SAS Soldier quits army in Disgust at American Tactics in Iraq

[Neo_Kuja]

All countries should organize to take down fascism, despotism, dictatorships, and the like.

What about the dictators put in by the US government in other countries - should we take them out too ?

 

[dream431ca]

Soldiers aren't allowed to have opinions, that's part of the oath they take when they enlist voluntarily. What he did is called mutiny and can result in death by firing squad, especially in a time of war. What about all those guys that are serving in Iraq who aren't going to quit? They are the real heros. This guy is pathetic.

Well, he stood up and speaked out about human rights...even the American military has to follow human rights, otherwise, it's illegal. What if he shows the court evidence of outsourcing human rights? What will the American government think then? Sure he swore under oath, but he's still human and he still has a choice. You can't force anyone to do something totally illegal.

 

[Alexferris]

are the sas required to throw their rights away as in the us millitary?

Even more so. When you join the military, you forfeit all rights. It's like, going to prison. You fight for your country so that the citizens of your country can maintain their own rights.

"You can't force anyone to do something totally illegal." <-- Sure you can. If you refuse to do it, you'll die. If you do whatever you were ordered, you may live with a guilty conscience, but you won't end up in front of a firing squad.

 

[dream431ca]

The war was wrong..
But... coalition forces abandoning Iraq now is the worst thing that could happen: civil war and total anarcy..
At the moment the insurgency and terrorists are also responsible for creating this climate of disgust, anarchy and targetting of Civilians.
How so? By dressing up as civilians, and using civilians to blow themselves up.
Its not helping Iraq AT ALL, only creating anarchy...

Only hypocrits think there's such a thing as a "clean war", no war is clean...
Right now the coalition needs to create stability and prevent the "Civil War" which will litterly destroy the country...

This is not a Black&white issue "anymore"... hence my vote now, even though i have always been AGAINST the war, is for the Coalition to stay and attempt to create stability.
Right now, whatever your opinion is about the war, it would make matters worse for the coalition to leave now...

First off, the Americans must stay in Iraq or a civil war will break out (some iraqis say civil war is already ongoing). And with all the technology these days, you will see missed targets and civilians getting killed all the time. (and by technology I mean the media, and cameras all over the place).

 

[Cooper]

Not that I am claiming that this soldier is lying; but since when does the mostly non-white predominantly ethnic minority US Military learn and use the word untermenschen?

 

[Gray Fox]

Not that I am claiming that this soldier is lying; but since when does the mostly non-white predominantly ethnic minority US Military learn and use the word untermenschen?

He didn't say they called them untermenchen, he said they viewed them as that. He probably used the word to describe it better. The ones he worked with probably act vs iraqi's as if they are worth less as humans.

 

[Ome_Vince]

In that case i'd say he's wrong to use that word.
"Untermenschen" was a word used by the Nazi's because they truely believed in a racial way the Skandinavian bloodline was superior.
They used this to justify killing millions of jews, gypsies and other "untermenschen".

This soldier using the word "untermensch" is sick, as he knows how sensitive that is in the west.
How easy it also is to get public response and support that way.
Extreme left-wing politicians do the same. They just brand their right-wing opponent as "the new Hitler" and nobody votes on him anymore.

The US army is filled with ethnic diversity, and what i think, is that the soldiers, (being hated by large parts of the population) feel isolated and "team-up".
Its a natural response, not justified ofcourse, but natural. Same thing happens in society too.
Gothic people also are isolated, team-up and start feeling superior to others..

Its wrong to pull the whole"discrimination" thing onto this (and refering to "untermenshen" is pulling the discrimination "thing") unless you can prove it has anything to do with racial discrimination...

 

[CptStern]

oh come on you're reading far too much into this

the word is appropriate because Untermenschen usually implies seeing oneself as better due to race

..I've seen a handful of videos where it shows american soldiers joking and laughing after they've killed iraqis ...they obviously see them as less than human or else they wouldnt have been so flippant after casually murdering someone (the videos show americans killing wounded combatants ..a violation of international law and a war crime). In fact I find it hard to believe any soldier would see the enemy on equal terms ..it's far easier to kill something if you dont see it as your equal ..why else would the US military push the idea that saddam was responsible for 9/11?

 

[Lemonking]

cry more, stern

 

[DeusExMachina]

Spicy, shut up.

Stern, you saw a video of a few soldiers. This doesn't represent ALL soldiers. You can't forget that. Sure, some of them think they're better than them, but that's in all militaries. There's always going to be the nutjobs who think they're better than the people they're trying to help. And it's not just going to be Americans. I realize you probably know this, but I'm just propelling my point further.

 

[DeusExMachina]

What about the dictators put in by the US government in other countries - should we take them out too ?

Uh durpa durr? I said all dictators didn't I? Don't assume for a minute I don't realize what my dumbass country did in the 50s and 60s :dozey:.

 

[Lemonking]

hell , no I wont shut.when stern is spouting all this "untermenschen" stuff
maybe the Soldiers dont see them is equel because:

1.They dont wear uniforms
2.They use hit and run tactics
3.They blow up innocent civilians on PURPOSE (Purpose spelled with capital letter so stern wont post his stupid body count links)
4.they behead people
5. "private burn's best friend just his left leg" (Burn's is pissed therefore he puts a bullet in the Insurgents head)

hell yeah I shot those ****s,even If they spilling their guts on the floor.

 

[jverne]

hell , no I wont shut.when stern is spouting all this "untermenschen" stuff
maybe the Soldiers dont see them is equel because:

1.They dont wear uniforms
2.They use hit and run tactics
3.They blow up innocent civilians on PURPOSE (Purpose spelled with capital letter so stern wont post his stupid body count links)
4.they behead people
5. "private burn's best friend just his left leg" (Burn's is pissed therefore he puts a bullet in the Insurgents head)

hell yeah I shot those ****s,even If they spilling their guts on the floor.

that's why you should stay out of the army! there are enough nutjobs as it is!

 

[DeusExMachina]

hell , no I wont shut.when stern is spouting all this "untermenschen" stuff
maybe the Soldiers dont see them is equel because:

1.They dont wear uniforms
2.They use hit and run tactics
3.They blow up innocent civilians on PURPOSE (Purpose spelled with capital letter so stern wont post his stupid body count links)
4.they behead people
5. "private burn's best friend just his left leg" (Burn's is pissed therefore he puts a bullet in the Insurgents head)

hell yeah I shot those ****s,even If they spilling their guts on the floor.

......

 

[CptStern]

hell , no I wont shut.when stern is spouting all this "untermenschen" stuff
maybe the Soldiers dont see them is equel because:

1.They dont wear uniforms
2.They use hit and run tactics
3.They blow up innocent civilians on PURPOSE (Purpose spelled with capital letter so stern wont post his stupid body count links)
4.they behead people
5. "private burn's best friend just his left leg" (Burn's is pissed therefore he puts a bullet in the Insurgents head)

hell yeah I shot those ****s,even If they spilling their guts on the floor.

so you're saying that is the reason why they kill civilians? ..oh and the day you can best me in a debate is the day you can rightfully tell me to "shut up" ...in the meantime ......shut up



DeusExMachina: yes I realise that not all soldiers are like that ...many truely believe they are there for humanitarian reasons but you have to admit that revenge might be a factor on how they treat people because over 80% of american gi's believe iraq had something to do with 9/11

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm sure before the operation began, Colonels, Generals, and Majors tried to propogandize (is that a word?) the thought of Iraq having something to do with 9/11 to their soldiers. No doubt in my mind. It seems everyone's forgotten this all started when Bush accused of Iraq of witholding WMDs which were never found. While I support the overthrow of Saddam, we didn't originally go there for that. Hell, we might not even be there now because of it.

 

[CptStern]

yes but the poll was taken in january ..of this year


surely somebody would have set them straight by now ...85% is a huge majority

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101911&highlight=soldiers

 

[Asknoone]

hell , no I wont shut.when stern is spouting all this "untermenschen" stuff
maybe the Soldiers dont see them is equel because:

1.They dont wear uniforms
2.They use hit and run tactics
3.They blow up innocent civilians on PURPOSE (Purpose spelled with capital letter so stern wont post his stupid body count links)
4.they behead people
5. "private burn's best friend just his left leg" (Burn's is pissed therefore he puts a bullet in the Insurgents head)

hell yeah I shot those ****s,even If they spilling their guts on the floor.

loool.

 

[Lemonking]

so you're saying that is the reason why they kill civilians? ..oh and the day you can best me in a debate is the day you can rightfully tell me to "shut up" ...in the meantime ......shut up



DeusExMachina: yes I realise that not all soldiers are like that ...many truely believe they are there for humanitarian reasons but you have to admit that revenge might be a factor on how they treat people because over 80% of american gi's believe iraq had something to do with 9/11

I said insurgents learn2read plz.



edit : Samon are you bored again?

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

pfft, American Jarheads. On another note, what really IS the adjective for propaganda? Im beginning to have an increasing need for the word nowadays.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

They arent insurgents. They are freedom fighters!

 

[Lemonking]

shut the **** frenzy, my god.Its ok when Solaris says that once in a while
but you are just plain crazy, Solaris atleast trys 2 make sence.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Spicy, seriously. Be quiet :|.

 

[Lemonking]

whats your problem? instead of spamming just report my posts to the mods If you have a problem.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

shut the **** frenzy, my god.Its ok when Solaris says that once in a while
but you are just plain crazy, Solaris atleast trys 2 make sence.

Hahahaha, crazy...yes, hence the name frenzy.
But can't you see this from my point of view? Foreign nation invades your country for oil, and installs government. People do not trust this government and revolt to install own government and establish their conception of a 'free' society. Hence, the insurgency towards the forgien installed government can also be regarded as freedom fighters fighting to establish their own 'free' government.

 

[Lemonking]

think about it, the iraq war is hurting our economy not helping it , hence the whole "its only for the oil" arguement doesnt hold up.


The US cant even "extract" oil because insurgents keep blowing shit up.



ever heard of "Project for a new American Century" ?
read the report,"a clean break"
I cant find it right now, but you might find it.


you say its for Oil, I say its for Israel.

 

[CptStern]

think about it, the iraq war is hurting our economy not helping it

yes because the friends of the people in power like haliburton, betchel, Fluor, DynCorp etc were awarded billion dollar no bid contracts at a loss to those companies because rebuilding iraq is "the right thing to do" :upstare:

hence the whole "its only for the oil" arguement doesnt hold up.

this I agree with you ..they're not there to take the oil, they're there to control the flow of oil ...which is far more lucrative and far sighted

The US doesnt install goverments anymore

yes because 2002 isnt all that recent

The US cant even "extract" oil because insurgents keep blowing shit up.

ever heard of "Project for a new American Century" ?
read the report,"a clean break"
I cant find it right now, but you might find it.

you mean this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

or this

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

or this

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

or this

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12017.htm


point out where PNAC talks about a "clean break"


you need to watch that last link lemonchicken. It talks about war corportism, the militarism of america and the rise of the military-industrial complex

you say its for Oil, I say its for Israel.

in your inept stumbling around facts you've actually have a valid point ..but it's not what you think it is ...the US needs/wants a launch base for it's imperialistic goals in europe, the middle east, china and north korea ..now they have afghanistan and iraq ..you seem to know something about Project for the New American Century, it's all there in black and white, perhaps you'd like to explain it to us?

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

think about it, the iraq war is hurting our economy not helping it , hence the whole "its only for the oil" arguement doesnt hold up.

The arguement does hold up. What doesn't hold up is George Bushes stupid decision to go to war with a country that he thought he would be able to easily install a government in.

The US cant even "extract" oil because insurgents keep blowing shit up.

Yes, clearly a very logical thing to do if you want a country that you believe is invading you for your oil to get the hell out so you can install a free government.

And I have heard of that site but havent read the article. Can you tell me why you think its for israel and how it relates to america going to war?

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

dammit stern, i cant hear the sound on that video!

 

[CptStern]

really? something's wrong then

try this version

http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com/2005/10/pnac-video.html

 

[Lemonking]

yes because the friends of the people in power like haliburton, betchel, Fluor, DynCorp etc were awarded billion dollar no bid contracts at a loss to those companies because rebuilding iraq is "the right thing to do" :upstare:




this I agree with you ..they're not there to take the oil, they're there to control the flow of oil ...which is far more lucrative and far sighted




yes because 2002 isnt all that recent










you mean this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

or this

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

or this

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

or this

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12017.htm


point out where PNAC talks about a "clean break"


you need to watch that last link lemonchicken. It talks about war corportism, the militarism of america and the rise of the military-industrial complex







in your inept stumbling around facts you've actually have a valid point ..but it's not what you think it is ...the US needs/wants a launch base for it's imperialistic goals in europe, the middle east, china and north korea ..now they have afghanistan and iraq ..you seem to know something about Project for the New American Century, it's all there in black and white, perhaps you'd like to explain it to us?

the report is from PNAC its called " a clean break"




its about "reshaping the middle-east, which of course is bsb I agree with you stern that this "empire thing" is kinda stupid,yes they need bases around the world and what not,but its mostly for making the ME friendly 2 Isreal
eg: paying Egypt money so they leave Isreal alone and what not.




edit: its true that some companies are making alot of money off the iraq war,but still hurting the US more then its helping me thinks.


edit: I would apriciate you not calling me lemon chicken,thank you,Im off for a bike ride so I will post some more later.

 

[CptStern]

the report is from PNAC its called " a clean break"

pnac was formed in 1997, the report was written in 1996 by one of PNAC's principle players, Richard Perle, but it's more of a plan to agitate iraq, syria, iran and lay out plans for US regime change in the mid east ...much of it was later included in the Rebuilding America's defenses paper I linked to

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

its about "reshaping the middle-east, which of course is bsb I agree with you stern that this "empire thing" is kinda stupid,yes they need bases around the world and what not,but its mostly for making the ME friendly 2 Isreal
eg: paying Egypt money so they leave Isreal alone and what not.

no it's far more involved than that:

from Rebuilding America's defenses 1997:

"....After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.

.....Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region..."



"...America’s global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" "

"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate"

edit: its true that some companies are making alot of money off the iraq war,but still hurting the US more then its helping me thinks.

why do you think that matters to them? if they dont care about the 2000+ americans who've died in iraq what makes you think they care about the economic loss to america?
try to follow this logic here: bush knew that saddam didnt have wmd. He purposefully fixed the intelligence and manipulated the american public into believing he was a threat just so they could achieve their goal of ousting saddam ..american men and women died for those lies

edit: I would apriciate you not calling me lemon chicken,thank you,Im off for a bike ride so I will post some more later.

I thought it was cute ...and spicy lemon chicken ../drool

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Part 1 of 2

why the hell would armed insurgents enmass in the middle of a large street!?!? of course they were civilians, most probably some protestors!

Let's question what we've seen in the video thus far. Keep in mind that the video brought to our attention from CptStern, is from this source:

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/video/bombing_fallujah.htm

• 
  * If it's a group of protesters, where are they're signs?
  * If it's also a group of protesters, where is they're organization?
  * Also, I've never seen protesters run like that. Not unless there's riot police on they're tail, or at least, a threat thats big enough to make an entire crowd of at least thirty people run like hell. Usually, a trait with most protesters is there constant stand up against shows of force. Why were they running so fast?
  * Is it possible that they were nethire protesters nor civilians?
  * If it's a group of protesters , why were'nt they're more of them?
  * If its a group of protesters, how come the streets around them are so isolated?
  * if it's a group of protesters, or innocent civilians for that matter, how could the pilot isolate just them out of everyone else? Where is everyone else for that matter?
  *Finally, why that group of people, and were did all of the other people go, if they're not insurgents?

Another thing I'd like to bring to your attention is this.

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2003-04/23/images/pic11.jpg

What are the key traits of protesting individuals, or groups of them? Presence. They gain it with signs, they gain it with noise, they get with the amount of people they have in their protest, plus: they gain it with the media [who usually manage to attend such events after having been invited to them personally, or after hearing about their protest/rally/march through news room Gossip]. Bystanders are a different issue: They're everyday people going to and from a place, minding their own business. The term bystanders draws from the activity people usually participate in when something odd, cool, or horrible happens nearby them, [or, when they've become a witness to either of these cool, odd, or horrible things]. Car Wrecks, good looking people (heh), explosions, accidents, protests ... usually draw their attention. It's what usually causes that activity to occur. It's the protestors activity that draw people's attention to them.

http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesPhotoGallery/Serve/TrooponTankCrowd.jpg

Evident of bystanders is they usually like to follow any activity, until it stops at a certain point. Its because its something to do, plus its exciting to watch people at a rally or march (or at a car accident). People just want to see how things turn out. Others support the message that the protestors share, and follow that activity in the support of it, [or eventually join the group and protest with them, either way.]

None of these are entirely evident in the video thats been provided to us.

The protestors in Iraq and everywhere for that matter share a commonality in the use of vehicles or devices such as Bikes, to get from place to place. (At least, from what I've seen involving protests)

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2003/08/01/Protest_parking_map.jpg

A large or even a small amount of vehicles parked along side of a road, or in an alleyway for that matter, is not evident in the video for at least these thirty people. A parking deck might hide the vehicles, sure, but they'res no parking deck to be seen. It does not invalidate the presence of one to be sure as we don't see all of Fallujah in the video.

This to me however, would be evidence of the protestors having driven to and parked at the area where they're protest would've began. [Assuming it began at about the time the video starts] Bikes, Horses, or Carriages for that matter would be on the sidewalk, or along it. We don't see anything of these sorts in the distance, or over the other roads that we're scanned over by the F16 pilot. This to me is instead evidence that the people have walked to their place of rally.

But they're running, not walking. [To add to my last point: Or maybe, they were outside of their march area, or changed paths for that matter, and in the Camera, we're not able to see maybe up 15 to 20 blocks down the city to find where they may have parked and organized they're march.]

http://www.thinctanc.co.uk/photography/images/artangel_02.jpg Extreme example, but we've seen more then this.

Another thing known about Protestors and they're vehicles is the participation they sometimes have in certain rally or march. Vehicles are used to carry more protestors to or from a site of march. Sometimes, they're used to carry others who cannot stand or walk for much longer. Dodging these minimal circumstances, we come to the primary one involving vehicular use in rallies. They're primarly use is for attention purposes, often having multiple persons hanging out of the car windows blaring their message at the top of their lungs, and the driver of that vehicle honking the horn to get attention on the people hanging out of the car windows. Duh. Going back to my statement about protestors; they want attention on themselves and they message they bring. It's just another thing I ask myself when I watch the video; where's that attention?

There's literally no attention on these people.

Protestors might also sometimes invite friends or family to join them in the march/rally they'll be active in, or sometimes just invite them to come down and watch them while they particpate in rally. Where were these, if any? We could consider, that because Fallujah is a war zone, that having friends and a family in one of these places would not be very smart. But of the protestors themselves (even the alledged ones seen herein the video), does'nt that danger also apply to them aswell?

Where are these crowds, again, or other people for matter? We see no bystanders. Maybe they ran. But from what, I ask you the reader, from what? Before the F16 attacked, we had no idea and nethire did these people below of the intentions that aircraft pilot was prepared for. We see only this isolated pocket of people, running, for a reason we don't quite understand. They could be running to a bake sale for all we know, but Bake Sales don't make people run like that. I've never seen a protest run, not unless they're rioting, but I see no evidence of rioting either or the police that might be sent to control such an action.

Not to dehumanize they're fleeing. By far I concede, the end action seems to be atrocious, if we keep whats all been gaven to us.

We don't know enough about this incident specifically to garner the response of, "They did it because they could, and the targets the pilot hit were civilians!"

Also, I'm going to add redudancy here: To further this debate, if they were protestors, where did they're garnered attention go to? Where did they're attention getting go to? What about they're extreme isolation? (Assuming they had any attention, its possible they may have left -- but for what reason?)

If this was a protest, why did they do it in a known warzone? For the added effect of? Perhaps. But this is isolated, this far from anything as it seems, and being followed by an F16 that they probably could'nt see, seems a little wierd to me. A little calculated on behalf of both the parties. Whats the calculation. I digress, I can't hide it any further. I believe these people to not be so innocent. But lets refocus our attention to this sticking point ... the calculation is guilt. What are these people guilty of that feel they need to run from it, or if they're not guilty of anything, why run anyway? Riot Police are known sometimes for they're brutality, but thirty people is all we see. There's no police they're following them. At the time of 2004 in Fallujah, there was no working police force. If you remember correctly, they all either joined the insurgency, fled, or we're killed by the insurgency.

Maybe soldiers we're coming to get them. Not so. Where were the soldiers? Too far to be seen? Possibly, but not likely. But its another one of those things, like cars, and parking decks that I suggested. The entire town is like a ghost town. The places these people chose to run down, or to escape into, are isolated without a soul on them or nearby them. Considering the ambushes, Coalition Forces usually use vehicles to move from place to place, or when involved in pursuits. Where, in the distance, do we see the terrain being disturbed by APC's or Tanks?

Protestors do get attention, thats for sure. But without Coalition Forces on the ground in pursuit, Riot Police (if either Coalition or Riot control is needed in the instance of this video), bystanders, onlookers, cars, or either signs of life, its highly unlikely this was any ordinary protest, or became unordinary due to a circumstances we're not able to see. (I understand one burning question about this, the form the Coalition took was an F16 pilot. Notice, he's the only one in pursuit. Fire mission, or atrocity?)

IMHO, I don't entirely believe their protestors. Now, I can't completely argue out that civilians is not what they are. Now also, I can't completely prove my suspicion to be true about them possibly being Insurgents, but in the face of these arguements of indiscriminate bombings against Iraqi civilians I have only questions. Speculation to be honest, is all I have at this point, to why an F16 Pilot chose that group of people as a target, and how they isolated themselves so swelly from any other people, only to be bombed in the end.


---
A commonality between Insurgents on the retreat after an ambush, or people running from a firefight that they had not participated in, is the Chaos that takes control of the group in complete flee. Its flight or fight, and either are responsive to situations of violence in complete disorder. The Chaos is, unorganization. They're not organized, they're running blindly, for their lives it appears in this video. Only two parties would run like this: Insurgents, or Civilians.

It seems to me, to easy to justify this crowd as civilians when both parties (armed or unarmed) share a similiar characteristic when routed or leaving a place with all due speed.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I52998-2004Nov15 - Insurgents leaving the seen of an Oil Facility on Fire
http://www.maldivesculture.com/images/emergency_nss_charge06.jpg - A crowd running from riot police
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1000000/images/_1000177_running_ap300.jpg - Soldiers fleeing attack

In this group, take consideration that for the video, they appear to not be armed. But I bring to you this case, of Insurgents disarming themselves, then running:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2695781?htv=12

Watching that video, I digress, they never ran, but we're killed. In an archive I have, but cannot post for more disturbing content, Insurgents shoot at Police, then dump the weapons in dumpsters or alongside city streets. They undo they're facial coverings, and put them, shirts or otherwise in their pockets. This is how they claim that what happens to them, is happening to them because they're unarmed (by hiding the weapons) and because they're civilians (because they remove their facially coverings and ammunition packs).

The same questions that might preceed such a topic as, "These people are civilians", are the same questions that preceed for, "Yes but they're also capable of being insurgents." Consider this fact. From the video, we can tell that the action being commited is a low alttitude bombing of some sort. From what we gather from zoom, they appear to be nethire protestors nor Insurgents.

I'm aware of a tactic that most of you are not, and the video I posted is a simple introduction for it. After attacks, Insurgents are known to the leave the area where the ambush took place. These are for reasons of their own preservation. Civilians do the same aswell. So we must question ourselves in this ... are they civilians fleeing from a fight, or are they insurgents fleeing from a fight?

I ask you to question yourself, and the video here, because it offers an answer for nethire. To be truthfully honest, I think we should be nuetral -- even though I've made up my mind, its because I've seen things about their methods of attack and retreat (Insurgents) and you have not.

To help you maybe see what I'm seeing, there's what I provided and these other sources:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/screen_20050307160259_rpg_rounds_and_cord.jpg

These were found along side of a road, after an Ambush on Iraqi-Coalition forces. The insurgents fled, left these in alongside of the road, and ditched they're clothing.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Part 2 of 2 - Questions for the Future answered

It's going to be hard to convince you all of my opinion, so in order to make my mark in perhaps, getting you to question your decision, and to see that mine, although equally as possible as the people being bombed being Insurgents, is not the absolute in this case. In knowing that my very first questions above are already with answers by reading eyes, I will attempt to preanswer a few of them pertaining to each question.

• 
  * If it's a group of protesters, where are they're signs?
  A: Maybe they dropped them while running.
  A: Maybe they did'nt have any to begin with.
  A: Maybe they had them, but its too difficult in the video to tell.
  
  To answer those speculations, I have 'tid' for 'tad'.
  
  Q: Maybe they dropped them while running.
  A: If they dropped them while they were running, how come we don't see this kind of debris in the distance? We don't see signs of protest ever having occured (Speculation I know), but this kind of idea is'int flawed in full. We see the road they come off of, and multiple roads behind the ones that they occupy. Where is the debris in these? I can't see much in the video, even in the higher quality version of this, but of the one I did procure there is no debris visible.
  
  An observation, but nonetheless accurate in my opinion. Sterns graciously provided us with the video, and the debate about its content, I think it should be reviewed.
  
  Q: Maybe they did'nt have any to begin with.
  A: True. You don't need a sign to be a protestor, you need only a message and a basic means of expressing it. Either thought, mouth, or hand were the grounds for protestors to originally spread they're message. Wether writing it on paper, over a computer's text program, speaking it or calling it out, or even denying a certain belief to yourself is protest in itself. Its possible, that if they were protestors, that again, signs are not nessecarly relevant. This is nothing I can disprove.
  
  Q: Maybe they had them, but in the video its too difficult to tell.
  A: This is also true. The reason why I speculate its a toss up going in the favor of them being Insurgents is for numerous reasons. The first being this group, and its isolation, and the F16 following. There seems to be no life around the people, and there seems to be no one else following them, being Coalition or of the Iraqi Civilian population in that town. Insurgents would want isolation. They would want the ability to hide or mask their weapons into saftey. Another question running through my mind, is why these people are running? The F16, although it probably could be heard, might not be able to seen very well from the ground to the position it held in the sky. Its improbable that they were running from the F16 itself. They were running before the F16 even narrowed their position, this much is evident in the first seconds of the video. They were running from something else, and logically to me, there either people fleeing an attack, or insurgents fleeing an ambush they've started. And yet, I don't see any pursuit of them on the ground. Or the attention protestors might garner in such a clammour. (Either running, or protesting would attract some attention, especially with the sound of an F16 overheard. Yet, we see no one leave their homes. This leaves me to believe Fallujah was under curfew at this point. Insurgents, and only stupid people with good reason go out past curfew. Protesting is no reason to be out past curfew. I guess another question begged is this one: Maybe they could'nt make it home in time, and maybe the Airforce is attacking them specifically because of this reason? I concede, its possible. Just as equally possible as any other morale equivelatives we assign to what we've saw. Like the possibility of them being Insurgents.)
  
  * If it's also a group of protesters, where is they're organization?
  A: They were running from an F16! You would'nt organize in this instance!
  A: Perhaps they were running from a firefight they witnessed, like you said.
  A: Perhaps they were'nt organized, but running through the streets for attention.
  A: Perhaps they were just, dodging some kind of danger ...?
  
  Q: They were running from an F16! You would'nt organize in this instance!
  A: True. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Flight or fight easily justifies a lack of coordination. But, from the suggested and quoted above, if these people are helpless protestors, why are they running? Did the perceive the sound of the F16 overhead to be threatening? If they're civilians, or insurgents for that matter, either is completely possible. Which, leaves me little to believe immediately that they're civilians, but allows me to see from an outside view, how they could be Insurgents and not civilians.
  
  Q: Perhaps they were running from a firefight they witnessed, like you said.
  A: Perhaps they were. I also said they may have been running to a bake sale. I'm not asking you to question the validility of my arguements due to my recent bout of sarcasm, but I'am asking you to question that right now, they're running could be for anything. We don't know for sure on why they're running, or why they chose to run anyway. My question is, why run and isolate yourself from other people. If they're civilians, why not get help? Why not draw attention to yourself so others could see? Speaking of which, where did the towns population goto?
  
  This video raises a lot of questions, and only a few can be answered, but those answers apply to many things.
  
  Q: Perhaps they were'nt organized, but running through the streets for attention.
  A: Perhaps so. I'm not doubting that protestors cannot run, or would'nt run, sorry, in the idea of gaining attention through this rapid method of transportation. As opposed to walking however, running would mean a much shorter attention span is paid to the people choosing this activity. It all depends on attention span, but thats what this event lacks. Is attention. Where is it? The only attention their getting is that F16 pilot. So either their civilians, or insurgents. Its a complete toss up.
  
  Q: Perhaps they were just ... dodging some kind of danger?
  A: Likely. The F16, a little odd to perceive that danger early. Hearing the sounds of a helicopter for example, will tell you less on what that pilot is thinking, but more on the state and current location of that helicopter. Hearing a Jet rumble overhead tells little of what that pilots about to do, or what he's thinking he should do. In any case, I doubt those people on the ground understood the pilots intention just by mere presence alone. Dodging some other kind of danger, indeed, its possible. Maybe they were running from insurgents but got killed instead? Or maybe they're insurgents running from the danger of coalition pursuers? I already asked the question about chaser's of this group, and I don't see anything ... from other civilians, to insurgents, or the coalition forces themselves.
  
  * Also, I've never seen protesters run like that. Not unless there's riot police on they're tail, or at least, a threat thats big enough to make an entire crowd of at least thirty people run like hell. Usually, a trait with most protesters is there constant stand up against shows of force. Why were they running so fast?
  A: You would be to if something like an F16 or tank was following you!
  
  Q: You would be to if something like an F16 or tank was following you!
  A: Yea, you bet your ass I would, if I had good reason to believe I was in danger by either of them. Again, what the Pilot does, and what the crowd is doing, is nethire an action and response to either of the parties. The people are'nt running because of the F16, because they were running long before the Pilot had them ranged. Next, the Pilot was'nt targeting them for no apparent reason, because he seemed to pay attention to this group, who chose to isolate themselves and NOT take cover. I'm not blaiming the group per say, but I'am saying, that you could question both, and not find a solution the actions that take place in the video.
  
  * Is it possible that they were nethire protesters nor civilians?
  A: Perhaps, but I don't see any weapons on them. And its hard to justify them without that type of debris being present.
  
  Q: Perhaps, but I don't see any weapons on them. And its hard to justify them without that type of debris being present.
  A: True. But what weapons would'nt we see from that range anyway: Pistols? Bombs? Gernades? They don't have to be brandishing signs to be protestors, and likewise, they don't have to be brandishing weapons to be insurgents either.
  
  * If it's a group of protesters , why were'nt they're more of them?
  Q: Perhaps it was a small rally or march?
  Q: Maybe the others ran, at the sight of the F16, or something else that frightened them?
  Q: Maybe the others went home, like you said, it was curfew. Maybe these people were going another way home, and were running to get there?
  
  Q: Perhaps it was a small rally or march?
  A: It could have been. I'm not going to call a rally or march nethire just because its a group of 10 people or less. People have protested with just themselves, and its still a protest nonetheless.
  
  Q: Maybe the others ran, at the sight of the F16, or something else that frightened?
  A: Its possible. But the F16 swung around the group, which meant to me he may have been previously following them from a previous event. As I've stated before, the video is cut, and its small and portioned to only show a small part of the full screen probably available to the pilot and observer in the F16. Needless to say, see the F16, perhaps, but hear it, yes indeed. You can still hear a plan from 1000 to 4000 meters of. Thats just my estimation of the planes flight height. Also, the zoom can trick you aswell. Consider the view we get before the zoom in. Thats were I'm estimating from. Also, to run from a plane circiling you, yes, I might run to. Or not, but become uneasy. We don't yet understand how everyone would act in this situation. But is it also possible maybe it was'nt from the F16 but something else? To question myself again, yes its possible, but from what? We've considered other insurgents, other people, or an event that shook this crowd up. But this crowd, seems isolated, and little seems to be moving on the streets around them. Why? Where's that danger? Why is it not also evident?
  
  * If its a group of protesters, how come the streets around them are so isolated?
  Q: Perhaps because its curfew?
  Q: Perhaps because other people took shelter, and these people did not?
  
  Q: Perhaps because its curfew?
  A: Perhaps, but where are the cars? Bikes? Horses? Dogs? Where did they all goto. A warzone does not frighten a bus to drive itself elsewhere. This is a city! Where are those things located? Are'nt cities also heavily populated -- where did this populace go to? They might be inside for curfew, but for this big of an event or at least as its blamed, an atrocity, why no help or witnesses besides the pilot? They're may have been witnesses on the ground, this we don't know. Understand this though: The people running we're brave enough to run around after curfew, why would'nt other people to run around and try to get them shelter, or help them find ... well help with whatever it is they're running from?
  
  Q: Perhaps because other people took shelter, and these people did not?
  A: The video picks up long before the pilot centers over the crowd, should'nt it be evident that people were running from cover while this group of people was fleeing? Again, cars, buses, dogs, cats? Where did this town goto?
  
  * if it's a group of protesters, or innocent civilians for that matter, how could the pilot isolate just them out of everyone else? Where is everyone else for that matter?
  Q: Perhaps because the pilot disliked this specific group of people, or they did something he did'nt like?
  Q: Perhaps because everyone else is on another part of town?
  
  Q: Perhaps because the pilot disliked this specific group of people, or they did something he did'nt like?
  A: Perhaps so. Protesting, could be one source of aggravation no doubt. And yet, there's no sign or debris of this. Simply because they're Iraqi? Maybe. Soldiers have killed for less, no doubt. Or perhaps they attacked a friend of his, or just killed someone in the street? Perhaps it was because they were insurgents? We won't know for sure, but there seems to be little evidence explaining either the civilian, the protestor, or insurgent arguement. All three hold their own ground for sure, but nethire seem proven at this point. As for the isolation bit, its because, primarly, it seemed like they were the only people active inside the city. We have no others walking the streets. No cars. No dogs. No cats. Just them. The pilot was able to isolate them easily, because they were the only things (as appears) out there.
  
  Q: Perhaps because everyone else is on another part of town?
  A: Maybe. But the Pilot goes over one part of town, and zooms in on another. No other people there are visible, and no vehicles or animals are present either. Consider this, and the curfew bit. There are a lot of questions with answers, but for the paticular logic of fleeing and being hit by an F16 is as I've said, a stalemate.
  
  *Finally, why that group of people, and were did all of the other people go, if they're not insurgents?
  Q: Perhaps because that group of people did something wrong, or something that tested the pilots patience or restraint?
  Q: The other people left inside buildings in fear?
  Q: If they're not insurgents?
  
  Q: Perhaps because that group of people did something wrong, or something that tested the pilots patience or restraint?
  A: See above.
  Q: The other people left inside buildings in fear?
  A: See above.
  Q: If they're not insurgents?
  A: If they are insurgents? The question works both ways I'm afraid. We can't justify this as an indiscriminate bombing, as we have little evidence to suggest these people were of the civilian class, or fleeing militant class.

Please consider these now, while you still can.

 

[CptStern]

you pretty much said the same thing over and over ..and you base everything on the same presupposition; that they're protestors ..when that doesnt matter in the least because he didnt bother to determine whether they were protestors or not.. or for that matter didnt bother to determine what their status was prior to unleashing death ...hence they accurately calling it "indiscriminate bombing"


the burden of proof lies with the pilots who fired the weapon and killed those people ...how do you know they were protestors? for all you know they could have been school children on the way to the freakin orphanage. The responsibility in determining their target's combat status is up to the person pulling the trigger ..not once does he say anything besides the word "individuals" that would imply they're combatants

there is no way that pilot could determine if they were a threat in any shape or form from that distance ..nor could the commanding officer ...not once did he ask if they were a threat, if they looked like they might be a threat, or if they were acting in a threatening manner .. he just said "take them out" without having a stitch of information ...it makes me wonder if you even watched the video as you readily jump to their defense without looking at the whole picture here ..they could have been anyone, and they didnt bother to determine who they were before they killed them


oh and it's "tit for tat" not "tid for tad" ..and it doesnt suit this situation

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I have always said that the US army are a bunch of idiots! Ok, ok idiots are found anywhere, but in the US army there are above average! That is why advanced technology doesn't help, there are to many incompetent people in there!
If an elite soldier quits the army on moral ground then you can only guess what the US soldiers did!?

on the other hand, maybe he just wanted to get out, because his son was born back home, maybe he got sexualy raped by the US soldiers, or something :| and had to make up a story!?

but anyway i agree with him, that most US soldiers are complete retards!
the only way US could win a war is to annihilate evry single being in the country and start all over again! /jk (well...not really) :dozey:

even though i don't know any US soldier to back up my claims, i have seen lots of videos on google, orgish,... that proves some points!

You're a tool.

 

[Lemonking]

^ thau speak teh truth my dear friend.

 

[15357]

Above people: Eyerape with super-long posts.


I have a question. Why would they ever release the video of the bombing? It seems stupid of them to do so.

 

[Kangy]

^ thau speak teh truth my dear friend.

Pot: You are black, Kettle.

 

[15357]

Pot: You are black, Kettle.

Kettle: RACIST!


heh...heh...

*dodges volleys of stones and runs away*