US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

Manic Moran

I am a fraid you do not have any counter points to the fact that the US army is murdering innocent Iraqis other than you put your faith in your believe that US soldiers are in your opinion "good guys"

One might also argue that your use of the term 'murdered' is deliberately provocative and inaccurate. Killed, yes. This is freely admitted. The question is how avoidable this might have been. If it was realistically avoidable, then yes, perhaps murdered would be a good word. Perhaps they are avoidable if the US government didn't decide to go an invade/occupy Iraq. Once that political decision is made, however, you have to look at it from the operational/tactical standpoint, which appears to be where my point of view diverges from your own.

I mean, let's have a case study to apportion blame:

A chap is standing watch in his tank at the side of a main road in a city, just manning a guard post. All of a sudden, from about a hundered meters down the road, a bloke sticks his head round the corner with an RPG, and takes a shot at the tank. The tanker, being a little offended at this hostile action, drops down to his sight takes aim, and lets loose with a nice long burst of .50 cal back the other way. All of a sudden, right through the sight picture appears this Mitsubishi SUV, loaded with a family. Dad, Mom, two or three kids, to include a year-old kid. Given the mess that .50cals make, assume that some are killed, some wounded.

Did the tanker just 'murder' these people, by your standards? Is this a war crime? No, it was an unfortunate incident. Was the RPG gunner at fault, perhaps? I wouldn't say so. The civilians? Of course not. That's the sort of scenario that results in lopsided rates like the quoted 30:4. I can come up with other such scenarios.

The link that A dub in glasgow gave is very interesting in that it gives a guy who not only was a marine

Capital 'M' on Marine. They get rather uptight about that sort of thing. It was an interesting page though. What I found particularly amusing were the two links off on the right, one to Feral Reporter, where basically Massey is accused of lying, and the other to a debate, where Massey is also put on the defensive. And then to deflect this spouts off BS to outknowledge the other bloke. I mean, "Armour Piercing Incendiary Depleted Uranium" rounds from a .50 cal? There's no DU in an API round. They're steel-capped. There might be in a SLAP round, but that has no incendiary content. So he's proven to be of questionable reliability and something of a blowhard. Kudos and respect to him for being in the Corps, but if you're going to go to that level of publicity, you'd better be of sure footing.

other links from that site reveal how the embedded reporters are just reporting

If you really want an embedded reporter's point of view, go to michaelyon.blogspot.com This chap spends his entire time (A year plus so far) with line units, and has very little truck for 'embeds' who fly into Baghdad, check in with a few soldiers, and fly out again. One of his articles goes into the reasons for the difference in accuracy between what he reports and what most reporters report. Even if you don't agree with my point of view on most things, it really is the best reporting I've seen out of Iraq.

But the flaws in what passes for democracy in the US are the subject for a different thread.

That is a subject I will probably find myself agreeing with you on more than you might think.

NTM

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

I am a fraid you do not have any counter points to the fact that the US army is murdering innocent Iraqis other than you put your faith in your believe that US soldiers are in your opinion "good guys"

One might also argue that your use of the term 'murdered' is deliberately provocative and inaccurate. Killed, yes. This is freely admitted. The question is how avoidable this might have been. If it was realistically avoidable, then yes, perhaps murdered would be a good word. Perhaps they are avoidable if the US government didn't decide to go an invade/occupy Iraq. Once that political decision is made, however, you have to look at it from the operational/tactical standpoint, which appears to be where my point of view diverges from your own.

I mean, let's have a case study to apportion blame:

A chap is standing watch in his tank at the side of a main road in a city, just manning a guard post. All of a sudden, from about a hundered meters down the road, a bloke sticks his head round the corner with an RPG, and takes a shot at the tank. The tanker, being a little offended at this hostile action, drops down to his sight takes aim, and lets loose with a nice long burst of .50 cal back the other way. All of a sudden, right through the sight picture appears this Mitsubishi SUV, loaded with a family. Dad, Mom, two or three kids, to include a year-old kid. Given the mess that .50cals make, assume that some are killed, some wounded.

Did the tanker just 'murder' these people, by your standards? Is this a war crime? No, it was an unfortunate incident. Was the RPG gunner at fault, perhaps? I wouldn't say so. The civilians? Of course not. That's the sort of scenario that results in lopsided rates like the quoted 30:4. I can come up with other such scenarios.



NTM

I will give you another scenario a guy with his family is driving in his country as he approaches a Foreign US operated checkpoint without any warning his car is riddled with bullets he leaves the road and the US troops continue firing into his vehicle Killing 3 children and 2 men and seriously injuring his wife and another child.
There is no insurgent nor any RPG just 5 dead innocent Iraqis

Manic Moran

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33349-2005Jan24.html

From that article:

"The report deals with the conduct of Iraqi authorities but not that of U.S. military forces "

The US is trying to put some pressure on the Iraqi government to get itself in line.

Torture is still continuing Abu Gharib only came to light because England and co were dumb enough to take pictures and send them home

Not quite.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/05/60II/main615781.shtml
The Army started investigating because a soldier turned in the photographs to the Army. 'Ratted' on the culprits, if you will. This was nothing to do with the photographs entering the public domain. Further, you will note that the article says that the Army investigated some two dozen cases of mistreatment. Since there aren't two dozen sets of photographs going around the public domain, it is reasonable to assume that your cause-and-effect hypothesis is invalid. The Army acknowledges that some of its people are not playing by the rules, and is coming down on those lawbreakers as you would expect.

However they are not just holding people from the countries involved nor are they saying they will release them when conflicts end nor are they holding them as POWs or abiding by the GCs

As I said, one had to rather stretch the legal definition. However, they are being well enough treated. The Camp X-ray as depicted by the old photos are long history, and the prisoners are being held in facilities which, frankly, are better than civilian prisons or anything a POW faced in WWII. Given the drain on resources that the prisoner facility in Guantanamo constitutes for the Army (All those National Guardsmen cycling through), and the political liability it entails, I think a conclusion on the facility's status is likely in the not too distant future.

Run through what system what system certainly not the ICC or any independent body

UCMJ and courts-martial. Your implication being that even if the military prosecution does come up with guilty verdicts, you wouldn't be satisfied?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html

Again, from that article: "Two Army soldiers with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Fort Carson, Colo., are charged with killing Mowhoush with the sleeping-bag technique..."

This implies that the Army doesn't particularly condone such techniques. Even far less lethal cases have been charged by military prosecutors: In one case an officer fired his pistol into the wall next to an insurgent in order to get him to talk. The insurgent talked, the soldiers were able to avoid an ambush, and the officer's mens' lives may have been saved. Yet the officer was still charged by the Army and convicted. There are two common threads here. One is that there are lawbreakers in the Army. The other is that the Army does what it can to bring them to justice, almost invariably before the media finds out about the incidents to provide any external impetus.

No your point is that it is not an illegal Chemical weapon but it is a Chemical used as a weapon therefore it is a chemical weapon I concede that it may not appear on any banned list specifically but never the less it is a chemical weapon

Now that's just daft. 2,4,6-trinitrophenol is a nice, complex-sounding chemical composition, it was used as the High Explosive content in artillery rounds in WWI. God knows what chemical composition is used in modern HE rounds. Should they also suffer your disapproval?

Well a little googling http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes618.html

Fair enough. Though the common thread again though is that at the time this became public, internal investigations were already underway. So far nothing is showing that there is an institutional acceptance by the Army of what one would consider war crimes.

That is the tip of the iceberg the whole war has been censored

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

From that article, they admit that they self-censored, and that there was nothing that they couldn't report. (I'm assuming that they are ignoring operational matters).

BTW, I'm enjoying this argument. Hope you're not taking things personally!

NTM

Manic Moran

Bloodychancer wrote:

I will give you another scenario a guy with his family is driving in his country as he approaches a Foreign US operated checkpoint without any warning his car is riddled with bullets he leaves the road and the US troops continue firing into his vehicle Killing 3 children and 2 men and seriously injuring his wife and another child.
There is no insurgent nor any RPG just 5 dead innocent Iraqis

I'll need a couple of more details on that before I can make any form of opinion on the matter. There just isn't enough information to go on. Not least, if the Army charged anyone over the incident.

NTM

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll need a couple of more details on that before I can make any form of opinion on the matter. There just isn't enough information to go on.

NTM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4456244.stm

And perhaps you might provide a link to some details on your scenario

Manic Moran

Bloodychancer wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4456244.stm

And perhaps you might provide a link to some details on your scenario

That link is basically a case of 'I said/he said.'

"The Iraqi car wouldn't slow down and warning shots were fired," Maj Steven Warren told news agency AFP.

I can't provide a link, it's not on the web. I will happily furnish you with any reasonable information you require (To include use of Google-earth if you need visuals) but I think you have the vast majority of it.

NTM

lili

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll need a couple of more details on that before I can make any form of opinion on the matter. There just isn't enough information to go on. Not least, if the Army charged anyone over the incident.

NTM

happen very often in checkpoints.

Manic Moran

lili wrote:

happen very often in checkpoints.

It does. The point of contention is whether the soldiers in question acted in an unreasonable manner.

NTM

lili

Manic Moran wrote:

It does. The point of contention is whether the soldiers in question acted in an unreasonable manner.

NTM

they did very often.

what means NTM? because in french those letters do have a signifacation.

Victor

They are his initials. His signature.

Manic Moran

I'm curious.. what does it mean in France? Just making sure I'm not telling someone to go have relations with their mother or something...

NTM

lili

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm curious.. what does it mean in France? Just making sure I'm not telling someone to go have relations with their mother or something...

NTM

you guessed well:D

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

TM

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316555

Manic Moran

lili wrote:

you guessed well:D

Oops

NTM(NotinFrench)