NationStates Jolt Archive

July 21, 2006
EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

“The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,” Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.
...
Military declines to comment
Reached by e-mail in Iraq, Girouard’s Army lawyer, Capt. Theodore Miller, declined to comment because the investigation was continuing.

An Army prosecutor, also deployed to Iraq, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Army spokesman Sheldon Smith asked that a request for comment be e-mailed to him in Virginia. He did not immediately respond.
...
Several other service members face similar charges in unrelated cases involving the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/
OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: the truth coming out... sooner or later

watch the movie "Rules of Engagement", it reminded me of this situation a little and it's not that bad of a movie. A crowd of 80 Civilians were killed and hundreds more were injured by U.S. Marines firing into the crowd, but it was found out later that the crowd was armed, even the little children had guns:sniper: :mp5:

It's almost like a sanctioned, middle eastern version of Mai Lai...

Oh dear... :( This could prove that the situation in Iraq concerning the US militarys training and tactics are a lot worse then I thought it was...

Could this be a way to save their own asses? Blame it on the higher ups, then they get freedom.

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?

Oh dear... :( This could prove that the situation in Iraq concerning the US militarys training and tactics are a lot worse then I thought it was...

Agreed. But then again, if we really didn't care, we wouldn't be persecuting these men right?

On another note, these terrorists were threatning to kill a woman and toddler, did they really deserve to live?

Oh, isn't the US government just so moral and Christian. :rolleyes:

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?
Unfortunately, there is no good faith exception to not following orders in the military. If you refused to follow an order, and that order is valid, even if you believed that the order was invalid and illegal, you can be executed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?

You're forgetting the USA's motto, "It's different when we do it."

Agreed. But then again, if we really didn't care, we wouldn't be persecuting these men right?

On another note, these terrorists were threatning to kill a woman and toddler, did they really deserve to live?

tell me that is a joke? please

When the British Army caught looters, an attempt was made to prosecute soldiers for subsequent abuse and forced labour.

Execution however, one would hope is a question that never arises.

Agreed. But then again, if we really didn't care, we wouldn't be persecuting these men right?

On another note, these terrorists were threatning to kill a woman and toddler, did they really deserve to live?
It's good that we care, but how did we allow such ROE to come into existence in the first place?

And we don't really know whether or not the men killed were terrorists or not, so "Yes until further notice" is my answer.

EDIT: And they were using them as shields - it's a bit different from threatening to kill them.

EDIT: And they were using them as shields - it's a bit different from threatening to kill them.

And, how do we really know what was happening? These people were civilians. What if the woman and her toddler were actually getting between said soldiers and their Husband/Father/Brother/Person they didn't want killed, so that they wouldn't be shot for no good reason? Why is the idiot reflex always jump to terrorist?

And, how do we really know what was happening? These people were civilians. What if the woman and her toddler were actually getting between said soldiers and their Husband/Father/Brother/Person they didn't want killed, so that they wouldn't be shot for no good reason? Why is the idiot reflex always jump to terrorist?
True, we don't know what's really going on. Another reason why we have to demand efficient oversight - checks and balances that actually works - and accountability.

I still don't understand how Rumsfeldt still has a job...

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?
What if they understand that but were just explaining what happened as it happened?

On another note, these terrorists were threatning to kill a woman and toddler, did they really deserve to live?
What I find disturbing is not the situation, but the rules of engagement reported by the soldiers.

July 21, 2006
EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

“The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,” Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/
OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: the truth coming out... sooner or later

Guys, guys...wait until they are interoggated...c'mon.

Shoot-shovel-shutup

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men they are obviously in a very hot spot.

And they all came home alive (well, not all :p ). Howabout that.

July 21, 2006
EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

“The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,” Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/
OcceanNEWS©2006

my2cents: the truth coming out... sooner or later

OK...It said this place was an Al Qaeda stronghold island...and that the army was ordered to raid and kill everyone in there...........Whats the problem?:confused:

"shoot every male of military age"

Oh boy is that ever skating on thin ice..These sorts of orders have a tendency to blow up in your face (literally) when they are issued..
OK...It said this place was an Al Quida stronghold island...and that the army was ordered to raid and kill everyone in there...........Whats the problem?
How about target identification? Iraq is starting to sound a lot like Vietnam when it comes to the methods the US is using there..Methods that did not work 30 years ago, and there is no guarantee that they will work better this time around.

OK...It said this place was an Al Quida stronghold island...and that the army was ordered to raid and kill everyone in there...........Whats the problem?:confused:

Yup.

Oceandrive, your thread subject should read "##Soldier: "We were ordered to shoot Hadj/Alqaeda/Insurgents/bad guys"

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men they are obviously in a very hot spot.
If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men the soldiers are obviously commiting war crimes, as is the US military. All unacceptable.

"shoot every male of military age"

Oh boy is that ever skating on thin ice..These sorts of orders have a tendency to blow up in your face (literally) when they are issued..

How about target identification? Iraq is starting to sound a lot like Vietnam when it comes to the methods the US is using there..Methods that did not work 30 years ago, and there is no guarantee that they will work better this time around.

Well..it seem like good orders to me. Raid the Al Qaeda stronghold...shoot all military age males there. Again, whats the problem???

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men the soldiers are obviously commiting war crimes, as is the US military. All unacceptable.

They were raiding an Al Qaeda stronghold...all=all terrorists in the stronghold...that is acceptable.

Well..it seem like good orders to me. Raid the Al Qaeda stronghold...shoot all military age males there. Again, whats the problem???
Try wrapping your head around this: Just because it is a Al Qaeda stronghold does not mean that everybody in it is a terrorist

Yup.

Oceandrive, your thread subject should read "##Soldier: "We were ordered to shoot Hadj/Alqaeda/Insurgents/bad guys"
That would be incorrect.
It should read "##Soldier: "We were ordered kill all military age males" "

Okay, so much for the Laws of Armed Confict. Non-Combattants are protected under the Geneva Convention. However, if civilians spontaneously take up arms, they bcome combattants under the GC and are now valid targets and are to be accorded the same rights as captured enemy soldiers. But then again, the US never signed it. But at this point, you'd think the Americans would try to play nice and try to dodge any more bad publicity...

As for the defense used by those soldiers, it's complete BS. Hitler's and Slobodan Milosevic's croonies tried that at The Hague and the powers that be squashed it. If anything, those soldiers should be nailed under the same charges for war crimes.

As for refusing orders, I don't know how it runs in the US military, but up here in Canada, soldiers required to obey only lawful orders and to disobey unlawful orders. And by my book, opening up on civilians is right up there on the list of unlawfull orders. That, and if a subordinate follows one of those, he can be nailed just as bad as the guy who gave the word.

They were raiding an Al Qaeda stronghold...all=all terrorists in the stronghold...that is acceptable.
Why don't we just say the entire country of Iraq is a terrorist stronghold and nuke the place?

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men the soldiers are obviously commiting war crimes, as is the US military. All unacceptable.

Nope.

War isn't pretty, never has been. Yeah, sometimes innocent people DO Die, but that's why war is hell. Apparently they got the right guys this time, since they did try to hide behind some women. I remember you guys were up in arms over the marine singing a humour song about using women as sheilds, here is an actualy hadj/AQ/INS that DID that very same thing, and you aren't demanding HIS head? Well, if you were it's too late, the army did it for you.

Rock on guys.

They were raiding an Al Qaeda stronghold...all=all terrorists in the stronghold...that is acceptable.
No, because the ROE doesn't make that distinction.

That would be incorrect.
It should read "##Soldier: "We were ordered kill all military age males" "

"On a mission in al alqaeda stronghold".

I doubt that the army is telling it's guys to randomly shoot men as they walk up the streets towards the objective. My best bet is that it's anyone of military age who presents a threat-18 year old kid running at you with sticks in the dark.....Guy sticking his head up watching you, etc.

Nope.
Yes. Possible war crime.

War isn't pretty, never has been. Yeah, sometimes innocent people DO Die, but that's why war is hell. Apparently they got the right guys this time, since they did try to hide behind some women. I remember you guys were up in arms over the marine singing a humour song about using women as sheilds, here is an actualy hadj/AQ/INS that DID that very same thing, and you aren't demanding HIS head? Well, if you were it's too late, the army did it for you.
Are you kidding?
1) We don't have any info on whether or not these were "the right guys". That's not the focus of the article anyway.
2) We're supposed to limit the civilian casualties. A blanket "Kill all military age males" is not placing safeguards against the unnesessary killing of civilians, and allows for the indiscriminate killing of civilians instead.
3) You remember what now? I have no idea what you're talking about, so are you sure you're talking about the right "us guys"?
4) I don't feel I have enough information to condemn those killed by the soldiers.

Rock on guys.
I will.

Marskman, you here make some sense.

There is a huge, huge difference here. Misunderstandings are a major problem, and if they were told in their briefing that all men of military age were a threat, some might have seen it as a license to open up on just about anyone. HOWEVER firing on non-combattants is against the LAOC. The Serbs did get orders massacre "all men of military age" not that long ago, and those who gave those orders were nailed to the wall at The Hague for war crimes. Now, is it because it is American soldiers who did the indiscriminate killing that they are free from being prosecuted under the same charges?

But as for the Al-Qaeda compound thing, let me try to draw a parallel here. I am based at CFB Kingston. A huge chunk of the base is Married Quarters, where the spouses and children of soldiers live. Now, if we were to be overrun and the attackers massacred everyone in the MQ's because they are on a base, would that be legit? A lot of people have "military age" kids, you know. And what about the guy who is a civvy, but married to a woman in uniform?

I'd bet that you'd be crying foul.

There is no place for double-standards.

Nope.

War isn't pretty, never has been. Yeah, sometimes innocent people DO Die, but that's why war is hell. Apparently they got the right guys this time, since they did try to hide behind some women. I remember you guys were up in arms over the marine singing a humour song about using women as sheilds, here is an actualy hadj/AQ/INS that DID that very same thing, and you aren't demanding HIS head? Well, if you were it's too late, the army did it for you.

Rock on guys.

they didnt 'get' them in a battle, they captured them and executed them.

even you can see the problem there, you are just trying (and failing) to be a funny fucker

Why don't we just say the entire country of Iraq is a terrorist stronghold and nuke the place?
hmm...a bold strat indeed..lets try it out and see if it works out for us.

You're forgetting the USA's motto, "It's different when we do it."
Hear, hear. Seconded.

"On a mission in al alqaeda stronghold".

I doubt that the army is telling it's guys to randomly shoot men as they walk up the streets towards the objective. My best bet is that it's anyone of military age who presents a threat-18 year old kid running at you with sticks in the dark.....Guy sticking his head up watching you, etc.
No.
"believed to be an al-Qaida training camp"
What if the intelligence turned out to be incorrect? It's not an unthinkable scenario. See where the problem can arise?

And you doubt it... I'm not saying they are either, but such latitude in the ROE can easily be abused, and given the horrendous lack of leadership, training and adaptability uncovered in the army recently, I'd like for this to be confirmed by an investigation.

:rolleyes: Sometimes I wonder why I even bother..Some people have their heads stuck so far up their ass that they can see the daylight on the other end..

Mark my words, and mark them well, the US is opening a huge can of worms by sanctioning this sort of behavior.
If they continue to issue orders that are both illegal, and immoral, then there will come a time when they turn everyone, even their own people, against this behavior. It has happened before, and it will happen again, if they continue down this road.

Marskman, you here make some sense.

There is a huge, huge difference here. Misunderstandings are a major problem, and if they were told in their briefing that all men of military age were a threat, some might have seen it as a license to open up on just about anyone.

But as for the Al-Qaeda compound thing, let me try to draw a parallel here. I am based at CFB Kingston. A huge chunk of the base is Married Quarters, where the spouses and children of soldiers live. Now, if we were to be overrun and the attackers massacred everyone in the MQ's because they are on a base, would that be legit? A lot of people have "military age" kids, you know. And what about the guy who is a civvy, but married to a woman in uniform?

I'd bet that you'd be crying foul.

There is no place for double-standards.

If they beleived that the MQ's kids of Military age would be a threat, they would be justified (In their own eyes). Not that I, from MY perspective, could "Justify" it (It's again my own side), but they felt it was necessary to accomplish whatever nefarious tast they had planned.

We'd cry foul anyways to harp on them and make them look bad.

I see the old addage, guilty until proven innocent is still alive and well on NS General. Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty?

If they are guilty they will be punished. If they are innocent, they'll be let go.

I'll await the verdict.

I see the old addage, guilty until proven innocent is still alive and well on NS General. Whatever happened untilnnocent unt iil proven guilty?

If they are guilty they will be punished. If they are innocent, they'll be let go.

I'll await the verdict.

this has got to be a joke post

they executed 3 prisoners and now you want to invoke innocent until proven guilty into the debate?

this has got to be a joke post

they executed 3 prisoners and now you want to invoke innocent until proven guilty into the debate?

Did they plead guilty or innocent? If they pleaded innocent then yes they are innocent until proven guilty as is standard operating procedure. If they pleaded guilty, then I will retract my statement.

Guys, guys...wait until they are interoggated...c'mon.

Shoot-shovel-shutup

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men they are obviously in a very hot spot.

And they all came home alive (well, not all :p ). Howabout that.
Killing is funny! roflcopters!!!

come on, lets play street fighter and then doom.

War isn't pretty, never has been. Yeah, sometimes innocent people DO Die, but that's why war is hell.
Which is why I so rarely support it. War is a 'gift' from Satan.

But why you support every war and military action - why you are a self-proclaimed war hawk - defies logic. It seems to be based on a faith that the US Government and allies are always right because they have the guns.

hmm...a bold strat indeed..lets try it out and see if it works out for us.
You really do think this is all a video game, don't you?

I see the old addage, guilty until proven innocent is still alive and well on NS General. Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty?

If they are guilty they will be punished. If they are innocent, they'll be let go.

I'll await the verdict.
Well what's interesting here isn't if they are found guilty or innocent, it is if the ROE really was what they claim it to have been.

However, as far as I can tell from the article they've admitted to the killings in their sworn statements. But I'm not sure about this point.

Well what's interesting here isn't if they are found guilty or innocent, it is if the ROE really was what they claim it to have been.

However, as far as I can tell from the article they've admitted to the killings in their sworn statements. But I'm not sure about this point.

There are actually 2 cases at stake here. The first one is dealing with this Rule of Engagement itself. If that is indeed illegal then whoever ordered it should also be brought to trial. If it is legal then they must figure out if these guys actually violated it or not.

Everything hinges on the RoE and what it actually stated.

There are actually 2 cases at stake here. The first one is dealing with this Rule of Engagement itself. If that is indeed illegal then whoever ordered it should also be brought to trial. If it is legal then they must figure out if these guys actually violated it or not.

Everything hinges on the RoE and what it actually stated.
It's the ROE that I'm interested in this time, and you're right that everything hinges on the wording of it...

It's the ROE that I'm interested in this time, and you're right that everything hinges on the wording of it...

Which is why I am saying innocent until proven guilty for it does hinge on the actual wording of the RoE.

I'm glad we can agree on this :)

Could this be a way to save their own asses? Blame it on the higher ups, then they get freedom.

Possibly, but it won't work.

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?

Yep, it sure was.

Unfortunately, there is no good faith exception to not following orders in the military. If you refused to follow an order, and that order is valid, even if you believed that the order was invalid and illegal, you can be executed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Wrong. If you follow an order you know to be illegal you can be prosicuted. If you do not follow that order you cannot be prosicuted. And, that is in the UCMJ.

You really do think this is all a video game, don't you?
No, foo'. I dont actually wanna nuke Iraq.





Do you have any idea what kind of fallout Israel would recieve??!!

Which is why I am saying innocent until proven guilty for it does hinge on the actual wording of the RoE.

I'm glad we can agree on this :)
We can :)

I'll leave any judgement of the soldiers up to the courts.

We can :)

I'll leave any judgement of the soldiers up to the courts.

That makes 2 of us

:beer:

EDIT: And they were using them as shields - it's a bit different from threatening to kill them.

Oh yeah, much better. Why they weren't threatening to kill people at all, just grabbing innocent people and using them as shields, why that just changes everything don't it?

Oh yeah, much better. Why they weren't threatening to kill people at all, just grabbing innocent people and using them as shields, why that just changes everything don't it?
So when the soldiers say they were using them as shields - what does that mean? The article doesn't explain because that's not the focus. Nor does it say what the relations were between the women and the men, but there is no indication that they were just grabbed.

And I hope you see the difference between hiding behind women and threatening to kill them.

hmm...a bold strat indeed..lets try it out and see if it works out for us.
If by "bold" you mean Fucking-Crazy-Stupid, I agree.

If by "bold" you mean Fucking-Crazy-Stupid, I agree.
I left bold up to interpritation for a reason.;)

Guys, guys...wait until they are interoggated...c'mon.

Shoot-shovel-shutup

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men they are obviously in a very hot spot.

And they all came home alive (well, not all :p ). Howabout that.
"Sir, we are in central Baghad, sir! I don't see any terrorists anywhere...I think we're safe. What are your orders?"
"Kill any of those fucking arabs who looks like their military age, we can get some revenge on those SOBS. Say we were just following the rules of engagement."
"Aye sir."

That's great logic, DM. Wow, I guess killing civilians is okay now! Screw the Geneva Convention! :rolleyes:

aw crap!

:(

This 'war' continues to make the US look progressively worse the longer we wage it. I have no sympathy for anyone who follows orders like this. I hope they rot in jail if they shot harmless civilians just because they were miliary age males.

I left bold up to interpritation for a reason.;)
I no longer think that you are quite as crazy as I thought you were fifteen minutes ago.

On another note, these terrorists were threatning to kill a woman and toddler, did they really deserve to live?

It wasn't their decision to make

I'm not even surprised anymore.

Not by the orders, and not by the fact that there are people who would actually defend them.

I no longer think that you are quite as crazy as I thought you were fifteen minutes ago.
Ah, reading between the lines, eh DM?;)

On an honest note, of course I wouldnt support nuking Iraq, thats just fucking retarded.

Wasnt the "Just Following Orders" excuse deemed unacceptable... oh.... 60 years ago?

Yup. The proper way for the military to handle such things is to order the troops to kill civilians, shoot those who disobey as deserters and lock up those who obey as murderers. All the moral culpability lies on those who have no decision making authority. Officers aren't the slightest bit responsible for those over whom they have absolute control. :rolleyes:

Wrong. If you follow an order you know to be illegal you can be prosicuted. If you do not follow that order you cannot be prosicuted. And, that is in the UCMJ.

Yes. It's rather like how if you kill someone in self defense you can't be prosecuted. You can be prosecuted to determine whether or not you acted in self defense and executed if they don't think you were. Likewise with failing to follow orders you deem illegal. You're seldom in a position to make the call.

And realisticly... If you're dropped into a situation where there are bullets whizzing over your head and you're told "kill all military age men in there," are you really going to stop and research your CO's authority to give such an order? Even if the only bullets whizzing overhead are those of your less cautious compatriots.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#892.%20ART.%2092.%20FAILURE%20TO%20OBEY%20ORDER%20OR%20REGULATION


918. ART. 118. MURDER
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.
919. ART. 119. MANSLAUGHTER
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being--
(1) by culpable negligence; or
(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person;
is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.


I do believe these fellows have knowlage of the UCMJ ...


just in case

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#ucmj

I was told to kill civilians in not a defense..its an admission of guilt .

You do not follow a clearly unlawfull order .

So when the soldiers say they were using them as shields - what does that mean? The article doesn't explain because that's not the focus. Nor does it say what the relations were between the women and the men, but there is no indication that they were just grabbed.

And I hope you see the difference between hiding behind women and threatening to kill them.

Dammit, he had perfect logic set up. Point a gun at a man and threaten to kill him. If he's afraid, he should be shot for being a coward. If he isn't, then he's obviously a dangerous psychotic and should be shot for the safety of those around him.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#892.%20ART.%2092.%20FAILURE%20TO%20OBEY%20ORDER%20OR%20REGULATION

i do believe these fellows have knowlage of the UCMJ ...
Your point? :confused:

Dammit, he had perfect logic set up. Point a gun at a man and threaten to kill him. If he's afraid, he should be shot for being a coward. If he isn't, then he's obviously a dangerous psychotic and should be shot for the safety of those around him.
I think Full Metal Jacket said it best:
Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!

No, foo'. I dont actually wanna nuke Iraq.





Do you have any idea what kind of fallout Israel would recieve??!!

Are you sure that prevailing winds go from Iraq to Israel? The fallout might go in the opposite direction. It would soften Iran up a bit, and might encourage them not to develop nuclear technology if they see what a radioactive wind can do.

Are you sure that prevailing winds go from Iraq to Israel? The fallout might go in the opposite direction. It would soften Iran up a bit, and might encourage them not to develop nuclear technology if they see what a radioactive wind can do.

Depends on which way the winds are blowing.

Your point? :confused:

## Soldier: "We Were Ordered to Kill Civilians."







I was told to kill civilians in not a defense..its an admission of guilt .

You do not follow a clearly unlawfull order .

Unfortunately, there is no good faith exception to not following orders in the military. If you refused to follow an order, and that order is valid, even if you believed that the order was invalid and illegal, you can be executed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Actually, that's not true. I'm a soldier, and I can refuse to follow an illegal order. However, if it turns out that it was a legal order, then I can be tried for treason or failure to obey a lawful order under UCMJ code. So, this is a strong incentive to just obey orders, out of fear of being wrong.

I was told to kill civilians in not a defense..its an admission of guilt .

You do not follow a clearly unlawfull order .
I posted before your sneaky edit ;)

Guys, guys...wait until they are interoggated...c'mon.

Shoot-shovel-shutup

If the ROE specifies shooting all military age men they are obviously in a very hot spot.

And they all came home alive (well, not all :p ). Howabout that.

I do hope that one day, the police in your area will recieve the same orders. Then maybe you might think it's not such a good idea.

101st Keyboarders, it's ok to be a mass murderer, as long as it's other people being oppressed/killed.

Whoever wrote that article has a basic misunderstanding of the nature of combat. There are times when a unit is cornered by an enemy and fenced in. Times when virtually all people in a given area who are male and of military age are hostile forces. The police face this all the time when raiding gang hide-outs, drug running operations, etc. I see nothing wrong with the high level of this particular set of engagement rules. The thing is, many of you do not support the troops. You will convict their commander who set those rules of engagement without even giving him a trial. I find that to be wrong of you all to do.

I see the old addage, guilty until proven innocent is still alive and well on NS General. Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty?

You mean like how the term "kill all males aged 13 to 65" is an indication of allowing for innocence?

Bollocks Corny. You again display that you only believe in innocence for US interests and not the other way round.

Could this be a way to save their own asses? Blame it on the higher ups, then they get freedom.
True, since the higher ups aren't ever going to get punished. They never fucking do.

Possibly, but it won't work.

A certain captain from Vietnam proved you wrong when he pulled a Nuremberg defense and walked free.

You mean like how the term "kill all males aged 13 to 65" is an indication of allowing for innocence?

Bollocks Corny. You again display that you only believe in innocence for US interests and not the other way round.

I do want to know what the RoE really was and its legality. That is going to make or break this case.

You mean like how the term "kill all males aged 13 to 65" is an indication of allowing for innocence?

Bollocks Corny. You again display that you only believe in innocence for US interests and not the other way round.


Oh here goes another one putting Iraqi terrorists on the same moral level as American troops. The people who were trying to kill our soldiers in that area were swarming and rules of engagement were set. Now you assume that the soldier who gave the order is guilty while you assume that the Iraqis who were in this questionable area are innocent. Funny how bias works. The American soldier is a member of the most highly trained, regulated, and professional fighting force on the planet. The Iraqi men in that area were a shady lot at best and a gang of bloodthirsty terrorists according to the man who set the rules of engagement.

True, since the higher ups aren't ever going to get punished. They never fucking do.

Rumsfeld gets punished for the rules of engagement set by a LT. on the ground. wow....

A certain captain from Vietnam proved you wrong when he pulled a Nuremberg defense and walked free.
Now we compare American troops to Nazis ...(check)

Times when virtually all people in a given area who are male and of military age are hostile forces.
If they're shot at they can defend themselves but if the guys not posing a threat they have no reason... no good reason to kill him. Those people haven's choosen to be born into that country the soilders chose to go to Iraq and their goverment decided to invade. They should be the ones taking the risks not the civilains.

Rumsfeld gets punished for the rules of engagement set by a LT. on the ground. wow....
I mean any higher ups. I never said anything about Rumsfeld. I just mean that any sensible, selfish person with power will shift blame as much as they can away from themselves, and most courts are too pussy to call them on it.

If they're shot at they can defend themselves but if the guys not posing a threat they have no reason... no good reason to kill him. Those people haven's choosen to be born into that country the soilders chose to go to Iraq and their goverment decided to invade. They should be the ones taking the risks not the civilains.

You make the mistake of assuming that any of this is anything but a claim.

There are many situations in which it is viable. Reasons that may not have yet come to light. For example, a common method of clearing an area out is saying that anybody who does not leave the sniping area in one hour is fair game, etc. But really, at least let the guy get summoned before you pronounce him guilty. Like my father (ex-NYPD) always says " everyone is innocent until proven guilty in America, everyone but cops and the troops"

I do want to know what the RoE really was and its legality. That is going to make or break this case.

Fair enough. I didn't see that part when you posted later.


Oh here goes another one putting Iraqi terrorists on the same moral level as American troops. The people who were trying to kill our soldiers in that area were swarming and rules of engagement were set. Now you assume that the soldier who gave the order is guilty while you assume that the Iraqis who were in this questionable area are innocent

Let me put it this way. The ROE according to this defense is "kill all military age males". That means around 14 to 65, maybe more. It does not distinguish between actual guilt and not. It simply translates to slaughter them all.

It's exactly the Middle Eastern version of the ROE that allowed for My Lai to happen. Kill them all, because we don't care to distinguish.

YOU, are automatically willing to cast guilt on any killed by the soldiers without even considering the context of the ROE. It's nationalists like you who would cheerfully support unlimited slaughter.


The American soldier is a member of the most highly trained, regulated, and professional fighting force on the planet

Even more bollocks. If you paid attention to recent trends, recruiters for American armed forces are allowing even gang members and felons to join. And then there's that case where a whole group of soldiers stalked, raped a woman, slit her throat and that of her family. How's that regulated?

I mean any higher ups. I never said anything about Rumsfeld. I just mean that any sensible, selfish person with power will shift blame as much as they can away from themselves, and most courts are too pussy to call them on it.

The only court that has jurisdiction over this case are a military court martial or tribunal. The only pussy court I can think of is the Hague and you are right they never get jack done.

Oh here goes another one putting Iraqi terrorists on the same moral level as American troops.
Please inlighten me to how they are different.
The people who were trying to kill our soldiers in that area were swarming and rules of engagement were set. The Iraqi troops yes. That doesn't mean the people.
Now you assume that the soldier who gave the order is guilty while you assume that the Iraqis who were in this questionable area are innocent. If they gave the order they and them men who shot the Iraqis are guilty if not, then just the Americain soilders are.
Funny how bias works.
Indeed.
The American soldier is a member of the most highly trained, regulated, and professional fighting force on the planet.
If the article is try true then no, no its not. And with the Americain soilders... well all the murders and rapes of the citizens. I hope not.
The Iraqi men in that area were a shady lot at best and a gang of bloodthirsty terrorists according to the man who set the rules of engagement.
not all of them. At least I haven't seen proof of it. And why is it the troops decision to kill them.

the soilders chose to go to Iraq and their goverment decided to invade. They should be the ones taking the risks not the civilains.
Shut up. You are not in the military, and you do not know what you are talking about. Since when do soldiers *choose* to go to war? We do our duty, however, which includes things that we might not enjoy, like 1 and 1/2 years in a friggin desert. We have to act gung ho and bloodthirsty because otherwise we're as scared and confused as everyone else. We're soldiers because we put our own concerns and interests after that of the country's. And we do take risks you fucking asshole, that would be why 2 guys in my unit didn't come back from Iraq. Save that shit for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, or for hard-headed *moderates* who hate me and my battles (battle is *battle buddy*, current slang for fellow soldiers).

This is idiotic : can you all read ???

from the article:"In sworn statements obtained this week by the AP, Girouard, Hunsaker, Clagett, and a witness, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, told Army investigators they were ordered to attack an island in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 and kill anti-Iraqi fighters with ties to al-Qaida.

So there is an Island controlled by the same guys that attacked us on 911 and you are talking about the slaughter of civilians. How IRONIC. heh, and yet the soldiers, who have had no trial, except the one in your brain after reading a one page article on MSNBC.com, or GUILTY?? This is pathetic and disgraceful. I knew that people would turn on the troops sooner or later. Innocent until proven guilty unless its a soldier in Iraq. Politics is a dirty bussiness huh...

You're forgetting the USA's motto, "It's different when we do it."

Don't forget the US military's standard operating procedure when the abuse or murder of unarmed civilians comes under the public spotlight:

"Brass Flies, Grunt Fries."

Even more bollocks. If you paid attention to recent trends, recruiters for American armed forces are allowing even gang members and felons to join. And then there's that case where a whole group of soldiers stalked, raped a woman, slit her throat and that of her family. How's that regulated?

You found out about it and they were punished severely. Thats how. Why all the hate for the troops?

This they were ordered to attack an island in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 and kill anti-Iraqi fighters with ties to al-Qaida.

Ok so what was the RoE for such an attack? There is always a rule of engagement for something like this. What is it?

If the article is try true then no, no its not. And with the Americain soilders... well all the murders and rapes of the citizens. I hope not.

not all of them. At least I haven't seen proof of it. And why is it the troops decision to kill them.

American soldiers toppled Hussein, took casualties, let the Iraqis set up a new democracy, work every day to help people and establish order, and here you are trashing them for what a few men did (who were punished severely....by the military). For anybody who says the left supports the troops, I say, read the post that this fellow just put here.

And for Gods sake, the commander set the rules of engagement, that makes it their decision.

You found out about it and they were punished severely. Thats how. Why all the hate for the troops?
What? All soldiers aren't saints? And there was never a Democrat who committed murder, or a Christian, or.... See where this is going? There is *perfect group*, the military gets bad guys too, don't lump us all in for that. Then you're just like those hicks claiming all Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Ok so what was the RoE for such an attack? There is always a rule of engagement for something like this. What is it?

Kill all the bastards and hope more of them find out about it. I hope they soaked the bullets in pigs blood before they killed the al-queda on that Island. OH, but according to the left, those people on that Island deserved a full Jury Trial...good grief these are accusations. One article on MSNBC has convinced you of this worst case scenerio in which 13 year old boys and old helpless men ( on al-queda island) are gunned down by evil U.S. commandos. Come on, lets be real. Remember just who those troops are and what they are fighting for.

Oh here goes another one putting Iraqi terrorists on the same moral level as American troops. The people who were trying to kill our soldiers in that area were swarming and rules of engagement were set. Now you assume that the soldier who gave the order is guilty while you assume that the Iraqis who were in this questionable area are innocent. Funny how bias works. The American soldier is a member of the most highly trained, regulated, and professional fighting force on the planet. The Iraqi men in that area were a shady lot at best and a gang of bloodthirsty terrorists according to the man who set the rules of engagement.

You're A) assuming that everyone in the entire area of operation was a terrorist. and B) Assuming that a lack of evidence is as good to drawing conclusions as definite evidence.

And... This well regulated force has been revealed to have a number of Neo-Nazi's joining it. When commanders find out about it, a number of them simply repremand the bastard in question and don't follow regulations and kick his sorry ass out. (Citation: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=197 )

Don't forget the US military's standard operating procedure when the abuse or murder of unarmed civilians comes under the public spotlight:

"Brass Flies, Grunt Fries."
Ahem, "Shit flows downhill," as we say :rolleyes: :gundge:

I'm not surprised or shocked by these stories anymore.

I'm beginning to expect this sort of behaviour.

Since when do soldiers *choose* to go to war?
When they join the military. Although for the poorer men that are doing it for monetary incentives.. okay I'll except that. Not their fault.
We do our duty, however, which includes things that we might not enjoy, like 1 and 1/2 years in a friggin desert.
I realise this.
We have to act gung ho and bloodthirsty because otherwise we're as scared and confused as everyone else.
bloodthirsty? "Eager to shed blood." Then you should not be fighting over seas.
We're soldiers because we put our own concerns and interests after that of the country's.
How is Iraq in Americas best interest? Oh right those crazy WMD.
And we do take risks you fucking asshole, that would be why 2 guys in my unit didn't come back from Iraq.
I realise you do. And thats sad but you still shouldn't take risks with other peoples lives.
Save that shit for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, or for hard-headed *moderates* who hate me and my battles (battle is *battle buddy*, current slang for fellow soldiers).
What a fucky arguement.

What? All soldiers aren't saints? And there was never a Democrat who committed murder, or a Christian, or.... See where this is going? There is *perfect group*, the military gets bad guys too, don't lump us all in for that. Then you're just like those hicks claiming all Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Let me take this one step at a time.

1) when 99% of a group are professional and brave I call the group "professonal and brave"
2) I do not know what you mean by "those hicks" but I resent the term
3) no, not all middle easterners are terrorists, but for some reason people in the region are very tolerant of it. They view it as legit, in many more cases than I wish they would.

Kill all the bastards and hope more of them find out about it. I hope they soaked the bullets in pigs blood before they killed the al-queda on that Island. OH, but according to the left, those people on that Island deserved a full Jury Trial...good grief these are accusations. One article on MSNBC has convinced you of this worst case scenerio in which 13 year old boys and old helpless men ( on al-queda island) are gunned down by evil U.S. commandos. Come on, lets be real. Remember just who those troops are and what they are fighting for.

The information that the guys on the island were linked to al-quida, did it come from the same source (us govt.) as the information that iraq and saddam were linked to al-quida? I seem to remember that not being strictly true is all.

And... This well regulated force has been revealed to have a number of Neo-Nazi's joining it.

A "large number"? How large ( you know.. facts...numbers..)?

If it is more than 1% I will vote for Hillary this fall.

Kill all the bastards and hope more of them find out about it.

I have a hard time that that was the RoE to kill everything in site.

What a fucky arguement.


I can see the level of the debate that you wish to operate under.

no, not all middle easterners are terrorists, but for some reason people in the region are very tolerant of it. They view it as legit, in many more cases than I wish they would.

And we all know that opinions are a good reason to kill them.

I can see the level of the debate that you wish to operate under.

There was nothing else say to insults so I dismissed it.

A "large number"? How large ( you know.. facts...numbers..)?

If it is more than 1% I will vote for Hillary this fall.


http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?pid=79

Article says: "A large number"

Wish I could get more specific. These guys do good research though. Really good research.

Edit: And do the world a favour and don't vote for Hillary.

The information that the guys on the island were linked to al-quida, did it come from the same source (us govt.) as the information that iraq and saddam were linked to al-quida? I seem to remember that not being strictly true is all.

can you show me where a paid government employee ever said that before the insurgency started? Or is that another leftist claim that does not pan out? I seem to remember it this way...Press conference January 31, 2003:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?pid=79

Article says: "A large number"

Wish I could get more specific. These guys do good research though. Really good research.

Edit: And do the world a favour and don't vote for Hillary.

The problem is a "large number" could be 200. There are 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty........see what I mean?

The problem is a "large number" could be 200. There are 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty........see what I mean?

2nd page evidences at least 374 that we have definitive proof of (all of whom were caught; 320 from Fort Lewis alone. That tends to be pretty indicitive). The problem is how you get an exact number I mean. What do you do? Send out a survey "Oh, by the way, are you a Neo-Nazi?"

can you show me where a paid government employee ever said that before the insurgency started? Or is that another leftist claim that does not pan out? I seem to remember it this way...Press conference January 31, 2003:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I think the word is pwned.

2nd page evidences at least 374 that we have definitive proof of (all of whom were caught; 320 from Fort Lewis alone. That tends to be pretty indicitive). The problem is how you get an exact number I mean. What do you do? Send out a survey "Oh, by the way, are you a Neo-Nazi?"

374..lets say they only caught 1/10 of them...for arguments sake...

that means that 0.2% of the armed forces are neo-Nazis.....heaven help us, this is distracting and really besides the point.

Let me take this one step at a time.

1) when 99% of a group are professional and brave I call the group "professonal and brave"
2) I do not know what you mean by "those hicks" but I resent the term
3) no, not all middle easterners are terrorists, but for some reason people in the region are very tolerant of it. They view it as legit, in many more cases than I wish they would.
OK.
1) Don't know where this is going, since I appreciated you defending the military

2) I was born in Hickman County, Tennessee and raised in Murrells Inlet, SC. As a bonifide "hick" I can and will use that term. In this case I was referring largely to well-publicized cases of people stating "Middle Easterners are Terrorists" and then hearing people on these forums go wild. Educated hicks are a pain in the ass.

3)You know, this was kind of unnecessary. We are all aware Middle Easterners aren't all terrorists.


Now, I'll address the use of the terms "gung-ho" and "bloodthirsty." Guys use this tactic all the time to steel themselves to face great fear. You know, feigning that "bad-ass" attitude to cover your worries? That's all it meant. Easy on the interpretations, although I know everyone's so eager to prove I'm a convicted murderer.

Also, I didn't *choose* to go to war. My primary interest is defending my country, not attacking other ones. However, I am a soldier, and I just don't question the decision to go into Iraq. I do think Strategy and Tactics should be left to the Army, and not to gov't think tanks. Oh, and I *am* one of those poorer soldiers. They are paying for me to attend USC's (University of S.Carolina) School of Journalism. Taking risks with other people's lives? Do you think we control every bit of these engagements in Iraq? The Army is trained to be a highly mobile assault force, not a babysitting arm of the gov't. They aren't letting us do our job, and we are in a very difficult position, where there is no identifiable enemy. Thus, we can only react in many cases, which leaves room for civvies to get hurt. That's not our fault. My job is not to guard Iraqis, its to fight terrorists. Guarding Iraqis is how I'll get killed.

And the really fucky part is that people on these forums down me and my battles for doing something honorable and act like we're eating babies. By the way, the biggest "gangster" types I knew in basic had never even fired a rifle, and had the most trouble qualifying with an M16, making them really useless as an effective fighting force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I think the word is pwned.

"pwned" is not a word. And my quote speaks for itself thanks. How about you get back on topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I think the word is pwned.

I only have a pretty picture for owned... can you go with that instead?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I think the word is pwned.

Pwnage is a concept that only works when the other side perceives reality and can realize they have indeed been pwned. Busheviks are well known for creating fantasy worlds in their heads that show things as they want it to be under Dear Leader. Sort of the way that guy hanged at Owl Creek Bridge did.

OK.
1) Don't know where this is going, since I appreciated you defending the military

2) I was born in Hickman County, Tennessee and raised in Murrells Inlet, SC. As a bonifide "hick" I can and will use that term. In this case I was referring largely to well-publicized cases of people stating "Middle Easterners are: Terrorists" and then hearing people on these forums go wild. Educated hicks are a pain in the ass.

barrygoldwater is guilty as charged

3)You know, this was kind of unnecessary. We are all aware Middle Easterners aren't all terrorists.


Now, I'll address the use of the terms "gung-ho" and "bloodthirsty." Guys use this tactic all the time to steel themselves to face great fear. You know, feigning that "bad-ass" attitude to cover your worries? That's all it meant. Easy on the interpretations, although I know everyone's so eager to prove I'm a convicted murderer.

Also, I didn't *choose* to go to war. My primary interest is defending my country, not attacking other ones. However, I am a soldier, and I just don't question the decision to go into Iraq. I do think Strategy and Tactics should be left to the Army, and not to gov't think tanks. Oh, and I *am* one of those poorer soldiers. They are paying for me to attend USC's (University of S.Carolina) School of Journalism. Taking risks with other people's lives? Do you think we control every bit of these engagements in Iraq? The Army is trained to be a highly mobile assault force, not a babysitting arm of the gov't. They aren't letting us do our job, and we are in a very difficult position, where there is no identifiable enemy. Thus, we can only react in many cases, which leaves room for civvies to get hurt. That's not our fault. My job is not to guard Iraqis, its to fight terrorists. Guarding Iraqis is how I'll get killed.

And the really fucky part is that people on these forums down me and my battles for doing something honorable and act like we're eating babies. By the way, the biggest "gangster" types I knew in basic had never even fired a rifle, and had the most trouble qualifying with an M16, making them really useless as an effective fighting force.

God Bless.

This is idiotic : can you all read ???

You'd have to ask yourself that question first. Observe.


they were ordered to attack an island in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 and kill anti-Iraqi fighters with ties to al-Qaida.

And


So there is an Island controlled by the same guys that attacked us on 911 and you are talking about the slaughter of civilians.

I don't see any mention of an Island being controlled by Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, how does that square with an ROE that says "Kill all males between 14 to 65"? Hmmm?

Oh, I get it, it's the thinking of mentally deficient nationalists who think it's ok so long as they call them enemy. Hey! I have an idea. BarryGoldWater is an enemy. Thereby, it is now ok to eliminate him.

Sombody was talking about pwnd or whatever it was, read what the soldier wrote folks.

"pwned" is not a word. And my quote speaks for itself thanks. How about you get back on topic.

So you didn't read the bit of the article where it discussed 'paid government employees' making the claim?

You're happy enought wondering around off topic when it suits your argument but desperate to get back to the main debate when it doesn't. I find that interesting.

Oh, I get it, it's the thinking of mentally deficient nationalists who think it's ok so long as they call them enemy. Hey! I have an idea. BarryGoldWater is an enemy. Thereby, it is now ok to eliminate him.

In a war you kill the enemy. You do it in the most effective way you can. If you cannot gather that then you are a mentally deficient coward.

You're happy enought wondering around off topic when it suits your argument but desperate to get back to the main debate when it doesn't. I find that interesting.

Nope, I responded to a dumb post by sombody who made a cheap shot at our intl community. I brought nothing off topic, now I am bringing it back after you failed.

bedtime for me . God Bless.

Nope, I responded to a dumb post by sombody who made a cheap shot at our intl community. I brought nothing off topic, now I am bringing it back after you failed.

You seem to struggle with basis comprehension.

You found out about it and they were punished severely. Thats how. Why all the hate for the troops?

Yay! Even more mentally deficient thinking of an illiterate.

Hate all the troops? Where? Can you find a statement that defines that clearly? Can you?

Hate's a useless emotion anyway. It blinds people.

I merely want the US to live up to it's motto. You know, liberty, justice and freedom for all. The bolded part is something the US doesn't do well and it's military arm will never do at all.

If you think otherwise, show me a case of a conviction of a military person who got a penalty equal to his crime. If you can, I'll show you two who walked with a laugh.

In a war you kill the enemy. You do it in the most effective way you can. If you cannot gather that then you are a mentally deficient coward.

In war, a person who cannot and will not distinguish between civilian and armed opponent is a terrorist.

Which is what you're advocating.

In a war you kill the enemy. You do it in the most effective way you can. If you cannot gather that then you are a mentally deficient coward.

So that means the women and children in My Lai were The Enemy and there shouldn't have been a court martial in the first place?

If you think otherwise, show me a case of a conviction of a military person who got a penalty equal to his crime. If you can, I'll show you two who walked with a laugh.
LOL Here.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=32&did=988
That's just 1945-61.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/court_05-19-04.html
The first Iraq abuse court-martial

Also, the Army doesn't really publish much information about its use of the death penalty, as its bad for morale. That's why that first list is great.

This is coming from another soldier. Okay, I'm actually Navy, but I'm in what we call a Purple Trade and I'm with an army EW unit. That, and I'm in the Canadian Forces, not the US Military.

And before I get all of the BS about Canada not being at war, I happened to have known one of the guys who'll be shipping home from Afghanistan in a steel box not too long from now.

I've seen the Middle-East. I've heard the threat briefs, at least twice before we got into any port. Yeah, it's true, they all tell us to be wary of just about everyone who even looks intently at our ship, or at us. But I was on the ship's force protection team, so I know damn well how tense it can get, say, when you have 3 fishing boats so damned close to your hull that the guys on board can touch it, and that they just happen to be in the blind zone for the 50's. I know the fear of not knowing if the guy who just spoke for a whole 20 seconds on his cell and then left at a dead run was a bad guy involved in a bomb attack or just in a hurry.

And the one thing that saved that guy with the cell phone is that I waitedto pull the damned trigger just damned long enough for the guy who was on the other side of hte hangar deck to stop him and apprehend him. In the end turned out I would have wasted a civilian doing something dumb if I fired.

Soldiers aren't machines. We aren't automatons who blindly follow orders. Canada has the finest NCO corps in the world, because from basic training we're taught to think, to use our heads. If my LT suddenly told me to kill all civilians around us, I'd have him on his knees with his hands zap-strapped behind his back until the MP's come to pick him up. It's called common sense. It's something any soldier should have in spades.

The guys from Fort Lewis, well, that's indicative of an outfit that doesn't have it's shit wired tight.

Also, the gung-ho ones are the ones who come home in steel boxes, or in cuffs. They're the ones who give their military a bad name.

As for cowardice, refusing to shoot civilians is not it. Refusing an order becaus it is wrong is the legal and moral duty of any soldier. First of all, civilian life, at least to us Canadians, is sacred. We protect it with our own lives if we have to. And besides, if I was to follow an unlawful order, I could be nailed to the wall too. With charges ranging from abetting a crime, to complicity, to conspiracy, and I can look at 2 years in Club Ed, and then the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary. It's pretty simple. If an order would be objectionable to the majority of sane and reasonable adults, it's not something that we are to follow.

Also, the gung-ho ones are the ones who come home in steel boxes, or in cuffs. They're the ones who give their military a bad name.
True, true, I should have said that, and I'm glad you pointed it out. Putting a front up for appearances and actually being an idiot are very different.



EDIT: One of your first lessons: don't be a hero. Heroes get the Medal of Honor, and won't that look pretty when they drape it on your coffin.

This is coming from another soldier. Okay, I'm actually Navy, but I'm in what we call a Purple Trade and I'm with an army EW unit. That, and I'm in the Canadian Forces, not the US Military.

And before I get all of the BS about Canada not being at war, I happened to have known one of the guys who'll be shipping home from Afghanistan in a steel box not too long from now.

I've seen the Middle-East. I've heard the threat briefs, at least twice before we got into any port. Yeah, it's true, they all tell us to be wary of just about everyone who even looks intently at our ship, or at us. But I was on the ship's force protection team, so I know damn well how tense it can get, say, when you have 3 fishing boats so damned close to your hull that the guys on board can touch it, and that they just happen to be in the blind zone for the 50's. I know the fear of not knowing if the guy who just spoke for a whole 20 seconds on his cell and then left at a dead run was a bad guy involved in a bomb attack or just in a hurry.

And the one thing that saved that guy with the cell phone is that I waitedto pull the damned trigger just damned long enough for the guy who was on the other side of hte hangar deck to stop him and apprehend him. In the end turned out I would have wasted a civilian doing something dumb if I fired.

Soldiers aren't machines. We aren't automatons who blindly follow orders. Canada has the finest NCO corps in the world, because from basic training we're taught to think, to use our heads. If my LT suddenly told me to kill all civilians around us, I'd have him on his knees with his hands zap-strapped behind his back until the MP's come to pick him up. It's called common sense. It's something any soldier should have in spades.

The guys from Fort Lewis, well, that's indicative of an outfit that doesn't have it's shit wired tight.

Also, the gung-ho ones are the ones who come home in steel boxes, or in cuffs. They're the ones who give their military a bad name.

As for cowardice, refusing to shoot civilians is not it. Refusing an order becaus it is wrong is the legal and moral duty of any soldier. First of all, civilian life, at least to us Canadians, is sacred. We protect it with our own lives if we have to. And besides, if I was to follow an unlawful order, I could be nailed to the wall too. With charges ranging from abetting a crime, to complicity, to conspiracy, and I can look at 2 years in Club Ed, and then the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary. It's pretty simple. If an order would be objectionable to the majority of sane and reasonable adults, it's not something that we are to follow.

Being "trigger shy" can cost lives aswell-civilian and your own.

My 2 cents.

The ROE, in my opinion, is just wrong on many levels. If those were the exact words, or it conveyed the exact same thing, then it wouldn't just mean fighting terrorists. Even assuming they are all terrorists, it would mean shooting surrenduring terrorists, unarmed terrorists, incapacitated terrorists, etc.

Then the more obvious one, how do you know they are all terrorists? If the guy is walking around with a gun, or something equally incriminating, then I can understand shooting him. But how do you know the guys sitting in a room, watching some television, are terrorists? So they are in an "al-queda" stronghold. Not going into how our intelligence doesn't exactly always pan out well, that means only terrorists are there? Its not exactly some castle with AA guns all around it. And the thing that really makes me laugh.

If they were all terrorists there, then the male terrorists were using the female and children terrorists as shields? If its a terrorist stronghold, and everyone there is presumably a terrorist, why not the children? The women?

Now, if I stopped here, there would be a good amount of room for... misinterpretation.

I'm not going to say what the ROE really was. I don't know. Nor do I know all the specifics of the case.

I want this to be investigated in a court. Military court, fine, but it damn well needs to be investigated. If that ROE was really given, in the same spirit that it looks like, then the person/people who ordered it should be tried for war crimes.

If the soldiers followed this order, and it proves that was the order, the troops should be tried for following an illegal order, and murder.

If the ROE wasn't that, then it should be at least investigated whether the shootings were warranted.

I'm against convicting before proven guilty both ways. The troops shouldn't be convicted, they should be tried. On the same page, the order, if it was given, was wrong, because it was about executing people without a fair trial.

Being "trigger shy" can cost lives aswell-civilian and your own.

And is that what he said?

No. He gave an experience about where he saw a suspicious civilian, and instead of shooting him without due process, he let him instead be captured and put through the due process.

If the guy had set off some bomb with his cell phone, seems like it would have been too damn late to stop him by shooting him.

DM, you really shouldn't tell people with first hand military experience this crap. You are hardly in a position to tell them these things. Fuck, even I have higher ground on this than you, and I didn't even go to boot camp.

Being "trigger shy" can cost lives aswell-civilian and your own.

He's been to Iraq and far as we know you haven't. Are you trying to pull a Corny with the "I know more than people who were actually there" Military Expertise?

:rolleyes:

Common sense tells us that this commander has only been accused. This does not make him guilty. We know none of the circumstances of the event and none of the other side of the story. Yet I see all the lefties on this forum declaring him guilty without any sort of trial. It is disgusting. Why is it that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but American troops???

The is nothing else to discuss here. NO trial, no info, nothing but a story...and a bunch of radilibs going for our troops' necks. I am done with this thread....soooo done:sniper:

Hi, I a SSGT in the 82nd ABN US Army, and I have been to Iraq. These soldiers are dicks, they are pulling out the "I was following orders card" and what really pisses my off is that these men were NCO's, they have prolly been in the Army for at least 7 years. These "soldiers" should know an illegal order when they see one, and should know to alert the MPs, or at least not follow the damned order. Also, I would like to say, that the men we are fighting blend into the civillian population, and do use human shields at times. However, they should have had the men detained, they should have not shot them unless they themselves were in danger. It gets tense out there, never knowing who the enemy is until its too late, however there are ways to deal with tension. I know if anyone from my platoon ever needed to talk about it, I would give them as much time as necessary. Men like these give the US Military a bad name, and it pains me whenever I read something like this. Luckily though, these men are the exception and never the rule.


Darujistan- Where in Afghanistan did you serve? Or were you stuck on ship the whole time? Ive worked with some CF soldiers, they are good men, even though you guys are grossly underfunded.

Common sense tells us that this commander has only been accused. This does not make him guilty. We know none of the circumstances of the event and none of the other side of the story. Yet I see all the lefties on this forum declaring him guilty without any sort of trial. It is disgusting. Why is it that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but American troops???

Funny, I thought the current atmosphere is "Innocent Until Proven Muslim."

Why is it that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but American troops???

Please quote where somebody said this, or stop talking.

My 2 cents.

The ROE, in my opinion, is just wrong on many levels. If those were the exact words, or it conveyed the exact same thing, then it wouldn't just mean fighting terrorists. Even assuming they are all terrorists, it would mean shooting surrenduring terrorists, unarmed terrorists, incapacitated terrorists, etc.

Then the more obvious one, how do you know they are all terrorists? If the guy is walking around with a gun, or something equally incriminating, then I can understand shooting him. But how do you know the guys sitting in a room, watching some television, are terrorists? So they are in an "al-queda" stronghold. Not going into how our intelligence doesn't exactly always pan out well, that means only terrorists are there? Its not exactly some castle with AA guns all around it. And the thing that really makes me laugh.

If they were all terrorists there, then the male terrorists were using the female and children terrorists as shields? If its a terrorist stronghold, and everyone there is presumably a terrorist, why not the children? The women?

Now, if I stopped here, there would be a good amount of room for... misinterpretation.

I'm not going to say what the ROE really was. I don't know. Nor do I know all the specifics of the case.

I want this to be investigated in a court. Military court, fine, but it damn well needs to be investigated. If that ROE was really given, in the same spirit that it looks like, then the person/people who ordered it should be tried for war crimes.

If the soldiers followed this order, and it proves that was the order, the troops should be tried for following an illegal order, and murder.

If the ROE wasn't that, then it should be at least investigated whether the shootings were warranted.

I'm against convicting before proven guilty both ways. The troops shouldn't be convicted, they should be tried. On the same page, the order, if it was given, was wrong, because it was about executing people without a fair trial.


I don't have a problem with shooting either of the 3 underlined items. Why? In Fallujah Pt1 groups of Iraqis would walk up to buildings marines were holding while waving a white flag, then start shooting. Of course, the marines returned fire. It's on video, too, shot by the BBC while embedded with Grunts in falooyah.

Secondly, Incapacitated insurgents aren't always incapacitated. If something is worth shooting once, it's worth shooting Repeatedly to make sure it's dead. Ask some of the parents of the marines who were killed by insurgents playing possum in Fallujah if a few dollars for a spent grenade to make sure a room was cleared and everything in it was dead if those few dollars would be worth having thier son back.

3rd, a terrorist that is alive is never unarmed. If they try to get close, they could try and disarm you. As long as they are alive and not genuinely surrendering, they're fair game. Much like pest animals down here in the south, it's open season.

I am finishing up college and working on my PT in anticipation of either Army or 'Corps basic/boot camp next summer. I've got ONE year to get ready, I'd better make the most of it.

And is that what he said?

No. He gave an experience about where he saw a suspicious civilian, and instead of shooting him without due process, he let him instead be captured and put through the due process.

If the guy had set off some bomb with his cell phone, seems like it would have been too damn late to stop him by shooting him.

DM, you really shouldn't tell people with first hand military experience this crap. You are hardly in a position to tell them these things. Fuck, even I have higher ground on this than you, and I didn't even go to boot camp.

Huh?

:eek:

Ahh, the hypocrisy is rank with this one.

Hi, I was a SSGT in the 82nd ABN US Army, and I have been to Iraq. These soldiers are dicks, they are pulling out the "I was following orders card" and what really pisses my off is that these men were NCO's, they have prolly been in the Army for at least 7 years. These "soldiers" should know an illegal order when they see one, and should know to alert the MPs, or at least not follow the damned order. Also, I would like to say, that the men we are fighting blend into the civillian population, and do use human shields at times. However, they should have had the men detained, they should have not shot them unless they themselves were in danger. It gets tense out there, never knowing who the enemy is until its too late, however there are ways to deal with tension. I know if anyone from my platoon ever needed to talk about it, I would give them as much time as necessary. Men like these give the US Military a bad name, and it pains me whenever I read something like this. Luckily though, these men are the exception and never the rule.


Darujistan- Where in Afghanistan did you serve? Or were you stuck on ship the whole time? Ive worked with some CF soldiers, they are good men, even though you guys are grossly underfunded.

+1

However, I would like to point out that alot of these people are the civilian population, other than the fact that they have taken up arms. Not that they don't do it on purpose at times, but I think people use that logic too often, when for most intents and purposes, they are civilians. Not that that gives them any special protections, just that its hard to fault them for living at home, or with friends, etc.

I am finishing up college and working on my PT in anticipation of either Army or 'Corps basic/boot camp next summer. I've got ONE year to get ready, I'd better make the most of it.
LOL!
There is no "getting ready for it." No matter what, they will find a goal to set that you can't achieve, if only to keep you striving. But good luck, you might even have some fun. Not if you join the SUCK, of course, but the Army is pretty good.

True, we don't know what's really going on. Another reason why we have to demand efficient oversight - checks and balances that actually works - and accountability.

I still don't understand how Rumsfeldt still has a job...

You mean where's his medal and 'heckuva job' soundbite?

Please quote where somebody said this, or stop talking.
I had intended to stop posting on this pointless thread but now that you have defamed me I am forced to return. Every liberal on this thread has called our troops guilty before the trial was held in this case. Their "innocent until proven guilty" idea seems not to count for the commander of this unit. That's when they said it. The entire pointless thread. I am DONE.:D

I don't have a problem with shooting either of the 3 underlined items. Why? In Fallujah Pt1 groups of Iraqis would walk up to buildings marines were holding while waving a white flag, then start shooting. Of course, the marines returned fire. It's on video, too, shot by the BBC while embedded with Grunts in falooyah.

I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your crap. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has no problems shooting people who are surrenduring. If you actually make it into the military, I really doubt you will last long, with your racist, vengeful beliefs.

By the way, if someone is holding a white flag and a gun, I doubt anyone is saying they are surrenduring.

Every liberal on this thread has called our troops guilty before the trial was held in this case.

Prove it, or please leave and don't come back. Your broad accusations of people are hardly bringing anything to this thread, especially when you dont care to prove it.

LOL!
There is no "getting ready for it." No matter what, they will find a goal to set that you can't achieve, if only to keep you striving. But good luck, you might even have some fun. Not if you join the SUCK, of course, but the Army is pretty good.

Indeed.

I was actually surprised when I passed PT my first time, having barely passed my physical to get in.

Indeed.

I was actually surprised when I passed PT my first time, having barely passed my physical to get in.

You in Army also Chellis?

You in Army also Chellis?

No, not anymore.

Wasn't my thing. I don't harbor any ill-will though, and though the people I met were some of the greatest people I had ever met.

LOL!
There is no "getting ready for it." No matter what, they will find a goal to set that you can't achieve, if only to keep you striving. But good luck, you might even have some fun. Not if you join the SUCK, of course, but the Army is pretty good.


I know, they will. I've heard rumours about things DIs have done-



In a very deliberate, deep Samoan voice: "How many of you beat your meat at night in the head?"

(no answer)


"F***ing liars".


singing in cadence to 4 count pushups:

"were doing push ups"
"zero one"
"for private bradley"
"zero two"
"because hes a pussy"
"zero three"
"a big pink pussy"
"zero four"
"pussy pussy pussy"
"zero five"


Females where marching by my grandfather and other men.
"Female DI: There may be 50 miles of dick on this island, but you girls aren't going to see a inch"



"You're all dead privates! You've died and gone to hell! Where you're going there is no god! I am god! SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU! Quit your fucking sniveling private!"

My senior DI was always calling us "Skippy" and yelling about "intestinal fortitude".

"Well you're just a fuckin rocket surgeon ain't ya."

"You're fucked up like a football bat! You're ate the hell up, ate up like a soup sandwich."

"Squared away like a bowling ball."

"Sharp as a marble".



One of the assistant DI's would run up and down the hall at lights out
yelling fuck you over and over. If you are on this board SSG Barlit, fuck you.



DS: "private, you know the barney song?"
me: "uuuhhh...i think so...drill sergeant..."
DS: "well you better hope you do because if you arent singing it at the top of your lungs in five seconds were spending the next hour in the dungeon. (the laundry room with all the dryers going)"
me: " (top of my lungs) I LOVE YOU, YOU LOVE ME....."


i woke up one night with the same DS in my bed with me with his arm wrapped around me like my wife or something gently whispering "private...oh pri-vate..." i woke up and almost crapped myself and he jumped up and started screaming about an unsecured locker, which he then completely tore through and left everything on the floor. then he stormed off and told me to clean it up.

when i got up and looked it wasnt even my locker!

One guy got some pictures of his girl in bra and panties, DI made him go outside and do pushups, while the rest of us got to look at her pictures.


Senior drill during basic training barracks inspection. " What the hell did you put on this floor, it's as slick as a minnows dick?!"

During forming, we had several visiting Drill Instructors to help with the shock treatment. Instead of just our team of three, we had four extras for a few days. They would coming in all at once and go ape shit on everyone.
One of them was Sgt Wasson. I'll never forget this guy. He was a fucking lunatic and I was glad that he wasn't one of our D.I.'s
During one session we are all on line and they are going off. I see Wasson across the squadbay sneaking up on a recruit. A good dude from Rochester N.Y. named Wesley Stiles. Stiles is kinda at a relaxed position of attention. Wasson sides up real close next to him and Stiles doesn't notice him. Wasson explodes on him and Stiles stiffens up. As he does, her throws a hand back just far enough to hit Wasson right in the balls.
High comedy followed. Wasson went into overdrive screaming at Stiles. His head turned purple as he screamed and stomped his feet and waved his arms. "DID YOU JUST TOUCH MY BALLS RECRUIT?!" "WERE YOU TRYING TO COP A FEEL?!" "DO YOU THINK I'M SEXY?!" "DO YOU WANT MY NUMBER?!" "ARE YOU SOME KIND OF QUEER?!" "I DON'T GO THAT WAY SISTER!" "YOU SHOULD HAVE JOINED THE NAVY!" on and on he ranted.

It was impossible not to laugh and when he asked if Stiles thought he was sexy, I lost it. I was immediatley dog piled by five of them. They were right on top of me screaming all at once.

He's been to Iraq and far as we know you haven't. Are you trying to pull a Corny with the "I know more than people who were actually there" Military Expertise?

:rolleyes:

It's not a military problem only either-it's a domestic law enforcement problem. "buck fever/trigger shy" is causing fatalities and injuries needlessly. I'm pretty sure the crap an LEO has to go through after hitting a BG doesn't help.

No, not anymore.

Wasn't my thing. I don't harbor any ill-will though, and though the people I met were some of the greatest people I had ever met.

What unit were you in, what was your MOS?

LOL!
My friends Dad sent her a copy of "The Little Engine that Could" for motivation! Seeing the DS' reaction would have been worth paying for.

1...2...3...
Not sounding off
123
Pissin me off
123
This ones a fag (points)
123
And so's your Dad (points again)
123
Can't Get Right (points)
123
You're fucking retarded (points again)

Eventually they just quit trying to rhyme and start insulting you with more fervor. And, so you know, they banned Shark Attack. The first day, when you get off the bus and they're all waiting for you, you know, they don't do that anymore as of October last year. In fact, a lot of things changed, so Army BT really isn't nearly as bad as it even was when I went through, which wasn't all that long ago.

Private, you eyeball me one more time and I'm gonna dropkick that eye out of your skull!

Or when you come off the range and they are searching everyone, thats when they get some free licks in. I got lifted off the ground by two DSs and shaken back and forth between them while getting hit in the nuts repeatedly. Then I had to stand at attention. :upyours:

HEy Surf Shack, also, what was your unit and MOS? Rank? and are you still in?

LOL!
My friends Dad sent her a copy of "The Little Engine that Could" for motivation! Seeing the DS' reaction would have been worth paying for.

1...2...3...
Not sounding off
123
Pissin me off
123
This ones a fag (points)
123
And so's your Dad (points again)
123
Can't Get Right (points)
123
You're fucking retarded (points again)

Eventually they just quit trying to rhyme and start insulting you with more fervor. And, so you know, they banned Shark Attack. The first day, when you get off the bus and they're all waiting for you, you know, they don't do that anymore as of October last year. In fact, a lot of things changed, so Army BT really isn't nearly as bad as it even was when I went through, which wasn't all that long ago.

Private, you eyeball me one more time and I'm gonna dropkick that eye out of your skull!

Or when you come off the range and they are searching everyone, thats when they get some free licks in. I got lifted off the ground by two DSs and shaken back and forth between them while getting hit in the nuts repeatedly. Then I had to stand at attention. :upyours:

:eek:

What unit were you in, what was your MOS?

40th mechanized infantry division, 185th battalion

I was an 11B technically, though really an 11M

Edit: And I got a 98 on my ASVAB. I never stopped getting crap for that choice.

No, foo'. I dont actually wanna nuke Iraq.





Do you have any idea what kind of fallout Israel would recieve??!!

Fuck Israel.

If your biggest concern regarding nuking Iraq is what would happen to Israel, you need to get your head examined.

Or maybe they hope to get off by blaming the military for doing that. :rolleyes:

"We weren't being Psychos we were being ORDERED to be Psychos..." Right...

Fuck Israel.

If your biggest concern regarding nuking Iraq is what would happen to Israel, you need to get your head examined.

If Israel goes the entire Middle east will be glassed by what's left of Israel. And maybe even us if it's our fault.

Or maybe they hope to get off by blaming the military for doing that. :rolleyes:

"We weren't being Psychos we were being ORDERED to be Psychos..." Right...



If Israel goes the entire Middle east will be glassed by what's left of Israel. And maybe even us if it's our fault.

If Israel tries to glass the Middle East over fallout from Americans nuking a part of the Middle East then they would of lost whatever sort of moral high ground they've ever claimed...

This is coming from another soldier. Okay, I'm actually Navy, but I'm in what we call a Purple Trade and I'm with an army EW unit. That, and I'm in the Canadian Forces, not the US Military.

And before I get all of the BS about Canada not being at war, I happened to have known one of the guys who'll be shipping home from Afghanistan in a steel box not too long from now.

I've seen the Middle-East. I've heard the threat briefs, at least twice before we got into any port. Yeah, it's true, they all tell us to be wary of just about everyone who even looks intently at our ship, or at us. But I was on the ship's force protection team, so I know damn well how tense it can get, say, when you have 3 fishing boats so damned close to your hull that the guys on board can touch it, and that they just happen to be in the blind zone for the 50's. I know the fear of not knowing if the guy who just spoke for a whole 20 seconds on his cell and then left at a dead run was a bad guy involved in a bomb attack or just in a hurry.

And the one thing that saved that guy with the cell phone is that I waitedto pull the damned trigger just damned long enough for the guy who was on the other side of hte hangar deck to stop him and apprehend him. In the end turned out I would have wasted a civilian doing something dumb if I fired.

Soldiers aren't machines. We aren't automatons who blindly follow orders. Canada has the finest NCO corps in the world, because from basic training we're taught to think, to use our heads. If my LT suddenly told me to kill all civilians around us, I'd have him on his knees with his hands zap-strapped behind his back until the MP's come to pick him up. It's called common sense. It's something any soldier should have in spades.

The guys from Fort Lewis, well, that's indicative of an outfit that doesn't have it's shit wired tight.

Also, the gung-ho ones are the ones who come home in steel boxes, or in cuffs. They're the ones who give their military a bad name.

As for cowardice, refusing to shoot civilians is not it. Refusing an order becaus it is wrong is the legal and moral duty of any soldier. First of all, civilian life, at least to us Canadians, is sacred. We protect it with our own lives if we have to. And besides, if I was to follow an unlawful order, I could be nailed to the wall too. With charges ranging from abetting a crime, to complicity, to conspiracy, and I can look at 2 years in Club Ed, and then the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary. It's pretty simple. If an order would be objectionable to the majority of sane and reasonable adults, it's not something that we are to follow.


Its posts like this that let me keep faith .

big thumbs up .

I am DONE.:D

Then don't come back or stop lying.

If Israel tries to glass the Middle East over fallout from Americans nuking a part of the Middle East then they would of lost whatever sort of moral high ground they've ever claimed...from day one the zionist organizations colluded to dispossess the palestinean refugees..

Israel high ground? not on my book.

dp

July 23, 2006
Lawyers for 4 Accused Soldiers Say They Acted on Orders

On the morning of May 9, a group of soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division arrived in a remote desert area of western Iraq for a dangerous mission: taking out an insurgent training camp.

What happened then has become the subject of intense dispute.

Military prosecutors last month accused four soldiers in the unit of releasing three Iraqi men they captured that day, only to kill them. The soldiers have been charged with premeditated murder, a capital offense.

Lawyers for the soldiers deny that they released the detainees. They say the soldiers fired only after the Iraqis tried to break free and attack them.

But the lawyers are also making a more startling claim: that the soldiers were given explicit orders before the raid to “kill all military-age males” they encountered.

The lawyers say that Two senior officers — a colonel and a captain — have acknowledged that they gave that order, as have other men in the same company.

Military officials in Baghdad declined to comment on the alleged order.

Source: The New York Times.

...will be glassed by what's left of Israel. And maybe even us if it's our fault.when you say Israel will nuke us.. do you mean "us" like in US (United States) ???

*snipo

Now we have conflicting orders which range from "go and kill civilians" to take the island being used by Al Qaeda.

I still want to see the actual order given and if it is what they are saying it was then the commanders who gave it should fry along with the soldiers who followed it.

So it was a TRAINING CAMP?

That explains MUCH.

If Israel tries to glass the Middle East over fallout from Americans nuking a part of the Middle East then they would of lost whatever sort of moral high ground they've ever claimed...
Umm prehaps you didn't read my message. I'm talking about if Israel gets DESTROYED, the last thing they'll do is nuke those who destroyed them. The Mutually Assured Destruction thing. THEY wouldn't care about the high ground because they would be dead anyway!

when you say Israel will nuke us.. do you mean "us" like in US (United States) ???

If the United States Backstabbed Israel and launched a full scale destruction of Israel to help some Arab friends
Then If the United States destroyed Israel, Israel WOULD retaliate against the United States!

Whoever destroys Israel, will get their final retaliation.
At least that's what the Samson option theory is.

If (INSERT NATION) Destroyed Israel, Israel would hit them. If they don't have the launch capablity, then, after the last city in Israel falls, after the Jews of Israel are dead and dying at the hands of the attacker, when there is no hope for the country. Israel will go up in smoke with the invading armies still inside. (If you knew you were about to die, would you want your killer to die with you?)

If the United States .. launched a full scale destruction of Israel ...If the US ever decides that.. "Israel needs to go" (for whatever reasons).. The US does not need to move a finger. (no shot needs to be fired)

...and in other news, American soldiers rebuilt a sewage line in Iraq, restoring sanitation to Khalis, Iraq.

...and in other news, American soldiers rebuilt a sewage line in Iraq, restoring sanitation to Khalis, Iraq.
Oh well thats alright then.

...and in other news, American soldiers rebuilt a sewage line in Iraq, restoring sanitation to Khalis, Iraq.

...did American soldiers destroy said sewage line in the first place?

Chellis: Civilians who take up arms, under the Geneva Convention, are considered Lawful Combattants so long as they follow the Laws of Armed Conflict. If they do not, they become Unlawful Combattants and are eligible to being prosecuted to the full extent of the law if they are captured. Combattants of all sorts are considered fair targets if they have been properly identified as such. According to the GC and the LOAC at least, and subject to ROE's. Anyone who's familiar with the Canadian contribution to the UN forces in Bosnia will know what I'm talking about.

Long Beach Island: I never served in Afghanistan. I just know a lot of the boys out there, and the next couple teams that my unit is going to send out. I was on ship the whole time I was in the Middle-East, but I wouldn't call it being stuck, because I did enjoy every minute of it in the end. Even in the very worst of it. And it's good to hear a US trooper give a thumbs up towards us. I'm too damned used to the Marines telling us that we were there just so we wouldn't get bombed to shit.

DM: Don't you dare give me that trigger shy BS. You want to know the truth? I was terrified. If that was the big one, it wasn't the only one who'd get wasted: my ship and my crew would have been right there with me. But there's a little thing called training that kicks in when fear shows it's ugly head. If it wasn't for that one little thing, I would have been nailed for murder. It's easy to say "I would have done it this way if I was there". But until you're the one staring that one moment in the face, you have no clue how you'd react. Trust me on this.

...did American soldiers destroy said sewage line in the first place?
Saidly, yes, but I wish we would hear success stories such as this more often than the supposed atrocities.

Saidly, yes, but I wish we would hear success stories such as this more often than the supposed atrocities.

I don't. To me, it's all an atrocity. I don't see repairing damage that we caused as a success. What about the damage that can't be repaired, like the tens of thousands of dead civilians?

I don't. To me, it's all an atrocity. I don't see repairing damage that we caused as a success. What about the damage that can't be repaired, like the tens of thousands of dead civilians?
I don't know what to tell you. Fuck it. I'm in the military too, US Army, and I just don't care. After all, if every good thing our soldiers do gets pushed aside, then I don't suppose I or anyone else in my unit ought to really give a damn about how many people we shot, or how close we came to getting taken out by a IED, except for that civvy bus that happened to be between it and us. Apparently the soldiers are the only ones who care about the soldiers, so damn the rest.

July 21, 2006
EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.
Accused will say anything to get out of a jam.


my2cents: the truth coming out... sooner or later
I wouldn't count on it coming from these guys.

I don't know what to tell you. Fuck it. I'm in the military too, US Army, and I just don't care. After all, if every good thing our soldiers do gets pushed aside, then I don't suppose I or anyone else in my unit ought to really give a damn about how many people we shot, or how close we came to getting taken out by a IED, except for that civvy bus that happened to be between it and us. Apparently the soldiers are the only ones who care about the soldiers, so damn the rest.
Well, I certainly care!! Our soldiers may not be Ivy League elites, or Hollywood bigshots, but neverthless, I firmly believe that they are the very finest citizens our nation has to offer, and to ridicule them for the sacrifices they make each and every day while we sit here in our air-conditioned bedrooms sipping cold drinks is not only extremely hypocritical, but nothing short of criminal.

If you are indeed in the Army right now, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for fighting for my freedom and security. It means everything to me.

Hey Surf Shack, also, what was your unit and MOS? Rank? and are you still in?








82nd- All American!!

Well, I certainly care!! Our soldiers may not be Ivy League elites, or Hollywood bigshots, but neverthless, I firmly believe that they are the very finest citizens our nation has to offer, and to ridicule them for the sacrifices they make each and every day while we sit here in our air-conditioned bedrooms sipping cold drinks is not only extremely hypocritical, but nothing short of criminal.

If you are indeed in the Army right now, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for fighting for my freedom and security. It means everything to me.
I appreciate it, but it seems like all we ever hear is how it's the new Vietnam, and the soldiers are all out raping and pillaging the land, etc. You know, you don't have to support the war, but downing the troops is pretty stupid, since we're sorta doing this out of a misguided sense of duty to our country and countrymen. Apparently I'm also protecting people's right to hate my guts for wanting to defend them.

Dodging the question once again eh Surf Shack?

I am begining to doubt your actually a soldier.

Ill ask once more.


MOS and rank? Unit?

Dodging the question once again eh Surf Shack?

I am begining to doubt your actually a soldier.

Ill ask once more.


MOS and rank? Unit?

Hey Surf Shack, also, what was your unit and MOS? Rank? and are you still in?

82nd- All American!!
Finished my three years and switched to the South Carolina Army National Guard 2 years ago, currently with the 1/178th FA, 13B, but I was formerly with the 218th. Current grade is E-5, and not likely to change soon considering its the Guard.

Ironically, I already did one tour as an MP in Iraq with the Guard, from which we returned in September of last year, and I'm deploying to Afghanistan in Jan. or Feb. with the 218th. So much for part-time military, huh?

EDIT: That should have read 218th, out of Newberry, SC, not the 18th, which I think is in Korea somewhere. And I'm sorry if there have been other times I haven't answered this question, I never noticed you'd asked it.

Finished my three years and switched to the South Carolina Army National Guard 2 years ago, currently with the 1/178th FA, 13B, but I was formerly with the 2/18. Current grade is E-5, and not likely to change soon considering its the Guard.

Ironically, I already did one tour as an MP in Iraq with the Guard, from which we returned in September of last year, and I'm deploying to Afghanistan in Jan. or Feb. with the 2/18. So much for part-time military, huh?


Alrighty, sorry I doubted your service, but you seemed to be question dodging.

On another note, howd ya like life in hell? (Iraq)

Alrighty, sorry I doubted your service, but you seemed to be question dodging.

On another note, howd ya like life in hell? (Iraq)
Well, I actually didn't think it was that bad, but I also didn't have much family behind. And being an MP in the sandbox turned out to be pretty fun, once you got over being shot at every time you ran convoy security, etc.

Plus, when we got RnR in Kuwait, one of our cooks, Bubba Zeke, got a propane cooker and kept some decent food going that beat the hell out of mess.

I guess I'ma go to bed. My connection to the forums ain't workin so good, I keep having to wait like 5 minutes for the shit to load.

Nice, glad you guys had a cook who could actually cook. I dont even think a rat would go anywhere near ours. We tried to get him rotated out, but no luck. The only time I had anything enjoyable in the field was when me and the LT went to a politicians house for dinner, and had some good goat.


I also spent some time in Afghanistan, must say, i liked it a bit better, not as many IEDs in the streets.

Well, I certainly care!! Our soldiers may not be Ivy League elites, or Hollywood bigshots, but neverthless, I firmly believe that they are the very finest citizens our nation has to offer, and to ridicule them for the sacrifices they make each and every day while we sit here in our air-conditioned bedrooms sipping cold drinks is not only extremely hypocritical, but nothing short of criminal.

If you are indeed in the Army right now, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for fighting for my freedom and security. It means everything to me.

I've been talking to my recruiter about joining the Marines next summer after I graduate. My buddy is Army right now, so I've got to One-up him. Not to mention those Dress blues look incredible, and the Class A/B uniforms look tight.

Nice, glad you guys had a cook who could actually cook. I dont even think a rat would go anywhere near ours. We tried to get him rotated out, but no luck. The only time I had anything enjoyable in the field was when me and the LT went to a politicians house for dinner, and had some good goat.


I also spent some time in Afghanistan, must say, i liked it a bit better, not as many IEDs in the streets.

Afghanistan is wide, open terrain, which makes it safer for you and bad for 'them'. Artillery is the key.

Submarines-Death from below
Aircraft-Death from above
Artillery-Death from anywhere
Cooks-Death from within

:p

Afghanistan is wide, open terrain, which makes it safer for you and bad for 'them'. Artillery is the key.

Submarines-Death from below
Aircraft-Death from above
Artillery-Death from anywhere
Cooks-Death from within

:p

Actually Army Special Forces are the key, and airstrikes. I worked with ODA-564, and I can firmly say the US Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) are the finest men in the world.

And Congrats on your choice to join the Marines, but I feel that I should tell you to join the Army, there is NOTHING more fun that getting paid to jump out of C-130s and C-17s!!.



11B
E-6
82nd ABN.

And Congrats on your choice to join the Marines, but I feel that I should tell you to join the Army, there is NOTHING more fun that getting paid to jump out of C-130s and C-17s!!.



11B
E-6
82nd ABN.

He should join the airforce. I mean...they always get pampared. Who wouldn't want that? :D

Actually Army Special Forces are the key, and airstrikes. I worked with ODA-564, and I can firmly say the US Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) are the finest men in the world.

Tossup between Delta and Green berets.

Of course, MEUs would eat both of them......:p

But that's apples..to...pork chops. Delta and GB are small units, MEUs are 2000 strong with armor, air, and arty. Ocean going army.

He should join the airforce. I mean...they always get pampared. Who wouldn't want that? :D

Not to mention the airforce wimmenz are HOT. I have pics to prove it.

And they DID get Zarqawi, I'll give them that.

Seen on a cubicle at work:

Airforce-flying off into the big blue wonder

There had better be roomservice!

Tossup between Delta and Green berets.

Of course, MEUs would eat both of them......:p
Yeah, and I am 200 ft tall and sleep with 100 different women on any given night.

]But that's apples..to...pork chops. Delta and GB are small units, MEUs are 2000 strong with armor, air, and arty. Ocean going army.

Pretty much all Delta are GBs. MEUs are full of 2,000 dumbfucks, SF is compiled of 12 man ODAs, and 12 is coinsidentally the same number that most Marines get on the ASVAB ;)

Welcome to the wonderful world of inter-service rivalry.

And Congrats on your choice to join the Marines, but I feel that I should tell you to join the Army, there is NOTHING more fun that getting paid to jump out of C-130s and C-17s!!.



11B
E-6
82nd ABN.

Airbourne? AIRBOURNE?

Aren't you one of them helo transported guys?

Airbourne-too scared to jump and too lazy to walk :p

Nah, your thinkin of the 101st, they are Air Assualt, not ABN. In the 82nd we actually jump, but you Marines can have fun playin in the water. Just dont forget your swimmies!!!:p

Not to mention the airforce wimmenz are HOT. I have pics to prove it.

Hehe. My mother served 6 years in the AF :)

And my dad is still in for the next few months before forced retirement ends his career at 33 years. He tosses the the army out the back of his aircraft.

Yeah, and I am 200 ft tall and sleep with 100 different women on any given night.



Pretty much all Delta are GBs. MEUs are full of 2,000 dumbfucks, SF is compiled of 12 man ODAs, and 12 is coinsidentally the same number that most Marines get on the ASVAB ;)

Welcome to the wonderful world of inter-service rivalry.

Am I getting Delta and GB mixed up?

I have a feeling we are going to be swapping service jokes soon. I will throw the first salvo. Yarr, there's drama abrewin'!

"Marines actually know how to use their bayonets. Army bayonets might aswell be paperweights"-Navy times, 1994


Why does the Navy carry Marines on its ships?

Because sheep would be too obvious.

_______

A crusty old Marine Corps Gunny found himself at a gala event at a posh hotel, sponsored by a
local liberal arts college. There was no shortage of extremely attractive, idealistic young women
in attendance. One of them approached the Gunny.

"Excuse me, but you seem to be a very serious man. Are you this way all the time? Or is there
something that's bothering you?"

"No, I'm just serious by nature."

Looking over the Gunny's ribbons, the young lady said, "You seem to have seen a lot of action."

"Yes, a lot of action," said the Gunny curtly.

Finding it hard work trying to start a conversation with the Gunny, the young woman said, "You
know, you should lighten up a little . . . relax and enjoy yourself."

This didn't seem to move the Gunny, who just looked at her very seriously.

Exasperated, the woman said, "You know, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when was the
last time you had sex?"

"1955."

"Well no wonder you're the way you are! You really need to chill out a little and quit taking
everything so seriously. I mean, no sex since 1955 is a little extreme!"

"I don't think so, it's only, 2130 now."

______________

A Soldier and an Airman are riding their snowmobiles across a frozen lake when all of a sudden the
Soldier crashes through.

The Airman circles back around to the edge of the hole and looks down. The Soldier is still
sitting on his machine, cranking and cranking it to start.

The Airman yells down, Choke it Choke it!!!

____________

Nah, your thinkin of the 101st, they are Air Assualt, not ABN. In the 82nd we actually jump, but you Marines can have fun playin in the water. Just dont forget your swimmies!!!:p

Who do you think invented hanging from a rope attached to a helo? It's the only USMC-approved way of sightseeing AND getting to a target!

Yes, I've got pics too. Gotta find those...

Pretty much all Delta are GBs. MEUs are full of 2,000 dumbfucks, SF is compiled of 12 man ODAs, and 12 is coinsidentally the same number that most Marines get on the ASVAB Just thought id post that again, because I thunk it all by meself, and the boys around me had a good laugh at the barracks.


Wanna see some really hott womenz, join the IDF

http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=13

Hehe. My mother served 6 years in the AF :)

And my dad is still in for the next few months before forced retirement ends his career at 33 years. He tosses the the army out the back of his aircraft.

For some reason I get the idea of a short asian guy chasing people out of a buffet when you mention that. "You no pay! You reeeve buffet now!" :p

Pretty much all Delta are GBs. MEUs are full of 2,000 dumbfucks, SF is compiled of 12 man ODAs, and 12 is coinsidentally the same number that most Marines get on the ASVAB Just thought id post that again, because I thunk it all by meself, and the boys around me had a good laugh at the barracks.


Wanna see some really hott womenz, join the IDF

http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=13

Don't tempt me.

The IDF is full of hot young jewish wimmenz.....I am a young hebrew male.....Must I say more?

Only thing that would turn on my lazy eye more is South American chicas. Dark skin, that's what does me in.

This is a disgusting thread. Can you read this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0K0F03.shtml

the Island that they attacked was an al-queda training camp. The terrorists ( of the same group that attacked us on 9/11 used women and babies as human shields. The officer gave orders only to kill the military aged males ( not the civilians.) Good grief , talk about jumping the gun on a thread. Seems to me like many on the left wish our troops were evil monsters and they are not....this thread is simply more evidence that the left does not support our troops. If they did they would not assume them guilty of war crimes with no trial based on the earliest of reports. I really am let down by the left.

And they DID get Zarqawi, I'll give them that.

Getting Zarqawi is the Middle Eastern equivalent of capping Dr. Evil and then holding a press conference saying "We just killed Blofeld, SPECTRE's going down baybee!"

If he was such a crucial mastermind, why are the troops still dying out there?

Im a young hebrew male also, and I really wanna see some of them in person, not much hotter than a young jewish women with an M-16!


Here is a pretty good USMC Joke.

An Army Ranger was on vacation in the depths of Louisiana and he wanted a pair of genuine alligator shoes in the worst way, but was very reluctant to pay the high prices the local vendors were asking.

After becoming very frustrated with the "no haggle" attitude of one of the shopkeepers, the Ranger shouted, "maybe I'll just go out and get my own alligator so I can get a pair of shoes made at a reasonable price!"

The vendor said, "By all means, be my guest. Maybe you will run into a couple of Marines who were in here earlier saying the same thing."

So the Ranger headed into the bayou that same day and a few hours later came upon two men standing waist deep in the water. He thought, "those must be the two Marines the guy in town was talking about." Just then, the Ranger saw a tremendously long gator swimming rapidly underwater towards one of the Marines.

Just as the gator was about to attack, the Marine grabbed its neck with both hands and strangled it to death with very little effort. Then both Marines dragged it on shore and flipped it on its back. Laying nearby were several more of the creatures. One of the Marines then exclaimed, "Darn, this one doesn't have any shoes either!"

Hehe. My mother served 6 years in the AF :)

And my dad is still in for the next few months before forced retirement ends his career at 33 years. He tosses the the army out the back of his aircraft.

For some reason I get the idea of a short asian guy chasing people out of a buffet when you mention that. "You no pay! You reeeve buffet now!" :p

LOL!

Getting Zarqawi is the Middle Eastern equivalent of capping Dr. Evil and then holding a press conference saying "We just killed Blofeld, SPECTRE's going down baybee!"

If he was such a crucial mastermind, why are the troops still dying out there?
you make the error of thinking there can be only one evil mastermind.

Who do you think invented hanging from a rope attached to a helo? It's the only USMC-approved way of sightseeing AND getting to a target!

Yes, I've got pics too. Gotta find those...

Pshhhhh, Army Rangers are the real experts at fast roping. You Marines just stick to your little boats...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0K0F03.shtml

they were not guilty of anything wrong. They attacked an Island that was an al-queda ground and killed all the terrorists while sparing the human shields. Innocent-----until proven guilty.

"Why do the marines have the lowest intelligence test entry standards of all the services?
Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Got those pics of AF women yet?

you make the error of thinking there can be only one evil mastermind.

Actually Dear Leader made that error, bragging that bombing Al Zarqawi was a "crushing blow" to the Iraqi insurgency.

It's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Part Two!

:D

and I'l bet when these guys are cleared of all charges the media won't even mention it. It is a scandal how biased against the military they are.

Actually Dear Leader made that error, bragging that bombing Al Zarqawi was a "crushing blow" to the Iraqi insurgency.

It has been. Their leader was killed. Another batter always steps up to the plate though, and this has nothing to do with the incident that this thread is about.

and I'l bet when these guys are cleared of all charges the media won't even mention it. It is a scandal how biased against the military they are.

Sort of like how biased they were when they kept referring to Abu Ghraib as "an isolated incident"?

Sort of like how biased they were when they kept referring to Abu Ghraib as "an isolated incident"?

Well I don't know how Abu-Graib could be an "isolated incident" as it is in fact a prison that has been in operation for 5 years. If you mean the accusations that people were mistreated at GITMO I would remind you that we have given those bastards more rights then they should get, better treatment than other American prisoners, and better treatment than they give our guys ( beheading). Also, I would wonder why some are worried about the rights of Islamic terrorists when we are fighting a war on Islamic terrorists who want to kill us all. It sounds like giving "aid and comfort" to me. Treason.

Got those pics or not DM?

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected

Got those pics or not DM?

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected

Another one who supports the troops.

I am a troop, care to look at the rest of me and DMs convo before making an accusation, :upyours:

I am a troop, care to look at the rest of me and DMs convo before making an accusation, :upyours:

You are very capable of not supporting your own.:upyours:

Dont be such a ignorant dumbfuck, we were jokin with each other, Interservice Rivalry. Do me a favor and read our fucking conversation before you make another riduculous comment.

Uncle
Sam
Ain't
Released
Me
Yet

Never
Again
V]olunteer
Yourself

MARINES Done

US Air Farce

Army Not Goin'


I've previously served in two of these branches and am currently in a third. Do I or don't I "support the troops"?

"These "soldiers" should know an illegal order when they see one,"- Long Beach Island

They were told to kill all military aged males on an Island that is an Al-queda training camp. They were told not to kill the women and children who were being used as shields. These men have not been given an illegal order and the man who gave the order is in fact a soldier with no quotes. You found him guilty without trial. I do not care if you make fun of marines because of rivalry. I do care when it follows a conversation in which you pass judgement on troops who are in combat and are doing the right thing. These accusations are dumb and motivated by politics. You should have read the CBS article that I posted before making a fool of your self.

Uncle
Sam
Ain't
Released
Me
Yet

Never
Again
V]olunteer
Yourself

MARINES Done

US Air Farce


Army Not Goin'


I've previously served in two of these branches and am currently in a third. Do I or don't I "support the troops"?
I can't judge you until I read your previous posts. If you jumped to the guilty conclusion in earlier posts I would say...yeah, you at least have some political baggage. If not, God Bless.

"These "soldiers" should know an illegal order when they see one,"- Long Beach Island

They were told to kill all military aged males on an Island that is an Al-queda training camp. They were told not to kill the women and children who were being used as shields. These men have not been given an illegal order and the man who gave the order is in fact a soldier with no quotes. You found him guilty without trial. I do not care if you make fun of marines because of rivalry. I do care when it follows a conversation in which you pass judgement on troops who are in combat and are doing the right thing. These accusations are dumb and motivated by politics. You should have read the CBS article that I posted before making a fool of your self.

Being told to kill all "military aged males" is an illegal order.

I have seen combat, one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Iraq, YOU are the one who has not and never will see combat, and you dare to accuse me of not supporting our troops, and my comrades!

I have seen combat, one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Iraq, YOU are the one who has not and never will see combat, and you dare to accuse me of not supporting our troops, and my comrades!

No, no, he's right. Since he's obviously never been in the military, he has more of an accurate perspective on the military mindset, law, and operations than someone who's actually been in.

No, no, he's right. Since he's obviously never been in the military, he has more of an accurate perspective on the military mindset, law, and operations than someone who's actually been in.

:D I hate people like this.

:D I hate people like this.

There are a lot of people on this forum that are convinced that they know everything better than anyone. They especially think they know more than those with firsthand experience. Firsthand experience is nothing compared to a good Internet connection, right?

OIF1 vet from 3d ACR here.

He seems like an Armchair General to me!!!!
;)








-AIRBORNE!!!

Being told to kill all "military aged males" is an illegal order.

When you are on an Island that is an al-queda training camp? Hardly.

I have seen combat, one tour in Afghanistan and one tour in Iraq, YOU are the one who has not and never will see combat, and you dare to accuse me of not supporting our troops, and my comrades!

Where did you go and what was your unit? And why did you assume that the commander was guilty when all you have is an accusation?

When you are on an Island that is an al-queda training camp? Hardly.


An alledged training camp does not justify indiscrimintately killing all military aged males. Perhaps if you got out of your armchair and actually spent time in the military, you'ld know that.

Whether they were ordered to or not, doing it was a crime.

There are a lot of people on this forum that are convinced that they know everything better than anyone. They especially think they know more than those with firsthand experience. Firsthand experience is nothing compared to a good Internet connection, right?

OIF1 vet from 3d ACR here.

Well now that you have had your fun I would remind you of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0K0F03.shtml

1) these are only accusations
2) the men killed were suspected insurgents on an Island that was an Al_queda training ground
3) all those who the soldiers believed to be civilans were spared

it does not take a military background to read the f*ing article. It takes a political agenda to start issuing gailty verdicts without a trial.

He seems like an Armchair General to me!!!!
;)








-AIRBORNE!!!

I read the article that the thread was based on. The conclusions that you jumped to were directly undermined by the evidence in the article. I have made no claims about tactics, the workings of the army, the command structure, the nature of the stratagy etc. I looked at the damned article and saw that you had either made an error or jumped to an unfair conclusion. Instead of citing evidence to the contrary you parrot again and again your own service record. It is not enough to do that.

Are you questioning whether or not I am a soldier? If you need to know, Darawod Afghanistan (Helmand Province) Firebase TYCZ stationed with men from the 3rd SFG 1 Bn. (Im 82nd..) and Nasr Iraq. (For a short bit)


Do not question my intergrety again.

An alledged training camp does not justify indiscrimintately killing all military aged males. Perhaps if you got out of your armchair and actually spent time in the military, you'ld know that.

Whether they were ordered to or not, doing it was a crime.

The Island was a terrorist training ground. "The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents." It is not a big Island , it is "an island on a canal". There is no village to burn and no random civilian innocents there. And you miss the larger picture, this is only an ACCUSATION. What ever happened to innocence until guilt is proven??

Are you questioning whether or not I am a soldier? If you need to know, Darawod Afghanistan (Helmand Province) Firebase TYCZ stationed with men from the 3rd SFG 1 Bn. (Im 82nd..) and Nasr Iraq. (For a short bit)


Do not question my intergrety again.

I did not question if you were a soldier. If I did I would have asked "are you really a soldier?", I asked about your time in the serviced to see if I could illicit some kind of emotional response in order to note your political views. Many a soldier has come home from Iraq and fed into the Michael Moore propaganda machine. I meant no offense to your service record. I just want to know why you assumed guilt with no trial?

Well now that you have had your fun I would remind you of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0K0F03.shtml

1) these are only accusations
2) the men killed were suspected insurgents on an Island that was an Al_queda training ground
3) all those who the soldiers believed to be civilans were spared

it does not take a military background to read the f*ing article. It takes a political agenda to start issuing gailty verdicts without a trial.

Apparently it takes a military background to read the entire article:

was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp.

also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

witnesses changed their testimony after repeated interviews.

And still contradicts the alledged illegal " to 'kill all military age males' in Iraq raid"

They are sure making themselves sound guilty. Why did they change their stories? Do you believe they didn't threaten another soldier? Why didn't they report the illegal order when it was first alledgedly given?

The Island was a terrorist training ground. "The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents." It is not a big Island , it is "an island on a canal". There is no village to burn and no random civilian innocents there. And you miss the larger picture, this is only an ACCUSATION. What ever happened to innocence until guilt is proven??

The article you linked to stated "believed to be" a training ground. In no way does that justify even starting to follow a "kill all males" order. They should have reported it the minute they got the order. They changed their stories and have alledgedly threatened at least one other soldier.

They get their day in court, but they've shot themselves in the foot and made themselves look guilty.

I did not question if you were a soldier. If I did I would have asked "are you really a soldier?", I asked about your time in the serviced to see if I could illicit some kind of emotional response in order to note your political views. Many a soldier has come home from Iraq and fed into the Michael Moore propaganda machine. I meant no offense to your service record. I just want to know why you assumed guilt with no trial?


I love my country, and I love being in the Army, I respect the men I work with, and for the most part I respect all soldiers (unless they do something criminal), but this story sounds odd, If my CO asked me to tell my platoon to kill all elidgable men, I would certainly think twice about that order.

They are sure making themselves sound guilty. Why did they change their stories? Do you believe they didn't threaten another soldier? Why didn't they report the illegal order when it was first alledgedly given?

These are all claims that will be taken into context in a trial. A trial that has not occured yet. It does answer my question as to why you assume them guilty but is it fair to do that? To slip on the noose without both sides being told?

The article you linked to stated "believed to be" a training ground. In no way does that justify even starting to follow a "kill all males" order. They should have reported it the minute they got the order. They changed their stories and have alledgedly threatened at least one other soldier.

They get their day in court, but they've shot themselves in the foot and made themselves look guilty.

Not enough to call them that. You just do not call sombody guilty before the trial has started. Even more so when it is a soldier who was under the stress of combat!

I don't get it any more. Given the chance, these terrorists would more than willingly any American soldiers they are capable of getting their hands on. I don't think they deserve to live. What I don't think you people understand is that other wars are different from this and Vietnam. In WW1, WW2, and Korea, our soldiers were ordered to go in, kill the enemy, liberate the cities, and let the leaders do the rest. A very straitforward objective.

But then, in Vietnam, it all changed. "A Rumer Of War" by Phillip Caputo is the first hand account of a petty officer fighting in Vietnam. He explains throughout the book how terrible the war was. In all of our other wars we would fight in fairly visible terrain with much broader battles. In Vietnam, the men would walk through the steamy green jungle, stepping on traps, stepping over trip wires, being ambushed, getting Ginea worms and other wonderful tropical diseases. The men become paranoid. They begin to see things in the jungle, all the civilians become targets. It's either I kill you or you kill me. You look like a threat, and I don't feel like taking the risk.

Iraq is the same. The soldiers aren't sweeping through the cities any more, they're taking jobs as police officers and other civil servants. Everyone becomes a suspected terrorst. You quite simply will begin to snap. This has lead to our dear "Kill em all and let God sort em out." And I think if I was in Iraq, I'd be doing the same thing.

I love my country, and I love being in the Army, I respect the men I work with, and for the most part I respect all soldiers (unless they do something criminal), but this story sounds odd, If my CO asked me to tell my platoon to kill all elidgable men, I would certainly think twice about that order.

Would you report it to a higher up? Or would you wait until later to tell it to the media? How do you feel about the man who gave the order being assumed to be guilty of the murder of innocent people without proven evidence of that? How do you feel about the political left exploiting this situation to make up for a lack of a plan of action for Iraq?

Well now that you have had your fun I would remind you of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0K0F03.shtml

1) these are only accusations
2) the men killed were suspected insurgents on an Island that was an Al_queda training ground
3) all those who the soldiers believed to be civilans were spared

it does not take a military background to read the f*ing article. It takes a political agenda to start issuing gailty verdicts without a trial.

You'll notice that I didn't say anything about the topic at hand. You seem to have a bad habit of putting words in to people's mouths. I was making a general statement about people thinking they know a lot more than they do.

I'm assuming that these guys are innocent unless they're proven guilty. However, there's something seriously wrong going on in some units, and it needs to be fixed. The best to do this is to aggressively find and prosecute those who are behaving in ways inconsistent with the law.

Also, I wouldn't take everything you read in a news article at face value. There are most certainly things that we don't know about this case. These things could work in these troops' favor, they might not. The person who wrote the article is working on what they were told, which may or may not be the whole story or the truth.

As for your points

1. Quite right. We'll see if they're guilty or not.
2. The article says they believed it to be an Al Qaeda training ground.
3. That's what they say. As of now I'm assuming they're telling the truth. It certainly does sound like a plausible scenario. Again, we'll see after the trail.

However, this order to "kill all military age males" is complete and utter bullshit. The ROE we had when I was over there said you weren't supposed to kill someone unless they were a threat to you, another soldier, or a civilian, and that's after escalating force as necessary. Simply being a military aged male isn't sufficiently threatening to justify killing them.

As for your points

1. Quite right. We'll see if they're guilty or not.
2. The article says they believed it to be an Al Qaeda training ground.
3. That's what they say. As of now I'm assuming they're telling the truth. It certainly does sound like a plausible scenario. Again, we'll see after the trail.

However, this order to "kill all military age males" is complete and utter bullshit. The ROE we had when I was over there said you weren't supposed to kill someone unless they were a threat to you, another soldier, or a civilian, and that's after escalating force as necessary. Simply being a military aged male isn't sufficiently threatening to justify killing them.

Glad to see that you oppose those who assume guilt automaticly. Good to see at least one does not. When you have a small Island and guys are shooting at you from it, are you to believe that some of them are innocent by-standers? What the hell are they doing there then?

Glad to see that you oppose those who assume guilt automaticly. Good to see at least one does not. When you have a small Island and guys are shooting at you from it, are you to believe that some of them are innocent by-standers? What the hell are they doing there then?

BGW, you are assuming guilt right fucking now. You don't even see, or acknowledge the immense hypocrisy of your statements.

Its an alleged al-queda training camp. Not only are you assuming that it is in fact one, but that every male of military age is a terrorist.

You are the one assuming guilty until proven innocent.

You want these soldiers to have a fair trial, yet you say nothing about giving the people on the island a fair trial. They could have captured the people there, the ones who were unarmed. They could have given them trials. But instead, you are supporting executions without a fair trial.

You have no highground here.