US military slaughtering journalists and other civilians

[Brutha]

Recently released there's a video picturing US military slaughtering among others two Reuters journalists and harming 2 children after the attempt to rescue one of the wounded journalists:
Collateral Murder

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Recently released there's a video picturing US military slaughtering among others two Reuters journalists and harming 2 children after the attempt to rescue one of the wounded journalists:
Collateral Murder

While I am always disturbed by reports of US troops killing civilians, I am equally disturbed that other countries, as well as terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, are not expected to do the same -- and they are even known to take advantage of not following things like the Geneva Convention and the Just War doctrine, while the US is supposed to follow both at all times. To give just one example, terrorists don't seem to have a problem killing civilians in any way, shape or form, whatsoever, damn the consequences. But if the US does it -- well, threads like these get started.

War is hell.

[Cochonette]

The U.S. military sucks. Read "City of Widows." It may be a bit one-sided, but it's for the most part true. American soldiers are the real terrorists and have destroyed any infrastructure there was in Iraq and don't allow the Iraqis to rebuild their own country, but want the someone (U.S. taxpayers? foreign aid?) to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on greedy American companies to go in and rebuild it for them.

Fallujah was basically the U.S. military massacring Iraqis.

[Brutha]

In contrast to Al Qaeda the US signed the Geneva Convention.
If you don't want to follow it, withdraw your signatures.
If you don't want to follow the convention against torture withdraw those signatures them as well.

But as long as you continue to be cosignatory of those treaties you should consider yourself to be bound by them more than someone who didn't sign any of those treaties.

The term "Just War doctrine" that seems to be label for the position of the Catholic church on when you are allowed to go to war.
Religious doctrines bind followers of a religion. I don't think it makes much sense to complain when Muslims don't follow the Catholic church doctrine.

That said, I think it's consensus that the world would be better of without Al Qaeda. There's not the same consensus against US foreign policy.
It makes sense to speak about things that aren't consensus.

[ar81]

US never did anything to enforce human rights.

US refused to help jewish during the holocaust, backed the genocide regime of Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and helped Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against Kurds...

YouTube - Scream Bloody Murder CNN Christiane Amanpour Part 1

[KarmaAmputee]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In contrast to Al Qaeda the US signed the Geneva Convention.
If you don't want to follow it, withdraw your signatures.
If you don't want to follow the convention against torture withdraw those signatures them as well.

But as long as you continue to be cosignatory of those treaties you should consider yourself to be bound by them more than someone who didn't sign any of those treaties.

It is my understanding that when dealing with and fighting against a non-signatory party (AQ), a signatory party (America) may choose to extend GC protections and itself adhere to the GC if the non-signatory party generally abides by the spirit of the Convention and tries to "play" by the established rules of war. Clearly, AQ does not meet this standard hence they are entitled to only as much GC protection as we decide to extend to them.

The contract I have between myself and a neighbor that we will "fight fair" should a dispute arise does not extend to a rapist with whom I have no contract should he enter my home, rape my wife and kill my child. I would consider fighting fair with him if he had attempted to fight fair with me, but when he broke into my house, raped my wife and killed my kid, it was new rules...no rules.

[Cochonette]

Al Qaeda came to power thanks to the U.S. invasion in Iraq. Before that, there was actually infrastructure in Iraq to prevent warlords from taking over. Now the U.S. kills Iraqis civilians, rapes women, slaughters children, and blames it on Al Qaeda and "internal unrest."

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Al Qaeda came to power thanks to the U.S. invasion in Iraq. Before that, there was actually infrastructure in Iraq to prevent warlords from taking over. Now the U.S. kills Iraqis civilians, rapes women, slaughters children, and blames it on Al Qaeda and "internal unrest."

Al Qaeda has been around since the late 80s, hun. Been attacking the US for nearly that long.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by KarmaAmputee

It is my understanding that when dealing with and fighting against a non-signatory party (AQ), a signatory party (America) may choose to extend GC protections and itself adhere to the GC if the non-signatory party generally abides by the spirit of the Convention and tries to "play" by the established rules of war. Clearly, AQ does not meet this standard hence they are entitled to only as much GC protection as we decide to extend to them.

The contract I have between myself and a neighbor that we will "fight fair" should a dispute arise does not extend to a rapist with whom I have no contract should he enter my home, rape my wife and kill my child. I would consider fighting fair with him if he had attempted to fight fair with me, but when he broke into my house, raped my wife and killed my kid, it was new rules...no rules.

That's my understanding as well.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Religious doctrines bind followers of a religion. I don't think it makes much sense to complain when Muslims don't follow the Catholic church doctrine.

I must be getting my terms mixed up. I was basically referring to the collateral damage catch-22: "Don't kill the civilians!" And then the terrorists set up bases in civilian hospitals.

And if we followed Muslim terrorist doctrine about killing people -- well, the US gets enough flack already even though we don't.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

Al Qaeda has been around since the late 80s, hun. Been attacking the US for nearly that long.

My understanding is that Al Qaeda was not very involved in Iraq until the U.S. invaded, however. I am going to re-read the book. I have a terrible memory, and I could be getting Al Qaeda confused with some other Iraqi groups. I have to write a critical review of this book.

[Brutha]

I must be getting my terms mixed up. I was basically referring to the collateral damage catch-22: "Don't kill the civilians!" And then the terrorists set up bases in civilian hospitals.

The Just War Doctrine doesn't have protection of civilians in it.

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

It is my understanding that when dealing with and fighting against a non-signatory party (AQ), a signatory party (America) may choose to extend GC protections and itself adhere to the GC if the non-signatory party generally abides by the spirit of the Convention and tries to "play" by the established rules of war. Clearly, AQ does not meet this standard hence they are entitled to only as much GC protection as we decide to extend to them.

Saddam Hussein isn't Al Qaeda. Reuters employees are't either.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations

Afghanistan and Iraq are nations and therefore protected by it.

Al Qaeda has been around since the late 80s, hun. Been attacking the US for nearly that long.

At the same time the US gave them money to fight against the Soviets and China.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The Just War Doctrine doesn't have protection of civilians in it.

Funny how you keep making your point after I admitted that I was thinking of something else.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Saddam Hussein isn't Al Qaeda. Reuters employees are't either.

Well, I'm talking about Al Qaeda as relating to the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Afghanistan and Iraq are nations and therefore protected by it.

Like I said, I'm talking about Al Qaeda and the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by Brutha

At the same time the US gave them money to fight against the Soviets and China.

Al Qaeda was founded in the late 80s when the Cold War was sputtering out. You're referring to events that took place in the late 70s/early 80s.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

My understanding is that Al Qaeda was not very involved in Iraq until the U.S. invaded, however. I am going to re-read the book. I have a terrible memory, and I could be getting Al Qaeda confused with some other Iraqi groups. I have to write a critical review of this book.

I believe you are correct when it comes to Al Qaeda and Iraq. My point is that Al Qaeda has been attacking the US and its allies since long before Iraq.

[ar81]

Reuters already referred to this matter:
Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers | Reuters

The problem is that usually those who remain pilots and soldiers are the more stupid of all personal, because they are those who could not apply for a more technical or higher rank job.

They do not know the difference between an RPG (cylinder) and a video camera (block). RPGs look like a cylinder and cameras look like a block. It is simple geometry, but they did not pass high school math, and probaly that's why they enrolled.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

Funny how you keep making your point after I admitted that I was thinking of something else.

Keep in mind this is a public forum. It's not personal. I learned something through Brutha's post and I thank him.

Regarding Al Qaeda...Let's not forget that it was the CIA who trained them and gave them weapons.

[Brutha]

Well, I'm talking about Al Qaeda as relating to the Geneva Convention.

You complained that I hold the US to the standard of following the Geneva Convention.
As signatory of the convention the US is more strongly bound to it than some group with nobody asked when the convention was negotiated.

Al Qaeda was founded in the late 80s when the Cold War was sputtering out. You're referring to events that took place in the late 70s/early 80s.

There no evidence that the US stopped their funding after that time the Russians withdrew.

You have a CIA whistlerblower Sibel Edmonds against whom some gap orders are in place who says that there was funding throughout the 90's to train Uyghur resistence. As a rule of thumb, if the US governments thinks they need to censor a whistlerblowing because of national secrets I believe the whistleblower.

[KarmaAmputee]

I find collateral damage and the killing of non-combatants to be a terrible and regrettable thing when it happens and it makes me angry but I think it all comes down to intent. Did the US military INTEND to kill these non-combatants knowing they were civilians or was this a mistake of some kind where we thought these were enemy fighters?

I think the answer is fairly obvious. At least to anyone who does not hate the US...

What complicates matters is facing an enemy who is essentially a group of hostile civilians, illegal combatants who are difficult to distinguish from the rest of the civilians. AQ clearly intends to knowingly kill civilians, journalists, and whoever they can get their hands on. Saddam did it too, he gassed the Kurds and regularly instructed his military and security forces to brutalize and kill civilians. That is what Saddam INTENDED to do, and he did it. The Nazis did it...

The United States does not kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians as do our enemies. That does not make it right when we do kill innocent people and it is not suggest we never have in the past but it needs to be put in the proper perspective and appropriate context...

This...



Is NOT this...



Or this...



Or this...

[Gabo]

What's appalling to me is that some people don't consider this incident a disgusting and gruesome abuse of military power. If our soldiers are indiscriminately killing innocents, aren't we doing exactly what our war is supposed to be ending?

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

While I am always disturbed by reports of US troops killing civilians, I am equally disturbed that other countries, as well as terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, are not expected to do the same -- and they are even known to take advantage of not following things like the Geneva Convention and the Just War doctrine, while the US is supposed to follow both at all times.

The whole justification for fighting terrorist groups is that they kill innocent people and don't respect human life! When our military is doing exactly the same thing as the terrorists, then how does that make us look in the eyes of the Iraqis?

[Double]

War is war, people with a license to kill will do it. Soldiers are but murderers. Perhaps lead to believe they are doing a good thing... But they of anyone should know they are killing others.. And its a bad thing. Regardless




I dont know if there is anything to discuss. Most people are just hooked up to this giant machine, the state, surrendering property, enabling it to live. What that hedious creature goes and does is war, and lies, nothing but. But who cares as long as you can sit home on your couch watching fitness TV.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by KarmaAmputee

Saddam did it too, he gassed the Kurds and regularly instructed his military and security forces to brutalize and kill civilians. That is what Saddam INTENDED to do, and he did it.

The United States does not kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians as do our enemies. That does not make it right when we do kill innocent people and it is not suggest we never have in the past but it needs to be put in the proper perspective and appropriate context...

Or this...

Ah, do you mean Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on innocents? Do you mean Saddam who received strong political and financial support from Reagan when he killed the Kurds? Do you mean Saddam who shakes hands with Donald Rumsfeld? Don't you think US deserves part of the credit for supporting Saddam so strongly?

Originally Posted by Double

War is war, people with a license to kill will do it. Soldiers are but murderers. Perhaps lead to believe they are doing a good thing... But they of anyone should know they are killing others.. And its a bad thing. Regardless

Soldiers are trained to shoot. Give them a weapon and they will shoot. Probably they do not make a difference between videogames and reality. It is easy to confuse both when you are in the safe side of a gun.

[Gazzali]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Recently released there's a video picturing US military slaughtering among others two Reuters journalists and harming 2 children after the attempt to rescue one of the wounded journalists:
Collateral Murder

i can't watch the videos in your link..any other links??

[KarmaAmputee]

OMG yes the old Saddam shaking hands with Rummy pic to make a point. Yes I suppose that pretty much means that the US hand delivered chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein with a bow on top and instructed him to use them on Kurdish civilians and gave him a medal when he was done, right?

No, wrong.

I thought this was a forum for smart people.

The US deserves condemnation for supporting the wrong guy at the wrong time, not condemnation for the despicable acts of genocide the madman committed during his time in our good graces, strategic though the good graces were.

WE did not gas the Kurds.

Saddam did.

Now look at him...

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by KarmaAmputee

I thought this was a forum for smart people.

I like how you just called someone stupid because you disagree with them.

I hope you don't think the U.S. is innocent because there is absolutely no reason to believe a nation built on genocide, slavery, and imperialism (and which spends more time waving flags than reflecting on this history) would suddenly be innocent.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by KarmaAmputee

The US deserves condemnation for supporting the wrong guy at the wrong time, not condemnation for the despicable acts of genocide the madman committed during his time in our good graces, strategic though the good graces were.

WE did not gas the Kurds.
Saddam did.

I will post this again, because you do not seem to pay attention.
YouTube - Scream Bloody Murder CNN Christiane Amanpour Part 1

The CNN documentary shows that US...
...refused to help Jewish being murdered by the nazis during WWII.
...supported Khmer Rouge genocide regime.
...supported Saddam Hussein with money and political support.
...did not enforce human rights since WWII except for some loudy sound speeches.

Also if you watch the biography channel, nobel prize Oscar Arias pointed out that he was harassed by US at the time when he attempted a peace process in Central America. This peace process is what kept a stable Central America nowadays.

During the ruling of Anastasio Somoza, US supported the dictator. Somoza did not invade Costa Rica because Venezuela filled Costa Rican airports with military planes.

US supported dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile. He not only murdered many people, but also increased Chilean debt, industry suffered and in the end he fired the Chicago Boys advisors due to poor results.

US trained AQ too...

If you support a dictator, you are indeed backing his actions. Do you want to call it a "mistake", why is that "mistakes" in one side are "infamies" when someone else does the same.

In Germany, Hitler is seen as a human being who became evil, a living warning of what any human being could become. In US, Hitler is the incarnation of evil and of course Americans are the good guys pointing the finger.

Have you ever read what Amnesty International has to say about human rights in USA? US should lead by example. US is a poor example nowadays.

Americans try to show off about their system as the best. Best healthcare? No, just the most expensive? Best capitalist system? No, just a system that rewards failure. The problem of trying to show off using "best system in the world" is that it creates lack of honest criticism to improve the system.

To get out of this crisis, Americans will have to go against all their beliefs. Lack of it will only make the pain more painful, because of the systemic failures that would be triggered.

I better leave it here, because it seems to be turning too emotional. But before leaving, I may like to remind that countries are administrative bureaucracies with a jurisdiction. Countries appear and disappear all the time. US is barely 200 years old. Even the ancient chinese culture of 4000 years did not have a country called "China" in the year 250 AD, only 3 kingdoms called Wei, Wu and Shu.

So dying for a country is dying for bureaucracy. The planet has municipalities called nations, but the only real country we have is called Earth. We are not tribes anymore. We are a globalized planet, and failing to understand that only creates more problems.

[LoneW0LF]

Originally Posted by KarmaAmputee

The contract I have between myself and a neighbor that we will "fight fair" should a dispute arise does not extend to a rapist with whom I have no contract should he enter my home, rape my wife and kill my child. I would consider fighting fair with him if he had attempted to fight fair with me, but when he broke into my house, raped my wife and killed my kid, it was new rules...no rules.

That analogy makes a lot of sense actually:

rapist = US military
house = Iraq
wife/kid = civilians

[LoneW0LF]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

To give just one example, terrorists don't seem to have a problem killing civilians in any way, shape or form, whatsoever, damn the consequences. But if the US does it -- well, threads like these get started.

What a lazy excuse. How can the US claim the moral high ground then if they act like the terrorists; or should we just say that since one does it so can the other and therefore they are as bad as each other?

[IamAlsoThat]

No military can be expected to have 100% surveilance of all soldiers and prevent them from acting in any specific way. However in America committing the murder of civilians is committing the murder of civilians, and this will be tried against.

In afghanistan, the territory of palestine, and Iraq, not only is terrorism not condemned, the countries are proud of their acts of murder or constant bombardment of the country while hiding within civilian territories. You don't see the US going on CNN and saying we committed these acts of terror proudly and murdered civilians because this represents the US values...

However, Hamas, the current reigning government in "Palestine" takes full credit of constantly firing rockets aimed at preschools in Israel, or terrorist attacks on busses in Israel.

Hezbollah, takes full credit and admiration from Lebanon and other nations for the murder of civilians in Israel or the US.

Rather than rule of law existing in these countries, where the government comes and searches people's houses for weapons. The government is terrorist itself...

And herein lies the problem...

How can Israel consider any member of the "territory of Palestine" which "democratically" voted in Hamas as the government, an organization which fully takes credit without any kind of condemnation for attacks directly directed towards the murder of Israeli children, as innocent civilians.

What happens if a country decides to fire rockets, as a nation, on a country?

Each and every member of that nation is responsible.

What happens when a soldier, fails to follow protocol and is prosecuted for his crimes, or a country condemns its accidental killing of civilians?

The soldier, and commitors of the crime are run through the rule of law...

[Margarita888]

I sent my husband, who's a former Marine, the link to that video and asked him what his thoughts were about it and if things like that are 'normal'. This is what he said:

"Unfortunately it does happen. A lot of stuff goes under the radar. The pilots are very trigger happy in a war zone. Most soldiers are...period. In many operations they are the first on scene in a conflict and they are only using the intelligence brief that they had before departing. If it says they are hostile, they will shoot now and ask questions later. Most of the time the mentality in military, and especially Marines, is life is expendable. I know it sounds bad but given the situation, it only takes one person out of all eight to shoot an rpg at the helicopter and kill them. They train us to kill with no emotion. I am not saying it is right, but it is war... "

[ar81]

If you watch the documentary "Death in Gaza" filmed by british journalist and cameraman James Miller, you will see two kids who were collaborating with the militants. After the film they did not want to be militants anymore. They wanted to be cameramen.

It seems that in the extreme poverty and hopeless misery they live, they even lack a role model to follow. Such a simple thing makes a difference between a normal person and a terrorist.

Also, something that encourages people to become terrorists is when their family has been murdered by an army. During an incident in a russian school, a russian parent asked for mercy for his kid to a terrorist. And the terrorist woman said "I already lost mine, now it is your turn".

The documentary of James Miller you had a palestine girl saying she would become a lawyer to bring justice, and she told the story of how kids from his family were murdered by soldiers when going out from school.

Unfortunately, using cowboy tactics against this problem is not going to solve anything. The root of the problem is that you have extreme poverty surrounded by violence, so you will not solve the problem adding more violence and less opportunities for them to make a living.

When Iraq war started I talked to the wife of an israeli exmilitary and she said "My husband said: I hope Americans know what they are doing, because we have 50 years of war and we haven't found a way out".

Originally Posted by Margarita888

I sent my husband, who's a former Marine, the link to that video and asked him what his thoughts were about it and if things like that are 'normal'. This is what he said:

"Unfortunately it does happen. A lot of stuff goes under the radar. The pilots are very trigger happy in a war zone. Most soldiers are...period. In many operations they are the first on scene in a conflict and they are only using the intelligence brief that they had before departing. If it says they are hostile, they will shoot now and ask questions later. Most of the time the mentality in military, and especially Marines, is life is expendable. I know it sounds bad but given the situation, it only takes one person out of all eight to shoot an rpg at the helicopter and kill them. They train us to kill with no emotion. I am not saying it is right, but it is war... "

One big mistake Nazis committed in occupied France was not to earn respect from French people. Same happened to Japanese in the occupied islands. Same happened in Vietnam. Occupation forces were seen like alien invaders. In the end what happened was that local residents do not like to be expendable and they help the enemy when they have a good chance to defeat occupation forces, as a matter of survival.

Do you know what US should do? Make Iraqis and Afghans from occupied territories to be American citizens. Roman empire did that with people from occupied territories, British empire did that too.

During the US-Canada war that started in 1812, Americans mistreated American indians and made war against them, while Canadian indians who were embraced by the british, fought for the queen against Americans. This is a good example of how inclusion may lead to a better result.