DU shells versus chobam armor?

There are some pretty damn trigger-happy idiots in the US Army, they don't care about civilians, videotapes of things like that proof my point (example: The incident (in my eyes) murder on 3 Iraqi's by an Apache crew...)

Some units also don't care about human rights, for example: the Abu Graib prison in Iraq, look at wat these ''soliders'' did to those prisoners!
That says something about the US Army entry services, aren't all those soldiers interviewed by a psychiatrist???

 

''In reality it's a far less common event than before and has little overall effect on battles and casulty figures.''

Hmm, look at these stats:

Korean war:
US lost 33,741 soldiers, 6,500 or 19% of these where killed by friendly-fire..

Vietnam war:
47,414 soldiers where lost, 8000 or 16% of these where killed by friendly-fire..

Gulf war:
146 soldiers where lost, 35 or 24% of these where killed by friendly-fire..

Afghanistan:
154 US soldiers where lost, 47 of these where killed by friendly-fire..


Thats pretty much, I dont know how much it was in the latest war in Iraq...

 

those statistics are a drop in the ocean.

When compared to the ammount of troops in the area the ammount killed is nothing. Especially when compared to WW2 battles.

FNG

 

jeffrey wrote:

Pretty flimsy evidence for an outright condemnation of 1.2 million men..one episode? The video you are referring to shows a murder?
Be more specific please. Did the Apache crew knowingly fire on civilian non-combatants? I have my doubts about this. If so the video would be evidence in their cort martial and I have not heard of a case of an Apache crew being charged with murder.

If the Army didn't care then why were they charged with crimes? What does the abuse of prisoners by a few individuals have to do with the US Army not caring about "friendly fire or innocent civilian casualties" as you claimed? The abuse at Abu Graib was wrong and a violation of the soldiers sworn duty however it was not extreme i.e. involving physical torture, death etc. Furthermore the US Army unlike most other military organizations around the world does not pull a veil of secrecy around it's scandals.
UN troops, Canadians in one case, were charged with abusing civilians in the past does that not mean that Canadian troops are guilty as well? In another case some British troops were charged with abuse of EPWs also... do you reserve your condemnation for Americans only?

 

Jeffrey wrote:

So what does that mean? How does it compare to other countries engaged in war? The numbers for the Gulf War and Afghanistan are rather misleading when you emphasize the % of losses inasmuch as the losses in those conflicts were amazingly low. That skews the data significantly because one or two fratricide incidents become magnified when compared to such low casualty figures caused by enemy action.
But you knew that right?

 

To my way of thinking, I assume that ALL armies have had at some time or another a "blue-on-blue".
The US gets more publicity because
A) USA tends to a more open society (or nosier TV crew - your choice - in the UK we'd just slap a D Notice on them) and
B) for a good portion of the world the USA is "the great satan", and therefore anything at all that shows it in a bad light will be spread as far and as fast as possible.
As for shoot-first-ask-questions-later. Put yourself in one of two positions:
1) the guy on the ground who knows some of his buddies have been shot - are you going to give anyaone the extra few seconds he needs to draw a bead on you?
2) the politician back home who has to explain to his constituents that their sons died when some foreigners lived (yes -vastly xenophobic expalanation - I don't mean it as such, I've just simplified it. Would you rather OUR guys died, or THEIRS?)
Oli
PS what happened to the DU shot vs DU armour debate? :lol:

 

I agree with you that I was going a little to far bashing the US army, sorry 'about that!

The video you are referring to shows a murder?

Yes it does, 3 Iraqi's where killed for no good reason, there was a truck with some guy that goes talk to another guy, they said he had a weapon, maybe thats true, but than there is till no reason to kill them as most Iraqi's got an AK in there house, than a farmer arrived with its tractor, tha they suddenly decided to kill them for no reason, 2 where dead, you could see the pieces of flesh because the 35mm (or was it 30mm?) grenades explode on impact and they where looking trough thermal sights, there where o bodies left, only flesh glowing in the thermal sights...

1 was unjured and crouched under a truck, than (as if the 2 murders werent's sick enough already) they killed an injured Iraqi wich is not allowed, so you can see it how you want, but in my opinion this was in al; way a brutal murder by 2 sick idiots, a US high ranking general agrees with me, he saw the video-tape and said this is unexceptable!

If the Army didn't care then why were they charged with crimes?

Because they knew they where caught, I think it where orders from higher hand, (and the higher ranking people have to blame someone as long as they don't blame thereself, so why don't blame some low ranking soldiers?) not some individuals that decided to abbuse these people and they where tortured phisically, they even had images of a dog biting in one mans dick, is that not extreme enough to you?

Furthermore the US Army unlike most other military organizations around the world does not pull a veil of secrecy around it's scandals.

Ahahaha, funny that you say that, did you think higher-hand liked it that that abu graib scandal got to the press/media, if it was them nobody would ever know about it, they just blame the soldiers and was there own hands with innosence (spelling?)

 

Why are they misleading???
146 killed in action, 24% of them all where killed by own troops!

When compared to the ammount of troops in the area the ammount killed is nothing. Especially when compared to WWII battles.

Don't compare it to WWII that doesn't make sence!
And in case you didnt know, take a look at this link:
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm

 

Jeffrey wrote:

I don't believe that you seriously do not understand that the very low KIA casualties of the Gulf War was a factor in that percentage being higher than in the past. Had the KIAs from enemy action been much higher (as was expected) then the percentage of friendly fire casualties would have, (as a percentage) been much lower. The number of friendly fire incidents would not likely have changed much because the numbers of friendly troops deployed wouldn't be higher nor would the number of cloase air support sorties..with over 5000 CAS sorties during only 100 hours of ground combat it would not have been physically possible to increase the sortie count by much.
Any one who has read any analysis of friendly fire is aware of this as it has been noted in nearly every report on the subject.

You didn't state how this compares to other countries in similar situations. Merely stating a percentage without anything to compare it to means what exactly?

That link is to a site that is a good example of what is wrong with people ignorant of a subject using nothing but Google to research an historical topic. The percentage stats quoted by the individual that maintains that site cite no sources. The numbers and percentages quoted are much higher than those quoted in nearly every reputable source. The descriptions of individual friendly fire incidents are blank..nothing there..despite the extensive reporting and investigating done by the military and news media. he couldn't even be bothered to find widely available news reports that at least give an overview of each incident listing the units involved and how many were killed in each incident.
That site is pathetic. Lol.

I've seen the video to which you are referring. It is an apache crew attacking Fedayeen forces AFAIK. Do you have better information? If so, where did you obtain it?
Use your head for a minute..think...how do these official gun camera videos get released? They are released by the US Army. Do you think that they would intentionally release a video of the killing of innocent civilian farmers (as you characterize them..for unkown reason) unless they were filing charges against the officers involved? Do you think that the officers involved would privately release the footage (a violation for which they could be court martialed) if it provided evidence that could be used to try and convict them for murder?
Oh please... apply some critical thinking skills to the subject while setting aside your envy/hatred whatever of the US for a moment.

 

When comments have been made highly critical of US forces and claims of first hand knowledge are made people tend to credit those claims even if unsubstantiated. For that reason i am moving this post to the top..if no response if forthcoming, fine but I wish to set the record straight regarding verifiable facts. The British leaders of their forces in the Gulf War were not only in agreement with the raising of the altitude floor during the pre-ground war stage of the conflict but it came about as a direct result of their cancelling their assigned mission due to unacceptably high losses. In other words, it was their idea basically(and a good idea given the circumstances) In any case the directive was changed on Jan. 31 prior to the heating up of the ground war. The A-10 attack on British forces occurred on Feb 26.

Quote:

Where did you obtain this information and what exercise are you referring to?
Have never heard or read a peep about this incident which on it's face seems highly doubtful does it not? A test to determine target recognition..red versus green..couldn't be simpler..the pilots know they are being tested and yet they screw up that simple task? Sounds like more internet urbam legend BS to me however I will keep an open mind..any source(no matter how suspect) pointing to this incident would be nice.

 

''That link is to a site that is a good example of what is wrong with people ignorant of a subject using nothing but Google to research an historical topic.''

Thats your ignorant opinion, you only believe what you want to believe...
DO note that it are friendly-fire deaths AND wounded, they seem to be pretty accurate!


''I've seen the video to which you are referring. It is an apache crew attacking Fedayeen forces AFAIK. Do you have better information? If so, where did you obtain it?''

I can't remember where I got the information neither the video with the General that is looking at the video. How do yuo know they are fedayeen forces, I only see a total of 3 people, one seems to be a farmer, and they really can't see if they are Fadayeen...
There was absolutely no reason to shoot them, if it was a weapons-deal they could have send in ground troops, but nothing aims to a weapon deal, and than how do you explain the killing of the wounded, imo, innocent man?

''Use your head for a minute..think...how do these official gun camera videos get released? They are released by the US Army.''

If they are than they where probably used as evidence in court against these idiot Apache crew!

''You didn't state how this compares to other countries in similar situations. Merely stating a percentage without anything to compare it to means what exactly?''

Don't know, but the number of US friendly-fire incidents do explain that the ''first shoot than think'' tactic is very stupid/dumb and very dangerous, i'm sure the majority of the ff incidents is caused by this ''tactic''

 

Jeffrey wrote:

let me lay it out for you in simple terms Jeffrey; it's not my opinion that no sources are cited for the numbers quoted on that page ...that is a fact.
It's not my opinion that the percentages of friendly fire deaths claimed on that page are much higher than those found on official estimates by the Dept. of Defense..that also is a fact.
For example the author of that website claims that the Gulf War friendly fire percentage was 45% whereas I can find no credible estimate higher than 24% for deaths which translates to a friendly fire incidence of 17% when dead and wounded are taken into account.
You state that the numbers seem to be "pretty accurate"..why do you think that they are "pretty accurate"? Do you claim to have information that the US Dept. of Defense and the investigative journalists lack?

I will give you few links just so you cannot say that I do not cite sources.
I will give you web based cites from credible sources since if I cite books you cannot check for yourself unless you have that book.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/28/MN299907.DTL

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bcis.htm

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1995/steinweg.htm

You indict American soldiers as murderers yet you don't know the circumstances of the video you watched? Troops in battle have a difficult time distinquishing combatants from non-combatants when they don't wear uniforms...yet you, sitting in your house watching a video on the internet know better than the soldiers in the field? The video is shot through a themal weapons sight, at night..how can you make conclusions based on so little evidence?

You have information about what was happening prior to or after the 2 minute video? If not then how are you able to determine they were farmers? How can you be so sure that " nothing aims to a weapons deal"?
What about that short video seen through a thermal gunsight gives you so much insight as to what was occurring in that place and time?
Send in ground troops? Is that your considered military judgement?
What qualifies you to make that judgement?

You make conclusions based on zero evidence and have the gall to call people murderers? You have no clue whether the "wounded imo innocent" man was innocent do you? As to shooting a wounded man in combat..unless he has disarmed himself and is attempting to surrender or is totally incapictated and in your custody then he is still a threat thus still a legitimate target.
How about snipers? Are they required to stop shooting if the enemy drops his weapon as he falls? What about supply vehicles? Carrying ammo and fuel to the front? Are they legitimate targets? Can you attack them from the air or must you stop shooting if you cannot determine if the truck driver is armed?
The fact is Apaches are used to strike deep behind enemy lines when they are not on CAS missions. The place where they attacked those particular enemy troops was likely far from any ground units. Even so no Commander would send ground units into a night attack behind enemy lines at night and without adequate support.
If you knew anything about the tactics used by the US Army you would know that however acquiring facts before jumping to conclusions doesn't appear to be your modus operandi.
You have some strange ideas about war. Much like a person who's concept of war is based on video games or stories of chivalry. War isn't like that.
It's brutal and violent.

Welcome to the real world.

No doubt you think you have the ability to determine from looking through a short video taken through a thermal weapons sight that he was no longer a threat. Yet you have never been in combat, never used a thermal weapons sight, never been fired on my enemy troops, wasn't there at the time this event went down thus not privy to other information that these aircrewmembers might have possessed.

Now you call then idiots? Excuse me but am I debating with a mature person here? There was no court martial of that Apache crew or there would be a public record of the proceedings just as there was with the Apache crew court martialed in a friendly fire incident which was well publicised.

More sureness on your part with zero data or evidence to support it?
Why do you claim that the US forces have a"shoot first then think tactic"?
Where are you getting that erroneous information?
I challenge you to produce a single shred of evidence supporting that thesis. US training manuals, tactical studies etc. are widely distributed and reported on in military journals, magazines and websites. Surely you can produce one item otherwise why would you believe it to be true?

As to the percentages how do you know they are high when compared to other military forces when you do not have the numbers for other countries? It may very well be that the percentages for US forces are half what they are for the British, or the Germans or the Russians..how can you know when you admit you are ignorant of the other countries fratricide rates?

 

I read this at the first link:
a notch below the 17 percent death rate in the 1991 war, according to a 2001 report.

Not wounded accounted...

''You indict American soldiers as murderers yet you don't know the circumstances of the video you watched?''

You can say it was not a murder, so I guess you DO know the circumstances they where in???

''Troops in battle have a difficult time distinquishing combatants from non-combatants when they don't wear uniforms...yet you, sitting in your house watching a video on the internet know better than the soldiers in the field?''

Only thing they had to do:
The pilot hangs in the air keeping the helicopter stable, the gunner has all the time to look what they are doing, they where doing nothing illegal, the video is the evidence they did nothing wrong at the moment, so they had no reason to kill these people.


The video is shot through a themal weapons sight, at night..how can you make conclusions based on so little evidence?

How can you tell its at night, in daylight the thermal images still look exactly the same as in night...

You have information about what was happening prior to or after the 2 minute video? If not then how are you able to determine they were farmers?

In the video I see that they are doing othing wrong, i've seen the long version of the video, did you see the short one?

How can you be so sure that "nothing aims to a weapons deal"?

I can't, and if it was a weapons deal, is that a reason a brutally kill these people? These terrorists and/or fadayeen peeps don't bneed a farmer and 2 other guys to get there hands on some AK's or RPG's, they are widely available and weapons aren't illegal in Iraq!!!!!

''Send in ground troops? Is that your considered military judgement?
What qualifies you to make that judgement?''

THe General looking a the video had te same opinion...
And Everybody can see they could just have send in groundtroops, if it was to far away for groundtroops AND THEY DID something wrong (what imo they didn't) they always could have give a few warnings-shots or destroy the tractor and truck, but no, these trigger-happy idiots had to kill these man...!

''You make conclusions based on zero evidence and have the gall to call people murderers?''

ISN'T VIDEO EVIDENCE ENOUGH FOR YOU!!!?????!!?!?!!

''You have no clue whether the "wounded imo innocent" man was innocent do you? As to shooting a wounded man in combat..unless he has disarmed himself and is attempting to surrender or is totally incapictated and in your custody then he is still a threat thus still a legitimate target.''

OMG...you clearly haven't heard of the convention of Geneva, you are not allowed to kill a wounded ENEMY! SO this alone is a reason to kick these 2 idiots to court!

I saw a heavily wounded man finding cover under a truck, he was NOT ARMED, but they just brutally killed him, thats a clear murder of you can't see that you either want to ''defend'' these 2 american soldiers or you haven't seen the whole video...

Can you attack them from the air or must you stop shooting if you cannot determine if the truck driver is armed?

If the supplies are for enemy military than its of military importants to take these targets out, but 3 unarmed man with a tractor and truck don't look like a military target do they...?

How about snipers? Are they required to stop shooting if the enemy drops his weapon as he falls?

If the enemy is wounded, yes they are not allowed to kill him.

fact is Apaches are used to strike deep behind enemy lines when they are not on CAS missions. The place where they attacked those particular enemy troops was likely far from any ground units.

Cool stryking at some farmer and 2 other unarmed man...
Now i'm gonna talk like you:
How do you know if they where far from grounds units, do you have any evidence of this?


You have some strange ideas about war. Much like a person who's concept of war is based on video games or stories of chivalry. War isn't like that.
It's brutal and violent.

Welcome to the real world.

Yeah right, and you are THE guy that knows EVERYTHING about the US army and can tell behind his computer that it was not a murder although the video proofs atleast 1 of 3 kills IS in fact (Geneva convention) a muder...

Don't talk me i'm just a little kid that plays video-games, i'm older than that and have already had soe military experience, so stop this dumb american way of bashing it only proofs that YOU are the immature kid that based his ''facts'' on video-games. Don't talk like you are some military expert or something...

No doubt you think you have the ability to determine from looking through a short video taken through a thermal weapons sight that he was no longer a threat. Yet you have never been in combat, never used a thermal weapons sight, never been fired on my enemy troops, wasn't there at the time this event went down thus not privy to other information that these aircrewmembers might have possessed.

Yes, everybody can see he didn't form a threat, and I still looking for this video where a US ARMY (because he is american you will probably either change your mind or say he is crazy...) General is comentary the video, he agrees with me.

More sureness on your part with zero data or evidence to support it?
Why do you claim that the US forces have a"shoot first then think tactic"?

GO and have a look at www.google.com and type in ''us army shoot first than ask questions tactic'' or something similar to that!

As to the percentages how do you know they are high when compared to other military forces when you do not have the numbers for other countries?

There isn't much information available about other countries firndly-fire percentages, I guess thats because the US is about the only one willing to fight wars because they want to ''increase the peace in this world'' at this point they only making it worse for everybody and still they have the nerves to tell other countries that they have to retreat there forces.....

BTW, the US also told us (Netherlands) that they would probably attack us if we court any US soldiers in our international court (because they know there will be alot of US soldiers in international court than...) who do they think they are sayng this kind of things?

With this kind of attitude they must watch there steps or the the UN and NAVO will trow them out!

 

Interesting, the tractor was actually plowing his farmland!

Need more prove?

Go to www.google.com and search for ''apache killing iraqi civilians''

Look at this one:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284086.html

The short version and the long version, it is totally clear now that it his a brutal murder by an Apache crew witch have no right to be in any army!

Also look at the third video in this link, look how these ''smart talking'' soldiers talk about war and deal with wounded man...:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/286153.html


Also when you scroll down you will read comments of several experts and the General: Commentary:
We show these photographs to a former general of the US army. Above all one scene is remarkable to him:

Voiceover from General Robert Gard, US Army (translation):

"According to the pilot the Iraqi resistance fighter is wounded. Nevertheless, the instruction is to kill him. I think it would have made more sense much to arrest the wounded one, and interrogate him. But completely apart from that: the killing of a disabled, wounded opponent is forbidden. According to the Geneva convention, that’s murder."

 

Also note this:

Sound with subtitles:
"Hit him."
"Got him."
"Good."
"Second one."
"Hit the other one."
"Hit the truck."
"Go to the right, see if anyone's moving by the truck."
"Take the trucks out?"
"Is there anybody in the truck? Wait for movement."
"Have not seen any."

Commentary:
Then nevertheless, another person moves.

Sound with subtitles:
"Store that - auto range store."
"There's another guy moving, right there."
"Good. Fire."
"Hit him."
"Target 4."
"We take the other truck out?"
"Roger."
"Wait for movement by the truck."
"Movement right there."
"Roger."
"He's wounded."
"Hit him."
"He's in the truck."
"Hit the truck and him."
"Go forward of it and hit him."

Go and read everything on this website and tha cme back and say what you think, the US Army has alot to do about there soldiers they much watch more carefully to what kind of people they take in there army, I don't call these soldiers professional!
"Roger."

 

If the enemy is wounded, yes they are not allowed to kill him.

Actually that is not entirely true. They are only disallowed from continuing to fire on a wounded man if he is "hors de combat" because of his wounds, if he continues trying to escape or continues to attempt to fight he is not "hors de combat" and therefore has no specific protection under the Geneva Convention.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

A useful link for those who wish to quote or refer to the Geneva Convention.

The website mentions that this is a warcrime according to an anonymous German Lawyer, personally I'm not entirely sure and in any case the lawyer concerned isn't even quoted, his or her opinion is just refered to.

In a guerilla war there are no obvious non-combatants.

My computer is clearly one of the ones that does not allow you to see the full length video, but there are some things I would like to pick up on.

First off I heard shortly before the firing starts what appeared to be the sounds of shots, crucially whilst the gunsite is over one running figure. This would appear to me to suggest one of two things, either the gunship crew fired warning shots and the "Innocent Farmers" failed to stop or surrender (Unlikely as there are no explosions in the dirt as there are for the other shots) or that the sound is from a different action to the video.

With that in mind, and as I have no idea what was going on before the video began, I would personally be wary of leaping to the conclusion that this shows a cold-blooded murder and would be wary of referring to the helicopter crew as idiots or murderers.

Also look at the third video in this link, look how these ''smart talking'' soldiers talk about war and deal with wounded man...:

I've seen the video and listened to the comments. A few things occur to me here as well, you do not see what went on before the video starts, crucially you do not see whether the man was instructed to surrender, although he (clearly to me) is not attempting to make clear he is surrendering.

In a war where people will detonate explosives strapped to themselves in order to take a few Americans with them, I personally would not take the chance that whilst this guy was "writhing on the floor" he was not also pulling the pin out of a grenade waiting for an American medic to come over to him so that he could take one more Yankee with him.

In the situation the Marine was in, personally I would shoot the Iraqi rather than place myself in any additional danger.

Do they appear to revel in the killing? Yes, but so what? That isn't against any Law I'm aware of. Whether it's because of BS machismo, a big front, still hyped on Adrenalin, or because he really did enjoy killing the man, it doesn't really matter - there is nothing illegal in that, and what goes on in the head of a man fighting a war and facing death or mutilation is a matter for him, his CO and his psychiatrist, not the media.

 

Actually that is not entirely true. They are only disallowed from continuing to fire on a wounded man if he is "hors de combat" because of his wounds, if he continues trying to escape or continues to attempt to fight he is not "hors de combat" and therefore has no specific protection under the Geneva Convention.


From The Geneva Convention 3-1: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria

If he is still firing but wounded that ofcoyurse its another story.
If he is lying on the ground not moving with its weapon in its hands you are not allowed to shoot him.


First off I heard shortly before the firing starts what appeared to be the sounds of shots, crucially whilst the gunsite is over one running figure.

If you listen(ed) carefully you would have come to the conclusion that it was the 30mm canon that fired, I didn't here him say that he had entered the gun on ''close range'' shooting, in the long version you do hear him saying this (can't get acces to the small version so I can't listen to it again)
So thats a clear explanation.

This would appear to me to suggest one of two things, either the gunship crew fired warning shots and the "Innocent Farmers" failed to stop or surrender (Unlikely as there are no explosions in the dirt as there are for the other shots) or that the sound is from a different action to the video.

As explained above it was the 30mm (35mm???) of the Apache, and as you could see the 3 Iraqi's where completely surprised by the Apache, they didn't know they did anything wrong, and they didn't to anything wrong...


With that in mind, and as I have no idea what was going on before the video began, I would personally be wary of leaping to the conclusion that this shows a cold-blooded murder and would be wary of referring to the helicopter crew as idiots or murderers.

...Its a triple murder, haven't you read the comments of the General and the experts or something???


Do they appear to revel in the killing? Yes, but so what? That isn't against any Law I'm aware of. Whether it's because of BS machismo, a big front, still hyped on Adrenalin, or because he really did enjoy killing the man, it doesn't really matter - there is nothing illegal in that, and what goes on in the head of a man fighting a war and facing death or mutilation is a matter for him, his CO and his psychiatrist, not the media.

I can't believe you are saying this, are you american to or something?
Again: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT AN INJURED MAN, so also if there is the risk of him boobytrapping himself than they have to call the bomb-squad, they will come over with a robot and look if he is boobytrapped. I know it sucks, but you have to work with the rules of the Geneva Convention, you can't always work with these rules but in this case they could have warned a bomb-squad.
Iguess this imo rather dumb-talking soldier(s) didn't care of 1 Iraqi more or less, but the media does care and the Iraqi people also DO care, imo this is a typical example of unprofessional behaviour, our soldiers are learned NOT TO TALK TO THE MEDIA BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU ARE ONLY MAKING IT WORSE FOR YOURSELF, YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS AND THE MEDIA LOVES THIS KIND OF WORDS FROM A ''PROFESSIONAL'' SOLDIERS AND ITS A GOOD ANTI-AMERICA VIDEO FOR aL QAIDA the soldiers interviewed should have been releaved of his function in the Army.


The Geneva Convention is a pain in the ass for the US (Army), now they can't kill every Iraqi they encounter anymore...

The International Crime court would have been a BIG pain in the ass for the US (Army) if they didn't treatened to attack The Netherlands if we would bring US soldiers to court:

Normally this would be a case which would have to be examined before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. But the present ICC agreement was never ratified by the US government.


Again, they where both a murder, the Apache triple murder was the worst of the 2, I can udnerstand the second as I can't understand the comments of the soldier...was he on drugs or something???

 

From The Geneva Convention 3-1: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria

If he is still firing but wounded that ofcoyurse its another story.
If he is lying on the ground not moving with its weapon in its hands you are not allowed to shoot him.

No, if he has a gun and does not disarm himself he is still a combatant and still a legitimate target. Only if he disarms himself and surrenders, or is physically incapable of fighting is he no longer a legitimate target.

This is the kind of logic that hamstrings soldiers in real situations and places their lives in danger, by your logic an insurgent could empty his AK47 magazine at an American position, then throw away his gun, preventing the US soldiers from retaliating since he is no longer an armed combarant.

That's ridiculous. That's the sort of absurd logic that allows a burglar to sue the occupants of a house he breaks into because he injured himself doing so.

If you listen(ed) carefully you would have come to the conclusion that it was the 30mm canon that fired, I didn't here him say that he had entered the gun on ''close range'' shooting, in the long version you do hear him saying this (can't get acces to the small version so I can't listen to it again)
So thats a clear explanation.

Where's the tracer? The cannon shells follow the line of the gunsight, if it had fired high where are the shots? They would still be visable. It's not a clear explanation at all.

To be completely honest we're all assuming that this comes from an Apache because the website said it did. That Video footage could have come from any helicopter gunship, it could be from a Hind in Chechnya for all we know, it could be from an Iraqi Hind against Kurdish Rebels after the first Gulf War! With a bit of appropriate US Radio chatter over the top who would know any different?

As explained above it was the 30mm (35mm???) of the Apache, and as you could see the 3 Iraqi's where completely surprised by the Apache, they didn't know they did anything wrong, and they didn't to anything wrong...

30mm. They weren't surprised at all, they just carried on with their business, then suddenly for no apparent reason one bolted toward a vehicle.

...Its a triple murder, haven't you read the comments of the General and the experts or something???

What do you mean? I have read that in the opinion of an anonymous German Lawyer it was a warcrime (Although the Lawyer is not even quoted, this is just what we're told is their opinion), and an apparent quote from the General having apparently seen the footage.

I do not know what questions he was asked, I do not know what else he said and I am not going to take a single paragraph that may be being quoted out of context (Not saying that it was, just it might have been!) and an apparent opinion as "Expert" testimony on anything.

I can't believe you are saying this, are you american to or something?
Again: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT AN INJURED MAN, so also if there is the risk of him boobytrapping himself than they have to call the bomb-squad, they will come over with a robot and look if he is boobytrapped. I know it sucks, but you have to work with the rules of the Geneva Convention, you can't always work with these rules but in this case they could have warned a bomb-squad.

Yes, you are allowed to shoot wounded combatants if you believe that they are still capable of resistance and are not surrendering.

No, I am not American, try reading the bar at the side of the Forum. For me it says "Kent, UK". In my case I'm just getting slightly fed up with US-Bashing, and those who criticise the actions of soldiers in combat from the safety of their computer screens at home.

I wouldn't give a damn about the strict interpretations of the Geneva Convention if I were a soldier in combat in a country where the enemy kidnaps civilians and video tapes themself sawing their heads off with butcher's knives!

You cannot call out the bomb-squad to every wounded enemy combatant who is not obviously surrendering in this situation. What you can do is treat them like the threat to your own life they are and deal with them accordingly.

If he had thrown away his weapons, if he had put his hands up, if he had just laid still, then maybe... but he didn't he made no obvious efforts to surrender and was shot as any enemy soldier would be in that situation.

No-one in that situation is going to risk their own life to check whether he's really wounded, really disarmed, or really just faking it.

That's just war, it's not pretty, it's not nice and sometimes people get killed who perhaps don't deserve to.

Iguess this imo rather dumb-talking soldier(s) didn't care of 1 Iraqi more or less, but the media does care and the Iraqi people also DO care, imo this is a typical example of unprofessional behaviour, our soldiers are learned NOT TO TALK TO THE MEDIA BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU ARE ONLY MAKING IT WORSE FOR YOURSELF, YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS AND THE MEDIA LOVES THIS KIND OF WORDS FROM A ''PROFESSIONAL'' SOLDIERS AND ITS A GOOD ANTI-AMERICA VIDEO FOR aL QAIDA the soldiers interviewed should have been releaved of his function in the Army.

Yes. One thing at least we can agree on is that it's good anti-American propaganda, and doubtless is being used in terrorist training camps as we type!

The soldiers should have it drummed into them not to talk to the media, ever. But then the media crews should not be allowed that close to front line IMO.

The Geneva Convention is a pain in the ass for the US (Army), now they can't kill every Iraqi they encounter anymore...

That's a ridiculous comment, if they wanted to do that they could and would have just carpet bombed Iraq into non-existence. They didn't so work the rest out for yourself.

The International Crime court would have been a BIG pain in the ass for the US (Army) if they didn't treatened to attack The Netherlands if we would bring US soldiers to court:

When has the US threatened to attack the Netherlands? I haven't heard about it, it would cause WW3 if they seriously tried to attack a European Country and the US knows it!

Normally this would be a case which would have to be examined before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. But the present ICC agreement was never ratified by the US government.

Again, they where both a murder, the Apache triple murder was the worst of the 2, I can udnerstand the second as I can't understand the comments of the soldier...was he on drugs or something???

No he was scared, hyped on adrenalin and stressed. Few people completely make sense under those circumatances. I doubt I would.

If the present ICC agreement would allow soldiers to be tried for killing enemy combatants then I think the US was right not to ratify it.

 

This is the kind of logic that hamstrings soldiers in real situations and places their lives in danger, by your logic an insurgent could empty his AK47 magazine at an American position, then throw away his gun, preventing the US soldiers from retaliating since he is no longer an armed combarant.

I didn't say that, I said that when he is firing at you and you injure him, and when you can clearly see he is injured BUT still got his gun in its hands you are not allowed to kill him, maybe he can't comply with your demands because he can't hear you...


Where's the tracer? The cannon shells follow the line of the gunsight, if it had fired high where are the shots? They would still be visable. It's not a clear explanation at all.

You don't understand, he used his magnification on his thermal-sight, he accidently set the cannon on close range, but the civilians where at long range, so he shot his cannon on short-range so you can't see the tracers, it fired low below the angle of the thermal-sights. So it IS a clear explenation...

To be completely honest we're all assuming that this comes from an Apache because the website said it did. That Video footage could have come from any helicopter gunship, it could be from a Hind in Chechnya for all we know, it could be from an Iraqi Hind against Kurdish Rebels after the first Gulf War! With a bit of appropriate US Radio chatter over the top who would know any different?

OMG, you are naive, that doesn't make sence, than every video of hellfires or some other kind of missiles could have been from Russian gunships or airplanes, this way you could turn every single video in the world around! Do you seriously believe thats not a US Apache crew on the video? Did you even boughter to read the comments of the US Army General or the military experts???

''30mm. They weren't surprised at all, they just carried on with their business, then suddenly for no apparent reason one bolted toward a vehicle.''

Its like you are talking about another video!
OKay, I agree THE FIRST ONE COULDN'T BE SURPRISED AT ALL BECAUSE 2 APACHE CREW IDIOTS BLEW HIM IN 300 PIECES!, you can see how 1 searches cover behind the tractor and one underneed the truck, so what do you mean ''the just carried on with their business, did you forgot the fact that they all died in this murder?

In my case I'm just getting slightly fed up with US-Bashing, and those who criticise the actions of soldiers in combat from the safety of their computer screens at home.

Can't you come up with another useless fact, those army experts that haven't seen any action in reallife ad that US General, don't they know where they are talking about????? that is what you are saying right now!

No he was scared, hyped on adrenalin and stressed. Few people completely make sense under those circumatances. I doubt I would.

Aha really scared he sounded...
"Like, man, you guys are dead now, you know. But it was a good feeling. I mean, afterwards you're like, hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let's do it again."

really scared Simonr1978, really scared...

Voiceover from General Robert Gard: (translation)
"I consider this inexcusable. This didn’t happened in the center of wild combat. This was the cold-blooded murder of a severely wounded person."

Now, stop putting every piece of prove/evidence/military expert and General opinions aside and just admit that they where wrong and should be in jail, both the idiot APache crew and that sick soldier that is a damn coward killing a man lying down bleeding to death and that saying ''it was a good feeling'' what a sick fuck!

And this is not bashing, i'm just saying some US soldiers have a strange way of dealing with some things...

 

Also note them saying this:

''big truck over here, he's having a little pow-wow."
"Yeah."
So this guy just had trouble wih its truck engine or something...

Everything aims to a brutal murder and you guys just don't see it!

The pictures - surely only one snapshot from the reality. A final judgement could be undertaken only after an exact investigation. But the US Department of Defense refuses all comment in relation to PANORAMA.

LOL, no comments, they clearly got something to hide...

Also take a look at this:

Now German TV broadcaster NDR have done an investigation, and shown both the video clips to a US Lieutenant General and a German expert in international law. They describe what they see as evidence of a war crime.


Full article:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story823.shtml

Now don't gonna find all kind of stupid no sence making arguments because you ain't proving anything, only trying to tell the experts and the General where both wrong and you know it all better...

Did you have enough evidence now Grieg?