Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

people seem to be so hytnotized by mainstream media which serves an agenda (profits) AMERICANS are not even aware that they may have FIRED their own air force!!!!

Americans have fired their air force????

who is calling the shots for the united states air force if it isn't their laws & code of conduct?????

United States Air Force OWN CORE VALUES:
1) Integrity first (being compliant with the facts)
2) SERVICE BEFORE SELF

So, the USAF cannot perform any action which invokes fear into the hearts and minds & souls of others because when fear is invoked it is re-inforcing the instinct of Self Preservation, AKA THE OPPOSITE OF USAF's 2ND CORE VALUE.

So, any AMERICANS care to explain why you voluntarily send your fellow Americans off to fight in wars when they cannot perform any actions in which they would re-inforce self preservation, aka self-pre-serve or selfishness before service?

What good is an airmen if no one fears him?
What good are our servicemembers if they can't make anyone afraid?

Why has America fired their USAF?

reply to post by The Casual Alien


But on the Bright side:

What does ALLAH need with any JIHADists who couldn't accomplish with thousands, milllions, of people and dollars in YEARS, what my previous contrabution does in less than a minute of time loving the truth, and ignoring propaganda obsticles.

by the way, how ironic would it be for humanity to create "Artificial Intelligence" to find the last redundancy of pi, only to find 8 prime numbers, aka 8 primes, prime 8s, primates.

funny if true.

Personally i dont think the US army is cut for Operation Iraqi freedom. They are more like qualified for Operation Iraqi slaughter.

Yesterday i did a search on US war crimes in Iraq. There were so many cases that just one guy and one Unit can't account for all of them alone. So i would imagine its quite common to do war crimes within the US army.

What this guy is telling is out right disturbing. To bad you first have to kill about 200 innocent people before you start to realize what your doing is sick and wrong. video.google.com...#

What this guy is telling is just exactly the same as what every other Iraqi war veteran is telling.

Originally posted by eikmun
what the hell are you talking about double tapping? Double tapping is shooting a person twice. Of course you shoot a guy twice, I've put five rounds in a guy clearing a building. You fire to eliminate the threat. You should him on the ground to until he is dead.

Double tapping is firing at a wounded person until dead, however many times that takes.
The point is that once someone is knocked out of the fight, you do not continue to fire upon them. Someone hit by the caliber of round that an apache fires to take out vehicles is not much of a threat anymore, and certainly does not need to be fired upon more then once.

International Humanitarian Law, Hague Convention IV, 1907
It is pertinent to reiterate the prohibited use of force involving enemy prisoners of war (EPW). Once an enemy combatant surrenders, is captured, or is wounded beyond further use for resistance, then that EPW is afforded every safeguard that his captors can afford. Under no circumstance can the captor be justified in addition use of force in any manner in which is necessary for the transportation and detention of the prisoner. The use of force against a surrendered enemy combatant is never condoned and is specifically prohibited by Army Regulations and policy.

Originally posted by eikmun
They are illegal combatants so the Geneva convention does not apply to them. None of the insurgents are marked as medics and a van doesn't count as an ambulance. He was correct to light up van because they thought it was an enemy rescuing his buddies.

Not necessarily, not all forces have uniforms to wear, but that does not discount them from receiving Geneva Convention protection as an enemy force. I will use the similar situation of the Israel/Palestine conflict as an example:

Several of our experts addressed the problem of what happens when a civilian takes up arms to fight. Generally, if a civilian takes up arms, he can be targeted as if he were a combatant as long as he is fighting. However, as soon as he puts down his weapon, he is a civilian again, which means he can be punished for his acts. Shamas said the thought that this "flip-flopping" between categories allows the Israelis to blur the lines between policing and waging war – to treat the Palestinian as combatants by targeting them and killing them during the fighting, then treating them like civilians and punishing them for their acts afterwards.

As we know the Palestinians do not wear any official uniform:

With one exception, our experts also agreed that the current fighting is an armed conflict and that the laws of war apply to both sides. "Humanitarian law, it must apply in exactly the same way whether the Palestinians are right or they are wrong. This is difficult for the Palestinians to accept, but it is basic in humanitarian law,"

"The protections to hospitals and medical personnel and women and children all apply to occupied territories. You cannot attack ambulances under any circumstances. It doesn’t make a difference if ambulances have been harboring terrorists or militants. Article 18 and 20 are absolute prohibitions. If someone is using an ambulance as cover to commit acts of war, they would be violating international humanitarian law. So you might be able to take after the fact action against them. But you can’t do it just because they do it. The articles say that civilian hospitals and ambulances ‘may in no circumstances be the object of attack,’" said Doebbler.

In that instance the vehicle, even if unmarked, was acting as an ambulance, and posing no threat to the forces in the area.

sixteen European states, adopted the the First Geneva Convention to save lives, to alleviate the suffering of wounded and sick military personnel, and to protect trained medical personal as civilians, in the act of rendering aid.

So you say that we have to treat marked combat medical units as civilians in the combat zone by definition under the Geneva Conventions, but on the other hand we can treat civilians acting as medics in the combat zone as combatants….
Isn’t that an oxymoron, or circular thinking, or something?

Originally posted by eikmun
You know insurgent snipers purposely targeted our corpsman.

Funny your should mention that…
The use of force in this instance was way out of proportion to the gain, or the suppression of enemy forces:

Proportionality.
The use of force on the battlefield must be proportional to the wrong endured and the potential for a positive outcome. The more excessive the number of civilian deaths incurred the more suspect will be the sincerity of the belligerent nations claim to justness in fighting the war. Simply put, limiting civilian casualties helps legitimize the use of force on the battlefield. This in no way limits any nation in the conduct of war against suitable enemy forces, however, destroying an entire city following a sniper attack would be an example of excessive use of force pursuant to this principle. The excessive civilian deaths also serve to draw more recruits into the conflict when they see family members of close relations killed in the process and the self perpetuating cycle of death and retribution continues to recruit members into the insurgency.

And…
Just because one side breaks the rules, it does not justify the other side acting in kind…

In addition, several of our experts said that crimes committed by one side did not justify crimes on the other side. According to Michel Veuthey, former legal advisor to the International Committee of the Red Cross, "Just because groups on the Palestinian side do not respect the laws of war, that does not give the Israelis the right not to respect the laws of war."

I am sure that lawyers will be pouring over this situation now that it has come to light, there are arguments here that can go either way in this instance. My point is that I disagree with them dealing that disproportionably with the people in this instance when only two people in the group where considered armed and fit the criteria of being hostile combatants. There was ZERO need for that level of force to be used on the person who came along to render aid after the fact. Additionally the lack of professionalism and humanity in the remarks of the soldiers in this incident was outrageous, and call into question exactly how innocent their intentions were in that situation.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by defcon5]

Our military problem is our superiority. The enemy won't come out from behind the skirts of their women and the schools of their children because they would be instantly wiped out. In a practical sense, their fortress is their families. Unfortunately for these fortresses, they must be destroyed to achieve victory

The basic premise of war is to remove the opposition by death. Once removed, there opinions, beliefs, programs, plans, and such are gone. The field is plowed and ready for planting anew, without opposition. They are buried and gone. Nothing has changed in this sense over the thousands of years of military warfare.

Media gives us a fast report on war situations. Had such a media existed in WWII, would we have been so brave to wipe out large sections of the population of Japan and Germany? It was necessary and prudent to do so to begin anew without the opposition in place.

Our methods of warfare have somewhat changed. Now, we find ourselves giving employment to the former Republican Guard of Saddam Hussein, hoping that the employment will breed loyalty, as most families seek only peace and safety through a stable income.

Do not expect the methods of war to change. It is not fair, it is wind and confusion. It is the hell we speak of, the destruction we loathe, and the leveling of a new playing field for the children of the future.

reply to post by defcon5


I have to go to sleep, but i want to say good job on a well thought out response with quoted sources. I agree with you in some aspects, but i'll explain my point in the morning.

reply to post by eikmun

Thank you, and I look forward to your response tomorrow.
Have a good one…

I reran the video many times and no where do i see a violation of the ROE.
I see armed people and people doing strange things.

If there were US troops 100 yards away i would as a pilot have saw a problem with this group acting strangely and people with cameras would not have protected them as the insurgents in Iraq just love to film there attacks on US troops.
www.youtube.com...
www.liveleak.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

here are a few the insurgent likely don't want you to see
shock.military.com...
www.maniacworld.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


Journalist in Iraq for the most part wear clothing that says press or has some other identifying marking on them just to keep from getting shot.

Most journalist dress in blue bullet proof vest just so they stand out and don't get shot.

tacomasds.org...
www.salford.ac.uk...

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Sorry but last time I checked 90% of the world hate america , simply because of its war waging and empire expanding foreign policy , of war torture and resource grabbing.

Face it your elected government and country is an ecver expanding empire of corporate facism supported by the blood sweat and tears of its brainwashed citizens!

so we shouldnt keep our america hating quiet , we should tell everyone , so we all learn its a big fat lie , so we or our children cant stop it !

Originally posted by sapien82
resource grabbing.

Face it your elected government and country is an ecver expanding empire of corporate facism supported by the blood sweat and tears of its brainwashed citizens!

You do realize that there are more of our corporate interests owned by foreign sources then by Americans themselves. With this in mind I really do not see how you can blame America for what corporations based in America do?

For example, all you forigners blame the US for going to war for oil, but who owns the oil companies. Eh??

Who owns Citgo?
Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Who owns Shell?
Shell is currently 60% Dutch-owned, 40% English-owned. Provided shareholders approve the plan later this year, the Group will become 100% British, quoted in London, but headquartered in The Hague.

Who owns Exxon?
1,451 institutions hold 3,156,802,560 shares of XOM (Exxon's ticker). That's about half of its total shares outstanding. But out of this handful of institutions, you can be assured that approximately 4 million American's hold shares of the Company's stock, mostly in the form of their pension or 401(k) (the top three holders of the stock (Barclays, State Street, and Vanguard) are titanic mutual fund and index fund providers). What about the other half? Retail investors. Your neighbor, your friend, your co-worker. In fact, Exxon is one of the most widely held stocks, with a very high " float," meaning "insiders" (company directors) own very little compared to their peers.

Who owns Barclays Bank?
Barclays plc is a British financial services firm operating worldwide. It is a holding company that is listed on the London and New York stock exchanges, and was listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange until 2008. It is also a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.

Who owns Amaco?
Amoco announced it would merge with British Petroleum (BP) in the world's largest industrial merger.

Who owns BP?
BP plc (formerly The British Petroleum Company, plc then BP Amoco plc) is a British global energy company that is also the third largest global energy and the 4th largest company in the world.

How much of the US does BP supply?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0c46e289559.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/254a059ef64d.jpg[/atsimg]
Close to half of it...
…etc…
Here is a list of the major Oil companies:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43ea613a3c6e.gif[/atsimg]
The American companies are the smallest of the group..

As far as I can tell, not a single one is fully owned by the American Government, the American people, or even American Corporations. They are just as much owned by foreign investors and oil speculators. The largest ones are owned by Middle Eastern Companies, the American companies are microscopic in comparison. So where do you foreign American haters get off with this, “boo hoo, American stole our Natural Resources” crap’oll’a, if anything you all sold us your national resources in exchange for lots of money.

This is especially true of those in the middle east who all receive a living income from the oil industry.

You want to point fingers…
Four are pointing right back at ya!


[edit on 4/9/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5

Very well informed post, thanks.

Here's another "double tap" by attack helicopter:

Roger, he's wounded, hit him. Go for it.

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by OverSword

 

If you like fascist right-wing propaganda that blog is perfect. For all normal people however...

Doesn't change the fact that there was pictorial proof of weapons being carried.

Now back on topic:

People have said this time and time again, war is hell. Ok, think about that. "Hell". It's not, "War is not a very nice place to be", it's "War is hell". Hell is where injustice, torture, you name it, it happens. That's war however unforunate.

I was at one point in time, for the war. I can't say I am now. Yet, I keep thinking "it's part of human nature". We've been warring since we were carrying sticks.

But then again, we're human so we should be able to change... right?

reply to post by defcon5


I would say that you are spot on. When i served in the Navy most of our foreign objectives were managed by the UN and not our own Country. I would say 90% of the jobs we did were conducted for the UN. Most of our foreign objectives were never mention in the news back home or on any other news channel. Mostly because it would have been bad news for politics. In my opinion that's why we have a no tell policy about our objectives. Its not to protect us, but to protect them from having to explain them selves.

Personally my view of things. There are two camps running the show. The corporates and the politicians. Where the corporate side decides on what jobs that must be done. Than you have the politicians who has to sell the corporate idea to the people, and make them see it as a great idea.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

i like a lot of the contrabutions in this thread.

and i can often sympathize with frustrating thoughts.

i often ask myself:

I wonder under what circumstances would the actions and behaviors of my government make any sense at all? What would have to be going on to justify such actions taken as we have in the last 10 years????

what do you guys think? any opinions worth sharing?

reply to post by harrytuttle



We are not leaving Iraq ever! They are building 50 bases does that sound like they are preparing to leave? People need to wake up.

reply to post by spy66


Exactly. Its a big PR campaign. People dont want to see bad things. They want to see patriotic displays and cool explosions and things that make them feel superior
(caution swearing)


Down with the UN - they give us orders to convolute the chain of command and compartmentalise war!!

reply to post by defcon5


Fair enough these mega conglomorates arent owned by the US ,but the US consumes the most oil for its war waging , and since they are paying for oil ,, which helps the expansion of the empire , its all pretty much in the hands of the US .

Dont get me wrong we over here in europe are just being led as blindly as you guys , and we arent doing # all either no one is !

its just it seems that your country under the name of america and all that it stands for , is taking you into a global domination at the cost of innocent people and the environment for its own benefit , or to fix its huge budget deficit.

there needs to be a huge shift in US foreign policy , its beyond me how a president can be nominated for a peace prize when his country is at war with 5 nations globally .

Many have said in here that the kids need to be educated and stop being drawn into the us war machine with gifts and promises !

lets face it the world is a #ed up place , and it seems my government is just as bad as yours , but your country can be great , but choses not to be !

Instead they dont care and would rather burn the world to the ground than anyone else live peacfully

does that remind you of anyone in particular ?

Its the same here in the UK with recent adverts for miltary sign ups , glorifying war and killing people , the UK navy shows a man operating a chain cannon with the rounds pumping , no doubt to appeal to the gaming generation , they also show holidays in the sun and ski trips , alright if you still have two legs to stand on after a tour in iraq or afghan !

its #ing sickening , that we sit here and let them do this to us , I wish i had the power within me to do something about this , maybe i just need motivation is all

peace and love to you all

[edit on 9-4-2010 by sapien82]

reply to post by freighttrain


SIR YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL PYGMY .
england is a country not an island

Originally posted by freighttrain

LOVE IT! I always thought, we should throw all the people that want war.. on one huge island... say .. England!

and if anyone ever becomes violent towards others (over x amount of times) will be shipped to this island.. if they survive.. after x amount of days.. they can come back! Violence will vanish as it will not serve you directly!

Haha, yeah, we'll have them, they can be target practice for the Saturday night fighters, but I bet they won't last long. If you go out on the town on a saturday night here, you either learn to fight hard or run fast! You're better off dropping them off in the south for a fighting chance of survival.

Also, don't forget, guns are illegal here, so it's all hand to hand and knife combat!

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

No.....what needs to happen is the young, dumb, desperate, naive, brainwashed, indoctrinated, poor, middle class kids that continue to support the US military need to STOP!

I agree. However, it is rich white kids with college degrees that run the military. They call them officers. Their dads were in the mil, and their grandpas were in the military. John McCain is a prime example.

The young poor kids join for different reasons, but the military is sold to them day after day through movies, tv, print, school books, recruiters, etc.

I was in the military. I would never join, knowing what I know now, but this knowledge can only be gained through experience and a search for truth. It's not something they teach you in schools.