If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
However the soldiers attitude upset me, it is wrong in ANY situation what so EVER to be happy to kill some one. Yes it needs to be done in times of war, but one should never ever take pleasure in it.
Oh I don't know. I'd be pretty chuffed if I'd killed the man who was trying to kill me and my unit.
ALthough a summary execution wouldn't be my preferred choice...
Aye, not so sure about reveling...
But dehumanisation is a necessary process, to see your enemy as a human, with wife & kids etc, can be dangerous too...
The problem comes when the enemy decides to dress like the local population...
Which is why they use it as a tactic. Rather than condemn them, some people will then condemn then US for shooting the wrong person...
2. Even if he were a terrorist no one, but no one has the right to 'legally' murder him unless he presents a danger to anyone or is engaged in combat at the time of the shooting.
I recommend you watch the clip carefully a few times, watch the wounded and crippled man struggling to crawl on the floor and come back here and tell me again why it was justified to calmly take aim and shoot repeatedly until the man is dead.
Any rules of engagement dictated by the US high command don't have any legal or moral authority. Murder is murder. YOU are the terrorists in this particular incident.
3. I hope we don't have to ever again have to put up with any bullshit about how the US government and armed forces don't like war, don't like killing for the sake of it and are there to protect and liberate the Iraqis. It is becoming increasingly clear that a good proportion of people in the US army today are nothing but gun-ho murdering cowboys who only enlisted so they could kill people often and legally. All those scumbags who cheered and laughed and exclaimed "awesome!" at the cold-blooded murder are a disgrace to the US Army, the USA and mankind. That some still try to claim the moral high ground and claim "we're the good guys" when they're behaving like the regime they've just removed would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
Is there anything at all you would be prepared to condemn Thanatos? I get the feeling that the clip had shown US soldiers throwing babies at a pack of wild dogs you would still have found justification for it. :rolleyes:
Probably wasn't, though...
Afghan villagers torn by grief
Somehow they must of thought that destroying a mans only form of income would teach him not to steal again :rolleyes:
Ive never been anti this war, i supported it and still do support the war...However, the way Iraq is being administered is seriously started to get to me now.
Ive no problem with the death of fighting iraqis but that guy was wounded and should of been taken prisoner..If the situation was reversed with Iraqi troops taking potshots at a wounded American writing on the ground, would anyone take issue with that? Of course they would..because its fucking wrong...The cheering at the end is just sickening.
Ill not even touch on the fact that it took them 3 shots to hit a guy sitting still on the floor from what looks to be about 20 metres away.
I dont understand why Americans refuse to condemn people like this...Dont you realise that this is the reason your guys are dying over there...For every video like this theres gonna be a bunch of iraqis or foreign fighters signing up with the guerillas and that means more dead American troops..
Well? Would you?
Ahh the duplicity keeps getting more and more transparent.
I didn't say he was terrorist... unless you are talking about the Afghan issue? Even then I said "if this man was indeed a terrorist" suggesting that I don't know...
So I made a mistake. You never done that?
BTW I don't condone what has happened on that video, but I do feel there needs to be a sense of proportion on these boards. We can have one side of a story, and we'll end up with the "daisy chain" principle or someone can look at the other side and post that too. Which would you prefer?
Its not as though im some screaming lefty...Im pretty right wing but the things that are going on over there are making me very uncomfortable...and more importantly, they are making dead american soldiers.
What's surprising BD is that as a right winger you should be all the more a proponent of "the rule of law" applicable to ourselves as much as any tinpot nation. Or is sovereignty only a valid issue to be raised when it concerns loss of the pound?
What Iraq represents is purely and simply the rule of "might makes right" and that im sure you're aware is what has resulted in the eventual demise of all great empires. My country's current bid to hold the throne through force will be no different than any other regardless of how arrogantly some would wish to argue to the contrary.
You can't stop people from commenting. Eventually, the truth comes out, if enough people continue to raise a stink. The trick is not to to be excessively flatulent...
Sound advice there I think, not only for during times of war, but for all of us in our daily lives.
No, and im not sure ive ever advocated that the US is above the law. From what I saw in that video, the marines were clearly smashing the geneva convention to pieces...but im willing to admit that ive not seen the full video and there might, no matter how implausible, be something more to it.
The whole thing has been based upon contrivance, spin and a complete disregard for the sovereignty of nations since the beginning.
have the UN given an official statement as to the legality of the war?
I personally supported the war..Thats on a personal level...If its found to be illegal then those in charge should face the appropriate penalties.
Now at the time the security services said there was, but thats been proven wrong. However that doesnt really matter as long as at the time they reasonably thought there was.
I suspect, but can not prove it, that the evidence put forward was, selected in such a way as to suggest there was more of a threat than there was.
In other words, I dont think its technically illegal, but I think if the lord chief justice had been given all the info he might have said it was not legal, understand?
Any idea of the functionality of those IED's? Drop parcel, then run for cover to detonate from remote device. Are you certain that your NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANT was not still moving toward that detonator? With the so obviously chopped up bit of video, how can you be certain of ANYTHING??? Other than its intended use as heavy handed propoganda?
Ever laugh from nervousness after surviving a potentially deadly moment? Many do. These young men - kids, really, many of them - have not yet been hardened by long exposure to reality. They have not yet gained the emotional armor to terminate the enemy, and feel nothing. That comes with experience... something which the bulk of you have absolutely ZERO.
Ever been in combat? Ever witness it up close and personal? Ever had your best friends shot up, all around you? Ever been shot, yourself? Perhaps multiple times? I have... and have continued fighting after having been shot. I have witnessed Marines who have been shot twice - and even three times - remain in the fight, and continue to kill the enemy. I have cut a bullet from myself, wrapped the wound with dressings taken from a dead corpsman, and gotten back into the fight to lead my company to defeat a vastly overwhelming enemy. I have witnessed one who was shot 19 times, continue to kill the enemy. You speculate from ignorance. I observe from experience. Wounded does not infer "out of action", except to the ignorant.
But do continue. You demonstrate your support of terrorist tactics.
And by the by... Your ever so precious "international law" supports the summary execution of non-uniformed combatants. You cognizant of what SUMMARY means? :rolleyes: Or do you require the English language to be explained to you? While still armed, and engaged? The non-uniformed combatant is a bullet magnet for all in the area.
"Freedom fighter"? If - by some delusional brainfart - the US were invaded by a conquering force, and I carried a weapon to "defend my defeated nation"? My expectation would be the exact same fate as met THIS non-uniformed terrorist.
You children may continue to masturbate yourselves within your circle jerk as befits you. Perhaps someday, some one of you might grow up, and view the world from a perspective of reality, rather than distorting and perverting it through delusion of what you wish it were. You wank yourselves on, never suspecting the ignorance you demonstrate.
No doubt the pro-war lawyers would see the argument different and argue that the UN resolution did authorise force. They could be right... the whole issue would have to go to court and undergo very close scrutiny.
But to me it is a bit irrelevant because what tips it against legality is the fact that the US and Britain presented false and doctored information with regard to Saddam's WMDs. Bush and Blair lied to the UN (as it has been proven) and the war remains as illegal as ever.
If there was any justice in the world George W. Bush would be sitting today alongside Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein before the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Good advise. Perhaps some might heed it...
If you take this as "turning on" you, you have presumed inaccurately.
It is aladdin and the collaborator who are being addressed.
If you apply it to yourself? Then it is collateral, not directed.
Moreover, examining the actualities in line with the rhetoric about it being the UN's jurisdiction, one sees the flaw in the argument presented and maintained by those who cheered the invasion on.
Namely, if it is the UN's jurisdiction by right of it's resolution being flouted or otherwise obstructed, then the UN and only the UN had the right to determine what course of action had to be pursued.
It was not a US law or treaty or convention in question, but one under the authority and arbitration of the UN itself. Since the UN Secretary General did not mandate unilateral action, this invasion was clearly an intended act to be pursued regardless of UN arbitration. To hearken back to any justification for it based on the UN's will, is nothing more than diversionary charade and hollow rhetoric.
Clearly the Bush admin never had any intent to honour the UN's authority, it merely used it as a smokescreen to provide ample time for the spin and lies to galvanise sufficient public division in order to launch its assault without facing immediate censure. The very fact that they subsequently refused to remain consistent in championing the UN's mandate in the matter by denying the reinstatement of UN inspectors in favour of handpicked US teams (despite the fact that that plan has blown up in their faces as well) only serves to indicate that this was always a case of of pursuing the PNAC agenda and abrogating the "rule of law" simply because we have the might to do so.
The precendent which you seem therefore so willing to approve of today, is the very principle by which our descendents may well similarly face the absence of any framework of protection from foreign state contrivance and aggression against our sovereignty tomorrow when the poles of power have shifted or the next unilateral world power arises in the wake of our decline.
What goes around comes around. Can you honestly say that you wish to see "might makes right" restored as the governing principle of trans national relations?
If you do, then the sacrifice of our grandfathers and fathers in the last great war are for naught as are over half a century of efforts to establish multilateral frameworks for non-aggresivist methods of conflict resolution under which many of us have enjoyed lives of comparative peace and safety.
But for the malicious and greedy intent of myopic men (sugar coated as magnanimity for the long misinformed masses), we might not need to argue this point.
My mistake..I thought i had only mentioned international law but was mentioned above.