Latest on BBC on Fallujah?

[LordShaithis]

I don't want to be better than them. I just want to win. I want to publicly announce that Mecca will be blown off the map three days hence, and defy their god to do anything about it.

[Gandalf]

I don't want to be better than them. I just want to win. I want to publicly announce that Mecca will be blown off the map three days hence, and defy their god to do anything about it.

But wouldn't that send the moderates into extremism?

[Bill Door]

If the insurgent was (as Cpl Kendall's source states) captured and secured by Marines before the incident, then the Marine did break the law and almost certainly do so deliberately.

If the insurgent wasn't secured, then the shooting becomes more understandable. It still should be investigated, but more information is required to come to a decision.

[Aaron]

If the insurgent was (as Cpl Kendall's source states) captured and secured by Marines before the incident, then the Marine did break the law and almost certainly do so deliberately.

If the insurgent wasn't secured, then the shooting becomes more understandable. It still should be investigated, but more information is required to come to a decision.

Part of the problem with a conflict like this is that the US Federal Government has demonized the enemy. And has made such behavior acceptable, if this hadn't been filmed nothing would have become of it.

[Coyote]

However that doesn't make it right. I don't know what the US troops are taught but in the Canadian Army we were taught to always act in accordance with the Conventions and our version of the UCMJ.

I'm sorry, Corp, but in your words, which are noble, civilized, and well-meaning I see myself just a few years ago. Actual war in a situation where the enemy uses criminal tactics changes the complexion of things like "necessity, survival", and "civilized".

You see, you're looking at it from a rationalization of action: "the enemy acts like a beast, so therefore I am allowed to act like a beast as well, tit-for-tat". If that were the case, you are correct, the Western armies should show a higher diasplay of conduct.

But in a situation like this, over here, the enemy knows that Westerners live by this code, love and respect life. They know that we are usually compassionate towards wounded, elderly, children, etc. They actively use that against us, endangering us.

We are not allowed, anymore, to stop along roadsides to help people whose cars are stalled, or have flat tires, or even people we obviously see are hurt. Why? Because Western compassion and desire to help have been used too many times to set up ambushes where soldiers are killed needlessly.

The "brutality" of killing a man who is wounded and playing dead is a force protection measure that has been pushed on us by the enemy's own cruelty-- not a justification of meanness for meanness sake. 9 times out of 10, it is a set-up.

The enemy here has placed themselves in a position where the Geneva Convention does not apply to them-- that is their choice, not ours.

[Aaron]

I'm sorry, Corp, but in your words, which are noble, civilized, and well-meaning I see myself just a few years ago. Actual war in a situation where the enemy uses criminal tactics changes the complexion of things like "necessity, survival", and "civilized".

You see, you're looking at it from a rationalization of action: "the enemy acts like a beast, so therefore I am allowed to act like a beast as well, tit-for-tat". If that were the case, you are correct, the Western armies should show a higher diasplay of conduct.

I have mixed thoughts on this whole thing. I understand that the enemy in Iraq is immoral and engaged in criminal acts. Which probably voids their Geneva Convention protections, so they probably deserve whatever they get. Yet all my training screams that any violation of the Conventions or UCMJ is wrong and there is no excuse for it.

But in a situation like this, over here, the enemy knows that Westerners live by this code, love and respect life. They know that we are usually compassionate towards wounded, elderly, children, etc. They actively use that against us, endangering us.

We are not allowed, anymore, to stop along roadsides to help people whose cars are stalled, or have flat tires, or even people we obviously see are hurt. Why? Because Western compassion and desire to help have been used too many times to set up ambushes where soldiers are killed needlessly.

It is unfortunate that the enemy is using our own values against us. Do acts such as those mean that we can remove the protection afforded to them by the Conventions? Of course they are not signitory to them so they have no obligation to fight as civilised people.

The "brutality" of killing a man who is wounded and playing dead is a force protection measure that has been pushed on us by the enemy's own cruelty-- not a justification of meanness for meanness sake. 9 times out of 10, it is a set-up.

I understand that the troops are not doing this to be mean or evil, they are simply trying to survive long enough to make it home, and protect their buddies lives.

However Conventions and motivations aside, is it illegal under the UCMJ to kill an unarmed wounded man?

The enemy here has placed themselves in a position where the Geneva Convention does not apply to them-- that is their choice, not ours.

Totally, however the world is still going to condemn the US forces for not abiding by them regardless of the actions of the enemy.

[Darth Wong]

The enemy here has placed themselves in a position where the Geneva Convention does not apply to them-- that is their choice, not ours.

I can see where you're coming from, but there are two things you're doing here:

1. Treating "the enemy" as a monolithic organization, which is simply not the case.
2. Ignoring the fact that it was "your choice" to invade in the first place. Nobody forced the US to do that; I don't see why US soldiers should be able to get away with using the consequences of the anarchy they created as a justification for breaking the rules. If you're going to use "choice" as a justification for breaking rules of conduct in war, then you are hoist by your own petard; by that logic, the insurgents' behaviour is justified.

[Aaron]

I can see where you're coming from, but there are two things you're doing here:

1. Treating "the enemy" as a monolithic organization, which is simply not the case.

Part of the problem is that the "enemy" in this case is potentially anyone. It's like Vietnam, there was no way to tell who was VC and who was a civvie.

[*]Ignoring the fact that it was "your choice" to invade in the first place. Nobody forced the US to do that; I don't see why US soldiers should be able to get away with using the consequences of the anarchy they created as a justification for breaking the rules. If you're going to use "choice" as a justification for breaking rules of conduct in war, then you are hoist by your own petard; by that logic, the insurgents' behaviour is justified.[/list]

Well if we set aside the Convention, as there is some confusion to whether it applies in this conflict. The soldiers are still bound by the UCMJ and there's really not alot of wiggle room in that as to what's right and whats wrong.

The insurgents on the other hand can do what ever they want. They don't have a central command structure or a UCMJ to abide by.

[Stormbringer]

Treating "the enemy" as a monolithic organization, which is simply not the case.

That's well nigh on irrelevant so far as military operations are concerned. Sure there are different groups and with different reasons to be fighting. Doesn't make much of a difference to their conduct though. And given they don't bother distinguishing themselves, or from civilians for that matter, they might as well be monolithic. They're all acting like savage trash. All of them have pissed on the Geneva Convention and all of them have used terrorist tactics; when you can find a way to tell them the handful of half decent human beings from the lot call the Pentagon, I'm sure they'll want to hear it.

Ignoring the fact that it was "your choice" to invade in the first place. Nobody forced the US to do that; I don't see why US soldiers should be able to get away with using the consequences of the anarchy they created as a justification for breaking the rules.

Rght now the only chance that country has to avoid being the newest Arab-Muslim shithole is for those US soldiers to win. And we've got no choice now, it's fix it or let it fester. It seems the US is the only one willing to stick it out. All the wind bags and cowards of Europe won't mean shit because it's either the terorrists or us. And they are nothing but two-legged, Islam-addled trash for the most part, not even half-civilized. The US soldiers have got a job to do, no choice about any more.

Now if that means some dirtbag terrorists gets capped in the head as a precaution, well that's just too damn bad, guess he gets his 72 virgins early. Maybe they should have conducted themselves like civilized people instead of as two-legged garbage. But instead they've exploited every shred of deceny, abused all compassion, and generally pissed on anything resembling good will. Now that came back to bite them on the ass and I can't say as that bothers me one damn bit.

[Stormbringer]

I'm sorry if that last post turned into a bit of a psycho-rant. But I find this whole mess infuriating, especially the finger pointing going on against our soldiers.

Right now the US, let alone our soldiers, doesn't have a choice. The coalition helped make the mess, now they're running away. The US is left doing the heavy work. To imply there's any choice left in this matter is just infuriating.

And regardless of the justification they use, the terrorists have stepped outside any bounds of civilized good conduct. They've deliberately targetted innocents who were trying to make it better; they've abused every act of compassion on our part to try and kill more people. To imply after that sort of conduct we should still put their lives over those of ours soldiers just offends the core of my being.

[Ory'hara]

The problem is not that the Sites tape ended up on Al-Jazeera, but rather that the tape showed up there uncensored.

[SirNitram]

I'm sorry if that last post turned into a bit of a psycho-rant. But I find this whole mess infuriating, especially the finger pointing going on against our soldiers.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to fingerpoint at the administration that created this shitfit. But, pointe blank: This action was done by one soldier. Only an imbecile would claim it's anyone else's responsibility, so yes, we should point the finger at him.

Right now the US, let alone our soldiers, doesn't have a choice. The coalition helped make the mess, now they're running away. The US is left doing the heavy work. To imply there's any choice left in this matter is just infuriating.

Yea, heaven forbid sovereign nations get sick of being lied to by the States about why they went to this war, where the goddamn weapons were, and why they just had to ship coffins home. This is what happens when a jingoistic retard sets forth on his moronic errands. Yea, it costs. War always does.

And regardless of the justification they use, the terrorists have stepped outside any bounds of civilized good conduct. They've deliberately targetted innocents who were trying to make it better; they've abused every act of compassion on our part to try and kill more people. To imply after that sort of conduct we should still put their lives over those of ours soldiers just offends the core of my being.

Oh no! Heaven forbid we expect the US Armed Forces obey the USMJ! Heaven forbid we actually hold them to standards above that of the terrorists.

How the fuck, by the way, are we supposed to 'win'? What are the objectives? I mean, Bush openly said we can't win the War on Terror(Don't fucking bullshit me, Stormbringer, that's what he said.), but we can goddamn hope he has a plan for Iraq, all evidence to the contrary.

And just to prove that yes, he said just that..

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

[Durandal]

Rght now the only chance that country has to avoid being the newest Arab-Muslim shithole is for those US soldiers to win. And we've got no choice now, it's fix it or let it fester. It seems the US is the only one willing to stick it out. All the wind bags and cowards of Europe won't mean shit because it's either the terorrists or us. And they are nothing but two-legged, Islam-addled trash for the most part, not even half-civilized. The US soldiers have got a job to do, no choice about any more.

Can you blame anyone for pulling troops out? Bush's WMD case was completely full of shit, and the occupation has been a disaster so far because of his lack of foresight. Why is anyone aside from the US under any obligation to stay on that sinking ship?

[Darth Wong]

Treating "the enemy" as a monolithic organization, which is simply not the case.

That's well nigh on irrelevant so far as military operations are concerned.

Bullshit.

Sure there are different groups and with different reasons to be fighting. Doesn't make much of a difference to their conduct though.

Circular logic: you are justifying the use of a monolithic assumption by employing that very assumption in your justification.

[Darth Wong]

Right now the US, let alone our soldiers, doesn't have a choice.

You made a choice to go in there in the first place. What's your favourite saying from the buildup to the war? Oh yes, "actions have consequences". Sucks to be on the receiving end of that, doesn't it?

The coalition helped make the mess, now they're running away. The US is left doing the heavy work.

Come children, let us sit at the knee of stormbringer and hear him tell the tale of how the Coalition dragged the United States into a war.

To imply there's any choice left in this matter is just infuriating.

You made a choice before. Now you have to live with the consequences. That's a little something we call "responsibility"; another subject which you have ranted on in the past, apparently without true recognition of the concept.

[Ory'hara]

Question: How many years did it take before we pulled out of Germany after WWII?

[Darth Wong]

Question: How many years did it take before we pulled out of Germany after WWII?

I wouldn't compare Iraq to Germany. There was never any question that the war against the Nazis was being overtly prosecuted against the German nation and its people, so they were free to bomb them into submission and use other terror tactics that would crush resistance. Not to mention running their own concentration camps after the war and sticking Germans in them. The War in Iraq, on the other hand, is being sold as a "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

[Ory'hara]

Question: How many years did it take before we pulled out of Germany after WWII?

I wouldn't compare Iraq to Germany. There was never any question that the war against the Nazis was being overtly prosecuted against the German nation and its people, so they were free to bomb them into submission and use other terror tactics that would crush resistance. Not to mention running their own concentration camps after the war and sticking Germans in them. The War in Iraq, on the other hand, is being sold as a "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

It's a country that we crushed. We're still haven't left. Why the determination to leave Iraq sooner than possible?

[Aaron]

It's a country that we crushed. We're still haven't left. Why the determination to leave Iraq sooner than possible?

The USA has bases in Germany, they are there by invitation now. It's not an occupation like Iraq is.

[SecondStorm]

It will make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how many innocent people died as a result.

What innocent people? They’re all guilty of being “shithead Muslims” aren’t they? Any non-Muslims who get caught in the blast are obviously guilty by association [/sarcasm]

Well technically nuking Mecca wouldn't kill any non-muslims..

Theres plenty of non-muslims in Mecca. Dumbass.

[Master of Ossus]

Theres plenty of non-muslims in Mecca. Dumbass.

Uh, no.

The Masjid al Haram (or Sacred Mosque), is for Muslims the holiest mosque on Earth. Both the mosque and the city itself are strictly off limits to non-Muslims.

Non-Muslims have been killed in the past for attempting to sneak into Mecca, too.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Just let's turn this round a minute.

Let's say that film had been obtained of an Iraqi insurgent blowing away a wounded american marine playing dead.

I know the situations are not entirely the same, but people would be baying for the insurgents blood.

[frigidmagi]

Hate to be an asshole, but they already done acts on that scale.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Hate to be an asshole, but they already done acts on that scale.

Maybe so, but we've also killed a lot of civilians through air bombardment.

The fact that we didn't mean to kill them is almost irrelvant here, Again, turning it around, if your wife or sister or brother or husband had gone out one fine day and got killed in the crossfire, wouldn't you want revenge? Or if you'd come home from work and found your house a smoking hole from an american munition with bits of your family strewn around it?

This incident is just going to insight more hatered in the locals and mean this blood bath goes on longer.

[Knife]

Part of the problem is that the "enemy" in this case is potentially anyone. It's like Vietnam, there was no way to tell who was VC and who was a civvie.

Well if we set aside the Convention, as there is some confusion to whether it applies in this conflict. The soldiers are still bound by the UCMJ and there's really not alot of wiggle room in that as to what's right and whats wrong.

The insurgents on the other hand can do what ever they want. They don't have a central command structure or a UCMJ to abide by.

Part of the ROE and even the UCMJ takes into accout *intent*. If the Marine did feel threatened by the Iraqi, or thought he did pose a threat, then the man was a legitimate target.

As for the GC, I'm a full supporter of a update on the whole thing, but I do support the notion of going by them even if the enemy doesn't- up to a point.

'Up to a point' would be the time when following a set of rules that legally doens't apply in that war, is used by the enemy to tie our hands.

Should we become mass murdering phyco's and ditch the whole spirit of the GC's? No. But in some situations, we shouldn't let the legalistic, nitpickery of the Conventions to put us in a disadvantage, and allow more people to die *both them and us*.