The Iraq Thread 2

[NavyEEL 0]

i don't think it's safe to make any assumptions from this article. we aren't fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the event, and should just leave it at that. the pilots could have been under higher stress than normal, or could have been taking fire earlier in the day from a group similar to the one they gunned down. again, there are so many different variables that it isn't fair to regard the pilots as "cold blooded killers", especially when you don't know them at all. say all you want about waiting until you are threatened before firing, but the way things have been going lately, coalition troops don't always have time to wait. waiting results in suicide bombers or more terrorist attacks. if something looks like a threat, acts like a threat, then chances are you should treat it as a threat.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for the shooting of the injured man, does the injury transform him a non-enemy?

I can remember the uproar the US started when US POW´s were shown on pictures and videos.

They waved the geneva convention flag like there had been C4 plugged to the POW´s.

Now they shoot injured civilians (yes they have civillian status unless the start combat actions against US troops) to death intentionally although they recognized that the man is wounded "only".

Now that is what I call not even double standards but no standards.

Don´t waste ourtime toadlife but that´s against a hole bunch of rules and I don´t want to talk about the moral the crew showed.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]acts like a threat, then chances are you should treat it as a threat.

Where did they act as a threat ? Is running around with something in your hands, laying the thing down not even close to the man a threat ?

A threat would have been gunfire, a shouldered rocket or a crew preparing for a raid. I can´t see any of that on the tape.

[toadlife 3]

As a matter of fact, by the Geneva Convention, they not weren't allowed to kill that man, but they had an obligation to help him and provide him with medical services.

That's not good.

There'd be no way to convict the pilots, as there was no proof that the man was really incapacitated, or even injured. The only proof is the pilots saying 'He's injured' - Not that I think he wasn't injured.

It's remotely possible that the man was just trying to sneak away. It's obvious none of them knew what the hell was going on.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]As for the shooting of the injured man, does the injury transform him a non-enemy?

I can remember the uproar the US started when US POW´s were shown on pictures and videos.

They waved the geneva convention flag like there had been C4 plugged to the POW´s.

Now they shoot injured civilians (yes they have civillian status unless the start combat actions against US troops) to death intentionally although they recognized that the man is wounded "only".

Now that is what I call not even double standards but no standards.

Don´t waste ourtime toadlife but that´s against a hole bunch of rules and I don´t want to talk about the moral the crew showed.

I'm not wasting anyone's time. You continue to make assumtions based on what you don't know. You called them 'civillians'. I'd like to know how you've come to the conclusion that those people were civillians, especially considering the fact that most of the attacks against our troops are waged by people dressed in civillian clothing.

If the man was injured and they shot him, then that qualifies as wrong, but you failed to notice what they were actually shooting at when they hit the injured man. Their crosshairs are aimed at the cab of the pickup truck, which contained someone.

[Balschoiw 0]

come on...

The pilot clearly says to get the injured man.

Quote[/b] ]You called them 'civillians'. I'd like to know how you've come to the conclusion that those people were civillians, especially considering the fact that most of the attacks against our troops are waged by people dressed in civillian clothing

Well I already wrote that:

Quote[/b] ] (yes they have civillian status unless the start combat actions against US troops)

Unless some basic rules are being followed every civillian that pops his head out of a truck at night and has a talk with neighbours is a target. Right ?

Also have you seen that funny tracks of the tractor ? It looks like he was doing fieldwork if you check the paralellity of the lines.

I don´t say th3ese haven´t been guerilla fighters but at the point they were executed nothing really pointed towards that direction and for 2 guys sitting in an armoured helo they were no threat.

Were was the threat in this scenario ?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't get it.

Method of training and distance to target.

I can´t understand such things either as for me there have to be certain conditions fulfilled until I shoot:

1. Direct threat (not given here)

2. Direct attack (not given here)

3. Imminent danger for the health of my soldiers

  (In no way given here)

Add to that

4. Direct threat to neutral third party (civilians)

--

I fully understand direct attack. Hell, I did originally my serivice in the kustjägarna, Sweden's only purely offensive military branch. The big point there is that you are attacking somebody who may very well succeed in killing you. Also it happens fast, you have the adrenalin, you protect your comrades etc And it becomes, even if in an abstract sense "him or me". You kill an enemy because he is a threat to you and your comrades.

But this, this was shooting fish in a bowl. This was the equivalent of shooting unarmed prisoners. They could not run, they could not hide, they could not fight. The apache crew just systematically killed them off one by one..

I don't know if there is any absolute difference since it's all killing in the end, but every fiber in my body tells me that what they did and the manner they did it is very wrong.

It is the difference between an execution and combat. Say hypothetically that you are in a war and you capture a number of enemy combatants. Say you had mission objectives that prevented you from organizing logistics for holding POW's. If you let them go, there is a risk of them returning to enemy lines.

Would you round them up and put a bullet in the head of each prisoner?

[toadlife 3]

come on...

The pilot clearly says to get the injured man.

Yes, I agree and that particular bit doesn't sit well with me either...

Here is the dialogue right before the shoot the pickup truck at the end.

Roger, he's wounded. Hit him.

There's a target in the truck

Hit the truck and him

Go forward of it and hit him

THe crossahairs then fix directly on the cab of th truck and gunfires hits the cab, and the injured man in front of the truck was most likely hit too.

[denoir 0]

say all you want about waiting until you are threatened before firing, but the way things have been going lately, coalition troops don't always have time to wait.

And you don't think that's related to the "30mm peacekeeping" method they are using?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh BTW.  About homeland security. Today I was confronted with the Secret weapons of the Nation Security agency...

Today I bought a new computer at dell! And guess what..when I filled out the sheet with personal information..credit card number ...address I found a strange multiple choice question at the end.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Dell Computer Corporation ist ein US-Unternehmen und unterliegt deshalb allen Exportgesetzen und Regelungen der USA. Beantworten Sie deshalb bitte die folgenden 4 Fragen.

F4.  Werden die Produkte im Zusammenhang mit Massenvernichtungswaffen verwendet, z.B. in nuklearen Anwendungsbereichen, in der Raketentechnologie oder für chemische oder biologische Waffen? *

x Ja        

x Nein  

The translation is as follows:

Dell is an US based corporation therefore dependant on US legislatives bla bla bla therefore we must ask you the following questions.

Are the purchased products going to be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear devices, rocket science or biological or chemical weapons. Please tick yes or no!

Aehm well.. I am a terorist but I just cant lie...damn it must be in my non-criminal nature. And even if I lie..are they gonna sue me later on because I ticked NO? hell they might give me a hell of a criminal case after my suicide attack! They gonna put my coffin in jail for a lifetime!

[toadlife 3]

It is the difference between an execution and combat. Say hypothetically that you are in a war and you capture a number of enemy combatants. Say you had mission objectives that prevented you from organizing logistics for holding POW's. If you let them go, there is a risk of them returning to enemy lines.

Would you round them up and put a bullet in the head of each prisoner?

Didn't this happen during the beggining of the war - they were bogged down by having to deal with 1000's of detainees that they didn't expect (or plan for). I don't recall them slaugtering Iraqi troops though.

[toadlife 3]

Are the purchased products going to be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear devices, rocket science or biological or chemical weapons. Please tick yes or no!

LOL

[NavyEEL 0]

Oh BTW.  About homeland security. Today I was confronted with the Secret weapons of the Nation Security agency...

Today I bought a new computer at dell! And guess what..when I filled out the sheet with personal information..credit card number ...address I found a strange multiple choice question at the end.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Dell Computer Corporation ist ein US-Unternehmen und unterliegt deshalb allen Exportgesetzen und Regelungen der USA. Beantworten Sie deshalb bitte die folgenden 4 Fragen.

F4.  Werden die Produkte im Zusammenhang mit Massenvernichtungswaffen verwendet, z.B. in nuklearen Anwendungsbereichen, in der Raketentechnologie oder für chemische oder biologische Waffen? *

x Ja        

x Nein  

The translation is as follows:

Dell is an US based corporation therefore dependant on US legislatives bla bla bla therefore we must ask you the following questions.

Are the purchased products going to be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear devices, rocket science or biological or chemical weapons. Please tick yes or no!

Aehm well.. I am a terorist but I just cant lie...damn it must be in my non-criminal nature. And even if I lie..are they gonna sue me later on because I ticked NO? hell they might give me a hell of a criminal case after my suicide attack! They gonna put my coffin in jail for a lifetime!  

that reminds me of the question you have to answer when filling out forms for different security clearances.  it asks something to the extent of "have you ever knowingly engaged in activities designed to overthrow the US government by force?"  well gee, now that i think about it...     i mean come on, do you think that the "bad guys" would answer these questions truthfully anyway?  it's too bizarre for me.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]4. Direct threat to neutral third party (civilians)

Depending on ROE´s. More than once i have experienced situations where you directly see how people are beaten to death or lately in Congo teenage girls were raped to death.

Sometimes you are allowed to interfere sometimes not.

I kept strict to the ROE´s the first years at UN but now I have some inbuilt "human option" agreed upon with my boss and my soldiers that enables us to react to a situation of cruelty with restrictive measures.

[toadlife 3]

that reminds me of the question you have to answer when filling out forms for different security clearances. it asks something to the extent of "have you ever knowingly engaged in activities designed to overthrow the US government by force?" well gee, now that i think about it... i mean come on, do you think that the "bad guys" would answer these questions truthfully anyway? it's too bizarre for me.

Perhaps so they can charge you with something (lying) if they find out later?

[denoir 0]

Didn't this happen during the beggining of the war - they were bogged down by having to deal with 1000's of detainees that they didn't expect (or plan for). I don't recall them slaugtering Iraqi troops though.

No, not this one. The first Gulf war. This round almost no troops surrendered. Apparently (apart from most Republican Guard divisions that were bombed to pieces), most of Iraq's regular army just went home.

And yes, POWs were mostly treated according to the Geneva Conventions. That wounded guy wasn't.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps so they can charge you with something (lying) if they find out later?

Did Bush sign something like that about the Iraq war reasons ?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

maybe there are cameras at the airport that observe very carefully if you seem to be undecided when having to answer this question. At the same time a second camera focuses on your throat to observe the pulse and a third one checks if your hands are getting swetty!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And yes, POWs were mostly treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

Well torture to retrieve infos from POW´s is not on my Geneva list.

No cameras, no control.

[toadlife 3]

No, not this one. The first Gulf war. This round almost no troops surrendered. Apparently (apart from most Republican Guard divisions that were bombed to pieces), most of Iraq's regular army just went home.

And yes, POWs were mostly treated according to the Geneva Conventions. That wounded guy wasn't.

I remember seeing news reports to the contrary in this war - though it may not have been as bad as the first GW. I seem to remember U.S. troops taking their weapons and telling them to go home, after they had surrendered instead of detaining them all.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]And yes, POWs were mostly treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

Well torture to retrieve infos from POW´s is not on my Geneva list.

No cameras, no control.

There you go again making assumptions that fit your agenda.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]There you go again making assumptions that fit your agenda.

No toadlife, several British and US soldiers have already been sent home for torturing and mistreating locals and POW´s. That´s not a myth and the US directive towards torture to get information has gone through all media.

EDIT:

No assumptions.

Quote[/b] ]07/19/03: (CBS) Amnesty International is looking into a number of cases of suspected torture in Iraq by American authorities. One of case involves Khraisan al-Aballi.

Al-Aballi’s house was raided by American soldiers, who came in shooting and arrested Khraisan and his 80-year-old father. They shot and wounded his brother Dureid.

Dureid was carrying a weapon. His brother says Dureid thought the Americans were looters.

The three men were taken away. Khraisan and his father went to the U.S. detention center at Baghdad's airport. They still don’t know where his wounded brother is.

Khraisan says his interrogators stripped him naked and kept him awake for more than a week, either standing or on his knees, bound hand and foot, with a bag over his head.

Khraisan says he told his captors, “I don't know what you want. I don't know what you want, I have nothing."

“I asked him to kill me,†says Khraisan.

After eight days, they let him and his father go.

Amnesty International is looking into the case, and others like it.

“This might have been a case of mistaken identity,†says Liz Hodgkin of Amnesty International. “The United Nations Committee Against Torture has stated quite clearly that these methods constitute torture. The U.S. has signed up to high standards. It's not keeping them.â€

U.S. officials did not respond to repeated requests to discuss the case, but the American governor here insists that the U.S. does not torture prisoners.

“We are in fact, in fact, carrying out our international obligations, which I'm satisfied we are doing,†says Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq.

Khraisan rejects American claims they are not using torture. “They are liars. They use it. They use it,†he says. “They make me losing my mind.â€

In Saddam’s day, countless Iraqis disappeared behind the walls of Abu Graib, one of the most notorious prisons in Iraq. It's open again for business with new wardens, the Americans.

Relatives looking for any information about their loved ones still inside line up at the gate. They are told nothing.

Khraisan al-Aballi hasn't given up the search for his brother Dureid.

The Americans, who should know whether Dureid is dead or alive, say they have no record of him at all.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]4. Direct threat to neutral third party (civilians)

Depending on ROE´s. More than once i have experienced situations where you directly see how people are beaten to death or lately in Congo teenage girls were raped to death.

Sometimes you are allowed to interfere sometimes not.

Yeah, that sucks. It's certainly a problem with UN operations. In KFOR (which is for those that don't know it not directly under UN command but under a joint NATO + Russia command) we had a very open ROE (it included also the rights that the normal police have). Not that it was very important to me personally as I wasn't involved in peace-keeping.

Heh, I remember - we had these little white plastic cards with the ROE written on them. Perfect blend with the snow. I must have lost at least ten of them, including when they changed the color to green in the spring.  

[Acecombat 0]

Yep check back i posted a few cases ...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Heh, I remember - we had these little white plastic cards with the ROE written on them. Perfect blend with the snow. I must have lost at least ten of them, including when they changed the color to green in the spring.

The first one I got was red and printed on thick paper. Well after some time in my pockets it was really messed and so we received plastic cards with sharp corners, that cut through the pockets after a while.

Anyway I like the local phrases on them. Gives you at least some communication methods.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

say all you want about waiting until you are threatened before firing, but the way things have been going lately, coalition troops don't always have time to wait.

And you don't think that's related to the "30mm peacekeeping" method they are using?

Would you have preferred they used 2.75 inch rockets instead? They were clearly in range. Look, the Army is obviously not dealing with a peacekeeping situation, they're conducting counter-insurgency operations. It's an ugly business, but you have to wonder: what exactly was that group doing scheduling a rendez-vous in the middle of the night out in the sticks? Somehow I don't think they were exchanging baking recipes. But that's pure speculation, no different from you referring to them as unarmed civilians. And of course there's the matter of the helicopter just happening to be there at the time of the meeting- why? I'll bet they weren't hovering over Ahmad's AAA Tractor Repair Company, just waiting to find a nice roadside breakdown to go shoot up.

As for the wounded man, consider the following. An attack helicopter can't land and render aid, and as far as these pilots knew, he was involved in an illegal (according to Geneva) insurgency. Had their been ground troops with the same intel and orders instead of helicopters, that man would have been executed without there being a contravention of the Geneva Accords. You know that. At any rate, the man is obviously badly wounded, and considering the way he just stops crawling after a meter or two suggests he may have been dead before the last burst is fired. But supposing he isn't, those pilots still have to follow orders, and that means that they aren't leaving the scene until those men and those trucks are incapacitated. So what do they do? Leave a man who was just subjected to a long 30mm burst, plus (probably) serious burns caused by the fires ignited under that truck, to sit out on the road without any possible succor? Or do you dispatch him with the most humane weapon at your disposal? It's a moral dilemma that, when taken in the context of what the pilots had as far as intel and orders, seems to be more important than the question of whether to engage or not.

And for those who are not aware, the Apache's fire control system only allows for its 30mm chaingun to fire in burst mode- no semi-automatic fire. The burst mode shown is the lowest volume of fire an Apache is capable of.