SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Should a soldier be excused if he went on a rampage. (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93890)

scandium 06-01-06 10:45 AM
A related story, and note I didn't write it so don't shoot the messenger (no pun intended): http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0147659.htm

Quote:
FACTBOX-U.S. troops and civilian complaints in Iraq

BAGHDAD, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. forces are investigating whether Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha last year.

Here are some other incidents that have made headlines about U.S. forces' treatment of civilians in Iraq:

April 28, 2003 - Troops of the 82nd Airborne Division open fire as 100 or so demonstrators surround their base in the Sunni town of Falluja. Officers said they returned fire against two men with rifles and said up to 10 people were killed. The local hospital put the casualty toll at 13 dead and 75 wounded.

Jan. 3, 2004 - Zaidoun Faleh Hassoun believed drowned after U.S. soldiers pushed two men into the Tigris river at Samarra. Two soldiers were sentenced to up to six months for assault.

April 28 - U.S. television broadcasts photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison. Several military police, the most senior a sergeant, were jailed or disciplined. Some cases go on. Commanders deny ordering torture.

May 19 - About 40 people killed in U.S. air strike on desert encampment at Mogr al-Deeb in western Iraq. Denying local accounts, including video footage, that the dead were innocently celebrating a wedding, U.S. military insists most were foreign Arab militants: "Bad people have parties too," a spokesman said.

Sept. 12 - Two U.S. helicopters fire rockets, killing at least five people among a crowd around a crippled U.S. armoured vehicle on central Baghdad's Haifa Street. Among the dead was journalist Mazen Tomeizi, hit while speaking to his camera. At first, the military said the pilots fired to destroy the Bradley vehicle. Later they said they were responding to gunshots.

Nov. 13 - Unnamed corporal from 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment filmed shooting apparently unarmed and wounded man in a mosque. Commanders ruled he could have "reasonably believed" the man and two others he shot in the mosque were hostile.

June 25 - Mohammed al-Sumaidaie, 21, shot dead at home near Haditha. His cousin Samir al-Sumaidaie, now Iraqi ambassador in Washington, accuses Marines of "cold-blooded murder" but says the military ruled that they acted in self-defence.

Oct. 16 - Iraqi officials in the restive Sunni city of Ramadi say about 20 civilians, including children, killed in air strike near wreck of U.S. vehicle. Military says 20 militants killed when F-15 bombs group of men burying explosives in road.

March 15, 2006 - Police say six adults and five children shot dead in U.S. raid on home in Ishaqi, north of Baghdad. The 101st Airborne Division says two women and a child died during arrest of al Qaeda militant. Investigation was announced but U.S. spokesmen were this week unable to say who conducting it.

March 18 - Iraqi police say U.S. soldiers shot dead a 13-year-old boy and his parents in their home in the Sunni town of Dhuluiya, 90 km (55 miles) north of Baghdad, saying they were among eight people killed after a U.S. patrol was ambushed. The 101st Airborne says troops killed seven "attacking terrorists".

April 26 - Iraqi man killed at Hamandiya, western Iraq. U.S. military says investigating. U.S. media reports say Marines were questioned about whether they took man from home and shot him.

May 4 - 101st Airborne Division says troops kill two men and a woman after being fired on from house in Samarra, adding the dead were involved in attack. Police name two dead women aged 60 and 20 and a mentally handicapped man and say they were unarmed. Relatives tell Reuters troops fired on them in a room.

May 30 - U.S. forces shoot dead two women in a car near Samarra. Troops say driver ignored signs to stop. Relatives and police say one of dead women was pregnant and going to hospital.

August 06-01-06 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scandium
"Irrational hatred" of the present administration eh? Now there's a neat twist. Funny how citing a few inconvenient facts in a rebuttal to someone's suggestion that the US commit war crimes by lining up and shooting civilians in the Town Square means that I have an "irrational hatred" of the present administration.

If you're going to accuse me of being irrational and dishonest, perhaps you could at least point out - specifically - where in my post that I'm being irrational and dishonest. In the meantime, allow me to back up my assertions with the inconvenient facts as reported by mainstream news sources:

On the fact that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of WMD at the time of the US invasion: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

On the lack of any connection between Iraq and 9/11: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932

"WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States."


On the widespread and systemic abuse committed at Abu Ghraib: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

"General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”


A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community."

On the alleged war crimes committed by the US mlitary in Haditha and subsequent coverup: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...198892,00.html

"Sparked by a TIME report published in March, a U.S. military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24 Iraqi civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges, including murder. And new revelations suggest that their superiors may have helped in a cover-up."

On GWB's assertion that Saddam Hussein attempted to kill his daddy: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI...bush.war.talk/

"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.""
C'mon now. You can backtrack all you want but to imply that the US military feels that abu grahib (and any other conduct in violation of the UCMJ) is "no problem" shows plainly your eagerness to toss as much mud as possible at the current administration even at the expense of the truth.

scandium 06-01-06 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
C'mon now. You can backtrack all you want but to imply that the US military feels that abu grahib (and any other conduct in violation of the UCMJ) is "no problem" shows plainly your eagerness to toss as much mud as possible at the current administration even at the expense of the truth.
No August, it shows what I think of the mentality of the post I was quoting that advocated lining civilians up in the Town Square and shooting them in retaliation for convoy attacks. Sure I had done it in a very snide way, but advocating the killing of innocents (whether Iraqi, American, Australian, or whatever) tends to bring out my cynicism.

August 06-01-06 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scandium
No August, it shows what I think of the mentality of the post I was quoting that advocated lining civilians up in the Town Square and shooting them in retaliation for convoy attacks. Sure I had done it in a very snide way, but advocating the killing of innocents (whether Iraqi, American, Australian, or whatever) tends to bring out my cynicism.
If that is so then why do you attack the military and the administration when it's really a person here whose opinion you disagree with?

You do understand the difference don't you?

scandium 06-01-06 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
If that is so then why do you attack the military and the administration when it's really a person here whose opinion you disagree with?

You do understand the difference don't you?
Sure I do, and my post wasn't intended as an attack on the US Military or the administration. It was merely meant to highlight the disconnent I see between the many who rationalize the war in Iraq as liberation from tyranny and brutality while silmultaneously excusing (and even encouraging) acts of tyranny and brutality.

I brought up Abu Ghraib not because the incidents are related, but because I'd encountered this same disconnect during that scandal.

TLAM Strike 06-01-06 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konovalov
It didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan nor will such a stupid idea work here. Not to mention summarily executing unarmed civilians in a town square compromises the values and standards to which our nations hold so dearly and use as an example for other nations to follow across the globe. I suggest you go read a couple of books on counter-insurgency by experts such as Lester Grau or Robert Taber. You'll find that your method suggested is totally counter-productive to say the least. Major General David Petraeus never employed such tactics and look at the successes he had which served as a model for the rest of Iraq.
World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs. The Japanese decide to fight to the death we oblige and use every weapon we have against them. Stick to a strategy that works.

Some of the Ex-Military people in my family and circle of friends who served in the shadow of the Vietnam War say we need to bring back Napalm and Buzz Bombs. My friends and family were the lowly grunts and seamen, they know what happens to the bottom of the chain of command when you invade someplace. If they were running the war in Iraq it would have been over in 25 minutes. They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.

Sailor Steve 06-01-06 12:33 PM
No.

I was going to leave it that, but the system told me I have to use at least five characters.

So I'll repeat.

:nope:

Sailor Steve 06-01-06 12:33 PM
Say what?

I'm starting to have issues with this newfangled board.

squigian 06-01-06 03:53 PM
Massacre songs
 
This song says it all...and so does the next :):

To the tune of 'Wake the town and tell the people'
Strafe the Town and Kill the People

Strafe the town and kill the people
Let's declare a massacre.
Lay napalm in the square,
So you'll know that Jake was there

Drop the candy in the courtyard,
Let the kiddies gather 'round.
Crank your twenty-millimeter,
Gun the little bastards down.

Come 'round early Sunday morning,
Catch the village unaware.
Drop a bunch of cluster bomblets,
Get 'em while they kneel in prayer. and, to the tune of 'Men of Harlech':

The Atrocity Song
Burn the town and kill the people
Throw a baby from a steeple
rob and steal and what we take will
Aid our victory.

We will mutilate the dying
Scalp the wounded, skin the crying
Burn their barns and while they're frying
We'll sit down to tea.

From the highest roof top (stomp stomp)
You shall hear a pin drop (stomp stomp)
We came down, wiped out the town
Made off with all the livestock and the corn crop (stomp stomp)

Rob and kill and give no quarter
Piss into the drinking water
Kill the fathers rape the daughters
Rangers All Are We!

Ducimus 06-01-06 04:27 PM
:roll:
After reading this thread since yesterday, i thought i might need some hipwaders. Unforutnaly i coudlnt find some. Instead, i find some of this. I got first dibs, anyone else want some?

[IMG]http://home.tiscali.be/joke1/Neju4/bull****.jpg[/IMG]

kiwi_2005 06-01-06 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs. The Japanese decide to fight to the death we oblige and use every weapon we have against them. Stick to a strategy that works.

Some of the Ex-Military people in my family and circle of friends who served in the shadow of the Vietnam War say we need to bring back Napalm and Buzz Bombs. My friends and family were the lowly grunts and seamen, they know what happens to the bottom of the chain of command when you invade someplace. If they were running the war in Iraq it would have been over in 25 minutes. They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.
:o :yep::rock:

CB.. 06-01-06 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.
that's perfect when the tanks are rolling--:up:

completely counter productive when you have no idea who's friend and who's foe--if for no other reason than the general populace start to experience the exact same problem--:shifty:

scandium 06-02-06 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs.
The paragraph you had quoted from Konovalov was on counter-insurgency, which is what is applicable to Iraq. What you're bringing up here are separate campaigns that were all tied to the more central campaign of encircling and defeating Germany and Italy on the battlefield. That was accomplished in Iraq 3 years ago, so how is any of this applicable?

Quote:
They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.
You could probably make that case for Afghanistan, seeing how it was connected to 9/11. I would disagree with your methods but at least they have some relevance. How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.

Using your logic, why not simply kill everyone else on the planet to preserve your democracy pre-emptively against the same non-existant threats to it that Iraq posed? It would make about as much sense.

Konovalov 06-02-06 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scandium
The paragraph you had quoted from Konovalov was on counter-insurgency, which is what is applicable to Iraq. What you're bringing up here are separate campaigns that were all tied to the more central campaign of encircling and defeating Germany and Italy on the battlefield. That was accomplished in Iraq 3 years ago, so how is any of this applicable?
The simple answer is that it's not applicable as you highlight.

Skybird 06-02-06 05:50 AM
It all comes down to this: wage war for the wrong reasons, against an enemy you do not understand, fight him in the wrong place, and with a confused sense of timing, and at the same time try to be political correct - and you should not be surprised to get what you got here. Both on the campaign and the individual soldier-level. I have no doubt that this is not the only incident of this kind, what makes it different is that this one has not successfully avoided detection. We also have strong clues that massacres also took place on a formal, organoized level, and in Afghnaistan. These may be commited by the local Afghan or Iraqui troops, but nevertheless with knowledge of America. we know that in Iraq police and secret squadron commit more torture and murder now then it was ever the case under Saddam. And we remember the dissappearing of 5000 of 8000 captured Taleban in late 2001, who surrendered in November 2001 and dissappeared during the transportation to a prison near Kabul. Later, human sceletons had been found in several places along the route.

War brings out the worst in man. You wanted war. Don't be surprised to see such events. don'T be so hypocritical to claim that such things are expected not to come with war if it is only the right army that claims to be on the side of the good. Where there is war, you see the pervertion of human being. Always. It is an inevitable consequence.

Konovalov 06-02-06 06:16 AM
@ TLAM Strike,

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq has it right when he said the following from this article:
Quote:
As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies. The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many.
So short of stating the obvious it's quite clear that I dissagree with your approach as to how Coalition forces should conduct this war which is a classic example of an insurgency.

Subnuts 06-02-06 08:57 AM
Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people. :hmm:

TLAM Strike 06-02-06 08:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konovalov
@ TLAM Strike,

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq has it right when he said the following from this article:
Quote:
As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies. The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many.
So short of stating the obvious it's quite clear that I dissagree with your approach as to how Coalition forces should conduct this war which is a classic example of an insurgency.
Problem is you and the Lt. General think like Counter-insurgents while I think like an insurgent. Insurgancys don't stop until the counter-insurgent side gives in to sufficent demainds of the insurgents or they kill all the insurgents. Considering the main demaind of the insurgents is the destruction of American and Islamic Dictatorship of Iraq we have little choice but to kill all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scandium
How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.
The 1991 Iraq War ended in a CEASE FIRE not a peace treaty. The US and its Allies and Iraq were still at war in 2003. US and UK aircraft in the No Fly Zones took AAA fire daily since at least 1997. Shooting at the other side is by definition a violation of a Cease Fire!

As far as gunning down innocent civilians my point is some countries still reserve that right as retaliation for unlawful acts of war. The US should too.

TLAM Strike 06-02-06 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subnuts
Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people. :hmm:
Mercenary Jayne Cobb ("The Hero of Canton") has an opinion on that subject:

The Manfesto of Jayne:
Jayne: I do not get it. How's a guy get so wrong? Cutting on his own face, raping and murdering. I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm getting paid. Mostly only when I'm getting paid. These Reavers, the last 10 years they show up like the boogeyman from stories. Eating people alive? Where does that get fun?


Kaylee: Shepherd Book said they was men who just reached the edge of space,
saw a vasty nothingness and went bibbledy over it.


Jayne: Oh, hell. I've been to the edge. Just looked like more space.

Skybird 06-02-06 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subnuts
Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people.
An enemy that is TV-recording how he takes a prisoner with his arms bound on his back and who is shivering in fear, and then four men jumps onto him, and another one starts hacking away at his throad with a huge machete, trying to sepaarte the head from the body and after four stropker still has not finished it while the victim still is yelling and gargling, I mean: an enemy who needs five men to hold down one bounded, weak man and still is incapable to cut of his head in one strike - probably is too dumb as that he could be afraid of getting eaten.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.