenuous of threads, to what I was pissed off about in that time, you could not rationally say I did it in cold blood. Planned it out, yes. Thought about it beforehand yes. But not in cold blood.
So we differ on the definitions. Fair enough ;)

And the fact that the invasion of the main Japanese islands would cost around half a million men. Not to mention all the Japanese soldiers/civilians that would fight to death as long as their emporer still commanded them.

Just for the record, The Japanese Were going to make a condtional surrender to russia, before we bombed them

Well, if the US didn't send its troops overseas, as Ifrean seems to imply, we wouldn't be killing anyone.


Blatant lie. At the time of the 9/11 bombings, US forces were deployed all over the world. Do you want to make me look up the deployment listings prior to that again?

We don't know what would happen in the case of the US not having troops overseas because it's just not happening.

If you're going to debate, please use punctuation and capitalisation. I can barely understand what you're saying.

The nuclear weapons did hit military targets; both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were areas that had factories producing munitions, docks with munition and troop transports and other military vessels, and military personnel in them. The fact that civilians were in the city was rather unavoidable.

As I have repeatedly stated, there is a difference between the bombings and this incident. Dropping weapons of mass destruction on what were at least partially military targets ,in the hope of ending a massive conflict and avoid even more casualties than the weapons would inflict, is entirely different to putting non-combatants into a closet and pulling the trigger and killing them.

I know this is off topic, but this is something that I can't let pass. We didn't just drop the bombs to end the war. We used the two cities as guinea pigs. Our battleships and bombers absolutely demolished every other city in japan, but these two cities wer completely unscathed before the bomb. If they were true military targets, they would have been taken out of commission earlier. But our government wasn't interested in doing this for the necessity of it. We wanted to see how much damage a single weapon could do, and the only way of doing that is to pick a large city and leave it untouched until the time is right.

I find that pretty damned apprehensible, and the textbook apology is no excuse.

Yes, and if you don't react to people flying planes into your buildings, they get the impression that it's OK to do it, so they do more of it.

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to shut down the al-Qaeda training camps and their Taliban sponsors, eh?

Maybe they wouldn't have messed with us if we didn't have so many military bases in the middle east, eh? Maybe they wouldn't mess with us if we didn't try to force them into submission, along with the rest of the world.