- Status
It's not. It's violating just about every rule of war we have on the books.
Oh yeah, I read the guy's letter (without the commentary article) a while back. I meant to ask about this part to someone, but forgot.
What's a malingerer in US Army terms, and just how much was the sergeant bullshitting him?
It is, but the way the soldier who wrote it handled it is completely wrong. If you request to see a chaplain or Army Psychologist, your request must be granted by your supervisor. Failure to do so on his part instantly gives you the right to escalate it up the chain of command, or bypass the chain of command if need be. In turn the SSG would then face some serious repercussions for failure to provide the soldier with the help they need.
I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it is something the Army is actively trying to do away with.
Dave
Staff member
Taken from a blog called Warisacrime.org?
Jon, I know you really, really hate soldiers and will believe anything that these people throw at you, but they found weapons and this is all still based on illegally released classified video by an E-5 who wanted to do nothing more than make money by selling this stuff. But you don't care about this. You only want soldiers to lay down their arms and walk away. War is bad. I dig it. But this isn't a damned movie or book where rainbows and puppies live together in perfect harmony without guns or soldiers. If we didn't have an army people would be dead.
Read that article again.
Again, you weren't there, you have never been a soldier and all you ever do is Monday morning quarterback and criticize soldiers. Good thing there were soldiers so you could do that, huh?
Jon, I know you really, really hate soldiers and will believe anything that these people throw at you, but they found weapons and this is all still based on illegally released classified video by an E-5 who wanted to do nothing more than make money by selling this stuff. But you don't care about this. You only want soldiers to lay down their arms and walk away. War is bad. I dig it. But this isn't a damned movie or book where rainbows and puppies live together in perfect harmony without guns or soldiers. If we didn't have an army people would be dead.
Read that article again.
You God damned right that order would be given. IEDs are triggered remotely, but the person triggering it has to be very close to see where the target is as well as the fact that these things have a limited range of radio contact. Insurgents have been dressed as women so they can cover their faces. Children I have no answer for, but this is only the word of 1 disgruntled soldier on an obviously biased web site. Not even a news site but some dude's blog.
Again, you weren't there, you have never been a soldier and all you ever do is Monday morning quarterback and criticize soldiers. Good thing there were soldiers so you could do that, huh?
Nice thread *snip*. Go push your political agenda somewhere else *snip*.
While I personally agree with the sentiment of the post, please no personal attacks. - Admin
While I personally agree with the sentiment of the post, please no personal attacks. - Admin
While Jon may believe anything these leftist blogs and leaks and that say, you have to concede that yourself and most everyone that's former military around here give the military a HUUUUUUUUGE benefit of a doubt every time something like this comes up.
I'm really skeptical about that letter. Indiscriminately killing everyone in sight doesn't seem to make the slightest sense. Not only is there no guarantee you'll hit the bomber, who could very well be under cover, but you'd hand the insurgency a huge PR victory if he kills two soldiers and the rest of the squad kills 10 civilians who just happen to be there.
I could see shooting anyone who didn't immediately hit the deck and show their hands, but that doesn't sound like what he's describing.
I could see shooting anyone who didn't immediately hit the deck and show their hands, but that doesn't sound like what he's describing.
Dave
Staff member
I do, especially when it's based on a video that shows a good shoot where they really did find weapons in a situation that had intel was a hot zone, leaked illegally by a guy just wanting to make money and commented on by a single disgruntled individual on a blog called warisacrime.org. I look at it through the eyes of a soldier (so to speak) while the OP is only looking at it through the eyes of someone who thinks these situations are so cut & dried it's easy to go back 2 or 3 years and deconstruct everything in slow motion and determine how these people should have reacted and how they felt/thought during that time of duress.
He has no clue what he is talking about because he only has 1 side of the argument and can't even begin to fathom the viewpoints of the other side.
One time that a squad did react that way to getting bombed, they all ended up with either murder or manslaughter charges.
Exactly, which is why that letter just doesn't sound kosher.
As usual, this kind of thing boils down to two different arguments:
1.) Killing civilians indiscriminately is bad. Not a hard point to defend, really. You'll find most people agree with this. I, for one, absolutely agree that if that happens then we need to look into and fix the problem.
2.) It actually happened to the extreme described. Is this just a painted picture or is there more to the story? There usually is more to the story. If there isn't, and that is a difficult thing to demonstrate, then see point number 1.
1.) Killing civilians indiscriminately is bad. Not a hard point to defend, really. You'll find most people agree with this. I, for one, absolutely agree that if that happens then we need to look into and fix the problem.
2.) It actually happened to the extreme described. Is this just a painted picture or is there more to the story? There usually is more to the story. If there isn't, and that is a difficult thing to demonstrate, then see point number 1.
Listen, I am all for supporting the troops, but I can't support the idea of "kill every motherfucker on the street" under any circumstance.
It's okay, I can't believe the order was ever really given.
It's okay, I can't believe the order was ever really given.[/QUOTE]
I think you'd have to have watched a few to many movies in your moms basement with tinfoil hat on to not be skeptical here, but I still love the drive-by posting style of Jonjon.
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------
Why is giving the benefit of the doubt to the people under stresses you will never even come close to understanding a bad thing? We force the justice system to PROVE the guilt of the innocent in our normal society, can't we ask the same of crazy left wing bloggers who hate the military? If it's real, prove it and watch the condemnation from those of us who have military connections.
C
Chibibar
This war is just plain bad, but the U.S. can't pull out and can't really just quit. I have read so many articles now that WOMEN are being use for suicide bombs and kids too. Does it make it right to kill them? probably not, but at the same time Dave hit the mark that these soldiers are using OUR rules of engagement to protect themselves. If we don't shoot suspecting women, the soldiers can be dead soldiers (I know it sound harsh but war is harsh) kids... I got nothing.
All I know is that war is never pretty like in the movies and people have to do some really bad things to win the war. This is why in any war, civilians are the main losers of any war.
All I know is that war is never pretty like in the movies and people have to do some really bad things to win the war. This is why in any war, civilians are the main losers of any war.
J
JONJONAUG
I'm not saying that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea (it isn't, the infrastructure is still pretty wrecked) and I can appreciate having an army around. But America is the country occupying another nation here. Even if soldiers are attacked on the street on a regular basis they need to be held to an extremely high standard of conduct to maintain an occupation while keeping some semblance of goodwill among the Iraqi populace. Yes, it's shitty that insurgents hide themselves among the Iraqi populace. This is no excuse for taking actions that involve civilians, because this is what leads to more people becoming insurgents against the American occupation.
Guilty until proven innocent after being shot to death. Great strategy, that'll really solve the image problem American soldiers have. Shit like this is what leads to normal civilians to react in such an extreme way to American occupation.
Please explain to me how the Iraqi war in any way protects my freedom to browse the internet.
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.
C
crono1224
The fact that they use women and children for suicide bombing is the shit that makes everything messed up. A kid comes up to you with what looks to be brownies or cookies, oh what a nice gesture, turns out it was a bomb and you just got yourself or other people killed. Now i'm not saying shoot anyone that comes up, just saying that it changes the game, people aren't wearing the colors of what side they are on and announcing themselves. It causes a huge level of stress and even greater feeling of distrust of everyone around you (the 'enemies' mostly).
This does make no sense (jonjon's statement not your's), in fact, it is probably the fact they hide among the common population that causes civilians to die.
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
This does make no sense (jonjon's statement not your's), in fact, it is probably the fact they hide among the common population that causes civilians to die.
Dave has said without any bit of irony that he thinks Jack Nicholson is the hero and did nothing wrong in that movie.
Dave
Staff member
Really? I'm saying his sentiment is correct, but the order that he gave had NOTHING to do with a war zone. What HE did was issue an order to attack IN A NON-THREATENING SITUATION another Marine. If you think I am condoning that then you are dumb.
And thanks for putting words in my mouth. I thought you were against that kind of tactic.
I could have sworn in an old thread you defended Nicholson's character and said you took his side and everything. I'm sorry I remembered it wrong!
C
Chibibar
maybe not the Iraqi war but all the war that U.S. have fought in the past has allow people today to have the freedom that some county don't have. There are countries that have the same freedom as U.S. does, but there are also countries where freedom is limited like China. The Great Firewall of China is a good example. Now of course some of us take that freedom for granted (I too sometimes but not often) the soldiers are doing their job the best of the ability. The best with what knowledge given to them. Sometimes they go in with bad intel. It happens. Sometimes they go with good intels and civilians died cause the battles are in the streets. It is not like in the movie where a war is fighting and most of the civilian have already evacuate the area.
Now if you are asking how the Iraqi war benefit your ability to surf the internet? not directly, but due to cheap fossil fuel to create electricity for our nation that power the stations, that power the servers, and connect power to your home
that could be part of it.
J
JONJONAUG
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.
Dave
Staff member
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]
Said because it'll never be you. It's different when it's your friends getting torn to shit.
I
Iaculus
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't that often mean not being able to shoot back at all?
The thing about this sort of conflict is that it's not just soldiers who get hurt by doing nothing, remember.
C
Chibibar
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]
well. You can say that now, but when your buddies who have been watching YOU back get torn to shread by random gun fire or IEDs, you may want to think twice in that statement. In war, those who hesitate in a heat of combat usually don't get out alive.
The problem with this war (the Iraqi war) compare to other wars is that only ONE side (our side) is following the rules of combat. The enemy will use women, children, and animals (if they can figure out how) to kill YOU. They will use road side bombs, attack you in your sleep, and even kill YOUR women and children without a second thought. Does this give us the right to be just like them? no, I am not saying if a soldier is happening to guard a building and then just decide to hose everyone in the street without provocation, but if that same soldier is under attack from sniper, explosives or a suicide bomb, you can be sure the rest of the soldier will be on high alert and probably shoot anything suspicious.
I am NOT a soldier, but I have many friends who are. You are train to follow order and train to kill. It is a war where the enemy could care less of your welfare. It is not a battle that you can win by capturing a city or overwhelm them with superior number and they will surrender. These people don't have that kind of morals. They truly believe that everyone else must die and willing to sacrifice themselves for that cause.
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]
The lives of the soldiers are already at risk, because we do have rules of engagement, and do follow them. Yes, there are some that break the rules, and they are punished. The insurgents are causing harm to the Iraqi civilians just to sow discord and strife. They are the school bullies that have found out there is a bigger, tougher kid at school and they are just trying to keep everything stirred up so that they can go on beating their wives and children, accusing others of not being "true" to the faith (as they interpret it that week) and taking out their jollies by "punishing" those that they point out.
Without going into the discussion here, I think everyone's entitled to an opinion (be it wrong or right), especially on something as important as this, no matter if they have never been soldiers.
I also think Jonjon may be mixing things here: this war was unfair and does not really make sense, and you need to give a good images, but that should not mean soldiers can't take some measures to protect their lifes.
I also think Jonjon may be mixing things here: this war was unfair and does not really make sense, and you need to give a good images, but that should not mean soldiers can't take some measures to protect their lifes.
My brain is having a hard time comprehending this.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that even if insurgents hide among the civilian populace, this is no excuse for soldiers causing injury or death to Iraqi civilians. America is the occupying nation, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of conduct even if this puts the lives of soldiers at risk.[/QUOTE]
There are rules governing this, Distinction and Proportionality, edit: as codified in their military's Rules of Engagement /edit. If the soldiers' conduct is in line with these, then any civilian deaths are regrettable but there is no wrong-doing involved.
If conduct isn't in line, then what you have is a war crime. Gunning down a dozen unsuspecting civilians on the street to get the one or two insurgents in their midst doesn't sound like a proportionate response to me, regardless of how shitty life and death is for the soldiers.
^ My two cents.
- Status