More allegations of US soldiers murdering/raping civilians

[Reaktor4]

****ing animals

You shouldnt insult animals like that.

 

[15357]

You (people) are weird.



Yeah, I completly agree that people should be executed because they were accused of something and there were allegations of them killing people.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

almost every other case of US soldiers murdering civilians ended with a slap on the wrist I dont see why this is any different

I agree. And yet, a slap on the wrist of Insurgents for they're beheadings and car bombings of innocent people is not in any way different.

<stares at a certain few from accross the sea>

 

[DeusExMachina]

You can't hold them responsible. They obviously don't abide by Geneva conventions. America is a 1st world country that has a responsibility to abide by the rules they and other countries set forth as guidelines. All major nations do.

 

[Gunner]

You (people) are weird.



Yeah, I completly agree that people should be executed because they were accused of something and there were allegations of them killing people.

Hey ****face do you ever stop trolling?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060703...wgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

"One soldier interviewed by authorities said Green and others had visited the woman's home prior to the evening of the attack. They had also discussed raping the woman. The soldier said Green and others drank alcohol before leaving for her home, and also changed clothes so they would not be seen."

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You can't hold them responsible.

What. The. ****?!

It doesn't work that way.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I MEAN you cannot hold them responsible to follow the rules. They're an army of an idea, not a country. They have no rules but their own. You can't slap anything on them except for terrorism.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You can't hold them responsible. They obviously don't abide by Geneva conventions.

And if we declare not to abide by the Geneva Convention, are we people to be held responsible for moral misgivings and rampant atrocities? What is, 'crime against humanity' if through association and binding of species, select people could be excused from having the moral responsibility of atrocities depending upon they're open participation or shunning of western law?

'Crimes against humanity' is just that. You cannot simply state that such conventions or accords are not to be placed in squares with terrorists and they're bloodlusting excuses simply because of cultural differences or an amount of world participation. Where is the fair for a child killed by terrorists, or a group of people to be systematically abused, tortured, and killed at the hands of terrorists who had no defense?

Will they're be justice for them, or should we just lie to ourselves and assume that these 'ghosts and hydras' of terrorists should be allowed to roam free, unchecked, and unchallenged despite they're brutal atrocities and campaigns of ignorant jihad?

Absurd that we could allow any human excuse to abuse, torture, or kill another.

This thread was about US crimes, and those responsible should be brought to what justice is according. As should all who are detained for such things. There should be no excuse that would harbour injustices to both those who are innocent, or guilty.

 

[CptStern]

These are crazy ****s that need prosecution. It's not to do with training, etc, it's to do with some sick individuals who hatched up a plan to do it. It so happened they were in the army and in Iraq. The situation presented the opportunity, it didn't CAUSE them to do it though, so they're ****ing weirdos that should be tried to the fullest.

That said, I am dissapointed. Why is it only this type of stuff posted? If they weren't US soldiers I doubt it would've been posted. But it wasn't a part of the war effort or US commanding to do it, etc, it was a personal crime. Thus it either: shouldn't be in the politics section as it's a personal crime and not an issue of it being ordered, or every isntance of a soldier doing something should be posted, including the millions of heroic and philanthropic things.

they represent your country ..and yes this should be in the politics forum because as US soldiers they represent your interests in that part of the world ...you were supposed to be the "calvary" coming to aid of iraqis living under the brutal regime of Saddam ...you failed miserably.

There's a thin line between individual actions and sanctioned actions ..here's an interview with a marine that kind of blurs the line

here's another example ..a video from an embedded journalist with US sniper team after they've set up a snipers nest:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8822111290591945086&q=iraq

commentator: " ...so suppose you see someone with a Kalashnikov on the street what do you do?"
US soldier: "I shoot him dead"
commentator: "also if he only carries a weapon?"
US soldier: "yes"


later on when interviewing Sgt in charge on the sniper team

commentator: "what does [Sgt] Mitchell think when he shoots at them (children involved in uprisings)"
Sgt: "well they're hard to hit"


iraqis are allowed one Kalashnikov per household ...something some americans take for granted
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2004/a032604e.html

terrorists murder 60 people



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/w...fdb665ecf61dab&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

its war sternypoo deal with it.

deaths caused indirectly by a break down in law and order due to the invasion which was based on lies ..more blood on your hands


Rupertvdb: in the drowning case I linked to witnesses including the sole survivor who said the soldiers in question laughed as one of the prisoners drowned:

Mr Fadel said he and his cousin were transporting plumbing supplies from Baghdad to the city when they were approached by US troops when their truck broke down a few minutes before a 2300 curfew.

He said they were forced to the river at gunpoint

"The soldiers had their rifles aimed at us. They were laughing"

while it may not systematic it does happen with high frequency.

I agree. And yet, a slap on the wrist of Insurgents for they're beheadings and car bombings of innocent people is not in any way different.

<stares at a certain few from accross the sea>

how does that excuse the actions of the soldiers who commited these crimes? you sound like you're excusing their actions because the enemy is capable of the same ..well no shit sherlock, they're terrorists ..what's your excuse?

And if we declare not to abide by the Geneva Convention, are we people to be held responsible for moral misgivings and rampant atrocities? What is, 'crime against humanity' if through association and binding of species, select people could be excused from having the moral responsibility of atrocities depending upon they're open participation or shunning of western law?

'Crimes against humanity' is just that. You cannot simply state that such conventions or accords are not to be placed in squares with terrorists and they're bloodlusting excuses simply because of cultural differences or an amount of world participation. Where is the fair for a child killed by terrorists, or a group of people to be systematically abused, tortured, and killed at the hands of terrorists who had no defense?

Will they're be justice for them, or should we just lie to ourselves and assume that these 'ghosts and hydras' of terrorists should be allowed to roam free, unchecked, and unchallenged despite they're brutal atrocities and campaigns of ignorant jihad?

Absurd that we could allow any human excuse to abuse, torture, or kill another.

This thread was about US crimes, and those responsible should be brought to what justice is according. As should all who are detained for such things. There should be no excuse that would harbour injustices to both those who are innocent, or guilty.

again Kerberos the US signed the geneva accords they must adhere to international and US laws ..the terrorists are a rag tag group of fanatics who abide by no authority except their own twisted morality

 

[K e r b e r o s]

how does that excuse the actions of the soldiers who commited these crimes? you sound like you're excusing their actions because the enemy is capable of the same ..well no shit sherlock, they're terrorists ..what's your excuse?

There is no excuse nor a valid justification that could explain within reason why these such atrocities occured, and why behind that reasoning, it should be excused.

I want these soldiers brought to justice. Your right. Geneva is our responsibility and we should up hold it. It's our responsibility because we signed the dotted line.

the terrorists are a rag tag group of fanatics who abide by no authority except their own twisted morality

And how does everyone feel about it? They're sense of the word?

 

[CptStern]

There is no excuse nor a valid justification that could explain within reason why these such atrocities occured, and why behind that reasoning, it should be excused.

then why bother bringing it up?

I want these soldiers brought to justice. Your right. Geneva is our responsibility and we should up hold it. It's our responsibility because we signed the dotted line


And how does everyone feel about it? They're sense of the word?

pardon?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm sorry. I did'nt mean to loose you -- the terrorists. How do you feel about they're perceptions of it?

then why bother bringing it up?

I was'nt bringing up an excuse. Just another point. I'll save it for another debate. I think more respect should be given to your thread, and that would best be exemplified by not challenging it with my banter.

 

[CptStern]

I'm sorry. I did'nt mean to loose you -- the terrorists. How do you feel about they're perceptions of it?

I'm still lost ..their perceptions of what?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Morality.

 

[CptStern]

you're asking me what I think about their morality? I dont see how that's relevant ..I've already described it as twisted

 

[CptStern]

soldiers admitting indescriminately killing iraqis

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1198200663660134068&q=iraq

"When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587990522549547050&q=iraq

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9058519743431142534&q=iraq

commentator: "what will you tell your child about fallujah?"
US soldier: "it's just a massive killing of arabs"

 

[Reaktor4]

^ this still shocks/surprises me for some reason.

 

[Ome_Vince]

jesus
This thing has gotten way out of hand

 

[gh0st]

commentator: " ...so suppose you see someone with a Kalashnikov on the street what do you do?"
US soldier: "I shoot him dead"
commentator: "also if he only carries a weapon?"
US soldier: "yes"

im allowed to own an m14 but im not allowed to carry it around in the street. i think i'd expect to be shot dead too. this is one video that proves very little and is presented in a very biased way.

 

[15357]

Hey ****face do you ever stop trolling?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060703...wgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

"One soldier interviewed by authorities said Green and others had visited the woman's home prior to the evening of the attack. They had also discussed raping the woman. The soldier said Green and others drank alcohol before leaving for her home, and also changed clothes so they would not be seen."

In which I wasn't talking about, Mr. ****tard.

Yeah, people making a sarcastic comment is trolling. This must mean that everyone in this board is a troll.

 

[CptStern]

im allowed to own an m14 but im not allowed to carry it around in the street. i think i'd expect to be shot dead too. this is one video that proves very little and is presented in a very biased way.

yes but you cant compare seattle with iraq ...I would agree that it does prove very little if you're looking at it from the prespective that it proves US soldiers kill civilians ..that wasnt my intent ..the video was posted because it illustrates of how little effort is put into separating the civilians from the insurgents ..Iraqis are allowed to carry weapons (understandable considering the break down in law and order) ..therefore anyone with a weapon is fair game ...regardless of guilt: judge, jury and excutioner with just a scope to make that judgement




numbers: you were trolling, you added nothing to the discussion ..and it's even more annoying since this thread deals with the murders of innocent people

 

[Rupertvdb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/i...tml?ex=1152244800&en=3b1444f2821f427a&ei=5070

Read this before you start calling arms carrying Iraqis innocent. I realise that you can have a whole other debate about the measure itself, but you know, a premise you base your argument on is flawed.

Despite my appeal to that article, I would argue that The Captain is relying too heavily on news sources and their quotations as gospel.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/i...tml?ex=1152244800&en=3b1444f2821f427a&ei=5070

Read this before you start calling arms carrying Iraqis innocent. I realise that you can have a whole other debate about the measure itself, but you know, a premise you base your argument on is flawed.

look at the date from your link, it's 2 weeks after the end of the combat operations in iraq (probably when disarmament was a good idea) ...my link is from a year later and directly from the department of defense and was specifically allowed because of a need for self-defense:

Residents are allowed to possess one AK-47 or similar rifle and no more than 200 rounds of ammunition are allowed per household for personal protection.

“They need these weapons because the local banks are not too secure so it is quite common for the average Iraqi citizen to keep all of his money in his house. [Capt David Perry]"

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/mar2004/a032604e.html

Despite my appeal to that article, I would argue that The Captain is relying too heavily on news sources and their quotations as gospel.

had you watched the videos I supplied you'd see that for the most part they're first hand accounts from soldiers who were there, who partook in civilian massacres ..from the very first wave of coalition forces in 2003 to just recent reports. Regardless of what you may personally think the reality is that it does go on, civilians are murdered by coalition troops

 

[Reaktor4]

And they werent just shooting people who had guns..

 

[Rupertvdb]

I figured I hadn't closed the argument too well, my PC has 20mb free and I couldn't watch the whole vid.
I'm personally anti-war, but i'm playing the devil's advocate in this thread because it just doesn't seem right to judge these guys as harshly as you do. There are a lot of sick things going on, a lot for America to be ashamed of, probably a lot for Britain to be ashamed of, but the environment that these soldiers are being placed in is something I would not wish on anyone. I think that many of these people are going through full-blown mental breakdowns.

The link may have been stale in comparison to yours but I cannot see anything in your aticle which supports the right to bear arms in public. Per household seems to suggest that I am in the right. How can you judge how many AKs someone has in their house if they are carrying it/them around outside?

I do believe that civilians are being murdered, I never suggested otherwise. I repeat, I also think that this is horrific. Despite all of this I think that painting the coalition troops as crazed psychopaths does not give a realistic sense of what the forces are doing.

 

[CptStern]

I figured I hadn't closed the argument too well, my PC has 20mb free and I couldn't watch the whole vid.

D: surprised you dont crash often

I'm personally anti-war, but i'm playing the devil's advocate in this thread because it just doesn't seem right to judge these guys as harshly as you do.

the soldiers I refer to in this thread deserve nothing but disdain ..the victems deserve something not the perpetrators

There are a lot of sick things going on, a lot for America to be ashamed of, probably a lot for Britain to be ashamed of, but the environment that these soldiers are being placed in is something I would not wish on anyone. I think that many of these people are going through full-blown mental breakdowns.

I really couldnt care less about their mental state ..that excuses nothing ..what about the victems? (they dont even publish their names ffs, they're just know as "victems" ..who mouns their deaths? certainly not the countrymen of the soldiers who are accused of taking their lives ...if I hear one more CNN commentator after describing a scene where US soldiers butcher civilians say "you have to understand they're under pressure" I'm going to scream ..I really dont ****ing care, it excuses NOTHING (sorry for the rant, it wasnt necessarily directed at you)

The link may have been stale in comparison to yours but I cannot see anything in your aticle which supports the right to bear arms in public. Per household seems to suggest that I am in the right. How can you judge how many AKs someone has in their house if they are carrying it/them around outside?

it doesnt matter because the possiblity of a civilian carrying a gun for protection exists ..here read this ..my point was that regardless of brandishing weapons in some cases there is no possible way a soldier with a scope will be 100% certain that the person he's about to kill deserves it 100% of the time

I do believe that civilians are being murdered, I never suggested otherwise. I repeat, I also think that this is horrific. Despite all of this I think that painting the coalition troops as crazed psychopaths does not give a realistic sense of what the forces are doing.

your own soldiers say as much ....however I didnt suggest they're ALL like that

 

[CptStern]

US soldier pleads "not guilty" to rape and murder charges

ffs:

He was discharged because of an "anti-social personality disorder," according to military officials and court documents.

A psychiatric condition, anti-social personality disorder is defined as chronic behavior that manipulates, exploits or violates the rights of others. Someone with the disorder may break the law repeatedly, lie, get in fights and show a lack of remorse.

that was a quick/convienent diagnosis. ALmost makes you feel sorry for him. Notice not once were the victems named in the article? they only appear as "iraqi woman" and "family" ...they just become a meaningless statistic


this is interesting:

Green is being tried in federal rather than military court because he no longer is in the Army.

hmm I wonder if his diagnosis has any bearing on the fact he's being tried in a federal court? I can also hear an amendment to his plea before a trial is set: "not guilty due to mental deficiancy" ...effectively taking the death penalty off the table

 

[K e r b e r o s]

..therefore anyone with a weapon is fair game ...regardless of guilt: judge, jury and excutioner with just a scope to make that judgement

A temporary weapons ban ... solution? Maybe?