Death Squads!

sovtek

IIRC some were quite sceptical that there were going to be death squads in Iraq. Seems that's exactly what they are setting up now. And they are getting the winning strategy from that bastion of democracy in the Middle East...
Anyway...here ya go

Sparks

Ah yes. Project Phoenix, part 2, here we come...

bonkey

On a pure first reaction (i.e. I havent looked for any other sources yet), I would be somewhat skeptical about the article. It reads a bit odd with so many seperate unnamed sources, and then a few vague quotes - which are only partially applicable - from specific people.

I wouldn't rule it all out, mind, but I'd be skeptical about how much of it is truth and how much is misinformation or speculation.

But I'm like that, I guess....and I did say it is purely an initial opinion.

jc

Victor

Second source (slightly different edition of same article): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html or is that too liberal?

Atreides

Question, when the next group of arabs fly a plne into a building in the US, will anyone care. Not likely especially if these stories unfold ot be true.

Biffa Bacon

And we're supposed to care about Islamofascists being disposed of why exactly?

dathi1

And we're supposed to care about Islamofascists being disposed of why exactly?

It says:
Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

They sound like national patriots to me ....defending their country against a foreign invader for Zionists and oil.

psst...who slated me for using the "death squads are go" headline not too long ago.

Sparks

Am I the only one that thinks that using the word "Islamofascist" points to a weakness in understanding of both Islam and Fascism?

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
They sound like national patriots to me ....defending their country against a foreign invader for Zionists and oil.

Yes, defending their country by targetting Red Cross doctors and UN diplomats. What heroes.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Yes, defending their country by targetting Red Cross doctors and UN diplomats. What heroes.

Hang on the United States admitted "inadvertantly" **keeping** the Red Cross on it's target list in Afghanistan. The United States claims they are the good guys. Sauce for the goose....

Meh

Originally posted by Victor
Hang on the United States admitted "inadvertantly" **keeping** the Red Cross on it's target list in Afghanistan. The United States claims they are the good guys. Sauce for the goose....

Accidentally killing civilians because of intelligence failures is not quite the same thing as deliberately setting out to murder them.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sparks
Am I the only one that thinks that using the word "Islamofascist" points to a weakness in understanding of both Islam and Fascism?

Oh yes.

Its nice to see that the "Allies" are lowering themselves to the standards of the terrorists themselves. Again. What more can I say? It's beyond me.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
Accidentally killing civilians because of intelligence failures is not quite the same thing as deliberately setting out to murder them.

And where would deliberately ordering and carrying out the bombing of known and marked civilian hospitals and the deliberate shooting of marked civilian ambulances come in under that statement Meh?

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Accidentally killing civilians because of intelligence failures is not quite the same thing as deliberately setting out to murder them.

Accident is not appropriate.

1. Americans put Red Cross warehouses on target list.
2. Americans bomb Red Cross warehouses.
3. Red Cross says "WTF? Why are you bombing our warehouses?"
4. American politicians tell military "WTF? Why are you bombing Red Cross warehouses?"
5. Americans remove Red Cross warehouses from target list.
6. Americans bomb Red Cross warehouses.

Sand

Curious....

Why would the American milatary set out to bomb the Red cross? Youre implying theyre doing it deliberately....why do you think they are doing it deliberately?

I can see why the terrorists might bomb the red cross, but why would the US want the situation made crazier by bombing one of the organisations that is helping to rebuild Iraq? What does it gain them? Good PR?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Curious....

Why would the American milatary set out to bomb the Red cross? Youre implying theyre doing it deliberately....why do you think they are doing it deliberately?

Wasn't there some statement about the bombing of RC in Afghanistan that it was because they were - in fact - nothing but excuses for Red Cross centres which were, in reality, being used by the Taliban for <insert nefarious purpose here>?????

Maybe thats the lack of caffeine speaking....maybe I should do more research....

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Why would the American milatary set out to bomb the Red cross? Youre implying theyre doing it deliberately....why do you think they are doing it deliberately?

It was in Afghanisatn, not Iraq (that I know of).

From me to military mailing list October 2001 (orignal posting not saved, paraphrased)

WTF? Why have the US air force bombed the Red Cross **again** Is this deliberate?accidental? FUBARed?

From Byron to me October 26, 2001

From : Byron Audler <baudler@xxxxxx.net>
Sent : Friday, October 26, 2001 2:53 PM
To : "Victor" <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Subject : HULL post

I'm rejecting your post. First, I'd like to keep the flame level down, and
this post would certainly raise the temperature. Second, as an American, I
find your post offensive. I will not state that the strikes did not hit a
building that is claimed to be a Red Cross structure. I will state that the
Taliban has decided to place military targets close to civilian facilities.
And contrary to what many in the press believe, our weapons are not
infallible. But our aviators go to extraordinary lengths to avoid and
prevent any accidents, more than any other nation at war has ever attempted
to do. In doing so, they even place their own lives in jeopardy. It would
be much easier to drop tons of explosives from high altitude from big
bombers, using unguided bombs. Any Vietnamese veteran of the war could tell
you how destructive and terrifying a B-52 Arc Light strike was. But this is
not what is is happening in close quarters. For you to even suggest that
this may be some sort of political act is an insult to our fighting men and
women. A mistake, yes. A mechanical breakdown in the guidance package, yes.
But a direct target, never.

From me to Byron Oct 30 2001

Hi,

It would appear the Red Cross buildings were the assigned targets, but it wasn't intended to attack the Red Cross. This is why I tried to be cautious on the original e-mail.

Not disrespect was meant.

I take your point on the flames.

Maybe neither of us was right - or wrong

Victor

---

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/1027/breaking12.htm

US admits bombing Red Cross warehouses
Last updated: 27-10-01, 08:45

US planes have inadvertently dropped bombs on Red Cross warehouses in Kabul and a residential area near them, the US Defence Department has said.

For the second time since the US-led bombing of Afghanistan began on October 7th, warplanes struck warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul.

The Geneva-based relief agency said the roofs of the buildings were clearly marked with the red cross emblem and the attacks violated international humanitarian law.

Two US Navy F/A-18C Hornet jets each dropped one 2,000-pound bomb on ICRC warehouses on Thursday evening, the statement by US Central Command said.

At about the same time, a 500-pound bomb intended for the warehouses "inadvertently" hit a residential area about 700 feet south of the warehouses, apparently because the bomb's guidance system malfunctioned, Central Command said.

Early yesterday two B-52 bombers also dropped three 2,000-pound bombs on the same warehouse complex, the statement said.

"The US sincerely regrets this inadvertent strike on the ICRC warehouses and the residential area," the statement said.

"Although details are still being investigated, preliminary indications are that the warehouses were struck due to a human error in the targeting process," Central Command said.

Two of the ICRC warehouses were hit on October 16th by US bombs because the Taliban had used them previously for storage of military equipment and military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity, the statement said.

Reuters

The POWAH of "save e-mail"!

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Am I the only one that thinks that using the word "Islamofascist" points to a weakness in understanding of both Islam and Fascism?

In what way?

Sparks

And just as a stopgap measure while we're waiting for Project Phoenix Part Two to be set up, the marines are filling in :

RealVideo clip

(Warning, not for the squeamish).

BTW, from the Geneva Convention:

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.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

<snip>

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

So this is, in effect, videotape of a defined war crime.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
And just as a stopgap measure while we're waiting for Project Phoenix Part Two to be set up, the marines are filling in :

RealVideo clip

(Warning, not for the squeamish).

BTW, from the Geneva Convention:


So this is, in effect, videotape of a defined war crime.

While the attitude of the soldier commenting afterward is sickening, to be fair...it didn't show why they were firing at the Iraqi. Was he previously shooting at the Americans? Was he still armed?
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a war crime as I believe the Geneva Convention's intention is after said combatants have been secured.
From the looks of it though...he didn't seem to pose a threat.

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
While the attitude of the soldier commenting afterward is sickening, to be fair...it didn't show why they were firing at the Iraqi. Was he previously shooting at the Americans? Was he still armed?

It doesn't matter why he was initially shot - it's the "make sure he's dead" shots that were the war crime.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a war crime as I believe the Geneva Convention's intention is after said combatants have been secured.

Nope. That's neither the intent nor the words used in the convention. Which is quoted above. Once you're injured so badly as to be out of the fight, that's it. Going beyond that in the heat of battle might be understandable as the soldier doing the shooting may not realise he's put the enemy out of commission - but the video clearly shows the man on the ground is not firing back, the US troops are not under fire, and are under no threat - further, those last shots are at a considerable range meaning they had to be carefully aimed - not shots made during a life-or-death struggle.
Those troops just didn't want to take the guy prisoner.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
It doesn't matter why he was initially shot - it's the "make sure he's dead" shots that were the war crime.


Nope. That's neither the intent nor the words used in the convention. Which is quoted above. Once you're injured so badly as to be out of the fight, that's it. Going beyond that in the heat of battle might be understandable as the soldier doing the shooting may not realise he's put the enemy out of commission - but the video clearly shows the man on the ground is not firing back, the US troops are not under fire, and are under no threat - further, those last shots are at a considerable range meaning they had to be carefully aimed - not shots made during a life-or-death struggle.
Those troops just didn't want to take the guy prisoner.

Fair enough, after watching it again I agree.
My point about the Geneva Convention was that he could have had a weapon and still be a threat. From the angle it wasn't clear if he did or not. Therefore could he still pose a threat? It doesn't look like it and from watching it again I take your point that they weren't under fire.
Believe me I'm not trying to argue that US soldiers haven't committed war crimes.
We know that's not the case.

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
Therefore could he still pose a threat?

It's a possibility - but not a stong one. And if it means that the soldier has to risk his life taking him prisoner, the only answer is that that's a soldier's job. It's not accounting, after all. Giving troops the power to execute a prisoner out of hand if they feel threatened would be a licence for genocide.