Rules of Engagement: Videotape Shows U.S. Helicopter Crew Firing on Iraqis

[Barrett808]

Rules of Engagement
Videotape Shows U.S. Helicopter Crew Firing on Suspected Iraqi Insurgents
By Martha Raddatz
ABCNEWS.com

Jan. 9— Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that often determine life and death in Iraq.

The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.

The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

...

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

(more)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/apache_video_040109.html

[StClone]

1. Saw it

Sobering, sickening, Un-American, inhuman, unnecessary, illegal?

[DemoTex]

2. R.O.E.

Always nebulus. Always bad. Always hard to define. Been there, done that.

[StClone]

3. The wounded man

Was no longer a theat. SOP more like against International Law & Geneva Convention. Some day Americans may disintegrate under a hell ship of cannon fire. GSU.

[NWHarkness]

5. The wounded man was executed

It was a war crime. Period.

[kalian]

6. Exactly....

it was like that other incident where US Marines shot and killed the
Iraqi insurgent that had been wounded. No excuses. This was a war
crime.

[AromaticSocks]

12. I doubt it

American soldiers are not criminals and they have a job to do.

If you can do better then head on over there.

[Ms. Clio]

14. you first

And I doubt it will be up to you to judge whether war crimes were committed or not.

[AromaticSocks]

39. Been there pal

When the enemy fails to yield they die. Very simple algorithm.

[Ms. Clio]

45. sure you have, bub

And I got this reeeeeeelllly smart Wall Street friend (with a PhD and everything!) who gave me the inside scoop on the FANTASTIC job growth we can expect over the next few months that will just SINK all our chances to dethrone Bush.

[mouse7]

51. That algorithm equals war crime charges

You cannot attack enemy troops too injured to put up an effective defense, whether they "yield" or not.

[NNN0LHI]

68. Is that you William? William Calley, is that you here at DU?

Hows the pawn shop business doing?

Don

[Devils Advocate NZ]

70. When a man is lying wounded on the ground, without a weapon...

he HAS yielded!

But, I am glad you see it that way, because now any Iraqis that decide to kill wounded Americans can rest assured that they are not commiting a war crime!

[Soloflecks]

75. They weren't failing to yield.

They were just going about their business. The war is illegal and anything we do there is also illegal. Tantamount to homocide. Go back to Freeperville.

[maryallen]

89. "Billy Joe Bad-ass,"

Is that you?

[NickB79]

19. Yep, no criminals there

Out of 125,000 people over there in Iraq, every one of them is a certified Boyscout or Girlscout.

There are no criminals in the US military, is that what you're saying? Even when on US bases, there are no reports of thefts, rapes, or murders among US troops, is that what you're saying? Gee, I seem to recall at least 4 US soldiers coming home from Afghanistan and MURDERING their wifes last year. Or the NUMEROUS reports of rapes of female personnel by fellow male soldiers that arise every year that are never followed up on. Oh, or the at least 3 soldiers discharged just a few days ago for beating an Iraqi prisoner while he was chained and curled up on the ground begging for mercy. Nope, not criminals, no way, just not possible.

Oh, and since when did the job of American soldiers become to illegally invade a country that posed NO THREAT to the US and kill at least 10,000 civilians over LIES about mythical WMD? That's not the job friends of mine signed up for.

[AromaticSocks]

36. After you have been in battle get back to me

Right now I support our soldiers 100%. If you don't then that is your problem.

[NickB79]

46. Ah yes, the old testosterone challenge

"Ya gotta kill somethin' to be a man, boy." Did you even read my post? Are you implying that, since soldiers see death around them, they get a free pass whenever they kill someone? Do you support the those 4 soldiers who killed their wives last summer? Do you support the troops who rape female soldiers? I need to be in a battle before I can understand that, if you wound an enemy soldier, its ok to then kill him rather than give him medical support? Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather keep my morals and not murder a wounded man who just got clipped by a 30-mm ANTI-TANK round! Odd, the Iraqis who wounded Jessica Lynch and her crew had been in battle yet didn't feel the need to kill her and the others wounded with her. They actually thought it might be a good idea to take her to, get this, a hospital! Imagine that, treating wounded enemy soldiers in your own hospital. How absolutely.....humane of them.

BTW, how can you support all the troops all the time 100%? That would imply that no US soldier can ever do wrong or commit a crime. These are human beings we're talking about though, not fictional, romanticized characters from a classical war novel. This is the real world. Here troops are human, and they can falter and fail just like anyone else. This can and does involve things such as war crimes and murder.

[mouse7]

55. Oh, SPARE ME your X-Box first person shooter horsecrap!

The "when the enemy fails to yield, they die" line is from from one of the current crop of first person shooter games. I can't remember if it's one of the Clancy games or that free US Army download game "America's Army."

The only thing saying that line proves you've seen is the basement of your mother's house while your mother screams down the stairs at you to stop playing video games and get a damn job.

[Malva Zebrina]

61. support them if you like, most here have said they also support them

and the best way to do that is to bring them home, -- now

Iraq will be in a turmoil for years--Bush saw to it in his eagerness to use our soldiers to bomb and kill somewhere bewteen five and ten thousands according to estimates (he won't admit how many civilians got in his way on the road to the oil fields) that plans on what to do after the invasion were lacking coherency and lacking in foresight, compassion and a willingess to help Iraq people back on their feet. This has contributed to the deaths of five hundred , almost, of our soldiers, as the resistance becomes enraged over each atrocity the soldiers commit on civilians, such as, recently, the shelling of a home "suspected" to be the home of a resistance fighter, killing the mother and the father , a la Sharon, and leaving the five children who survived the shelling, orphans.

this is not war or firing on the enemy--this is animal barbarism and attitudes gone amok. The US has, surely the onus to stop this barbarism--we have the billions and billions of dollars worth of the highest technology possible, while these, the conquored, have perhaps a few mortars and a rifle.

You mean to tell me we cannot do better than shell a home with our superior state of the art weaponry, a home that contains children, because of a 'suspicion' and that suspicion turns out, was probably false?

[Zhade]

88. Good work, Citizen!

You are doing your president - The Traitor - proud by accepting wholesale the lies that "justified" this illegal invasion and occupation.

My father did 24 years, AFSOC, and he would not agree with your infantile "support" of war crimes.

But please, continue your willing blindness. After all, it's only completely unAmerican and unpatriotic to support the traitors in the White House. Your arrogant ignorance only gets soldiers and Iraqis killed, so please, do continue.

[Toucano]

26. Did you see the footage?

These men were executed because the soldiers "believed" they "probably" had weapons!

Setting aside the criminal aspect for a moment, does anyone else realize that by executing them without a trial, our regime lost the opportunity to interrogate them?

Where were the alleged weapons going? Where did they come from? Will the person they were taking the alleged weapons to get someone else to haul them?

How many US soldiers will die because we couldn't take the risk of capturing these suspects?

As if being immoral and illegal weren't enough, the US regime in Iraq doesn't even have enough sense to protect itself by looking at the big picture. It's just 360 degrees of wrong.

[AromaticSocks]

35. Been there done that

Get back to me after you have seen battle.

[NickB79]

50. You've shot men who were wounded and trying to crawl away?

Ah yes, revel us with the war stories:

"You see children, I'd just blown the legs off this gook with a grenade, but he was attempting to crawl away. I knew he was just gonna crawl a mile back to his base camp, grab a new rifle by his teeth, and come crawl back out and try to kill me by pulling the trigger with his tongue. Those commie gooks are evil like that. So, fearing for my life, I shot him in the back of the head 5 times. It was self-defense, I swear!"

[mouse7]

56. Been on an X-Box, Done played FPS video games, you mean

I know it's hard to keep it straight in ones mind that playing a video game does not mean you've actually done something.

[atreides1]

74. I Have

I was in Desert Storm, with the 101st Airborne. Now where have you been and what have you done, and the X-Box games don't count.

Killing a wounded man when he no longer has the ability to threaten you is murder under the Maunals of Courts Martial, it is also a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. Yes I did pull duty in an US Army JAG office for 60 days, and was an operations NCO for 2
years while assigned to the 4th ID when it was stationed at Ft Carson.
I never realized how interesting the MCM was until I read it.

Now I'm sure you're going to reply with the "Support the Troops" mantra, but that one's a little worn out. I do support the troops, but I will not support criminal behavior that has been disguised as
military necessity. And each soldier who follows an illegal order without question is a criminal.

You have a point when you make your case about UN personnel and Iraqi
civilians, they should not be targeted. As for the Iraqi police they
can be considered to be collaborators by the insurgents/resistance fighters. And we all know what the French Maquis did to collaborators,
it's pretty much the same thing that has happened to collaborators
throughout history.

The Coalition military forces on the other hand are legal targets, and
the insurgents can attack them at any time. What incidents like this lead to is tit for tat. The next time an American soldier is caught his or her captors will use the same train of thought that is being applied to them by the coalition military forces. And we, the US will
not have a MORAL leg to stand on.

[falcon]

78. I have!

20th combat engineers Vietnam. Ben Het, Dak to, Pleiku. Where did you do battle ?

[mouse7]

49. We're the ones that want the troops home.

Remember, us sushi-eating, belly-button piercing, Volvo-driving, latte drinkers want all the troops home from a country that was never an imminent threat to America, and never had any WoMD to threaten us with.

I know all those details can get confusing.

[TheLastMohican]

58. I might agree with you

Since US troops managed to piss off nearly 95% of Sunnis it is advisable for all US soldiers to treat them all as hostiles, women and children included. We are not talking about morals now, since we have forgotten about them a long time ago.
There is a fact: US is fighting a guerilla war.
There is another fact: anybody can shoot you in the back in a guerilla war.
There are two rules that come out in a guerrilla war:
1) you treat surrounding people nice and later they come slit your throat in the night, you lose the guerrilla war;
2)you treat surrounding people as hostiles and shoot everyone on site whether male, female, or child. Later your throat is still slit by those who will avenge the deaths of their comrades and relatives, you lose the guerrilla war.
So it is a lose-lose situation, and I can't blame the troops for picking up scenario #2. The main evil man sits in the White house, I want to see his ass in the line of fire, chanting all those "bring 'em on, rah-rah", "you are hanging with Audie Murphy, my man" type of things.

[The Stranger]

79. No, American soldiers are subject to international law and rules of

engagement just like everyone else. If they are violating these then they are not doing their job. If they are found to have violated international law and rules of engagement, then they would indeed be criminals.

[Sapphocrat]

92. Two words for you: My Lai n/t

[rman]

63. ROE may be a bit fuzzy at times, stil matters what the rules are;

ie

- "engage" only if fired upon

- engage if enemy spotted

- fire at will


Now combine any of these with the presence of civilians, and observe the results.

[wtmusic]

4. Yeah, those tubes can be dangerous

* Could be a shoulder-fired missile.
* Could be building a really big pipe bomb in the middle of a field.
* Could be sewer-building terrorists.
* Could be irrigating terrorists.
* Could be terrorists interested in astronomy.
* Could be terrorists hiding evidence of Iraq's long-range missile program.

Ya can't be too safe...

[Emillereid]

7. The bottom line is that it's their country --

we have no business being there putting ourselves in 'harm's way.' Period!

[Dhalgren]

8. Goddamn.

That's all I can say. Goddamn.

[JasonDeter]

9. I'd rather Iraqi insurgents die than any more American soldiers.

Whether we like it or not we're in a war and the Iraqi's are either a friend or an enemy. The Iraqi's had better start choosing wisely.

[Dhalgren]

10. If they were insurgents, maybe.

But it's hard to justify going around gunning down farmers out in their fields and then killing a wounded man on the ground on the chance that they might be "evil doers". I don't know, maybe if we weren't there, these choices wouldn't have to be made.

[JasonDeter]

13. Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them

"Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they have a right to interfere with that," he said.
....................

I agree. And if they're not insurgents what are they?

[Barrett808]

16. Just about everybody in Iraq has weapons

So, they could be just about anybody.

[homelandpunk]

22. "If they are not insurgents, what are they"?? KEE-riced

Oh I don't know....some thought on what they are:
-Former laborers in an occupied country.
-A suicide-by-cop pact trio.
-Murder victims.

I think it was the second of the three...

[NickB79]

23. Insurgent or not, they executed a wounded man

Even if he were an "insurgent", it is illegal under numerous international laws, particularly Geneva, to execute wounded enemy combatants.

Hell, look at the Jessica Lynch incident. There, these horrible, evil, terrorist-Iraqis TOOK THE WOUNDED US SOLDIERS TO A HOSPITAL! The Iraqi soldiers actually showed more humanity in that instance than we did here. What would the US reaction have been if, instead of getting those wounded soldiers medical attention, the Iraqi soldiers had just put a bullet in each one of their heads? You think the US would say "oh well, war is hell"? No, we'd be screaming about it to everyone who would listen and we'd see Bush on TV saying this proves how inhumane and evil the Iraqis are and why we must invade Iraq.

[kayell]

67. I haven't seen any confirmation or actual proof of weapons

merely a grainy video of a tube shaped object. As a poster above implied: telescope?, water drill?, irrigation pipe? (more on truck?), pole driver? The troops assumed weapon because that is their context, but there are plenty of tubular objects that could legitimately be used in a field. And spare me the "it was at night" bit, because sometime you just have to get the work done on a farm, no matter what the o'clock.

Did anyone ever bother to go check what those people actually were carrying?

[Eloriel]

11. The Iraqi's had better start choosing wisely.

What, or we'll kill them?

Eloriel

[JasonDeter]

15. War is hell. eom

[Ms. Clio]

17. they didn't choose the war

We chose the war. What, should they lay down and die because we want their oil?

[JasonDeter]

28. So then they're justified in killing American soldiers, UN workers

aid workers, and innocent Iraqi people?

[Ms. Clio]

30. quit lumping all those groups together

An occupying force is a legitimate military target; a civilian is not.

[JasonDeter]

31. So then an American life is worth less than a UN worker or

Aid worker or innocent Iraqi civilian?

[Ms. Clio]

32. you're the one obsessed with the "worth" of people based on nationality

I think everybody has the same right to life, American or Iraqi.

[JasonDeter]

38. Ok, lets simplify. Its ok to you

if these "ordinary Iraqi's" blow up, maim or otherwise KILL their fellow citizens? You are aware they're doing that aren't you?

[Ms. Clio]

43. You just keep missing the point--is it deliberate?

Nick has already made it--the Iraqis are dealing with the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign force, and one that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of their citizens. Would those attacks on the so-called "police" be occurring right now if we had not invaded the country? SOME of the targets have been Iraqis, yes, but they generally appear to be those who are perceived as collaborators with a hostile invading force. I already said I don't think attacks on civilians are acceptable, but then were the French Resistance attacks on their fellow citizen "collaborators" during WW2 justifiable? When American colonists tarred and feathered and even killed some Tory sympathizers during the Revolution, was that justifiable? I don't think so, but perhaps YMMV.

[JasonDeter]

47. No I refuse to condemn our soldiers who are following orders

and excuse terraists (as you call them) who are murdering innocent Iraqis, innocent UN workers, innocent Aid workers and above all murdering our brave soldiers. You can believe what you want but I don't buy it. I agree bush* lied and put our soldiers in harms way based on a lie but these soldiers can do nothing about that. They are in a war and they are fighting for their lives and it breaks my heart that some on them are dying for bush* lies. I guess you just want them to lie down and let these so called 'ordinary Iraqis' kill and maim them? You want the soldiers to do what? Your position perplexes me and frankly pisses me off. So nite nite.

[Ms. Clio]

48. sorry you couldn't respond to my historical analogies

Sigh.

[Occulus]

86. Wow.

"No I refuse to condemn our soldiers who are following orders and excuse terraists (as you call them) who are murdering innocent Iraqis, innocent UN workers, innocent Aid workers and above all murdering our brave soldiers."

What a good German you are. No offense to Germans intended.

So, you don't believe the Geneva Convention ought to have any authority? I'm just curious.

[Zhade]

91. Utter bullshit.

"No I refuse to condemn our soldiers who are following orders..."

No worries - the traitors in the White House already condemned them by sending them off to an illegal invasion and occupation of a country that posed absolutely zero threat to us - and this was known before the invasion. So, you're off the hook as far as condemning them. It's too late - they've been sold up the river by BushCo.

"...and excuse terraists (as you call them) who are murdering innocent Iraqis, innocent UN workers, innocent Aid workers and above all murdering our brave soldiers."

No one is excusing the murder of the above groups. However, you must realize the reality, as painful as it is, that "our brave soldiers" are not being murdered. They are being killed.

There is a difference. The soldiers, being an illegal foreign occupying force, are unfortunately legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention and other rules of combat. I do not like this (which is why I, like others here, protested mightily to prevent them from going to Iraq in the first place), but it is the reality of the situation. I want our troops home, NOW, before any more people on either side die for the lies spun by the Bush administration.

"I agree bush* lied and put our soldiers in harms way based on a lie but these soldiers can do nothing about that."

And here I say - BULLSHIT.

Ever heard of free will? Conscientious objection? Humanity? They can refuse to commit a war crime every time the possibility comes up. To not avoid doing so is to consciously commit a heinous act.

"They are in a war and they are fighting for their lives and it breaks my heart that some on them are dying for bush* lies."

Us, too. We never wanted them there, unlike some who clamored for the war from the safety and security of knowing they'd never have to fight. Well, that's changing - the draft is coming back, so maybe these idiot armchair warriors (who would probably piss themselves in real combat) can join up and prove their amazing patriotism. :eyes:

"I guess you just want them to lie down and let these so called 'ordinary Iraqis' kill and maim them?"

Clearly, the poster does not want that. Try to actually debate the topic, not throw up straw men to deflect attention from the fact that your arguments are weak and flawed.

"You want the soldiers to do what?"

I do think the poster, like most of us, WANT THEM TO COME HOME.

"Your position perplexes me and frankly pisses me off. So nite nite."

The truth hurts, huh?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

72. Yes - if it is an American soldier. After all, war is hell!

Isn't that what you said? War is hell? Well, US soldiers can now no longer expect to be taken prisoner and can expect summary execution if wounded in battle. There have been at least two such executions by US soldiers televised, how many have not been televised?

Yep, it's open season on US soldiers now!

You see, many morons can't figure out that the laws of war have a purpose - they are an extension of "do unto others..." The idea is that all combatants agree to a set standard of conduct with the idea that war does not turn into genocide.

But now the US is breaking those treaties, so US soldiers can no longer expect any better treatment than they dish out.

[The Stranger]

80. If someone invades your country, comes into your home with weapons

pointed at your face, are you going to smile at them and tell them you love them? What about when they take members of your family hostage and torture and kill them?

Remember, according to your post, if you strike back it would be unjustified.

Now that is what I thought.

[0007]

64. So is the Commander in Chief

[NickB79]

18. Why?

Seriously, why is the life of an Iraqi man worth less than the life of a US man? And the big difference is, WE invaded THEIR country ILLEGALLY. If a foreign country invaded the US tomorrow, and the roles were reversed, wouldn't you support an insurgency movement to fight against the invaders?

"The Iraqi's had better start choosing wisely."

They have chosen wisely, to fight for their freedom.

[JasonDeter]

21. If only the world was that black and white.

[NickB79]

24. Oh, do explain further

What exactly about my post was so hard to comprehend? You never answered my questions:

Is the life of an Iraqi man worth less than the life of a US man, and if so, why?

If the US were in the position of the Iraqi people, would you fight, why or why not?

[JasonDeter]

27. The life of an Iraqi man

planning to kill an American soldier, or an innocent Iraqi or an aid or U.N. worker? Yes that Iraqi man's life is worth less.

You keep mistaking those who are trying to kill American soldiers, or innocent Iraqis or aid or U.N. workers as just your everyday Iraqi person. They are not so it would be ridiculas to answer the question as you pose it.

[Ms. Clio]

29. who are they? aliens? "turraists?" Who are these mysterious "insurgents"?

If not "ordinary Iraqis?"

When American Continentals were fighting the British (who colonized the country, not invaded it) were they "everyday American people," or not?

I got questions; you don't seem to have answers.

[JasonDeter]

34. Well these "turraists" who you call "ordinary Iraqis!?"

are killing innocent Iraqis, innocent UN workers, innocent Aid workers and AMERICAN soldiers under orders. I will stand by our soldiers over these turrasists any day. Now if you want to talk about rummy or bush* or powell or wolfie or that asshole tommy franks thats another matter. Other than that it seems we have arrived at an impasse.

[Ms. Clio]

44. it seems we are at an impasse

Since I don't define a "terrorist" as anyone who points a gun at an occupying military force.

And all those soulless scumbags you want to talk about are the only reason those soldiers are there.

[NickB79]

33. Odd that you keep referring to the innocent

Wasn't the death toll for INNOCENT Iraqi civilians killed in this war somewhere between 10,000-50,000? It seems the US has killed FAR more innocents in this war than the Iraqis have killed US troops or UN workers.

So, if an American is trying to kill an Iraqi, that is heroic and just. If an Iraqi is trying to kill an American, that is despicable and evil. I find this double standard confusing, especially considering that WE are the ones who invaded THEIR country. We are the ones who forced them to fight against us. I didn't see any of these horrible Iraqis coming over to the US to attack us, did you? If we weren't there in the first place, on this wild goose chase for mythical WMD's, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

[JasonDeter]

41. And george bush*, dicky cheeney, donny rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz

and good ol boy tommy franks should be tried for war crimes and spend the rest of their lives in jail.

[OpenMindedDem]

96. I'd love to see where you got the figure 50,000 innocents killed

If you could be so kind as to share the link. Thanks.

[0007]

65. How come the UN had no problems in Iraq until the U.S got involved?

An Iraqi life is as important and as valuable as an American life.

[Occulus]

87. but we were talking about seeing a wounded man

getting gunned down. You steered the debate to a strawman.

[Ms. Clio]

25. apparently for you it is

when Americans are the ones who are dying.

No answer for me above, eh? Somehow I'm not surprised you got nuthin.

[TheLastMohican]

59. Guys, calm down, please!

There is no need to fight over it.
The date for troops withdrawal is set, it is June 30, 2004.
I know that is almost 6 months from now and more people will die until June. But let's keep it friendly on this issue at least until June 30.
If the troops are not withdrawn by then, we will take this issue further.

[leftchick]

71. Troop Withdrawl? Did I miss something?!?

As far as I can tell the CPA plans to have some dubious ceremony handing the keys to Iraq to the Iraqi Puppets (Chalabi et al) by June 30 so dumbass* will look good before the election. Nowhere have I seen plans for a withdrawl or even reduction of US troops after the bogus handover. Just more smoke and mirrors from the liars in the WH as far as I can tell.

[treepig]

76. yeah, like we'll let the brits take over and concede the oil to them

UK Says British Troops May Be in Iraq Until 2007

Reuters
Monday, January 5, 2004; 4:27 AM


By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Monday British troops in Iraq were likely to stay there for years, maybe until 2006 or 2007.



Speaking on BBC radio a day after Prime Minister Tony Blair paid a surprise visit to British soldiers in southern Iraqi city of Basra, Straw said it was "a fact" that substantial number of troops would remain in Iraq for a long time to come.

"I can't give you an exact timescale ... but it's not going to be months, for sure," Straw said.

Asked whether it would be years, he replied: "Yes, but I can't say whether it's going to be 2006 or 2007."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55223-2004Jan5.html

[Ms. Clio]

85. heh--I am perfectly calm

And I thought Jason and I were having a civil exchange.

Some troops may be withdrawn, perhaps, although I doubt it--June is a long time away, and dozens of both Americans and Iraqis are now being killed and injured daily, so I think troop levels will actually be increased between now and then, and the bulk will remain for several more years, at least--so how will we "take this issue further" in June? I'm sincerely curious as to what you mean by that?

[JasonDeter]

93. Over a cup of coffee you'd probably find we're not that far apart.

.

[Ms. Clio]

95. You're probably right :) n/t

[homelandpunk]

20. "we're in a war"?? kee-riced.

We're in.....Iraq. We are the occupiers. I hope when this country is occupied and I am carrying a non-descript tube in a field, that they grease me, cuz better I die than the occupiers. Their lives are much more worthy than mine. How dare I carry a tube in a field while my country is being occupied...I need getting killed.

[chelaque liberal]

66. Insurgents=anyone not of the invading force????

[Flubadubya]

69. They wouldn't be insurgents if we weren't there....

now would they? ...and if we hadn't been lied into an illegal war by a known miltary deserter they wouldn't be dead, and our soldiers wouldn't now be murderers. Quite simple!

[pintobean]

77. They wouldn't be insurgents if we weren't there.

They would simply be government employees doing the work of their president. Workers supplying fill material for all those empty holes.

[The Stranger]

82. Then get the American soldiers out of Iraq, where there are no

weapons of mass destruction and there never were, and every reason for their being there and in harm's way has ended up being a fucking lie.

[45th Med]

37. I'm staying out of this one. I've been a part of a CAB....

Combat Aviation Brigade. All I can say is that I hope to God I'm never on the recieving end of the Apache.

[AromaticSocks]

40. Good move on our soldiers part

If they threaten us they die. Very simple rules to follow.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

53. the problem is

that if we threaten them WE die.
(from their point of view)
the same very simple rules that THEY follow as well.
Invading their country put us in such an awkward position didn't it.

Nevertheless, those soldiers in the helicopter executed a downed man who could have been easily subdued and interrogated afterwards.
Everyone has weapons in Iraq and alot of them have probably have guns to defend themselves. Crime is out of hand and fear is rampant.

To execute someone who hasn't engaged you is the "pre-emptive" way of thinking.
Sick shit.

[NickB79]

54. Yep, because we were only protecting ourselves after 9-11, right?

I mean, we all know that Iraq declared war on us when crazed Iraqi terrorists flew those planes into the Twin Towers. Oh, wait a minute, whats that? There were no Iraqis on those planes? They were mostly Saudis? Well, I'm sure Saddam at least financed Bin Laden's attacks and helped train some of those terrorists! What did you say? We don't have any evidence after over 2 yrs of searching that those two worked together, and Bin Laden actually wanted to fight Saddam in the first Gulf War? Well, forget that, we KNOW that Iraq has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capable of killing millions of Americans, AND he has missiles and unmanned drones that can hit the East Coast! We are absolutely, positively, 100% sure that....., hmmmm, you'r kidding me right, no WMD either? Well damn.

Exactly when did Iraq threaten the US and force us to invade in the first place?

[mouse7]

57. Thank you, Dylan Clebolt, Jr., for the line from "Halo"

You have an excellent memory for quotes from FPS video games.

Mrs. Clebolt, you might want to keep an eye on litle Dylan there. I think he's taking the video games WAY tooo seriously.

[abelenkpe]

83. how come you never answer anyones question?

Where and when did you ever serve in the military? If you can't answer all your comments are easy to ignore. Ya know that, right?

[Ms. Clio]

90. because he's gone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=137361

I didn't alert on him, but I knew it wouldn't be long.

[okieinpain]

42. what I want to know, was that a actual weapon

[SidDithers]

52. So, was it a weapon? nt.

sid

[TrueStory]

60. What type of weapon?

This is very important. If you take out 3 Iraqis and the weapon stays there, some other Iraqis may visit the scene an take the weapon for a revenge. Let's hope it wasn't a WMD.

[Ms. Clio]

84. oh indeed

it might be a W M D !!!! Maybe one of them thar "dirty bombs," or something!

LMFAO

[Malva Zebrina]

62. If they threaten us they die. Very simple rules to follow.

If they threaten us they die. Very simple rules to follow



If they threaten us they die. Very simple rules to follow.

Very barbaric rules to follow and a very barbaric mind set when the US soldiers, with all the high tech weaponry at their disposal cannot seem to find a better way to fight a few mortars and rifles

[indepat]

73. Do only the losers need worry about being held accountable for wars crimes

of the types enunciated by Justice Jackson during the Nuremberg trials?

[Barrett808]

81. Maybe they were cops: U.S. soldiers kill two Iraqi police in Tikrit

U.S. soldiers kill two Iraqi police in Tikrit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=308118

[demdave]

94. I need a link for the video.

Thanks

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.