Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The ISraely army did treat wounded themselves with their military ambulance personell (Yes, go ahead and say this is just propaganda), furthermore it is a fact that palestinian militants did use ambulances to smuggle weapons and explosives and also that the surrounding world were cortisizing the IDF for every single journalist or healthcare worker who got hurt even if they practiaclly walked into the crossfire themselves. My main point is we were told there were close to thousands dead whereas the UN later conlcuded it was between 20 and 30 total among who there were mostly Israeli soldiers and palestinian militants. These are not Israeli statements they are from teh UN. If the figures were that questionable is it not a bit strange the UN did not mention this in the report ?
    why bother with a UN report when it suits you - we didnt care when Hans Bliktz (whatever his name is) said he couldnt find any WMDs in Iraq. and anyway this is not an isolated incident - and u also point out in an earlier post that u think settlement is bad - in fact i have heard the US condemn it - surely if this is illegal then any attacks on israelis on those settlements would be the act of freedom fighters and not terrorists - anyway i dont agree with suicide bombings because it is pretty sick - but understand that people must have some sort of grievance or criticism to level vs. the Israelis to commit suicide and take other people with them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776 2)
    Yes, so why are we prosecuting war crimes? Against war criminals? The Americans seemed to be keen on it after 2nd WW.
    That act was a war crime by the way. The Geneva convention states that non-combatants must not be fired upon. That man was clearly out of action. Typical hypocritical yanks. That sort of thing is certainly not taught, nor encouraged at Sandhurst and Duntroon. Yet it does come up at West Point. Not lingered on for very long, but it makes an appearance. Supposedly discouraged. But the men are made aware of it all the same. Almost so as to make sure for some shifty reason.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onearmedscissor)
    Again, I'm not saying anything about enjoying anything to do with war, as it's wrong. It boils down to you or them, take no chances. Come home safe to your loved ones.

    I sure know which option I'd take, **** yeah I wouldn't enjoy it and it's likely that I'll be mentally scarred, but at least I'll have lived and that my loved ones can help me get through harsh times.
    That is sick. You or them mentaltity, no wonder the solldiers keep getting killed. I understand why you feel like that, but in reality you will be killing a person, who may or maynot be an enemy combatant and injured at that, in cold blood. Who poses no discernible harm. Take him in for questioning. Not just shoot him on the back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dickie)
    do you know how far away infantry were from these particular iraqis?
    Just because a chopper could get there doesnt mean infantry could, or would to pick up one soldier.
    the guy is in no condition to do much. he was literaly hidding under a truck when it is blown up. these cannons can fire hundreds of rounds a minute. hes going to have impact injuries from the blast and most likely a few bullets in him. i dont see him to be a considerable threat
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    That act was a war crime by the way. The Geneva convention states that non-combatants must not be fired upon. That man was clearly out of action. Typical hypocritical yanks. That sort of thing is certainly not taught, nor encouraged at Sandhurst and Duntroon. Yet it does come up at West Point. Not lingered on for very long, but it makes an appearance. Supposedly discouraged. But the men are made aware of it all the same. Almost so as to make sure for some shifty reason.
    good point - the fact is the U.S. troops were being heavy-handed and it isnt an isolated incident i am sure
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    That act was a war crime by the way. The Geneva convention states that non-combatants must not be fired upon. That man was clearly out of action. Typical hypocritical yanks. That sort of thing is certainly not taught, nor encouraged at Sandhurst and Duntroon. Yet it does come up at West Point. Not lingered on for very long, but it makes an appearance. Supposedly discouraged. But the men are made aware of it all the same. Almost so as to make sure for some shifty reason.
    a non-combatant with a rifle?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    That act was a war crime by the way. The Geneva convention states that non-combatants must not be fired upon. That man was clearly out of action. Typical hypocritical yanks. That sort of thing is certainly not taught, nor encouraged at Sandhurst and Duntroon. Yet it does come up at West Point. Not lingered on for very long, but it makes an appearance. Supposedly discouraged. But the men are made aware of it all the same. Almost so as to make sure for some shifty reason.
    Thats why it doesn't recognize the international law court, because it is afraid the American soldiers might get prosecuted. As you know, the conquerors are left with the pen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    the guy is in no condition to do much. he was literaly hidding under a truck when it is blown up. these cannons can fire hundreds of rounds a minute. hes going to have impact injuries from the blast and most likely a few bullets in him. i dont see him to be a considerable threat
    the guy was probably sh*tting himself and would bearly have thought of trying to kill troops from that position - all thoughts of this would have escaped his thinking and survival would have become the only option ergo surrendering if he had had the chance
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dickie)
    a non-combatant with a rifle?
    A non armed combantant. Who is probably wanting to give himself up. Therefore as America considers this war i.e. invasion and POWs, then this man should be arrested not shot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    the guy is in no condition to do much. he was literaly hidding under a truck when it is blown up. these cannons can fire hundreds of rounds a minute. hes going to have impact injuries from the blast and most likely a few bullets in him. i dont see him to be a considerable threat
    You can assess his medical condition from a black and white image from a chopper? well done!

    Ok, i concur that he might not have been in a state to fight immediately, but he could have had relatively minor injuries, and could have possibly recovered, and been back fighting and killing the americans. For the guys in the chopper, they could not guarantee that the man is out of action, and so killing him made sure that he couldnt recover to restart taking shots at them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kurdt Morello)
    why bother with a UN report when it suits you - we didnt care when Hans Bliktz (whatever his name is) said he couldnt find any WMDs in Iraq.
    he never said that.

    and anyway this is not an isolated incident - and u also point out in an earlier post that u think settlement is bad - in fact i have heard the US condemn it - surely if this is illegal then any attacks on israelis on those settlements would be the act of freedom fighters and not terrorists -
    they intentionally target Israeli citizens on Israeli land. they are terrorists, the UN, EU and US all treat them as such.

    anyway i dont agree with suicide bombings because it is pretty sick - but understand that people must have some sort of grievance or criticism to level vs. the Israelis to commit suicide and take other people with them
    i dont.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i am sorry to disappoint everyone but the US army has not changed its attitude to war since Vietnam - the only difference now is that they shoot from further away and kill more - with the same disdain for the Iraqis blood staining their clean true American bullets - it think it is boulderdash to think an American is ever rational in war - he would just turn on his body counter and try and beat his last highest score
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776 2)
    A non armed combantant. Who is probably wanting to give himself up. Therefore as America considers this war i.e. invasion and POWs, then this man should be arrested not shot.
    like I said, arrested by who? how far away from the scene were the infantry? my guess is not too close, otherwise they would have been fighting the iraqis there.
    do you expect the pilot to get out and dangle a stretcher from an apache?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kurdt Morello)
    surely if this is illegal then any attacks on israelis on those settlements would be the act of freedom fighters and not terrorists -
    This is the sort of sick ******** Im talking about. I do not agree with the setlements, and they may be illegal. BUT THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY ATACKING CIVILIANS. The settlers are not military soldier, they are people living their lives there. There is a difference between crime and crime. If I steal yoru wallet , that does not give you the right to cut my head of with a blunt knife. Not even in principle. Furthemore, these setlements are not illegal in the principal matter. There is a resolution passed in teh general assembly, yes but general assembly resolutions are not legally binding. Furthemore, even if they are to be considdered illegal (which I can understand) the violation would still be off the Israeli givernment, not the residents in the setlements. The idea that these setlements in any way ustify suecide bombings is complete and utter ********. Targeting civilians is, regardless if its a war or not, a direct violation of international law and is considdered terrorism. When it comes to the IDF everyone agree upon this, but when palestinians does so, the actions are , at least partially, justified as freedom fight. This is just sick. The generalisation that killing jewish civilians is a lawfull mean of fighting because the Israeli goivernment has done something is nothing but antisemitism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776 2)
    That is sick. You or them mentaltity, no wonder the solldiers keep getting killed. I understand why you feel like that, but in reality you will be killing a person, who may or maynot be an enemy combatant and injured at that, in cold blood. Who poses no discernible harm. Take him in for questioning. Not just shoot him on the back.
    What is sick, the fact I'm being realistic? Btw nice idea you have there, landing an apache helicopter in a hostile area on enemy territory. Jesus, this is war guys, it's simply barbaric... the enemies want your heads for trophies and you guys think that's fine. Your funeral.

    TAKE

    NO

    CHANCES.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dickie)
    like I said, arrested by who? how far away from the scene were the infantry? my guess is not too close, otherwise they would have been fighting the iraqis there.
    do you expect the pilot to get out and dangle a stretcher from an apache?
    no but that guy isnt going anywhere fast.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    he never said that.



    they intentionally target Israeli citizens on Israeli land. they are terrorists, the UN, EU and US all treat them as such.



    i dont.
    good evening/morning Vienna - how was ur nap - are u all rejuvenated for yet another war of words? surely u dont think that American soldiers are right (or even the Israeli soldiers) in everything they do - if u agree then tell me what u think they do wrong- if u disagree please justify. By the way the Israeli land is terrorism but Palestinian land where the settlements impinge upon it is freedom fighting - Dictionary Defined - i should hope
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onearmedscissor)
    What is sick, the fact I'm being realistic? Btw nice idea you have there, landing an apache helicopter in a hostile area on enemy territory. Jesus, this is war guys, it's simply barbaric... the enemies want your heads for trophies and you guys think that's fine. Your funeral.

    TAKE

    NO

    CHANCES.
    i like this guy,

    war is hell people and it will never be anything else,

    as stated, when that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that **** just goes out the window, its all about the man standing next to you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by onearmedscissor)
    What is sick, the fact I'm being realistic? Btw nice idea you have there, landing an apache helicopter in a hostile area on enemy territory. Jesus, this is war guys, it's simply barbaric... the enemies want your heads for trophies and you guys think that's fine. Your funeral.

    TAKE

    NO

    CHANCES.
    Hey, you neutralised the threat, take the man in, and maybe you'll torture him enough for more information than just killing him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Peace and goodwill toward all mortals.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.