Wow, Just Wow...
-
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
And these Iraqis didn't.
You can play stupid, if you want, but I can't believe you are that stupid. At 4:10[^] the guy looking around the corner is lifting something. It sure isn't an AK, and an RPG fits what you see.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there?
Yes, they did. It's in the video.
When? I watched, and from the beginning until the first rounds go down range, at around 4:50, there is no one paying attention to it.
Carbon12 wrote:
The ones you invent to support your biases?
Point out some of the 'facts' I invented. Quote me.
Carbon12 wrote:
seems pretty silly that you think killing all civiians or driving into potential ambushes are the only options you can come up with.
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy.
Carbon12 wrote:
Don't have to to know that indescriminate murder of civilian is counter productive to a counter-insurgency.
Bad = bad. Repeat many times. Pretend I don't agree. Repeat many times. I don't believe everything you do, exactly like you do, so I'm bad. Since I'm bad I must think civilian deaths are good, right?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
there is no one paying attention to it.
then you're not paying attention. And if you really believe that they don't know 2 helicopters are circling the neighborhood you're not being honest with yourself.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy
In a Baghdad neighborhood 4 years after the invasion it is not a warzone, and it is not silly to think they weren't the enemy. After all, they weren't.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy
They didn't kill the enemy, they kill a dozen civilians.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
No, it doesn't. This isn't some binary cause and effect. We can make choices - change the rules of engagement, for example. We can even choose to leave the country. You posited a very nice end to all of this, but how do you think we can possibly get to that result if we machine gun every civilian that might be a threat?
Machine gun every civilian that could be a threat? What are you smoking? You draw generalizations and make outlandish claims because you can't support what you say. This goes right back to the "30 killed" making it the norm. It is an amazingly high number of civilians to us, but it is just one suicide bomb for them. And they do it on purpose. Killing civilians is bad. Killing civilians does not help our goal of a just outcome. Giving up kills any chance of a just outcome.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Machine gun every civilian that could be a threat?
You've spent every post justifying the killing, what else am I suppose to think?
RichardM1 wrote:
This goes right back to the "30 killed" making it the norm
It doesn't because I didn't say it.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
The guys in the chopper were told there were no friendly troops at the intersection. If you decide not to understand what that meant, we will be speaking different languages. So, armed men in a war zone, pointing something at a patrol, how is that indiscriminate?
Carbon12 wrote:
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”
TPMmuckraker wrote:
TPMmuckraker has obtained a fuller transcript of the comments, which were first reported by the New York Times last week. The Times' Richard Oppel noted that since last summer U.S. and NATO troops killed 30 and wounded 80 Afghans in convoy and checkpoint shootings.
I don't know how you get from 30 people killed to it being 'the norm' for all operations. That is 30 out of over 2400 civilians killed, and out of almost 600 killed by the allied forces. You aren't just reading a quote and tying to use it out of context, are you? 30 civilians killed is too many, but you are either uninformed or lying when you call it the norm.
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war?
Me saying "a cover up just makes things worse" means I think it will kill support for the war? Everything I say is bad, right? I can't possibly think that something becomes worse because it is *worse*? You are so blind. So fucking blind. A cover up makes things worse. You know, the whole "good' 'bad' thing? If something bad happens and it is covered up, it is worse. Period.
Carbon12 wrote:
Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
Civilians getting killed is worse.
RichardM1 wrote:
The guys in the chopper were told there were no friendly troops at the intersection. If you decide not to understand what that meant, we will be speaking different languages
You said 'friendlies' not 'friendly troops'. I'm not being disingenuous seeing a distinction.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't know how you get from 30 people killed to it being 'the norm' for all operations
I don't. I get there by looking at all of the various times the pentagon lied about what happened - quite an extensive list, if you bother to pay attention - including this action and the murder of the Afghan civilians that I mentioned in the previous post (and you conviently ignored), put it together with McChrystals admission it's very clear this happens a lot.
RichardM1 wrote:
Me saying "a cover up just makes things worse" means I think it will kill support for the war?
I don't know what you mean, that is why I asked.
-
Distind wrote:
much like you they refuse to admit they're wrong.
Screw you. Unlike CSS, the military is answerable to us. What is acceptable from him, is not acceptable from military.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
It's certainly supposed to be, but how many times short of people either leaking the information or people all but tearing their doors down do they admit to shit like this? If they don't admit to it, and it doesn't get out, they don't have to answer for it.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Hogwash. You may choose to stick your head in the sand, I choose not to.
Bob Emmett wrote:
you still do not have any responsibility for this action
Of course we do. We are all collectively responsible.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
Carbon12 wrote:
Hogwash.
You are, if course, entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Perhaps it is down to different sensibilities. I do not need to watch people being killed when written descriptions of the incident are available, and the incident has been confirmed by the military.
Carbon12 wrote:
You may choose to stick your head in the sand
I am not ignoring the incident, I merely do not wish to see people killed, I would consider myself to be on the same level as those who slow down to get a better view of road wrecks.
Carbon12 wrote:
Of course we do. We are all collectively responsible.
Forgive me, I really don't see how. Britain is part of the coalition, I do not consider myself responsible for any incidents involving British troops, since I have argued against involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Carbon12 wrote:
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
That has certainly been the case in Chechnya, Ireland, Vietnam, and the Middle East.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 just wants them to be murdered. He doesn't understand that they are protecting their country from these young brainwashed punks that are under the command of tyrants.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
It's certainly supposed to be, but how many times short of people either leaking the information or people all but tearing their doors down do they admit to shit like this? If they don't admit to it, and it doesn't get out, they don't have to answer for it.
Don't try and sidetrack this. I don't care how bad they act, you directly compared the US military to CSS. You need to apologize.:mad: No argument about cover ups being totally f'd up. No argument about killing civilians being totally f'd up. But you need to think twice before you say something like you did. [edit] I am serious about the military having f'd. I am half joking about you having to apologize. But only half joking. [\edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
If you'd like, Richard, I'll sponsor you to go out to Afghanistan and Iraq so you can tell us, first hand, how good it all is.
Sure, just as soon as I can get the money together to ship you back to pre-9/11 Taliban controlled Afghanistan. I suspect if you went to Iraq, back then, you could have stayed with Sean Penn, so it would not have been like reality. :rolleyes: I never said it was good there, I said we are only hearing the worst. Do you get the difference? Really, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you get the difference? Really, do you?
Oh yes, I just thought it'd be nice to have an independent voice reporting the "good" news in an unbiased way - and up you popped, the perfect candidate :)
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you get the difference? Really, do you?
Oh yes, I just thought it'd be nice to have an independent voice reporting the "good" news in an unbiased way - and up you popped, the perfect candidate :)
martin_hughes wrote:
Oh yes, I just thought it'd be nice to have an independent voice reporting the "good" news in an unbiased way - and up you popped, the perfect candidate Smile
Wouldn't you just say "He must work for Fox" if I say anything is good?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Oh yes, I just thought it'd be nice to have an independent voice reporting the "good" news in an unbiased way - and up you popped, the perfect candidate Smile
Wouldn't you just say "He must work for Fox" if I say anything is good?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Nah, I'd just get on to my connections and get you fired from Fox :)
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Machine gun every civilian that could be a threat?
You've spent every post justifying the killing, what else am I suppose to think?
RichardM1 wrote:
This goes right back to the "30 killed" making it the norm
It doesn't because I didn't say it.
Carbon12 wrote:
You've spent every post justifying the killing, what else am I suppose to think?
I NEVER justified the killing of civilians, I explained why the initial gun run was correct, under the circumstances. Are you really not able to understand how those are two separate things? Can't you see that sometimes doing something correctly can still have a bad out come?
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
This goes right back to the "30 killed" making it the norm
It doesn't because I didn't say it.
I call bullshit. Read what you wrote:[
Carbon12 wrote:
Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.](http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3429420/Re-Wow-Just-Wow.aspx)[^][
RichardM1 wrote:
You believe this based on what?](http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3429481/Re-Wow-Just-Wow.aspx)[^][
Carbon12 wrote:
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”](http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3429493/Re-Wow-Just-Wow.aspx)[^] I pointed to his actual comments. This shows McChrystal was talking about 30 deaths[^] Whether you realized it or not, you said this kind of killing was the norm based on 30 deaths that McChrystal was discussing. You could have been uninformed, previously. Now you are informed. Now that you are informed, do you still believe that "Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm."? If you still believe it, what do you base your belief on?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The guys in the chopper were told there were no friendly troops at the intersection. If you decide not to understand what that meant, we will be speaking different languages
You said 'friendlies' not 'friendly troops'. I'm not being disingenuous seeing a distinction.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't know how you get from 30 people killed to it being 'the norm' for all operations
I don't. I get there by looking at all of the various times the pentagon lied about what happened - quite an extensive list, if you bother to pay attention - including this action and the murder of the Afghan civilians that I mentioned in the previous post (and you conviently ignored), put it together with McChrystals admission it's very clear this happens a lot.
RichardM1 wrote:
Me saying "a cover up just makes things worse" means I think it will kill support for the war?
I don't know what you mean, that is why I asked.
Carbon12 wrote:
with McChrystals admission
McChrystal did not admit shit. McChrystal came out and said. He said this is wrong, make it stop. Do you not see the difference? Wait? Is this the military doing stuff out in the open? Could this possibly be the military NOT covering something up? Sorry, must have been my imagination.
Carbon12 wrote:
if you bother to pay attention - including this action and the murder of the Afghan civilians that I mentioned in the previous post (and you conviently ignored)
I do bother to pay attention. I pay attention when our government detains or kills people - it is the ultimate affront to the conservative allowance of power to the government. I paid attention to the incident where the Afghan women were killed. Do you want me to keep repeating that I know killing civilians is bad? You haven't believed me yet, how will repeating it help? I paid attention when Bush pulled people 'off the street' in the US, rended them to other countries, illegally revoking their habeas. I paid attention when Bush took (dual) US citizens captured on the battlefield and illegally denied them habeas. I paid attention when Bush took Padilla and illegally held him without habeas. I paid attention to the cover up with Tiller, and so many other mistakes, which could be forgivable, and so many cover-ups, which are not. I pay attention to our government killing people. Now that we are both so touchy-feely and grooving on how bad the death of civilians is... Do you pay attention to the insurgents killing people? We killed about 600 civilians last year. They killed over 1400. When are you going to condemn the insurgents for directly killing civilians? On purpose, blowing up a bomb in the middle of a market, with no US military or IP around? For knowingly doing things that increase the likelihood of civilians getting killed, like this? How about even for just because they are not following the GC? Nothing, right? You won't do it, will you? Come on, spit it out... You can do it... Just say: "The insurgents do bad things" No, don't blame us for them popping that bomb in the market place - they were not aiming at what they thought was us, and miss. They killed those civilians on purpose. They are bad people doing bad things.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
there is no one paying attention to it.
then you're not paying attention. And if you really believe that they don't know 2 helicopters are circling the neighborhood you're not being honest with yourself.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy
In a Baghdad neighborhood 4 years after the invasion it is not a warzone, and it is not silly to think they weren't the enemy. After all, they weren't.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy
They didn't kill the enemy, they kill a dozen civilians.
Carbon12 wrote:
then you're not paying attention. And if you really believe that they don't know 2 helicopters are circling the neighborhood you're not being honest with yourself.
No. You said they looked at the helicopter, I asked when, because I watched the video and I don't see it Did you watch the video? Did you check? Do you know how many other choppers were in the air? Do you know how far away the 30MM can engage? Do you know how far away the chopper was? There was almost 2 full seconds between when the 30MM fired and when the first rounds hit. At 800 meters per second, that puts the Apache well over a kilometer away, closer to 1500 meters, and pointed in another direction. This happens to insurgents all the time. They can't see where the cannon is pointing, at that distance. They think if the helicopter isn't pointing at them, they are safe. You are being dishonest with everyone who reads this. And outright lying to yourself.
Carbon12 wrote:
In a Baghdad neighborhood 4 years after the invasion it is not a warzone, and it is not silly to think they weren't the enemy. After all, they weren't.
Not a freaking warzone? Are you just stupid? July 2007 was almost as bad as Iraq got! It was the 2nd worst July,, after 2006, with 2572 civilians killed! It was only just on the backside of the surge's hump of dead civilians! Don't you know a thing about this? Are you really talking from so much ignorance? There are real live people dying there and you don't know a thing about it, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
with McChrystals admission
McChrystal did not admit shit. McChrystal came out and said. He said this is wrong, make it stop. Do you not see the difference? Wait? Is this the military doing stuff out in the open? Could this possibly be the military NOT covering something up? Sorry, must have been my imagination.
Carbon12 wrote:
if you bother to pay attention - including this action and the murder of the Afghan civilians that I mentioned in the previous post (and you conviently ignored)
I do bother to pay attention. I pay attention when our government detains or kills people - it is the ultimate affront to the conservative allowance of power to the government. I paid attention to the incident where the Afghan women were killed. Do you want me to keep repeating that I know killing civilians is bad? You haven't believed me yet, how will repeating it help? I paid attention when Bush pulled people 'off the street' in the US, rended them to other countries, illegally revoking their habeas. I paid attention when Bush took (dual) US citizens captured on the battlefield and illegally denied them habeas. I paid attention when Bush took Padilla and illegally held him without habeas. I paid attention to the cover up with Tiller, and so many other mistakes, which could be forgivable, and so many cover-ups, which are not. I pay attention to our government killing people. Now that we are both so touchy-feely and grooving on how bad the death of civilians is... Do you pay attention to the insurgents killing people? We killed about 600 civilians last year. They killed over 1400. When are you going to condemn the insurgents for directly killing civilians? On purpose, blowing up a bomb in the middle of a market, with no US military or IP around? For knowingly doing things that increase the likelihood of civilians getting killed, like this? How about even for just because they are not following the GC? Nothing, right? You won't do it, will you? Come on, spit it out... You can do it... Just say: "The insurgents do bad things" No, don't blame us for them popping that bomb in the market place - they were not aiming at what they thought was us, and miss. They killed those civilians on purpose. They are bad people doing bad things.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
How about even for just because they are not following the GC?
Since when are the resistance required to wear uniform? (O.K. don't tell me, only 0.001% of the resistance are Iraqi, the rest are AQ volunteers from Bradford, U.K.)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
How about even for just because they are not following the GC?
Since when are the resistance required to wear uniform? (O.K. don't tell me, only 0.001% of the resistance are Iraqi, the rest are AQ volunteers from Bradford, U.K.)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Since when are the resistance required to wear uniform?
Since at least 1949, but 'required' is a hard word. If they want status as protected combatants (which we decide to give away for free) they need to do the following: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Article 4. Section 2 (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [^]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Since when are the resistance required to wear uniform?
Since at least 1949, but 'required' is a hard word. If they want status as protected combatants (which we decide to give away for free) they need to do the following: Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Article 4. Section 2 (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [^]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I wonder how long the Maquis would have lasted, carrying their arms openly and wearing a fixed distinctive sign? :)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed? Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent. But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free. Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy? Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed? Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent. But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free. Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy? Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
RichardM1 wrote:
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed?
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot. But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent.
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free.
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed. They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy?
They are trying to kill and disrupt the invaders. All the above relates solely to those who are resisting the presence of a foreign power.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
RichardM1 wrote:
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed?
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot. But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent.
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free.
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed. They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy?
They are trying to kill and disrupt the invaders. All the above relates solely to those who are resisting the presence of a foreign power.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Multipart answer Are we still talking about WWII? You are speaking in the present tense, so it does not sound like it. My responses are based on you speaking in the present tense.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
No. My Irish-American brothers and I should have sent nothing to those murdering communist terrorist provo bastards.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot.
Where do you get that? Even in the video, the gunner did not shoot the wounded guy again. He wanted to! But, until the situation changed because other people arrived, he did not. The main reason we end up shooting civilians now is that we can't tell 'armed civilians' :rolleyes: from insurgents. If the insurgents wore uniforms, like the GC demands, it would be less of a problem. This video being a 'wonderful' case in point.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
Bullshit. We do not summarily execute prisoners, non-protected combatant or otherwize3. In fact, the question in OUR country is whether we should treat them as though they are protected combatant prisoners (when they are not), or if we should put them through our 'justice' system. Your argument, in the context of current day Iraq/Afghanistan, is flat wrong.
Opacity, the new Transparency.