More killing of wounded!

halkar

I am sure if it was an American on the ground wounded, this would have been a different story or another propaganda patriot hollywood movie in 2-3 years down :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
How do you propose an apache gunship takes prisoners?

Very good question.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really help your case any more than asking how you could carpet-bomb a city without killing civilians makes the killing of the civilians in question OK.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger,

Really?

Funnily enough, the GC offers protection for soldiers who ahve laid down their arms and are attempting to leave the field of combat. Was any attempt made to see if this person still armed...if indeed they were armed in the first place? No. Was any attempt made to determine the seriousness of the injury? No. What ocurred was an identification of the fact that the target was injured, immediately followed by an order to hit him again to take him out.

Just because these things may have been difficult (or indeed impossible) to do in concordance with the limits set down by the GC, which the US have signed on board to does not mean the US - or any other nation - should have a carte blanche in their usage. They signed up to a treaty. Just because its not always the most convenient thing in the world to obey doesn't excuse ignoring it when it suits.

After all, I'm sure Sand wouldn't excuse suicide bombers on the grounds that their methodologies made it difficult to observe certain formalities of war. Nor, I'm pretty sure, would Meh support the slaughter of - picking a simple example - the stranded and wounded US soldiers in Mogadishu who were attacked and killed in the real-world event which inspired Black Hawk Down.

I guess whaqt it all boils down to seems to be that there would appear to be a somewhat pervasive belief that because the US are nominally the good guys, they must be doing things right and should not be questioned.

I have no doubt that the vast majority fo US actions are entirely within the boundaries set down by the GC etc. but that does not mean that those which are borderline, or indeed in breach should be ignored.

After all, most murders spend most of their life not killing people. I don't see anyone queueing up to argue that this logic would be an excuse for murder.

jc

Sand

Unfortunately, that doesn't really help your case any more than asking how you could carpet-bomb a city without killing civilians makes the killing of the civilians in question OK.

Sure it does. Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors? If a bomber hits a bunker where the enemy are supposed to be but only damages it should they land to pick up survivors or come around again to make sure? When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere? This isnt expected of them in the real world though. Where the G.C. then?

In contrast you ask me about carpet bombing cities - afaik they havent done this since the bombing of North Vietnam? As for the killing of civillians it doesnt matter what military unit caused their deaths in such a case; unlike the apache taking prisoners.

Funnily enough, the GC offers protection for soldiers who ahve laid down their arms and are attempting to leave the field of combat. Was any attempt made to see if this person still armed...if indeed they were armed in the first place? No.

You cant claim that the insurgent did lay down his arms or was unarmed, nor even that he was attempting to leve the field of combat. Short of landing and asking the insurgent, the soldier is in the right to make a judgement call on the first man that he was carring an RPG and almost certainly a small arm ( if hes carrying a bloody RPG then its safe to assume hes got at *least* a pistol ).

What ocurred was an identification of the fact that the target was injured, immediately followed by an order to hit him again to take him out.

Which is not exactly Captain America in style but as the man was not incapcitated and was as far as anyone knew still armed perfectly fine under the G.C. If an apache targets a tank and badly damages it, are they entitled to fire again to ensure its killed or should they land to check out the status of the crew first? They might be wounded.

Just because these things may have been difficult (or indeed impossible) to do in concordance with the limits set down by the GC, which the US have signed on board to does not mean the US - or any other nation - should have a carte blanche in their usage. They signed up to a treaty. Just because its not always the most convenient thing in the world to obey doesn't excuse ignoring it when it suits.

Thats a great view to have Bonkey but is it realistic? Killing the insurgent didnt break the G.C. imo. Seeing as no ones taken a case against the soldiers in question then the lawyers out there must agree with me. Whilst it would be nice to have wars fought in such a manner whereby theyd raise the white flag every few minutes to run over and check whether people are wounded or not/armed or not and ring up the lawyers back in the pentagon to get them to take a look at the fine print theyre not fought like that. Especially when fighting insurgents who will happily use a grenade to take a coalition soldier to paradise with them.

After all, I'm sure Sand wouldn't excuse suicide bombers on the grounds that their methodologies made it difficult to observe certain formalities of war. Nor, I'm pretty sure, would Meh support the slaughter of - picking a simple example - the stranded and wounded US soldiers in Mogadishu who were attacked and killed in the real-world event which inspired Black Hawk Down.

Ive absolutely no problem with suicide bombers when they target military/security forces. Its an unorthodox weapon but so long as theyre not deliberately targeting schoolbuses fire away.

I guess whaqt it all boils down to seems to be that there would appear to be a somewhat pervasive belief that because the US are nominally the good guys, they must be doing things right and should not be questioned.

Or on the resverse it could be argued that because the U.S. are nominally the good guys we hold them to unrealistically high standards beyond that even laid down in the G.C. so when they fail to hold to those standards - i.e. in the real world - we can criticise them above and beyond other factions and military forces. Afterall, Ive wasted many an hour trying to explain why suicide bombers targeting bar mitzvahs are terrorists - not a "symbol of palestians utter desperation in the face of oppression".

I am sure if it was an American on the ground wounded, this would have been a different story or another propaganda patriot hollywood movie in 2-3 years down

Probably - theyre human too, theyre hardly going to start cheerleading for the other side as it wont fill cinema seats.

So in order to be wounded enough for the Geneva convention to apply, you have to be completely unable to move?

You need to be wounded so that you are incapable of fighting. Otherwise anyone with a cold is classified as wounded and covered by the G.C. The guy could still move so he could still pull a trigger or throw a grenade.

It wouldn't really matter if he was rescued. A seriously wounded man is not an asset, he's a drain on resources. He was gunned down by an Apache helicopter , it's not like he's going to be patched up and be out fighting again in a week's time.

Or he could be preparing homemade grenades and landmines. Whose to say?

If he were rescued by comrades, it's most likely that he'd just have been dumped outside a hospital where the Americans could pick him up fairly easily. Someone with a load of 30mm cannon rounds in them would stand out from the usual Kalashnikov victims.

Your saying the insurgency would leave a comrade to the tender mercies of the evil americans whod torture him until he revealed the names of the other insurgetns and their bases? Not likely.

MrPinK

Originally posted by Sand
Sure it does. Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors? If a bomber hits a bunker where the enemy are supposed to be but only damages it should they land to pick up survivors or come around again to make sure? When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere? This isnt expected of them in the real world though. Where the G.C. then?

The GC doesn't require them to immdediately capture and treat such wounded if it's not practical, just that they don't finish them off if they no longer pose any threat. If someone tries to surrender infront of an apache helicoptor, it's not possible for them to accept their surrender and take him into custody, but they still can't shoot the guy.

Or he could be preparing homemade grenades and landmines. Whose to say?

Someone surrendering might be strapped with explosives. Who's the say? When you sign up to the GC you accept the risks that following it following it might involve. You don't agree to only adhear to it whenever you're positive it's completely safe.

Your saying the insurgency would leave a comrade to the tender mercies of the evil americans whod torture him until he revealed the names of the other insurgetns and their bases? Not likely.

It's not the kind of wound that can be treated with a first aid kit and a guy reading a medical book. 90% of people admitted to state-of-the-art american hopsitals with gunshot wounds from handguns die. I don't know the percentage for 30mm cannon wounds in third world countries, but I doubt it would be too high. The man would most likely have been dead by the time anyone found him. If he were still alive, bringing him to a hospital would be his only chance. Even if he got there, he probably still would have died.

halkar

If it's an American killed they are heros, if it's Iraqis no one gives a $hit. Here is another sample of how these things are handled by so called Americans thinking that they are there to give Iraqis freedom. War against terorism my ass, they have killed more civilians since Sept 11 than terorists did. In the name of what? And Osama is still laughing his a$$ off. The guy that started all :rolleyes: Bush probably killed more Iraqis in a year than Saddam did in a year, we just don't know. They should have learned something from Lebanon and I don't expect anything to get better for Iraqis in the coming years. They will just milk the country, use them as slave labour and eat the cream themselves.

Sparks

*watches video again*
So, we've got two lads standing by a massey-ferguson (or the Iraqi equivalent). In a ploughed field. Not carrying any firearms that I can see. And one walks from the tractor back towards the truck (which looks just like every other truck I've seen on farms), carrying no weapon, and the apache shreds him with 30mm cannon fire. The two men hide, the first putting the tractor between himself and what to him must have looked like an explosion - unfortunately the apache is to his right and it shreds him and the tractor with cannon fire. It then wanders over to the truck and where's the third guy? Nowhere to be seen. Oh dear. Oh no, wait, there he is, crawling out from under the truck to see what the hell's just happened! Quick, nail him! And the truck and him, are shredded. The dust clears and his body's lying a few feet from the truck. And then he flops over, evidently wounded. The crew of the Apache know he's wounded - the first says "he's wounded" then the second says "get him", the first says "he's wounded" again and the second repeats his order and the man and the third vehicle (some kind of small car/van thing) is also destroyed in the process.

Yeah, that's definitely heroic anti-terrorist US action. Three farmers, a truck, a car and a tractor, all destroyed in broad daylight.

*disgusted look*

Victor

All this does is OK the killing of any Coalition wounded.

Be careful what you do to your enemy - what goes around comes around.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
You need to be wounded so that you are incapable of fighting. Otherwise anyone with a cold is classified as wounded and covered by the G.C. The guy could still move so he could still pull a trigger or throw a grenade.

And if he wasn't moving but had a heat-signature, then he could be faking and still capable of moving, pulling a trigger or throwing a grenade....

Otherwise (taking a parallel to your ridiculous "anyone with a cold" example) anyone lying down and playing possum is also covered under the GC.

So, the end conclusion would have to be that only the dead are actually protected by the GC under your "self-safety first" logic?

Thats brilliant.

If being injured and incapable of movement is the only protective situation you see, then how can that ever be ascertained? The simple truth is that it can't, and that ultimately your logic leads to the GC playing no active part in hostilities whatsoever, and only applying to those who are found outside the actual field of combat.

jc

Sparks

Sand's comments seemed quite familiar till I realised what they reminded me of:

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

vibe666

whether we argree on if they were justified or not (and i very much doubt they were in this case) the big question is, who's going to do something about it?

bush and his cronies have still failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction in the months sinc etheir occupation of iraq began, and lets be honest, with a free run of the place if what they were telling us when they first invaded was true, they would have come up with something by now if it was there wouldn't they? that makes the invasion an unjustified act in itself. they lied to congress, and to the rest of the world to try and justify what they were doing, and killed thousands of people for no good reason. lets face it if they can find saddam hussien hiding in a hole in the ground they should be able to find chemical and biological weapons factories shouldn't they?

they killed lots of civilians and there are plenty of rumours about some very dubious behaviour during the whole thing, and as the commander and chief of the US military Bush is responsible, which makes him as much of a war criminal as Saddam, so who's going to try him?

the americans themselves said they'd remove by force and US serviceman who was imprisoned and tried for war crimes, which if the UN or similar did it would mean the US invading Holland wouldn't it?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sparks
Sand's comments seemed quite familiar till I realised what they reminded me of:

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

A couple of quotes from Lt.Calley's testimony at the My Lai court martial.

"Well, I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job on that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified the same, and that was the classification that we dealt with, just as enemy soldiers."

"I didn't discriminate between individuals in the village, sir. They were all the enemy, they were all to be destroyed, sir...."

:ninja:

It took soldiers like Calley months of intensive dehumanising training followed by a fairly brutalising sojourn in a war zone to develop that kind of mentality. A few people here seem to have been born with it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
A few people here seem to have been born with it.

There are rules about attacking other posters. Simply deciding to omit names and issuing blanket-insults like the above is not an acceptable alternative.

jc

Sand

The GC doesn't require them to immdediately capture and treat such wounded if it's not practical, just that they don't finish them off if they no longer pose any threat.

Actually to abandon the wounded and leave them without medical care is against the geneva convention, so yes, they would have to take them prisoner under the geneva convention assuming they were covered by it.

From Chapter 2 Article 12

"they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care,"

If someone tries to surrender infront of an apache helicoptor, it's not possible for them to accept their surrender and take him into custody, but they still can't shoot the guy

Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?

Someone surrendering might be strapped with explosives. Who's the say? When you sign up to the GC you accept the risks that following it following it might involve. You don't agree to only adhear to it whenever you're positive it's completely safe.

False surrenders like the above are forbidden under the G.C. Article 37, section 1. Id reckon where soldiers suspect a false surrender theyre perfectly in the right to not risk themselves and be very cautious - does that mean double tap to make sure, no. Does mean when the guy is not incapacitated you dont have to take extraordinary risks to take him prisoner when hes shown no interest in surrendering.

Which leads me on to....Article 41, Section 2

2. A person is hors de combat if:
(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

Well in this case:

a didnt apply. b didnt apply as he didnt raise any white flag or make any other obvious moves to surrender. c doesnt apply as he was not unconcious, he was able to move, hence he was not incapable of defending himself and it can be argued that even if any of the above apply he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

The reason no ones calling for a war crimes trial for the U.S. over this incident is that the U.S. didnt break the Geneva Convention. Yeah, it wasnt Captain America stuff as I said but it would be incorrect imo and apparently that of the lawyers out there to claim they broke the G.C. The "finishing off" was perfectly above board according to the rules of war. The issue, as sparks has also noticed is that did the Apache have due cause to open fire in the first place? Id agree they had a right to nail the first guy with the apparent RPG but the other 2 were on a tractor and were only talking to the first guy. Thats extremely loose rules of engagement.

The man would most likely have been dead by the time anyone found him. If he were still alive, bringing him to a hospital would be his only chance. Even if he got there, he probably still would have died.

Yeah it likely he would have died regardless but why then would his buddies in the cause risk the Americans chatting with him? Im sure theyve seen a lot worse casualties and afaik they arent deposited at hospitals?

All this does is OK the killing of any Coalition wounded.

If the same situation was to arise with Americans on the receiving end then the Iraqis would be perfectly entitled to "finish off" any non - incapacitated soldier not covered by the definitions of out of combat.

And yes, of course the US would decry it as a travesty. Theyd simply be doing what so many do - seeing things from their point of view.

So, the end conclusion would have to be that only the dead are actually protected by the GC under your "self-safety first" logic?

See above, the G.C. includes definitions of those considered out of combat.

The simple truth is that it can't, and that ultimately your logic leads to the GC playing no active part in hostilities whatsoever, and only applying to those who are found outside the actual field of combat.

Actually I feel the creative analysis of the G.C. is an example of where international law is full of holes and can be used to argue pretty much any point. In the situation presented the "finishing off" wasnt against the G.C. as looking at it reveals. If enough people shout that it is ( under the mistaken belief that the G.C. is a set od ideals that can be stretched and morphed rather than a set of rules ) then the natural result is that the G.C. itself becomes devalued.

"If they run, they're VC - if they stand still, they're highly-trained VC."
"What about the women and children?"
"You just don't lead 'em as much."

That sounds to me like Everything I know about international law I learned from the movies. Each to their own.

the americans themselves said they'd remove by force and US serviceman who was imprisoned and tried for war crimes, which if the UN or similar did it would mean the US invading Holland wouldn't it?

Given the fact that people are willing to try and convict them for committing a breach of the G.C. that they did not commit under the definitions of the G.C. maybe theyd have a right to be suspiscious of international justice and political bias seeping into trials of their servicemen.

Someones got to pay for Bush invading Iraq after all. Why not the servicemen he sent?

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
.....Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?...

How can one surrender while taking few bullets and they are not just ordinary bullets? you saw what those bullets done to the truck and the pickup. Considering all happened in few seconds no one was given chance of surrender so surrendering is not an option in Iraq?
I am sure things like this are happening everyday in Iraq these days, democracy, freedom my a$$, Saddam and Bush and Blair should be put in same cell.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Is there any evidence that he attempted to surrender rather than simply crawl into cover?

Who would he surrender to Sand? The Apache crew was over a kilometer away. They never even saw who killed them - and you can tell that from their reactions. After the first man is killed, the others hide from where he was standing - not from the helicopter, because they never saw it.

False surrenders like the above are forbidden under the G.C. Article 37, section 1.

Does mean when the guy is not incapacitated you dont have to take extraordinary risks to take him prisoner when hes shown no interest in surrendering.

The man has several 30mm holes in him from apache gunship cannon fire.
Frankly sand, to suggest he's not hors de combat is insulting to anyone's intelligence. Would you be happy to explain to his family that he was shot because he was still able to fight?

a didnt apply. b didnt apply as he didnt raise any white flag or make any other obvious moves to surrender. c doesnt apply as he was not unconcious, he was able to move, hence he was not incapable of defending himself and it can be argued that even if any of the above apply he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

That's so at odds with the videotape that I can't believe you're saying it.
He flops over Sand, once. He's not crawling. He's not moving. He's identified as wounded twice by the apache crew. That man is hors de combat, he's protected by the Geneva Convention. Killing him was a war crime. End. Of. Story.

Id agree they had a right to nail the first guy with the apparent RPG

What apparent RPG? He's not carrying anything.

If the same situation was to arise with Americans on the receiving end then the Iraqis would be perfectly entitled to "finish off" any non - incapacitated soldier not covered by the definitions of out of combat.

Indeed? We heard the diametric opposite view from the US and UK when their troops were killed in combat, didn't we?

Actually I feel the creative analysis of the G.C.

Sand, the only one here doing creative analysis is you.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Are you proposing that any time an apache attacks say a tank

Having taken a penetrating hit, tanks and other armoured vehicles have the nasty habit of blowing up and taking their crews / passenger with them in the ensuing fire / explosions. I've seen some photos from 1991 that wouldn't make the news.

Originally posted by Sand
or an infantry squad it should land to pick up survivors?

Actually whoel battallions surrendered to heicopters in 1991.

Originally posted by Sand
If a bomber hits a bunker

Same as tank, it is invariably all or nothing.

Originally posted by Sand
When a submarine hits a troop transport it should come up and try to fit the thousand odd survivors in the boat somewhere?

I'm not sure of the exact protocol, but civilian crews are meant to be given the facility of abandoning ship. Military crews are protected once they are in the water / life rafts - they are not to be machine-gunned. This create a marginal anomally insofar as you can't shoot at a parachuting pilot, but you can shoot a parachuting paratrooper.

Originally posted by Sand
he was attempting to escape by crawling away.

To escape, one needs to have been captured. Technically he was fleeing - in this case from the fire of the vehicles, not the helicopter.

Sand

Who would he surrender to Sand? The Apache crew was over a kilometer away. They never even saw who killed them - and you can tell that from their reactions. After the first man is killed, the others hide from where he was standing - not from the helicopter, because they never saw it.

Maybe they should equip apaches with big flashing neon signs so they can be seen and surrendered to?

As some guy above said it may be difficult or even impossible to keep within the G.C. That doesnt reduce or increase anyones obligation to keep to the G.C. The fact is the Iraqis made no move to surrender. The 1st/3rd guy was under the truck, not making any obvious moves to surrender. When he crawled out from the truck he still didnt raise his hand or make any move to surrender. Not against the G.C. to target him under that rule.

The man has several 30mm holes in him from apache gunship cannon fire. Frankly sand, to suggest he's not hors de combat is insulting to anyone's intelligence. Would you be happy to explain to his family that he was shot because he was still able to fight?

Care to mention how many 30mm holes he had in him, seeing as he was under the truck and any wounds he suffered could be more from the truck above him than the rounds fired?

As for his family the issue isnt as I said that he was "finished off" - that was above board according to the G.C. His family would have to accept that he went off to kill coalition soldiers ( the rpg? ) and unfortunately for him he got killed. Their grief still doesnt make it a breach of the G.C.

That's so at odds with the videotape that I can't believe you're saying it.
He flops over Sand, once. He's not crawling. He's not moving. He's identified as wounded twice by the apache crew. That man is hors de combat, he's protected by the Geneva Convention. Killing him was a war crime. End. Of. Story.

He didnt flop over once - he got out from under the truck and was a good 2-3 meters from it by the time they shot him again. One of the pilots says hes wounded once, the co-pilot say to shoot him twice. He wasnt hors de combat under the terms of the G.C. It wasnt a breach of the G.C. No lawyer or authority has opened proceedings against the U.S. or their servicemen for a breach of the G.C. from this incident. We must assume that in their opinion ( which Id reckon trumps yours...end of story or no ) there is no case to answer. Which imo is correct when you read the G.C. and see what it says rather than what you want it to say. Your argument is with the international justice system and its laws, not me.

What apparent RPG? He's not carrying anything.

He threw away an RPG in an attempt to hide it according to the crew just before the video starts rolling. If a guy is carrying an RPG its safe to assume hes got a small arm as well.

Indeed? We heard the diametric opposite view from the US and UK when their troops were killed in combat, didn't we?

Yes and I anticipated this in the next paragraph to the one you posted, which you happily ignored. Read it again.

There was no G.C. breach and Indymedia is not the official mouthpiece of the coalition governments so theyre obviously going to be more concerned about their own soldiers and apply the same slanted viewpoint to a similar situation in which theyre on the receiving end. I dont hear rending of hair and gnashing of teeth in sorrow and moral outrage when a coalition solider gets killed by a suicide bomber ( which is a breach of the G.C. apparently as weapons have to be openly displayed by soldiers ).

Sand, the only one here doing creative analysis is you.

International law apparently disagrees.

Having taken a penetrating hit, tanks and other armoured vehicles have the nasty habit of blowing up and taking their crews / passenger with them in the ensuing fire / explosions. I've seen some photos from 1991 that wouldn't make the news.

Of course, but if a near miss only inflicts apparently slight damage but the tank slews off to the side of the road and halts are the apache crew in the right to fire again to make sure the tank is killed?

Actually whoel battallions surrendered to heicopters in 1991.

Did they manage to fit all the wounded in the chopper? If so Guinness Book of Records would like to talk to them Im sure.

I'm not sure of the exact protocol, but civilian crews are meant to be given the facility of abandoning ship. Military crews are protected once they are in the water / life rafts - they are not to be machine-gunned. This create a marginal anomally insofar as you can't shoot at a parachuting pilot, but you can shoot a parachuting paratrooper.

Thats true, hence troop transport which would imply a military vessel and crew. Assuming a military ship sank so fast or didnt carry enough life boats and the crew had to go into the water - is the sub then obliged to surface ( this is extremely risky ) and fit what would almost always be a far larger crew into the legendarily confined sub? Situations like this have happened.

To escape, one needs to have been captured. Technically he was fleeing - in this case from the fire of the vehicles, not the helicopter.

Either way he doesnt fall into any of the 3 defintions of hors de combat.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Maybe they should equip apaches with big flashing neon signs so they can be seen and surrendered to?

Maybe they shouldn't shred farmers in a field from a kilometre away with 30mm cannon fire?

As some guy above said it may be difficult or even impossible to keep within the G.C.

That isn't the case here. There was no threat to the US forces, the nearest US forces were a kilometre away in an Apache gunship, and the Iraqis were farmers ploughing a field. You can look at the video footage Sand, that's blatently obvious that that's all that was going on there.
There was no threat - and yet the trigger-happy yahoos killed three people.

The fact is the Iraqis made no move to surrender. The 1st/3rd guy was under the truck, not making any obvious moves to surrender. When he crawled out from the truck he still didnt raise his hand or make any move to surrender. Not against the G.C. to target him under that rule.

It's completely against the GC to target him. He doesn't make any obvious moves to surrender because he's just been shot up with 30mm cannon fire from an anti-tank cannon on an apache gunship. And he never even knew what the hell was going on - none of them did, you can tell from the manner in which they reacted. They never even saw the apache in all liklihood.

Care to mention how many 30mm holes he had in him, seeing as he was under the truck and any wounds he suffered could be more from the truck above him than the rounds fired?

That's a standard truck, as used on farms. No armour plating. And it was hit by 30mm anti-tank rounds made from depleted uranium, designed to kill T55 main battle tanks. Not to mention the high explosive 30mm rounds (they mix the ammo types in the magazine for the apache's gun). So it's highly unlikely that he escaped injury. And I mean highly unlikely.

As for his family the issue isnt as I said that he was "finished off" - that was above board according to the G.C.

Actually, it's expressly forbidden under the GC. In black and white. It's already been quoted here in fact.

His family would have to accept that he went off to kill coalition soldiers ( the rpg? ) and unfortunately for him he got killed.

See, I'm looking at the video now. (Have you?).
I see one man crossing a field to another man on a tractor. They switch places and the first man continues ploughing while the second walks back over to the pickup truck. He's shredded. The first hides from what he thinks is an explosion - but the apache's a kilometer behind him, so he gets shredded, along with the tractor. The third guy is crouching by the truck hiding from what he thinks is an explosion from when the first guy died, and when he looks around after the second explosion, he's spotted and shredded - and when he's rolling around in shock and agony, he's shredded again.

Nowhere in the film is there anything that looks like a weapon, and nowhere in the film is there anything that doesn't look like normal farming practise. NOWHERE.

So until they prove otherwise, this was a murder of innocent farmers.

He didnt flop over once - he got out from under the truck and was a good 2-3 meters from it by the time they shot him again.

That's not true. He's less than a yard from it and he flops over on the ground while they watch. He's obviously wounded and down, but they shoot him again. He's not crawling, he's not hiding, he's not shooting back, he's not reaching for a weapon, nothing. How could he? He's just been shot with a mix of 30mm DU shells and 30mm HE shells!

One of the pilots says hes wounded once, the co-pilot say to shoot him twice. He wasnt hors de combat under the terms of the G.C.

Only if you rewrite the GC to suit yourself. If you go by the one the US signed in '49, he is out of action. And frankly, I'd love to hear how a man shot several times with 30mm DU anti-tank shells is going to present a threat to an armoured anti-tank gunship a kilometer away.

It wasnt a breach of the G.C. No lawyer or authority has opened proceedings against the U.S. or their servicemen for a breach of the G.C. from this incident.

Yet.

He threw away an RPG in an attempt to hide it according to the crew just before the video starts rolling. If a guy is carrying an RPG its safe to assume hes got a small arm as well.

There are three problems there:
1) You're asking me to take the word of a man whom I've seen murder three innocent men that one of them might have been armed. I see no evidence to support his claim, and lots of evidence to say his word is worthless.
2) Small arms are inneffectual against an armoured anti-tank gunship a kilometre away - and even so, we don't see him reach for any.
3) Everyone in Iraq carries an AK-47 today. Farmers, doctors, civil servants, Everyone. It's perfectly legal and not an indication of any motivation past the desire to be able to defend themselves from the gangs which have been documented by even the US press who are making life inherently unsafe for average Iraqis today.


Basicly Sand, your argument holds no water, and the case against the Apache crew is clear-cut.

The only difficulty is actually prosecuting them, since the US fiercely defends the "right" for it's soldiers to commit war crimes with impunity.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Of course, but if a near miss only inflicts apparently slight damage but the tank slews off to the side of the road and halts are the apache crew in the right to fire again to make sure the tank is killed?

If a tank is only immobilised (damaged engine or tracks) is is usually still capable of fighting and is a valid target.

Originally posted by Sparks
3) Everyone in Iraq carries an AK-47 today. Farmers, doctors, civil servants, Everyone. It's perfectly legal and not an indication of any motivation past the desire to be able to defend themselves from the gangs which have been documented by even the US press who are making life inherently unsafe for average Iraqis today.

Every household is allowed one rifle and one pistol. Theya re not allowed to be carried in public. I don't think this location could be considered "public".

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
Every household is allowed one rifle and one pistol. Theya re not allowed to be carried in public. I don't think this location could be considered "public". [/B]

It's very doubtful it could be considered "public", since the clip is of a man ploughing his field on a tractor (as anyone can see from looking at the clip).
And if you're not allowed carry weapons in public, why do we constantly see doctors having to conduct rounds carrying weapons?

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
And if you're not allowed carry weapons in public, why do we constantly see doctors having to conduct rounds carrying weapons?

I've seen doctors in hospitals with them, but not on the street - I haven't seen much TV recently though.

I don't post here as much as i used to, but i tend to check most posts. So i am trolling just a bit.

They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly

Just curious, but how do you feel about the opinion that if it had been the Iraqi's in the position of power, this would have been considered a crime? We've all seen the US take the stance that any iraqi resisting the occupation is considered a terrorist rather than a "freedom fighter" or a "valid resistance group". If it had been american civilians that had been shot by a middle eastern nations helicopter, you can bet the US would be shouting for "Justice". This is not an attack on the US as such, since most western nations would follow the same opinion. There seems to be this concept/perception that anything a western power does is allowable, whereas any non-nato/eu power cannot be allowed to do the same.

The only difficulty is actually prosecuting them, since the US fiercely defends the "right" for it's soldiers to commit war crimes with impunity.

because there is nobody to stop them. Who will stand up to the largest superpower in the world? Especially in the past it has been the US that has prevented other nations from commiting said crimes. I admire the US for what they have done in the past, in trying to prevent other nations from commiting such crimes, however it seems that eventually if you fight too hard, you become what you hate the most.

sovtek

An article about this here video clip with some familiar remarks.

http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/beutelm/apache.avi

apparently the full vid is here. dunno for sure, downloading it now. They say you can see a sam or such in it. we'll see.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/beutelm/apache.avi

apparently the full vid is here. dunno for sure, downloading it now. They say you can see a sam or such in it. we'll see.

Just looked at it.
Could be anything, as I'm not familiar with what a rocket launcher or a handheld SAM looks like. I'm also not familiar with commonly used farm tools used in Iraq. I assume, on the latter, neither is the jarhead.
I noticed when gettting permission someone asks "you sure it's a weapon"... "yeah".
Of course it could very well be and they were acting a bit strange. Then maybe they were getting ready to bail hay. ????
I think if they were interested in intelligence on the resistance the best thing would have been to surround and capture if possible. Instead they just obliterated what could have been farmers or just lowly resistance fighters. Either way they will never know and they probably just created a few more in their place.
That's in addition to probably commiting a war crime.

Sparks

Whatever the object is, it's about 3 to 4 feet long and wrapped in cloth, and isn't heavy - and after it's dropped, noone goes within twenty yards of it. There's never a threat to US forces and the Apache crew never knows who the men are, what they are doing, or what they dropped. Nor do they ever try to find out, they just kill them, starting with the man that was already in the field on his tractor when the other two arrive - and who never saw what was dropped or even came within fifty yards of it (the men are all killed fifty to a hundred yards from where the bundle is dropped).

Moriarty

Seems pretty clear cut to me from the vid klaz posted. The guy in the pickup makes a drop of an rpg into a field about 30m from the road, the guy in the truck runs over in the same direction and drops something else (a box about the size of a shoe box) a bit closer to the road than the rpg was dropped. Authorisation was sought and recieved to kill them because they were carrying weapons and making an arms drop.

While pickup-guy is taking stuff wrapped in something off the tractor, tractor-guy walks towards truck-guy but gets shot by the apache. Pickup-guy continues to try to take the stuff from the tractor as tractor-guy gets shot to pieces. He gets killed next. Truck guy took cover under his truck and was shot at, as hes crawling away from the truck hes killed.

Pickup-guy and truck-guy certainly cant complain with being killed, they were making an arms/supply drop. They got caught, tough luck. Tractor guy seems to have been transporting other things - the stuff pickup-guy continues to try to frantically unload when tractor-guy gets killed - to the same dropoff point, so he cant complain either.

Sparks

Originally posted by Moriarty
Seems pretty clear cut to me from the vid klaz posted. The guy in the pickup makes a drop of an rpg into a field about 30m from the road, the guy in the truck runs over in the same direction and drops something else (a box about the size of a shoe box) a bit closer to the road than the rpg was dropped. Authorisation was sought and recieved to kill them because they were carrying weapons and making an arms drop.

Lovely theory. Pity we have no idea what the hell the object was, and neither did the men in the gunship or the men who gave the authorisation. And the correct course of action even if it had been an RPG would have been to challange and capture them, not kill them with 30mm cannon fire indiscriminately from a kilometre away.

While pickup-guy is taking stuff wrapped in something off the tractor,

Actually, he's driving the tractor.

tractor-guy walks towards truck-guy but gets shot by the apache.

"So who the hell are you people and what the hell are you doing in my field?"
Bang.

Pickup-guy continues to try to take the stuff from the tractor as tractor-guy gets shot to pieces.

No, pickup-guy crouches behind the tractor, putting the tractor between him and what he sees as an explosion. We know that he doesn't know about the apache, don't forget. And since he's not looking at the man who's killed first, he will only have seen an explosion from his side - for all he knows, the fuel tank in the truck or pickup just blew up.

Truck guy took cover under his truck and was shot at, as hes crawling away from the truck hes killed.

Except that he's not crawling away, he's flopping over, and isn't moving when he's shot for the second time with a mixture of 30mm depleted uranium and 30mm high explosive rounds.

Pickup-guy and truck-guy certainly cant complain with being killed, they were making an arms/supply drop.

They were? Congradulations on being the only person who knows this.

They got caught, tough luck. Tractor guy seems to have been transporting other things - the stuff pickup-guy continues to try to frantically unload when tractor-guy gets killed - to the same dropoff point, so he cant complain either.

Actually, Tractor-guy's actions are more consistent with him having nothing to do with the other two.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
Lovely theory. Pity we have no idea what the hell the object was, and neither did the men in the gunship or the men who gave the authorisation.

The object he drops is long, slender for the most part, has a bulbus shape like an rpg at one end and seems to have a handle more or less where hes holding it. Looks like an rpg to me.

<edit: Oh, and while they dont specifically identifiy it, they certainly confirm that it is a weapon and thats what matters at the end of the day.>

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, he's driving the tractor.

Actually, hes not. When pickup-guy walks over to the tractor (as they fire first, totally missing everything), he talks to tractor-guy, then walks around the back of the tractor to the other side of it and begins to unload something from it, but goes off picture as tractor-guy gets killed. As they slew back to the tractor you can see pickup-guy frantically unloading something from the tractor, he isnt just taking cover behind it.

Originally posted by Sparks
"So who the hell are you people and what the hell are you doing in my field?"
Bang.

"Heres the heavy shit from down the road that i just collected". The men seem to know each other and pickup guy is certainly unloading something from the tractor.

Originally posted by Sparks
No, pickup-guy crouches behind the tractor, putting the tractor between him and what he sees as an explosion. We know that he doesn't know about the apache, don't forget. And since he's not looking at the man who's killed first, he will only have seen an explosion from his side - for all he knows, the fuel tank in the truck or pickup just blew up.

He's not just crouching, hes unloading stuff while hes crouching. While he doesnt know about the apache, he realises that somone has just shot the hell out of his friend. Pickup-guy is facing across the tractor looking towards tractor-guys back, the pickup and the truck as tractor-guy is killed, he sees right in front of him what happens.

Originally posted by Sparks
Except that he's not crawling away, he's flopping over, and isn't moving when he's shot for the second time with a mixture of 30mm depleted uranium and 30mm high explosive rounds.

Hes most certainly crawling away from the truck as his heat-signature comes back, you can clearly see an arm or leg swinging. As he is about to be shot he does completly stop moving though.

I dont understand why youre stressing the ammunition. Would you prefer it if he was shot with a lower callibre weapon? He's just as dead wheter you shoot him with a .22 in the head from 2 feet or 30mm rounds from a mile away. Surely its the result of him dying or not thats important, not how exactly it happens? Would it be alright in your eyes to kill him if the americans didnt have such a technological advantage?

Originally posted by Sparks
They were? Congradulations on being the only person who knows this.

On the contrary, you seem to have been one of the few people in this thread to miss it. If you cant see both men dropping stuff in the field youre not paying attention. It really is there in plain sight, i have no reason to make it up.

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, Tractor-guy's actions are more consistent with him having nothing to do with the other two.

Nope, look at the video again. There is an uncut segment where truck-guy runs over to the field so you can see where the tractor eventually stops and the tractor isnt there. As soon as the tractor arrives at that spot truck-man goes straight over to the tractor to greet tractor-man, talks for maybe 5 seconds then walks around the back to the other side and begins to unload stuff. Tractor-man gets off, walks over to pickup-man and gets killed on the way. Tractor-man seems to know the other two men and certainly doesnt seem to have a problem with pickup-man unloading things from his tractor.

Sparks

Originally posted by Moriarty
The object he drops is long, slender for the most part, has a bulbus shape like an rpg at one end and seems to have a handle more or less where hes holding it. Looks like an rpg to me.[/quiote]
*looks at the film again*
Nope, that's not what's on the film. Are you watching the same thing I'm watching?

<edit: Oh, and while they dont specifically identifiy it, they certainly confirm that it is a weapon and thats what matters at the end of the day.>

Actually, they never confirm it is a weapon. They're asked and the pilot says "oh yeah, it's a weapon". From a kilometre away.

Actually, hes not. When pickup-guy walks over to the tractor (as they fire first, totally missing everything), he talks to tractor-guy, then walks around the back of the tractor to the other side of it and begins to unload something from it, but goes off picture as tractor-guy gets killed.

No, he doesnt. He gets into the drivers seat. I'm looking at the video right now. There is nothing to unload anyway, since the tractor isn't hauling a trailor, but a plowshare. If you look at the ground to the left and right, fore and aft of the tractor, you'll see that the texture is different - unploughed from the front of the tractor on and to the left - ploughed to the right and behind the tractor from the plowshare back.

As they slew back to the tractor you can see pickup-guy frantically unloading something from the tractor, he isnt just taking cover behind it.

No, he's not unloading anything. Watch him moving about before that - he's wearing a turban or something similar with a long flap of cloth hanging from his head downwards and you see it flapping about as he moves. That's what you're seeing when he crouches.

He's not just crouching, hes unloading stuff while hes crouching. While he doesnt know about the apache, he realises that somone has just shot the hell out of his friend. Pickup-guy is facing across the tractor looking towards tractor-guys back, the pickup and the truck as tractor-guy is killed, he sees right in front of him what happens.

Again, you're totally wrong about the man by the tractor, and we know that they don't know what's going on because they never see what's shooting at them, or even hear the shots (remember, at the beginning of the tape, the two lads by the pickup are looking directly towards the apache and never react to it, and when he fires the first time, noone looks towards the apache or reacts to the noise meaning they never heard it.

Hes most certainly crawling away from the truck as his heat-signature comes back, you can clearly see an arm or leg swinging. As he is about to be shot he does completly stop moving though.

Ever see what happens to a light object hit by heavy weapons fire? It doesn't sit still, it's knocked about. Add to that the fact that a person who's just been shot tends to writhe most of the time, and there's your "crawling".
The man has 30mm holes in him from depleted uranium shells that came right through the truck, not to mention shrapnel from the 30mm high explosive shells that hit the truck a foot or two from him.
He's not crawling anywhere, and if he ever was a threat to anyone (which no-one could have known at the time since noone knew what the object was), he isn't at that point. He is, by every sane definition of the phrase, hors de combat.

I dont understand why youre stressing the ammunition. Would you prefer it if he was shot with a lower callibre weapon?

I'm stressing it so you don't think that the truck shielded him, allowing him to escape injury and thus still be a possible threat as Sand was arguing.

On the contrary, you seem to have been one of the few people in this thread to miss it. If you cant see both men dropping stuff in the field youre not paying attention. It really is there in plain sight, i have no reason to make it up.

It wasn't in the segment of video the ABC newspage showed and we were all looking at to this point.

Tractor-man gets off, walks over to pickup-man and gets killed on the way. Tractor-man seems to know the other two men and certainly doesnt seem to have a problem with pickup-man unloading things from his tractor.

What is he supposed to be unloading from, a secret compartment hidden in the driver's seat? Because that's where he sits and he faces forwards and continues to drive the tractor, ploughing the field.

BTW, here's one for you - the Apache is an armoured anti-tank gunship with 30mm cannon, sidewinders and hellfire/TOW missiles and unguided rocket pods. During the gulf war in '91, whole divisions of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to them and were marched back to US ground troops escorted by the gunships.

So why is it that three farmers in a field with no weapons were too threatening to at least challange, if not capture? Are you saying that Iraqi farmers are so hard that they can sprint across fifty yards of ploughed earth, get to a hypothetical RPG, unwrap it, aim it at an apache and kill the gunship - all before the apache gunner can hit him with the 30mm cannon and it's helmet-tracking aiming system where you look at your target and fire to hit it?