SAS Soldier quits army in Disgust at American Tactics in Iraq

[Sulkdodds]

Kerberos, you're missing the point. You're trying to ascertain whether these people were protestors or not, which is the correct course of action.

You're doing exactly what the US forces in that video didn't do.

And it's very unlikely that anything has been cut out before the start of that video because the part where they realise the 'individuals' are on the road is right there, in that video.

 

[Razor]

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

Wait, weren't you arguing with me the other day saying that the soldiers there were murderers and if i go to Iraq i would have the deaths of thousands of babies on my conscience? If you say that to me, you must think that about all the other soldiers going there. The truth of the matter is, a lot of soldiers going there are going there for the good of the Iraqi people and to fight the war on terrorists, however, they lack a lot of the training, especially American soldiers, that would help in peacekeeping. American soldiers aren't trained to keep the peace, they are trained to fight the war. British soldiers on the other hand are trained for peace keeping operations, due to Northern Ireland, so would be in a far better position to judge, such as the SAS soldier. The fact of the matter is, British commanders and soldiers who have experience with peacekeeping should be the ones leading the peacekeeping mission, not some American general who has no idea whats going on unless 500 enemy tanks with dudes in uniforms in them charge at him and his men.

 

[Razor]

..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?

It would depend on the enemy and the actions of the enemy. The people the troops are fighting are terrorists and insurgents who kidnap and behead innocent people on tv, blow up market places, attack your friends, your bestmate probably got killed by one of these guys, so it would be very hard to show any mercy to them and would take a very strong person to do so. But can you say 100% positively that if you had gone through the same experiences, the same stress, the same torment, the same scenes of 50+ civilians in pieces due to some terrorist that you wouldn't shoot them again when the first round didn't finish them off? If it was a case of soldiers walking up to injured combatants who were unarmed and surrendering, then they had no right to shoot, but i would need to see the videos to judge them.

 

[Razor]

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

I would put the blame squarely on the controller with only a slightly blame on the pilot, the pilot wasn't to know who the people were or what they were doing. If the controller was unsure either, he should of verified the target, what the pilot was seeing and any intelligence that was coming into him from the ground to verify who these people were. From 10,000 feet or so, an infrared camera won't be able to spot the differences between protestors with weapons or without weapons.

 

[CptStern]

Wait, weren't you arguing with me the other day saying that the soldiers there were murderers and if i go to Iraq i would have the deaths of thousands of babies on my conscience? If you say that to me, you must think that about all the other soldiers going there.

corrections: I never said they're all murderers ...and I said you'd have the deaths of thousands of iraqis on your conscience not babies

you perverted what I said but to a degree yes ..that is true BUT it doesnt mean that the soldiers dont BELIEVE their role is a humanitarian one ...doesnt mean they're right but they are entitled to believe what they want to believe

The truth of the matter is, a lot of soldiers going there are going there for the good of the Iraqi people and to fight the war on terrorists,

the facts say that's not even remotely true ..the poll suggests 85% believe they're there because saddam was somehow responsible 9/11

however, they lack a lot of the training, especially American soldiers, that would help in peacekeeping.

because that's not their role. Occupier is NOT the same as peacekeeper ..peacekeepers arent constantly on the offensive

American soldiers aren't trained to keep the peace, they are trained to fight the war.

yes because this is a war, not a humanitarian mission ..I fail to see your point

British soldiers on the other hand are trained for peace keeping operations, due to Northern Ireland, so would be in a far better position to judge, such as the SAS soldier. The fact of the matter is, British commanders and soldiers who have experience with peacekeeping should be the ones leading the peacekeeping mission, not some American general who has no idea whats going on unless 500 enemy tanks with dudes in uniforms in them charge at him and his men.

yes but british soldiers in iraq arent on a peacekeeping mission ..and the fact that they're not trained for peacekeeping doesnt excuse them from bombing indiscriminately

It would depend on the enemy and the actions of the enemy. The people the troops are fighting are terrorists and insurgents who kidnap and behead innocent people on tv, blow up market places, attack your friends, your bestmate probably got killed by one of these guys, so it would be very hard to show any mercy to them and would take a very strong person to do so.

completely unrelated to the war crime in the video ..they didnt bother to establish whether they were insurgents, terrorists, a school group on an outing, a wedding procession, a protest, a New Orleans funeral procession ...none of that mattered to the people who ordered/fired the missle that killed those people ..it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to surmise that had they known exactly who they were dealing with they still would have fired ...regardless if they were civilians or not



"Stan Goff comments: "The “tell” is in the audio. When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander’s stated intent in the operations order. "

Stan Goff retired as a Master Sergeant from the US Army in 1996, his last assignment being 3rd Special Forces Group. He entered military service January, 1970, and his first assignment was as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. His service took him to seven more conflict areas after Vietnam, including Guatemala, Grenada, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Somalia, and Haiti. His assignments included 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 7th Special Forces, the Jungle Operations Training Center, and the US Military Academy at West Point, where he taught military science."

http://www.newsgateway.ca/Fallujah_video_massacre.htm

But can you say 100% positively that if you had gone through the same experiences, the same stress, the same torment, the same scenes of 50+ civilians in pieces due to some terrorist that you wouldn't shoot them again when the first round didn't finish them off?

so what do you think that does to common iraqis when they see:

" the same scenes of 50+ civilians in pieces due to some coalition bomb that you wouldn't shoot them again when the first round didn't finish them off?"

If it was a case of soldiers walking up to injured combatants who were unarmed and surrendering, then they had no right to shoot, but i would need to see the videos to judge them.

yes well I can provide that as well

that was awesome let's do it again

a enemy combatant doesnt have to be unarmed and surrendering, wounded is enough




I firmly believe it's a quite common occurance ..not an isolated incident:



"American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent.

As distrust of the invading forces increases amongst the local population US soldiers said they have killed civilians without hesitation, shot injured opponents and abandoned them to die in agony.

"There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger.

"It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't."

Describing the scene during combat Richardson admitted shooting injured soldiers and leaving them to die.

He said: "S***, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped."

Making a shooting sign with his hand he went on: "Once you'd reached the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live."

And despite there being no link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks Richardson admitted that it gave him his motivation to fight Iraqis.

"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

source



more:

"Seymour Hersh (in a speech at Berkley university) talked about a call he had gotten from a first lieutenant in charge of a unit stationed halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them.

"He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1021.htm

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I think I feel slightly ill.



Please, watch those videos people and god damn THINK before you post. Use your own mind to draw your own conclusions Before you post.


Eugh.

EDIT: Have you got another link to the last video? It doesnt work for me.

 

[SAJ]

Ooops, seems as though we have lost another. This time its a doctor with the RAF (peacenik swine).

Flt Lt Kendal-Smith, based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, is charged with five counts of disobeying lawful commands in 2005 when he was asked to return to Iraq. Though he has served there before, he only later came to the view that the war was illegal, partly after reading the attorney-general's advice which raised doubts about the lawfulness of the invasion.


If the March 2003 invasion was unlawful "the fruits of the poison tree filters down to the order itself", Mr Sapsford told assistant judge advocate Jack Bayliss. "If the UK is not entitled in international law to use force against Iraq, the flight lieutenant is entitled to say to this tribunal 'I hold that belief honestly and in these circumstances it's my duty to disobey these orders'," Mr Sapsford added

Consider this bit, it pretty much sums it all up.

It was not enough to say he was just doing his job and obeying orders. "That argument had gone out of the window in 1946," he said refering to the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.

source

Conciencious objectors ftw.



ps, nice post stern.

 

[CptStern]

I think I feel slightly ill.



Please, watch those videos people and god damn THINK before you post. Use your own mind to draw your own conclusions Before you post.


Eugh.

EDIT: Have you got another link to the last video? It doesnt work for me.

this video?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1021.htm

you need real player to watch it, and it's just Seymour Hersch speech at Berkley

SAJ: thanks :thumbs:

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Real player wont work on my laptop, uni networks wont allow it to update.


Nevermind, I think i've read enough anyway.

 

[Razor]

corrections: I never said they're all murderers ...and I said you'd have the deaths of thousands of iraqis on your conscience not babies

people would include men, women and children. My conscience is clean and if i go there, my conscience will remain clean

you perverted what I said but to a degree yes ..that is true BUT it doesnt mean that the soldiers dont BELIEVE their role is a humanitarian one ...doesnt mean they're right but they are entitled to believe what they want to believe

It is a policing mission as i see it and a humanitarian one, with engineers and soldiers in there trying to restore local services whilst under attack from the insurgents and the "heroes of the Iraqi people". Yes, they do go out and attack the insurgency and the terrorists, but they are still there to help the Iraqi people.

the facts say that's not even remotely true ..the poll suggests 85% believe they're there because saddam was somehow responsible 9/11

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're on the plane over there thinking "i'm gonna kill me some Iraqi civilians wooohooo". They're going over there as yes, a lot think they're making America safer from terrorists but there also there to get rid of Sadame and help the Iraqi people become a democratic society and an ally that American can rely on.

because that's not their role. Occupier is NOT the same as peacekeeper ..peacekeepers arent constantly on the offensive

An occupying force and a peace keeping force to a lot of people are very, very similar things. If you went up to British troops in Basra and asked, Are you here to keep the peace or occupy the country? what do you think they'd all say?

yes because this is a war, not a humanitarian mission ..I fail to see your point

It's both

yes but british soldiers in iraq arent on a peacekeeping mission ..and the fact that they're not trained for peacekeeping doesnt excuse them from bombing indiscriminately

Due to Northern Ireland, a lot of British forces do have peacekeeping experience, especially the older guys. And they are on a peacekeeping mission, they are keeping the peace, or trying to, for the local Iraqi people and the democratically elected government until the Iraqi forces can get up and running.

completely unrelated to the war crime in the video ..they didnt bother to establish whether they were insurgents, terrorists, a school group on an outing, a wedding procession, a protest, a New Orleans funeral procession ...none of that mattered to the people who ordered/fired the missle that killed those people ..it wouldnt be that much of a stretch to surmise that had they known exactly who they were dealing with they still would have fired ...regardless if they were civilians or not

If you can say 100% true that both the pilot and the fighter controller knew they were unarmed civilians, then it is murder. The problem with war though is that they would of had to of proven that they had weapons and posed a threat to the Iraqi people or coalition forces to fire, which from 10,000 feet with an infra red camera, you can't do, unless the weapons are being used and shots fired. The pilot shouldn't of dropped his bomb but would most probably of been in a position where he would expect the fighter controller to know more on the ground them him, so he would have to trust the fighter controller. The Fighter Controller is the one that made the mistake and should be punished.

"Stan Goff comments: "The “tell” is in the audio. When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander’s stated intent in the operations order. "

Stan Goff retired as a Master Sergeant from the US Army in 1996, his last assignment being 3rd Special Forces Group. He entered military service January, 1970, and his first assignment was as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. His service took him to seven more conflict areas after Vietnam, including Guatemala, Grenada, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Somalia, and Haiti. His assignments included 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 7th Special Forces, the Jungle Operations Training Center, and the US Military Academy at West Point, where he taught military science."

http://www.newsgateway.ca/Fallujah_video_massacre.htm

So he is lying blame on the commanding officer it seems, not the pilot. As a pilot, i would need to have known the intel to the mission and the mission itself to decide whether it was right to drop the bomb or not. But most of these soldiers on the ground and fighter pilots in the air aren't murderers, as you surmise a lot of the time, they are soldiers doing their job the best they can. One mistake that costs the lives of 30 or so innocent people is one massive mistake and questions should definately be asked as to how that mistake happened and one would hope people are punished and future mission orders are modified. The fact of the matter is, if it was a terrorist or a member of the insurgency that had done the same thing, he would be declared a hero by the people and congratulated by everyone and mission would be succesful. What do you think the pilot thought when he found out he had killed innocent people?

so what do you think that does to common iraqis when they see:

" the same scenes of 50+ civilians in pieces due to some coalition bomb that you wouldn't shoot them again when the first round didn't finish them off?"

Innocent Iraqi's would most probably think about joining the Insurgency. The terrorists would most probably think it's 50+ less civilians to blow up.

yes well I can provide that as well

a enemy combatant doesnt have to be unarmed and surrendering, wounded is enough

That's absolute rubbish, if you're fighting someone and they're wounded and armed, they're still fully capable of completing their mission, killing you and/or killing your best mate. If it's an unarmed and surrendering enemy, they should be taken into custody. But an armed and wounded enemy is just as bad as an armed and fit enemy.

I firmly believe it's a quite common occurance ..not an isolated incident:



"American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent.

As distrust of the invading forces increases amongst the local population US soldiers said they have killed civilians without hesitation, shot injured opponents and abandoned them to die in agony.

"There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger.

"It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't."

Describing the scene during combat Richardson admitted shooting injured soldiers and leaving them to die.

He said: "S***, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped."

Making a shooting sign with his hand he went on: "Once you'd reached the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live."

And despite there being no link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks Richardson admitted that it gave him his motivation to fight Iraqis.

"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

source



more:

"Seymour Hersh (in a speech at Berkley university) talked about a call he had gotten from a first lieutenant in charge of a unit stationed halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them.

"He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1021.htm

Then that is murder and is a warcrime and would hope the people responsible are punished.

One of the first weeks in the reserves, we had a lesson about fire and concealment from a Sergeant who had come back from Iraq. His troops that he was leading were fired up by Insurgents so he spent 2 hours tracking them, a gun battle ensued. He then said he hit one of the enemy shooting at him, straight through the chest, the guy went down. The injured guy then started moving, so he shot him again. After everything had died down and the fighting stopped, he and his men ran up to where the dead insurgents were but had found that the guy he had shot twice was still alive, so he gives him first aid and saves his life as he was no longer a threat to anyone. 1 year later, he was patrolling a village and actually came across this guy.

Not all soldiers are murderers and it would of taken a massive amount of humanity to save a guy that had just tried to kill you and your mates. I would expect that from any person i go to war with and i would expect that from myself. The people you are talking about with those quotes, they are murderers. The people they killed might of tried to kill them, but if they are unarmed and surrendering, they should be taken into custody. But like i said, an injured enemy with a gun is no better then an enemy with a gun, both are just as deadly and just as capable of killing you and the people you sleep with, eat with and drink with and fight with.

I would have to agree with you that no action should of been taken at all without UN consent and going against the UN was wrong but we went in, we got rid of Sadame and now we got to sort out an exit strategy that doesn't involve anymore soldiers lives dying needlessly but where Iraq can be left to look after itself. Continually arguing that the war is wrong, the war is wrong, bad Bush for going to war, bad man, the war is wrong, we shouldn't have invaded, it was better without Sadame is all well and fine but it still won't change anything. Start arguing about best possible exit strategies and what the troops should do to make the Iraqi peoples lives easier, and i'm sure it won't be easier if they packed their bags now and left. There is just no point is constantly arguing about the ethics behind going to war as a huge number of people here agree with you, including me, that the war was wrong and it should never have happened without any UN backing or support.

 

[CptStern]

people would include men, women and children. My conscience is clean and if i go there, my conscience will remain clean

even though you know that this war was a complete sham from the very beginning, that the evidence of wmd was completely fabricated to justify invasion you'd still throw your life away for the greed of a few? ..delude yourself all you want with the idea of humanitarianism but that's NOT the mission in iraq

It is a policing mission as i see it and a humanitarian one, with engineers and soldiers in there trying to restore local services

that YOU destroyed

whilst under attack from the insurgents and the "heroes of the Iraqi people". Yes, they do go out and attack the insurgency and the terrorists, but they are still there to help the Iraqi people.

not even remotely true ..at no point in time can this be construed as a humanitarian mission. The coalition is fixing what THEY destroyed and even then they are only diverting a very small percentage of resources to reconstruction

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're on the plane over there thinking "i'm gonna kill me some Iraqi civilians wooohooo".

some do, that payback comment from one of the soldiers that saw combat in iraq proves that

"'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

I dont know what else that could possibly mean ...payback = payback

They're going over there as yes, a lot think they're making America safer from terrorists but there also there to get rid of Sadame

none of that panned out ..Saddam WASNT a threat, there was little to no terrorist groups in iraq prior to the war ..well there were a few but saddam either had them in check or they were on the cia payrole

and help the Iraqi people become a democratic society

it was never a jusification for invasion ..that only emerged as the US failed to turn up "huge stores of wmd" as they claimed they would right up to the invasion

and an ally that American can rely on.

guide, control, exploit, manipulate ...yes I agree

An occupying force and a peace keeping force to a lot of people are very, very similar things. If you went up to British troops in Basra and asked, Are you here to keep the peace or occupy the country? what do you think they'd all say?

completely besides the point ..the opinions of people on the field are immaterial to the actual facts

oc·cu·py·ing:

To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.


peace·keep·ing:

Of or relating to the preservation of peace, especially the supervision by international forces of a truce between hostile nations.

apples and oranges

Due to Northern Ireland, a lot of British forces do have peacekeeping experience, especially the older guys. And they are on a peacekeeping mission, they are keeping the peace, or trying to, for the local Iraqi people and the democratically elected government until the Iraqi forces can get up and running.

yes that's the theory but in practicallity that's not what's going on

If you can say 100% true that both the pilot and the fighter controller knew they were unarmed civilians, then it is murder.

it doesnt matter because they didnt bother to find out for themselves

The problem with war though is that they would of had to of proven that they had weapons and posed a threat to the Iraqi people or coalition forces to fire, which from 10,000 feet with an infra red camera, you can't do, unless the weapons are being used and shots fired. The pilot shouldn't of dropped his bomb but would most probably of been in a position where he would expect the fighter controller to know more on the ground them him, so he would have to trust the fighter controller. The Fighter Controller is the one that made the mistake and should be punished.

I dont agree, the pilot made no bones about firing the missle ..in fact he seemed to get a sadistic glee from the killings when he said "awww dude" ..he just didnt finish his sentence "awww dude that was ****ing awesome"

So he is lying blame on the commanding officer it seems, not the pilot. As a pilot, i would need to have known the intel to the mission and the mission itself to decide whether it was right to drop the bomb or not. But most of these soldiers on the ground and fighter pilots in the air aren't murderers, as you surmise a lot of the time, they are soldiers doing their job the best they can.

had they been doing their job they would have at least made an attempt to determine who they were before opening fire into a crowd of people ...absolutely no regard for who they were killing ..it didnt matter

One mistake that costs the lives of 30 or so innocent people is one massive mistake and questions should definately be asked as to how that mistake happened and one would hope people are punished and future mission orders are modified.

there was no mistake ..it was deliberate

The fact of the matter is, if it was a terrorist or a member of the insurgency that had done the same thing, he would be declared a hero by the people

who exactly are these people? and why should that matter in the least? It is the coalition's responsibility to uphold the law ..or are you suggesting that soldiers are on the same level playing field as the terrorists?

and congratulated by everyone and mission would be succesful. What do you think the pilot thought when he found out he had killed innocent people?

probably wouldnt bat an eyelash ...had he any concern he would have made sure he was targeting the right people

That's absolute rubbish, if you're fighting someone and they're wounded and armed, they're still fully capable of completing their mission, killing you and/or killing your best mate. If it's an unarmed and surrendering enemy, they should be taken into custody. But an armed and wounded enemy is just as bad as an armed and fit enemy.

your personal opinion is immaterial ..the geneva accords strictly say that you must bring aid to the wounded ..oh and before you say that the geneva accords dont apply, I must point out that the soldier is NOT and insurgent but a member of saddam's army ..therefore he is protected by the geneva accords ..he wasnt going anywhere, he wasnt a threat to anyone as the video clearly shows ..the americans at no time were in danger

Then that is murder and is a warcrime and would hope the people responsible are punished.

and how many of these crimes go unpunished? ..do you truely believe that a government who torture people (sometimes to death) are all that concerned about a few crimes? especially when they themselves are committing them?

One of the first weeks in the reserves, we had a lesson about fire and concealment from a Sergeant who had come back from Iraq. His troops that he was leading were fired up by Insurgents so he spent 2 hours tracking them, a gun battle ensued. He then said he hit one of the enemy shooting at him, straight through the chest, the guy went down. The injured guy then started moving, so he shot him again. After everything had died down and the fighting stopped, he and his men ran up to where the dead insurgents were but had found that the guy he had shot twice was still alive, so he gives him first aid and saves his life as he was no longer a threat to anyone. 1 year later, he was patrolling a village and actually came across this guy.

Not all soldiers are murderers and it would of taken a massive amount of humanity to save a guy that had just tried to kill you and your mates. I would expect that from any person i go to war with and i would expect that from myself.

well I submit that you are the exception to the rule

The people you are talking about with those quotes, they are murderers. The people they killed might of tried to kill them, but if they are unarmed and surrendering, they should be taken into custody. But like i said, an injured enemy with a gun is no better then an enemy with a gun, both are just as deadly and just as capable of killing you and the people you sleep with, eat with and drink with and fight with.

it doesnt matter because a war crime is STILL a war crime

I would have to agree with you that no action should of been taken at all without UN consent and going against the UN was wrong but we went in, we got rid of Sadame and now we got to sort out an exit strategy that doesn't involve anymore soldiers lives dying needlessly but where Iraq can be left to look after itself.

they all died needlessly

Continually arguing that the war is wrong, the war is wrong, bad Bush for going to war, bad man, the war is wrong, we shouldn't have invaded, it was better without Sadame is all well and fine but it still won't change anything.

so we should just sweep it under the carpet? completely ignore that lies justified the murders of 10's of thousands of people? completely whitewash the role governments played in what amounted to a cataclysmic orgy of death and destruction just so a few people could line their pockets? sorry but I (and many many others) will not rest till those resposnible are brought before the Hague and tried for crimes against humanity

Start arguing about best possible exit strategies and what the troops should do to make the Iraqi peoples lives easier, and i'm sure it won't be easier if they packed their bags now and left.

you are never leaving ..it completely unreasonable to believe that after all the effort you went through you are just going to get up and leave ...it's far too big of a prize to allow Iraq to chance

There is just no point is constantly arguing about the ethics behind going to war as a huge number of people here agree with you, including me, that the war was wrong and it should never have happened without any UN backing or support.

there is a very valid point: they need to be brought to justice ..the more people who are aware of what's really going on the more it is likely something will done about it.. justice must be served or you will have more attacks that will make the london subway bombing and 9/11 look like a cakewalk in comparison

do me a favour google that video ..try to find an american source on that video by any of the mainstream media outlets ..I havent been able to find any ....why do you think that is? while you're at it ..search for the Downingstreet memos ..if you're lucky to find even a passing reference it's usually buried in the back somewhere

 

[Some_God]

Stern starts the quote wars, yet again. Stern, why do you have to destroy so many good topics?

 

[CptStern]

you obviously havent read any of what I posted because it's on topic ...but thanks for your unnecessary comment, it reveals more about you then it does me

...btw why do you feel the need to walk into a thread and comment on what I've posted (usually in the form of a short sentence that has nothing to do with the topic) ...surely you could contribute more than that ...as it stands now you're just trolling

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Stern starts the quote wars, yet again. Stern, why do you have to destroy so many good topics?

Not all of us are too lazy to READ.


Just go troll offtopic or something, some place where people are discussing things a tad less serious.

 

[Solaris]

Stern starts the quote wars, yet again. Stern, why do you have to destroy so many good topics?

Your an idiot.

 

[Alexferris]

Your an idiot.

You're an idiot.

Solaris, every single post I read from you is one of two things; blind agreement to someone you slobberingly admire, or staunch disagreement because poster doesn't agree with said admired.

If you join the military, you're signing a contract. If you betray that contract, you're opt to face the consequences. Whether or not it's morally wrong is a void argument at this point. Really, you're argueing the very foundation of the military system.

 

[CptStern]

You're an idiot.

Solaris, every single post I read from you is one of two things; blind agreement to someone you slobberingly admire, or staunch disagreement because poster doesn't agree with said admired.

he had a valid point, not the idiot part as I dont know some_god but it was disruptive

If you join the military, you're signing a contract. If you betray that contract, you're opt to face the consequences. Whether or not it's morally wrong is a void argument at this point. Really, you're argueing the very foundation of the military system.

obeying orders unconditionally opens the door to this:

"It was not enough to say he was just doing his job and obeying orders. "That argument had gone out of the window in 1946," he said refering to the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. "

why do you think bush bullied other nations into making US soldiers exempt from the International Criminal Court right before the invasion of Iraq?

"The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) revokes military assistance to countries that have ratified the ICC unless they conclude a separate bilateral agreement with the United States by July 1, agreeing never to hand over U.S. personnel to the ICC."

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/usa070103.htm

 

[CptStern]

You're an idiot.

Solaris, every single post I read from you is one of two things; blind agreement to someone you slobberingly admire, or staunch disagreement because poster doesn't agree with said admired.

If you join the military, you're signing a contract. If you betray that contract, you're opt to face the consequences. Whether or not it's morally wrong is a void argument at this point. Really, you're argueing the very foundation of the military system.

would you obey your CO if he ordered this:

"His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them.

"He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents."

 

[Razor]

your personal opinion is immaterial ..the geneva accords strictly say that you must bring aid to the wounded ..oh and before you say that the geneva accords dont apply, I must point out that the soldier is NOT and insurgent but a member of saddam's army ..therefore he is protected by the geneva accords ..he wasnt going anywhere, he wasnt a threat to anyone as the video clearly shows ..the americans at no time were in danger

Show me where in the Geneva agreement it says injured combatants that are still armed must not be harmed? An injured combatant that is still armed poses the same threat as an uninjured one. If they want medical aid, they should drop the weapon. And Bush and Cheney will most probably never be brought to justice for the crimes they have committed against humanity...infact, has any US president been brought to justice for doing anything like Iraq? The invasion of Cuba, the funding of international terrorist organisations, the supplying of advanced weapon systems and training to terrorists...none of them were brought to trial so i would presume it would be no different for the current administration, as long as Bush doesn't have an affair with his intern, he'll be fine and dandy.

 

[Razor]

would you obey your CO if he ordered this:

"His group was bivouacking outside of town in an agricultural area, and had hired 30 or so Iraqis to guard a local granary. A few weeks passed. They got to know the men they hired, and to like them. Then orders came down from Baghdad that the village would be "cleared." Another platoon from the soldier's company came and executed the Iraqi granary guards. All of them.

"He said they just shot them one by one. And his people, and he, and the villagers of course, went nuts," Hersh said quietly. "He was hysterical, totally hysterical. He went to the company captain, who said, 'No, you don't understand, that's a kill. We got 36 insurgents."

That's a warcrime unless they were fired upon.

 

[Razor]

he had a valid point, not the idiot part as I dont know some_god but it was disruptive




obeying orders unconditionally opens the door to this:




why do you think bush bullied other nations into making US soldiers exempt from the International Criminal Court right before the invasion of Iraq?

"The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) revokes military assistance to countries that have ratified the ICC unless they conclude a separate bilateral agreement with the United States by July 1, agreeing never to hand over U.S. personnel to the ICC."

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/usa070103.htm

The American administration are evil but were voted in democratically, under suspicious circumstances, by the "majority" of the American people.

 

[Alexferris]

would you obey your CO if he ordered this:

I don't totally understand the order. Did the platoon know of the hired Iraqi guards? Did the platoon think they were insurgents? I guess I see that maybe you would question the guards' allegiance if they didn't put up a fight. Who knows, it doesn't matter what happened. The soldier who did what he believed in, betraying the military, will face the consequences. I cannot say the military should respect his views, it's not what the military is for. Whether the US military is doing an immoral job is another discussion.

 

[CptStern]

Show me where in the Geneva agreement it says injured combatants that are still armed must not be harmed?

did you watch the video? he was writhing on the floor, he wasnt a threat to anyone


UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html#Chapter 2

Article 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Article 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.



he fits every criteria

 

[Ome_Vince]

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?

I'm talking about choice of words. Untermensch is a direct referal to Nazi Germanies super humans and policy.
Especially since its an english article with that 1 german word...
I agree thats probably not what he was "intending" to do but its definatly whats its projecting and there is an emotional load to that word.

Its an extreme poor choice of words, just like George Bush using the "crusades" word when refering to an invasion in the middle east...

Dont underestimate the power of a single word...
If i refer to Iraqi's as "nazi" or to black people as "******" there's a shitload of trouble and prejudice popping up on what i "am and think".
Some words have emotional value...
Commenting on Americans seeing Iraqi's as "untermensch" is not much different imo..

With all do respect, please remember the generation that suffered from the Nazi's still lives,...

 

[CptStern]

I don't totally understand the order. Did the platoon know of the hired Iraqi guards? Did the platoon think they were insurgents? I guess I see that maybe you would question the guards' allegiance if they didn't put up a fight. Who knows, it doesn't matter what happened.

you dont seem to understand what happen ...30 odd iraqis were hired to do a job along side some american soldiers ..the order came down to clear out the village. Some other platoon came in and killed them because since they were clearing the village they could potentially be a threat ...they became a liability ...the telling argument is when the CO said "you just killed 36 insurgents" ..meaning that officially those dead iraqis were considered insurgents out of convenience ..it's an attempt at masking the crime



Ome_Vince: I'm pretty sure he means the literal translation: "sub-human" rather than implying they're nazis

 

[Razor]

Article 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

What you're saying is this.

If 4 British soldiers are fighting 4 Insurgents and all 4 of the enemy insurgents got injured, all 4 of them were shot in the leg, the 4 British soldiers would have to run forward under heavy enemy fire from the injured enemy to ask if they need any medical assistance? How does that work?

British soldier: Woohoo he's dead...oh no, it looks like i only hit his shoulder but he is down on the ground giving me a menacing look whilst waving his gun at me.
British Soldier: Are you alright Mr Insurgent, do you need medical help...perhaps he didn't hear me, better go over there and check?
Insurgent: what is that idiot doing, he has wounded me and is now running towards me whilst i still have the gun, i better shoot at him and kill him.
British Soldier: oh dear, he is shooting at me, that must be his way of confirming that he is indeed in need of medical help and i better hurry up and help him.

If a enemy soldier is injured and needs medical help from the enemy, he should put the gun down, not carry on waving the gun at the enemy whilst shooting wildly. That would be the same as some dude breaking into your house with a gun, murdering your entire family and then falling down the stairs and breaking his arm, whilst still wildly waving his gun about, you would need to walk down the stairs, stepping over all your family's bodies and give him medical aid...how close do you think before he shoots you?

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

What you're saying is this.

If 4 British soldiers are fighting 4 Insurgents and all 4 of the enemy insurgents got injured, all 4 of them were shot in the leg, the 4 British soldiers would have to run forward under heavy enemy fire from the injured enemy to ask if they need any medical assistance? How does that work?

British soldier: Woohoo he's dead...oh no, it looks like i only hit his shoulder but he is down on the ground giving me a menacing look whilst waving his gun at me.
British Soldier: Are you alright Mr Insurgent, do you need medical help...perhaps he didn't hear me, better go over there and check?
Insurgent: what is that idiot doing, he has wounded me and is now running towards me whilst i still have the gun, i better shoot at him and kill him.
British Soldier: oh dear, he is shooting at me, that must be his way of confirming that he is indeed in need of medical help and i better hurry up and help him.

If a enemy soldier is injured and needs medical help from the enemy, he should put the gun down, not carry on waving the gun at the enemy whilst shooting wildly. That would be the same as some dude breaking into your house with a gun, murdering your entire family and then falling down the stairs and breaking his arm, whilst still wildly waving his gun about, you would need to walk down the stairs, stepping over all your family's bodies and give him medical aid...how close do you think before he shoots you?

You're joking right?

Its not like its complicated for gods sakes.

 

[Razor]

You're joking right?

Its not like its complicated for gods sakes.

I ain't, i don't understand.

If an enemy combatant is injured and is unarmed and no threat to you or your soldiers, you should treat him the best you can. If an enemy combatant has a weapon and still poses and massive threat to you and your soldiers, what are you going to do? wait until he dies, drops his weapon or shoots you all?

 

[CptStern]

What you're saying is this.

If 4 British soldiers are fighting 4 Insurgents and all 4 of the enemy insurgents got injured, all 4 of them were shot in the leg, the 4 British soldiers would have to run forward under heavy enemy fire from the injured enemy to ask if they need any medical assistance? How does that work?

British soldier: Woohoo he's dead...oh no, it looks like i only hit his shoulder but he is down on the ground giving me a menacing look whilst waving his gun at me.
British Soldier: Are you alright Mr Insurgent, do you need medical help...perhaps he didn't hear me, better go over there and check?
Insurgent: what is that idiot doing, he has wounded me and is now running towards me whilst i still have the gun, i better shoot at him and kill him.
British Soldier: oh dear, he is shooting at me, that must be his way of confirming that he is indeed in need of medical help and i better hurry up and help him.

If a enemy soldier is injured and needs medical help from the enemy, he should put the gun down, not carry on waving the gun at the enemy whilst shooting wildly. That would be the same as some dude breaking into your house with a gun, murdering your entire family and then falling down the stairs and breaking his arm, whilst still wildly waving his gun about, you would need to walk down the stairs, stepping over all your family's bodies and give him medical aid...how close do you think before he shoots you?

oh come on, it clearly means when the combatant is no longer a threat ...like he is in the video which you didnt watch because at no time do you see him waving a gun ..you dont even see a gun at any point

look the US charged that soldier with murder so OBVIOUSLY he's guilty of something

 

[Reaktor4]

You're an idiot.

Solaris, every single post I read from you is one of two things; blind agreement to someone you slobberingly admire, or staunch disagreement because poster doesn't agree with said admired.

If you join the military, you're signing a contract. If you betray that contract, you're opt to face the consequences. Whether or not it's morally wrong is a void argument at this point. Really, you're argueing the very foundation of the military system.

Opting.
Its a soldiers duty to disobey illegal orders.

 

[Razor]

oh come on, it clearly means when the combatant is no longer a threat ...like he is in the video which you didnt watch because at no time do you see him waving a gun ..you dont even see a gun at any point

look the US charged that soldier with murder so OBVIOUSLY he's guilty of something

But i wasn't talking about any video, the only video i have seen is the one with the f16 pilot bombing the crowd.

 

[Razor]

Opting.
Its a soldiers duty to disobey illegal orders.

Agreed.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Ome_Vince: I'm pretty sure he means the literal translation: "sub-human" rather than implying they're nazis

o yeah im sure of that too , just as George Bush didnt mean a Holy War to reclaim the Holy Lands when he said Crusade....
Its still a poor choice of a word loaded with emotional value in which many people from the west who experienced the war or have relatives that did, will feel a "load" with that word...
And that load will be "Americans discriminating Iraqi's like Nazi's did Jews".
Dont forget most Euro's have long years of school dedicated on WW2 and racism, so they're still paranoid....

There's a huge difference on what people mean and what they say. Im not saying people will believe or think Americans are nazi's..

 

[CptStern]

being as that he is a special forces veteran and a british citizen I'm sure he knows how loaded that word is and felt it was appropriate ..and in some cases I agree

 

[Razor]

o yeah im sure of that too , just as George Bush didnt mean a Holy War to reclaim the Holy Lands when he said Crusade....
Its still a poor choice of a word loaded with emotional value in which many people from the west who experienced the war or have relatives that did, will feel a "load" with that word...
And that load will be "Americans discriminating Iraqi's like Nazi's did Jews".
Dont forget most Euro's have long years of school dedicated on WW2 and racism, so they're still paranoid....

There's a huge difference on what people mean and what they say. Im not saying people will believe or think Americans are nazi's..

With all the discussion about the US torturing people and outsourcing torture and executing unarmed civilians, the SAS guy could have ment just that i.e. the way the Nazis dealt with Jews.

 

[Ome_Vince]

being as that he is a special forces veteran and a british citizen I'm sure he knows how loaded that word is and felt it was appropriate ..and in some cases I agree

I dont.
I disagree with the War, but i also disagree with stuff like "untermensh".
The USA is filled with ethnic diversity, and im sure you'll always get a racist here and there, but Untermensch is something different.
Americans in general are Nationalistic, which is something completely different than racial discriminating views on other people.

Im just a little frustrated that, although i agree Americans have made mistakes, many people jump in on the slightest form of generalisation or discrimination vs arabic nations, etc, and then turn around and generalize Americans or as Solaris likes to call it "the west".

By that same judgement i am in my right to say Islamists (which is the new cool word written for islamic extremists )consider non-believers "untermenschen". But then alot of people would jump up and call me a racist.

 

[CptStern]

I dont.
I disagree with the War, but i also disagree with stuff like "untermensh".
The USA is filled with ethnic diversity, and im sure you'll always get a racist here and there, but Untermensch is something different.
Americans in general are Nationalistic, which is something completely different than racial discriminating views on other people.

hold on a sec ..how do americans fit here? he's talking about the military personel not americans in general

Im just a little frustrated that, although i agree Americans have made mistakes, many people jump in on the slightest form of generalisation or discrimination vs arabic nations, etc, and then turn around and generalize Americans or as Solaris likes to call it "the west".

I dont see that at all ..not in this thread ..we have no control over what the soldier said, we're only repeating what he said ..no one is generalising anyone

By that same judgement i am in my right to say Islamists (which is the new cool word written for islamic extremists )consider non-believers "untermenschen". But then alot of people would jump up and call me a racist.

they probably do see them as less than human ...I still firmly believe that the soldiers intent was to say that some american soldiers saw iraqis as less than human ..some of the stories of US atrocities seems to confirm that belief

 

[dys4iK]

Why does this seem like an uphill battle? People are so entrenched in supporting one side or the other that they come up with the most ridiculous of reasons to support them.

An opinion from an SAS soldier is not to be taken lightly, especially not one who has had a 'distinguished career.'

As has been pointed out, he served his tour of duty and waited until he was home to leave. He was not a deserter, those of you ranting about how he is are intentionally mangling the issue and trying to discredit him.

It is wrong to take what this soldier said and apply it with a broad brush to the entire region because you don't like the war. It is just as wrong to discredit him because he has spoken against a war you support.

I do not have the facts on this issue, and it sounds like most of the rest of you do not either. With so few facts and so much guessing, how can any of you have an opinion on this matter? Many of the opinions presented here do not seem original, they sound like tired rehashing of mass media presentations (for or against the war).

It seems like many of you are more interested in pushing someone else's agenda than getting to the bottom of what is actually going on over there. To find that out requires sharing knowledge, not yelling at each other and using all sorts of logical fallacies to cheerlead for our chosen side.

 

[gick]

It seems like many of you are more interested in pushing someone else's agenda than getting to the bottom of what is actually going on over there. To find that out requires sharing knowledge, not yelling at each other and using all sorts of logical fallacies to cheerlead for our chosen side.

I think you've really hit the nail on the head there. Its a problem we seem to get a lot here when discussion turns to Iraq.

 

[CptStern]

well I cant speak for anyone else but I dont actively push somebody else's agenda ..most of the stuff I write about I've known about for years. I dont say what I say because it's popular, I say what I say because I believe it