[VID]Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants

[Tyguy]

This is like arguing with a child.

I hope a cop beats your ass until your in jail and tell your it's ok because your only handcuffed and unable to defend yourself...your not in jail yet.

ya...you have ground to stand on. Id rather you not reply any more. Out of everybody who participated in this thread, your posts are easily the most illegible and rude. If you can't share your thoughts without insulting somebody then don't share at all.

"Why was the pilot chasing him? He must have done something wrong. How do I know he did something wrong? The pilot was chasing him."

I dont know how else to say this. I made it pretty obvious that im banking on the fact that the pilot MOST LIKELY observed him doing something that would authorize this type of response. I already stated if it was actually an innocent person, the pilot should be reprimanded. (notice i didnt threaten him with a court marshal, glirk)

 

[Sulkdodds]

That is fair enough, but I wonder if it matters?

If it's alright to shoot a man who runs , and then stops to surrenders, it's self-defence to kill a man who has dropped his gun.

With no indication that he posed any direct danger, whether personally or via unseen hidden ambush friends, one cannot assume that killing him (or people like him) is neccessity. You can't bank on facts which aren't there.

In fact, I can't put it any better than Pesmerga did at the bottom of the last page. I'm not sure why I am trying.

 

[Tyguy]

With no indication that he posed any direct danger, whether personally or via unseen hidden ambush friends, one cannot assume that killing him (or people like him) is neccessity. You can't bank on facts which aren't there.

So basically every bomb we have dropped in iraq was a war crime apparently. We gotta start convicting some pilots, they shouldnt be allowed to fight from the air, its unfair to insurgents.

 

[Pesmerga]

Tyguy you are just stupid. But I'll humor you until you stop posting.

Bombing with aircraft is a legitimate and legal tactic in warfare so long as the targets assist the enemy. It is illegal to bomb civilian targets (schools, churches, public buildings, private civilian property, as far as I know) unless the enemy occupies them. (I do not know what the rules of engagement are when combatants are mixed with civilians).

Killing an enemy insurgent who is driving away on a truck is also perfectly legal- it becomes illegal, however, when the target clearly identifies that he wishes to surrender. But, as I have stated time and time again, the situation is unclear and presents much vagueness to viewers, and is not proof of anything.

It is perfectly legal to drop bombs on combatants (identified by military intelligence) so long as they do not clearly surrender themselves. It is legal, in convention, to decimate entire legions of men so long as they actively participating in conflict.

I truly do not know where you are going with your argument, though. You assume Sulkdodds thinks that the rules of engagement are followed to create a level playing field, but he doesn't. The rules of engagement are followed so as to protect the integrity of international and domestic law.

 

[Escaep]

So, say two seconds before a bomb drops on a squad of insurgents they all say "oh sh--, i want to surrender" BOOM. The pilots should be jailed?

 

[Pesmerga]

No, it was beyond the pilot to do anything about it. To knowingly kill soldiers who have already surrendered is illegal. It is this fine line of reaction time and fire speed that the situation in the video walks on.

 

[Tyguy]

Tyguy you are just stupid.

And it appears pesmerga is a child as well, go join glirk at the childrens table.

Seems to be a common strategy around here to resort to name calling when you have nothing left to say.

 

[Pesmerga]

Seems to be a common strategy around here to resort to name calling when you have nothing left to say.

Except for the four paragraphs that followed? Seriously, I saw that inane rebuttal coming a mile away. And such excellent hypocrisy by calling me out with name calling, then follow it with calling me and Glirk both children.

Tyguy, you have not had a single valid point since your first post in this thread. I can't force you to stop posting, but may I recommend it? I will even let you have the last word so you can maintain whatever is left of your dignity.

 

[nurizeko]

Since were talking about international law and "rules" regarding war (an innately chaotic and anarchical state of affairs, where in most conflicts present and recent past, rules have been flat out ignored all together by both sides, I.E. they only seem to apply to the west in its conflicts, even as its very enemy flouts them entirely) a combatant wearing civilian clothing is breaking the rules of war, and since the Iraqi government is recognised as the legal regime, fighting against it and its allies is illegal, killing innocent civilians intentionally is illegal, hiding amongst civilians is illegal, fortifying civilian structures such as hospitals, schools and the likes is illegal, hell, almost everything that an insurgent does is illegal.



No proof whatsoever to prove that suspect was innocent, attack helicopters don't chase down speeding vehicles for the kicks.

That is why strict training and proper chains of command exist.

Likewise that video is entirely out of context without even any audio. If you were to try and use that as proof of guilt on the pilots behalf it would be inadmissible.


Finally, as folk have said, its entirely possible for that to be an accident. He could have been fired upon before he got out and surrendered, the pilot could have just flat out not seen him surrendering, its a few brief moments in time during a fast paced time of activity. Shit happens.

The pilot is innocent until proven guilty, but the man in the car is guilty by association.

Knowing some key details regarding the pilot (he is a trained military pilot in the US air corps of the US army, an overall highly credited and regulated force with a strong chain of command and communication) I am more inclined to believe he had good cause to be chasing and shooting at a car, you can accuse me (and others) of deciding he's innocent till proven guilty and the suspect guilty until proven innocent if you want, personally, I think you can take you little judicial court soundbytes with you.

Its in a conflict zone, the video in itself does not damn or redeem anyone, but common sense dictates that until more evidence is brought forth for my consideration, I am going to trust my opinion that the pilot is not, as some might colourfully label him, a murderer, based on one video of some Iraqi guy fleeing an attack helicopter for some reason (and warranting UAV observance and permission from the chain of command to engage) and dying from a hail of bullets a split second after he raises his arms, because we all know that soldiers are super-human super fast super decision making machines that can spot every little figure while they are on the chase and buzzing about, and that they have the sheer will power to stop bullets already in flight from hitting their target.

It's international law.

Because we all know international law is never broken on a ceaseless basis. Name me one conflict not involving a western power where international law is not getting flat out abused and ignored?.

The fact that the west follows international rules of war as much as we do should be a point of praise and respect for our uniformed lads and women, instead of using every little pathetic tiny clip of footage as a baton to beat the shit out of them every chance you get, its pathetic, infantile, and usually just down right wrong.



But on a plus side, at least we have the freedom to belittle and insult our armed forces as we see fit, and raise up people who want them (and probably us) dead as innocence abused while accusing pilots of being murderers based on a short clip without context.

Do you understand the defenition of surrender? It means to give up, not flee. The person is sitting there with their arms in the air. You have no right to kill this person, period.

He has no right to be planting explosive devices with the express intention of murdering coalition forces but he probably did it anyway, whats your point?. You seem to think Rights are some magical force of physics that are unbreakable. They are a human concept.

Likewise since were throwing around rights and laws as if anyone but the US soldiers in this case give a shit about them, if your being chased by US forces on behalf of the Iraqi government for suspicion of insurgent acts, you should have ****ing waved the white flag a long time ago, fleeing and then raising your hands after you've already been targeted and fired upon means your entitled to feel stupid and probably die, nothing else.

 

[Tyguy]

Good points Nuri. I forgot to mention we do not hold insurgents to the same engagement principles as we would a regular soldier. I really wish we had some military members here to talk some sense into some of you. But thats ok, armchair activism is the next best thing, eh pes?

 

[Tagaziel]

Soldiers fight wars, politicians win them. If politics were left to soldiers, we'd get a world of neverending war.

WH40K anyone?

 

[nurizeko]

Soldiers fight wars, politicians win them. If politics were left to soldiers, we'd get a world of neverending war.

WH40K anyone?

I call dibs on the Eldar.

Not the Tau though, they probably have some rule that requires them to roll to see if they have permission from the Ethereals and the public back home on the sept worlds to fire upon a Khornate berserker charging down their throats just in case his raised hands are unintentionally gripping tightly to his chainsaw battle axe and death spewing chaos corrupted bolt round firing machine rifle.

 

[Sulkdodds]

In the wake of Nuri's big wonderful rant I want to state as clearly as possible where we are.

*

1. The video doesn't show us enough and there are a bunch of variables which show us that, even though the suspect appears to surrender, the killing might have been a shameful accident, or a quirk of ballistics. For example, an M230 (assumed weapon) has a muzzle velocity of around 800m/s and a max range of over 2000m, so yeah, it could in theory take several seconds for the bullets to arrive at their targets. It is therefore very difficult to tell what happened and immediately condemning the pilot would be irresponsible.

2. Nevertheless, if we were to assume (for the purposes of argument) that the pilot fired deliberately, or could have prevented the incident, then this would be clearly against international law. Any combatant who surrenders instantly becomes a POW, until such time as his status can be proven by "a competent tribunal".

3. Yet some people have gone further than this and argued that even if it was deliberate, that would be okay, since necessity is more important than international law. It would be all right to shoot an unarmed and surrendering man, because it would be necessary.

I want you to remember where we are at this point: arguments like "the soldier could have just plain missed the surrendering gesture" are at this point irrelevant because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the pilot shot a man deliberately in contravention of international law.

The problem with this argument is that nobody has yet shown us necessity.
FIRSTLY, it's not sufficient that "the man was being chased". A default bias towards a military organisation over the civilian population of an entire country is highly questionable. The military organisation has been shown to kill civilians many times in the past, sometimes deliberately and brutally (Haditha), sometimes with banality and carelessness (cluster bombs). The civilian, meanwhile, cannot be assumed from the start to be an insurgent. I've shown you what circular logic it is to say that he was guilty because he was being chased. And I hope I don't need to explain why "I trust the policeman's word over yours" is very bad legal practise.
SECONDLY, even if he was a suspected insurgent, you have still failed to demonstrate the necessity of shooting him right there and then. "He might have had friends lying in wait" doesn't cut it; there's as much evidence (although less probability) that he was secretly a demon man from mars and each of his surrendering hands actually carried an anti-air blast ray which he never got the chance to fire. To justify just shooting this man you would have to show that it was actually and directly necessary, at that moment, to kill him when he was no threat.

You can't on the one hand go "oh the video isn't enough evidence to show us anything" and then go "oh but it's clearly obvious the dude was probably an insurgent and he was fleeing from the scene where he'd detonated an IED".

But that is what many of you are doing. What the video seems to show (surrender, then bang) is uncertain, and unproveable, yet what the video shows nothing of (the dude was dangerous and carrying an RPG in his car) is assumed by default.

This is what I mean about hypocrisy.

*

Let me say now that I think that the entirety of Point 3 is complete bullshit. Saying that international law means nothing, and that 'necessity' is the new standard of behaviour, is to abandon a clear and codified set of rules for a vague, dark and cloudy one that can only serve in the interests of whoever is on the winning side. It seems to have escaped your notice that international law is itself based on necessity. That is why it is okay to kill your enemy in a fight, but not okay to kill a man who has surrendered, because that man now appears to pose no threat. Yet you go beyond this. You say: "we don't need rules. All we need is a half-assumed, half-unspoken conception of necessity, one that is unquantified, one that is unwritten, one that privileges the occupying force because it is never necessary to fully explain why it was necessary and how it was necessary."

That is why we have laws. They are a standard for behaviour. Beyond laws is the inestimable realm, where there is literally no standard for deciding what is acceptable or not. At that moment you have abandoned any claim to moral consideration because you have entered an area where an utterly immoral act is potentially as justifiable as a moral one - which is to say not very justifiable, because neither are being justified by any concrete standard.

Abandon the rules and you embrace us to rule-by-force. The rules are there to establish a standard of necessity, but my god, you want more! Without being able to directly quantify "necessity" (which is what the laws are designed to do), you ask for no controls, and no boundaries, so that the only way to ensure that a decent standard of conduct is followed is to have faith in the military of whom that conduct is asked.

Now, all that stated, I don't believe I will be dignifying Nuri's post with any more of an answer unless he dignifies himself with a better of an argument. Your hi-larious parody post above indicates how ignorant you are being - by reading "follow international law" as "don't be allowed to defend self against aggressive enemies oh no" you are shitting on the entire argument and any shred of credibility that you might have previously mustered. You are literally equating a stationary, surrendering man to a raging terrorist charing straight at our forces with a bomb strapped to his chest.

I will not tussle with such straw men and I will not be told that I am "betlittling" the army by a person who clearly does not believe that soldiers are competent or moral enough for any standard of competence or morality to be demanded of them. It is in fact you who "insults" the armed forces. You insult them with the patronising assumption that they should not or cannot be held to a reasonable standard of behaviour. And, if you are not yourself fighting, you have absolutely no grounds from which to accuse anyone else of "armchair activism".

 

[Mr Stabby]

The guns on a helicopter have ranges of over 2 miles. It's possible that the bullets were already in flight before the man got his hands up, or the pilot couldn't see his hand from that distance. Still I don't think they needed to shoot him unless he had pointed an RPG at them.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Good points Nuri. I forgot to mention we do not hold insurgents to the same engagement principles as we would a regular soldier. I really wish we had some military members here to talk some sense into some of you. But thats ok, armchair activism is the next best thing, eh pes?

insurgent isn't a position. Either that guy was an enemy combatant, or a civilian. Insurgents could be classified as either, they are on the grey line in between. This guy should be treated as either. In either case someone surrendering is protected by international law. Enemy combatant or civilian it's illegal to kill someone surrendering, even if they blew up a hospital full of babies. They still have to be tried. It's fair to say in the video that the pilot fired before he surrendered. In the case that he didn't you seem to be supporting the pilots decision to kill the enemy combatant/civilian while surrendering which is wrong. What about this do you not get?

 

[nurizeko]

In the wake of Nuri's big wonderful rant I want to state as clearly as possible where we are. . .

Neither big (unless your dyslexic, in which case I apologize for writing too many words) nor a rant, that requires it to be an angry incoherent mess of letters, I cite the internet as an example, but I appreciate the effort of trying to help me "catch up".


If the pilot did just flat out murder a civilian, you can bet your arse I'de be joining the lynch mob, but since he didn't I just didn't want to join the mutual moral outrage society this time round.


-Nuri, out.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think your post can be fairly called a rant. Mine can.

If it was misconceived, it will at least now stand as an angry but clear statement of my position.

 

[Solaris]

This is truly a fascinating thread.

At the start I was shocked but not too sure where I stood. Then sulkdodds used to reason and has utterly destroyed everyone in his way with the help of Glirk. An unholy alliance.

One of the best threads in politics ever. The ones where one side builds its arguments on a logical fallacy always are becuase you get to watch them squirm and water down their arguments when they're too immature to just concede.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

So, did anyone else notice that the car was being chased and attacked by at least 2 attack helicopters?

 

[Escaep]

I like how the thread title says "Surrendering Combatants" when only one person seems to be surrendering.

Way to go stupid.

 

[Pesmerga]

This is truly a fascinating thread.

At the start I was shocked but not too sure where I stood. Then sulkdodds used to reason and has utterly destroyed everyone in his way with the help of Glirk.

What are you talking about- I did the other half of the talking. I'm part of the unholy alliance! Me!!! Not him!

 

[Vegeta897]

I like how the thread title says "Surrendering Combatants" when only one person seems to be surrendering.

Way to go stupid.

I also like how he uses the term 'murder' in a war situation. Bending the story, aren't we?

 

[Escaep]

I also like how he uses the term 'murder' in a war situation. Bending the story, aren't we?

Indeed smithers. Indeed.

 

[nurizeko]

There can be no justice while laws are absolute, and I would like to make the claim that judicial systems are primarily (beyond maintaining order) at least in our societies, designed to ensure justice first and foremost.

Justice may state that no man should have to die to a hail of 30mm bullets, but justice may dictate that no other man must needlessly risk his life to apprehend one man suspected of acts designed to kill men.

Now, all that stated, I don't believe I will be dignifying Nuri's post with any more of an answer unless he dignifies himself with a better of an argument. Your hi-larious parody post above indicates how ignorant you are being - by reading "follow international law" as "don't be allowed to defend self against aggressive enemies oh no" you are shitting on the entire argument and any shred of credibility that you might have previously mustered. You are literally equating a stationary, surrendering man to a raging terrorist charing straight at our forces with a bomb strapped to his chest.

You are entitled to excuse yourself from the thread whenever you desire.

Logic also dictates that attempting to apply the strictest absolute words of rules and laws made in peaceful circumstances to the chaos of war is illogical.

Since we've decided to play "my opinion is correct and yours isn't because I make the fallacy of equating my opinion of something as universal and applicable in all situations to every person" lets start with the most illogical and bias opinion made in this thread.

[VID]Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants

1. Where does it say or shows an Apache?. You assume (by using reason and making an educated guess) that the helicopter was an Apache (the shadow, the fact its the most common ground attack helicopter in service with the US army), yet you dismiss my position when I also make the reasoned guess that the pilot was given good cause to engage the suspect.

2. Murders. Your opinion of what equates to murder is not a universal constant.

3. Surrendering. As has been said, the chaotic nature of war means no-one can expect in all situations to be excused of all risk and harm because of one gesture. The illogic here is the amusing opinion that because a law says something, that it is humanly possible to follow it in all situations and circumstances, and that the letter of these rules and laws not being met is immediately a sign of malice and intent on behalf of the killer/assaulter. the video (flimsy evidence of anything to begin with) shows more then anything that (using your brain) the man's belated gesture of submission and surrender was too late and that he was dead the moment those rounds were fired, when he was still seen as resisting and a potential threat.

The second fallacy was going off into a pointless tangent about how the pilot was required to ensure the suspect was apprehended alive with ground teams. Pointless. As I have established, the man was dead before any gesture of surrender. He did not surrender and then was fired upon (and therefor giving solid grounds to pass a judgment of guilt of murder upon the pilot).
He was dead before he raised his arms, again, while still considered hostile, and before he had protection of any laws pertaining to the accepting of surrender and taking of PoW's (ignoring the fact, again, which you did BTW, that by wearing civilian clothing, he was in breach of some rules pertaining to war).

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

This law was not breached. The suspect (remembering he was engaged and fired upon before gesture of surrender) could not reasonably and arguably be considered anything but a viable threat and legitimate target.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
# 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.6 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.

Unless my logic is mistaken the deceased individual met none of these requirements.

The suspect wasn't:
* A member of any armed forces.
* bearing any recognizable sign showing him as a member of any militia visible from distance.
* Was not bearing arms openly.

So if were doing as you wish, following strict letters of the law, he was in breach of the above specific criteria to earn the distinction of PoW and lawful combatant.

Article 51.3 of the Commentary: IV Geneva Convention also covers this interpretation: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.".[3] In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Remembering that (by your precedence) no-one is allowed to assume innocence of anyone involved in the discussed event videoed, international law would consider the dead individual an unlawful and unprivileged combatant if he was in fact a civilian undertaking hostile acts, and this would damage his defense in court if he had survived to go to trial (something that unlike insurgent militia's, western powers are not only beholden to provide, but do so on principle and to meet the expectations of the societies they come from).


Sulks, the biggest flaw in your argument is you have tried to claim an instant position of "winning position" based on the assumption all law is universal and by the letter and that breaching of these laws somehow turns a soldier fighting in a chaotic mess of a conflict into a cold blooded malicious killer.

Laws overlap, one law contradicts another, its entirely possible for one part of an article on a law to come into conflict with another part of the same paper on that law.




My argument is solid and stands. I wont accuse a pilot of murder based on your opinion, you can throw walls of text at me until the thread locks and dies, it wont help you.

TBH until someone can provide a video with the footage following up to that event with audio, I refuse to argue over this anymore, until we see some real facts in proper context this discussion is just opinion and belief.

 

[Emporius]

The suspect wasn't:
* A member of any armed forces.
* bearing any recognizable sign showing him as a member of any militia visible from distance.
* Was not bearing arms openly.

Perhaps we need to go over the meaning of an Insurgent.

 

[Solaris]

You have yet to actually show that the pilot fired before he raised his hands, you are only assuming that.

I think it's pretty obvious here that the only thing that matters is if the pilot knew he was surrendering before he fired.

If so, it was illegal and wrong.

If not, we cannot fault the pilot for killing a surrendering man, however there is some doubt still over what the man did to warrant and justify being chased down but that is something we cannot explore without more evidence.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I have not yet had time to read the whole post (merely skimmed), but I would like to know when I and Kerberos became a bizarre composite "you".

For example, the assumption that the helicopter was in fact an 'Apache' was never a central part of my argument, while the assumption that the man was an insurgent was surely an integral part of yours.

I didn't make the thread title, and I agree that it's ridiculous. I've also not asked anyone to immediately accuse the pilot, taking instead Pesmerga's position that it would be dangerous at this juncture to try and solidly state his culpability (as opposed to conditionally state it as I've done).

Kerberos did a fire and forget, and hasn't reappeared since he splashed the video across the OP. It would be very difficult to confuse our arguments together.

Frankly, I'm baffled. You seem to be citing me on statements that I never made.

EDIT: I'd also like to emphasise once again that 'unlawful combatant' status does not mean that you can shoot a man who surrenders.
- If there is any doubt as to the status of a combatant, his status must be determined by "a competent tribunal" and until then he is to be treated as a POW.
- since the purpose of the Conventions is partly to allow soldiers to escape prosecution for the acts that they commit, 'unlawful combatants' are people who can be tried under civilian law. They are still civilians, and they are still protected by the relevant parts of the Conventions.
- Even if the combatant in question can be regarded as having forfeited their rights, they are still to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" and "shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person".
- Protected persons "are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals".

 

[Escaep]

Maybe the guy survived? It is not totally out of the question.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

He has no right to be planting explosive devices with the express intention of murdering coalition forces but he probably did it anyway, whats your point?. You seem to think Rights are some magical force of physics that are unbreakable. They are a human concept.

Human Concept = Pointless?

So the value of your life, irreguardless of your protest, is also up for debate?

Excellent! I like where this is going!

... really, opinions like that just suck.

 

[Kadayi]

And id be the first civilian to be court marshaled.

I doubt you'd past the Psych test to make it in the military fortunately. :dozey:

Maybe the guy survived? It is not totally out of the question.

At that range I doubt it, life isn't like the movies.

 

[Tyguy]

Perhaps we need to go over the meaning of an Insurgent.

The insurgency is not a recognized armed force making the insurgent a non-recognized armed combatant. Laws pertaining to those in the armed forces do not mirror those pertaining to the latter. You must understand that these laws reflect conventional war and cannot be applied to what is going on in Iraq.

sulk, you can mention "competent tribunal" as many times as you see fit, it's doesn't solidify your argument.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, yeah no actually it does because it refers directly to the Conventions themselves.

Fill in the blanks with anything you see fit for instant rebuttal!
"You can mention xxxxx as many times as you see fit, it doesn't solidify your argument."

 

[Kadayi]

Tyguy I've come to the debate a little late here, but would I be right in saying that your saying it's perfectly acceptable to shoot people on the suspicion of them being insurgents? And because they might nor turn out to be insurgents, doing so isn't actually a criminal offence or a breach of international law? Seems to me that's what your saying reading between the lines. Can you clarify, perhaps maybe outline when it's not acceptable to shoot civilians?

 

[Tyguy]

Well, yeah no actually it does because it refers directly to the Conventions themselves.

Fill in the blanks with anything you see fit for instant rebuttal!
"You can mention xxxxx as many times as you see fit, it doesn't solidify your argument."

The conventions protect POW's. The subject was not a POW. Why can't you understand this?

Tyguy I've come to the debate a little late here, but would I be right in saying that your saying it's perfectly acceptable to shoot people on the suspicion of them being insurgents?

No, you would not be right. I mentioned quite a few times that I believed the pilot's actions would have been unacceptable had this been an innocent civilian. For the sake of the debate, I mentioned I was operating under the assumption he was seen committing an unlawful act. I also made another point which was that my entire argument depended on the assumption that he was indeed guilty. I was critizsed for making this assumption (for arguments sake) yet you are immidiatley labeling him as an innocent civilian. Try and read a few more pages and quote me wheverer I said I think its acceptable to kill innocent civilians.

Even when you come into a debate late, it's good to read the entire thing.

 

[Kadayi]

The conventions protect POW's. The subject was not a POW. Why can't you understand this?

Anyone surrendering to Armed forces personnel is effectively a Prisoner of War, until such time as they are released. There isn't a necessity for them to be frog matched through a prison gate before they are treated as such as you seem to think, or do they need to belong to a recognized military body. What's next 'we'll it's not really a war, so they can't really be treated as a PoW'? :dozey:

Seriously, your embarrassing yourself here. My advice is to change your email address and password to something random and unintelligible and just exit the forum stage left.....

 

[Tyguy]

Anyone surrendering to Armed forces personnel is effectively a Prisoner of War, until such time as they are released. There isn't a necessity for them to be frog matched through a prison gate before they are treated as such as you seem to think, or do they need to belong to a recognized military body. What's next 'we'll it's not really a war, so they can't really be treated as a PoW'? :dozey:

haha, actually no, they still cant be considered a prisoner of war. They are detainees techinically, but are still afforded some similar protections. Insurgents are called combatants, which are those who "take part in the hostilities of an armed conflict with the law of war". It's at "law of war" where this person cannot be qualified as a prisoner of war, based on the fact that he is not a recognized combatant. I was willing to relate a POW with a captured insurgent for the sake of the debate...but that doesn't make a difference. You have to qualify to be a POW, it's not a right.

As much as you like to hate on the military, the geneva convention actual protects its followers from these kinds of accusations instead of condemning them, for good reason. When 1 side breaches the law of war by nature you can't expect the other to afford them the same principles.

Seriously, your embarrassing yourself here. My advice is to change your email address and password to something random and unintelligible and just exit the forum stage left.....

My advice to you is to read the actual thread to it's entirety and not act like an ass with your foot in the mouth.

 

[Kadayi]

haha, actually no, they still cant be considered a prisoner of war. They are detainees techinically, but are still afforded some similar protections. Insurgents are called combatants, which are those who "take part in the hostilities of an armed conflict with the law of war". It's at "law of war" where this person cannot be qualified as a prisoner of war, based on the fact that he is not a recognized combatant. I was willing to relate a POW with a captured insurgent for the sake of the debate...but that doesn't make a difference. You have to qualify to be a POW, it's not a right.

But until someone in recognized authority via the command chain can determine the status of a detainee, a ground soldier is obliged to afford them those very rights, which still basically pisses on your whole argument from a big height.
So please do feel free to exit stage left at the first opportunity. :dozey:

also you still haven't addressed my earlier question:-

Would I be right in saying that your saying it's perfectly acceptable to shoot people on the suspicion of them being insurgents? And because they might not turn out to be insurgents, doing so isn't actually a criminal offence or a breach of international law? Seems to me that's what your saying reading between the lines. Can you clarify, perhaps maybe outline when it's not acceptable to shoot civilians?

I'm all ears on this one. :dozey:

 

[Tyguy]

But until someone in recognized authority via the command chain can determine the status of a detainee, a ground soldier is obliged to afford them those very rights, which still basically pisses on your whole argument from a big height.
So please do feel free to exit stage left at the first opportunity. :dozey:

What on earth are you talking about? Can you name a few sources you are getting this nonsense from? And yes, I did answer your question, you chose not to acknowledge my answer. Also, adding a self proclaimed clever remark to the end of your posts doesn't actually add merit to what you have said. You are successful in only making yourself look like an ill informed pest.

 

[Kadayi]

What on earth are you talking about? Can you name the few sources you are getting this nonsense from?

That soldiers require authorization from their commanding officers before engaging the enemy? Well if its nonsense as you say perhaps you should inform HBO that their recent series 'Generation Kill' which was based around real military actions undertaken by the marines of 1st Recon during the invasion of Iraq was a complete crock of shit in it's portrayal of the USMC command structure and the rules of engagement. Given the show was approved by the marine core and a number of the marines directly involved had input into and advised on the show (a few even starred in it), somehow I'd expect them to have got it right. Please feel free to provide some sort of counterpoint to this obvious nonsense though.

And yes, I did answer your question, you chose not to acknowledge my answer. Also, adding a self proclaimed clever remark to the end of your posts doesn't actually add merit to what you have said. You are successful in only making yourself look like an ill informed pest.

I was asking in general terms, not specific to the footage. So yes I would like an answer. When is it not acceptable to shoot Civilians? Because by the rationale you seem to be claiming, everyones fair game.

 

[Tyguy]

That soldiers require authorization from their commanding officers before engaging the enemy? Well if its nonsense as you say perhaps you should inform HBO that their recent series 'Generation Kill' which was based around real military actions undertaken by the marines of 1st Recon during the invasion of Iraq was a complete crock of shit in it's portrayal of the USMC command structure and the rules of engagement. Given the show was approved by the marine core and a number of the marines directly involved had input into and advised on the show (a few even starred in it), somehow I'd expect them to have got it right. Please feel free to provide some sort of counterpoint to this obvious nonsense though.

You realize you are now trying to defend yourself by citing an HBO show, right?

I was asking in general terms, not specific to the footage. So yes I would like an answer. When is it not acceptable to shoot Civilians? Because by the rationale you seem to be claiming, everyone's fair game.

I really wish you didn't have the memory of a goldfish because then I wouldn't have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. If your not going to show me the courtesy of reading my posts then im not going to extend you the courtesy of answering your stupid questions again.