It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marines Shoot Faker in Fallujah

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Bikereddie,

GL to your kid. And I hope he is making the right decisions to keep himself safe. Whatever they may be.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by skippytjc]




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
skippytjc

Thanks.......
he has his screwed on the right way and will do the right thing.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
When your city is bombed from above and you are doing everyting in your power to defend yourself and some one comes into your church where you have been wounded and shoots you, think about how you deserved it.


Originally posted by skippytjc
Thank you for posting that Leveller. Some of thse people want it both ways. They cry its a war crime when a marine does something they dont aprove of, but never mention that these fighters are employing the most dirty tactics ever known to warfare and dont even come close to observing the Geneva rules.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acecool79

When your city is bombed from above and you are doing everyting in your power to defend yourself and some one comes into your church where you have been wounded and shoots you, think about how you deserved it.


Why would people go to church with RPG'S and rifles? Some of these people are taking refuge in holy places and taking shots at coalition troops thinking they are safe from attack.

Maybe thats why the mosques were bombed?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Acecool79,

If that soldier bent down to help that Iraqi who was shooting at them earlier in the day to help and then the Iraqi detonated a bomb or grenade killing that soldier, would that be better? If YOU were standing in that soldiers boots and you know that some of your buds have been killed in this fashion would you just run over and ignore the threat? This is war people and the enemy is using the most dirty fighting methods in the history of warfare. As far as I am concerned that soldier did exactly the right thing.

And btw: its one thing to defend yourself against an invading force, but to sit in a church and shoot out the windows only to us that in propaganda to build support for your cause is just plain pathetic. f that isnt sacrilege I dont know what is...

[edit on 22-11-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Simple as that, is it? Well, I'm curious. How do you discern between someone 'playing dead' and someone who's injured and/or unconscious?


Simple, AFTER the fighting has died down THEN you look for those injured... you yell to them (in Arabic, and I'm assuming they've all been taught this phrase) "Both hands up or I'll shoot!". You don't see both hands, then the guy gets ventilated. See? Simple really.

While I'm obviously not a Bush supporter, you also cannot expect soldiers to go into and through combat trying to save the lives of every one of the enemy...when the idea is to kill them. Saving innocents, reducing collateral damage, yes...but not this. Especially when the enemy employs such tactics as this (hardly unknown in warfare, remember Thermopoly?)..even the wounded are combatants until proving their surrender. You get one chance to show whether you're surrendering or not. You blow it, you get buried...simple as that.


However this paragraph states under which conditions it's not allowed to kill, injure or capture an adversary.


Am I reading that wrong, or doesn't that simply mean that the tactic isn't allowed, and then it just defines the tactic...??? It doesn't say you can't kill the enemy when they employ the tactic, just that by agreeing, you can't employ the tactic or you are in violation.


2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."


In other words, you can use the tactics listed, as long as it isn't perfidious.


1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy.
(snip)


This paragraph then defines what constitutes perfidy....and the act of pretending to be dead or injured to then lead one into an ambush is certainly perfidious and thus such a combatant is not protected under international law.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I wish I could applaud you Gazrok

The one thing most are forgetting in their mad rush to condemn the USA for ANYTHING is that the Marine was allowed only ONE mistake and then they send you home in a Bag.

If told to surrender and you don't respond then you are dead, now I know that some will say what if he couldn't raise his arms? Well life's a bitch



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
You do know that the injured dudes in the Mosque were known about the day before and left behind to be picked up later? You do know that right?
Not like they took them by surprise or anything.
I like the way you clutch at straws with the 'faking death contravenes the Geneva convention' line....your freaking loony tunes in the Pentagon don't consider the Geneva convention or International law applicable to the US anyway. Bit rich rolling out it's doctrine when it suits your own desire to sleep straight at nights.
Yeah faking being dead is real evil, whereas our good ol boys dropping death on innocent civillians is the all American way of freedom and democracy and justifiable because we say it is, so it is...God bless.
Hey I know a joke...What's the difference between the 'terrorists' killing innocent civillians and Uncle Sam killing innocent civillians?
Nothing



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
good response Zero Point

good to see we got some one on our side..........



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply, Gazrok.


As to this particular case, I'm still on the fence. And I wouldn't want to have an uninformed opinion which is also why I'm raising the issues which I feel I still don't have the answer to. So I'm not in fact taking anyone's side here. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear before people get any false ideas as to my view on this issue.


Originally posted by Gazrok
Simple, AFTER the fighting has died down THEN you look for those injured... you yell to them (in Arabic, and I'm assuming they've all been taught this phrase) "Both hands up or I'll shoot!". You don't see both hands, then the guy gets ventilated. See? Simple really.

It does sound simple enough. But wouldn't this mean you may also be killing someone who's unconsious?



2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."


In other words, you can use the tactics listed, as long as it isn't perfidious.

Much like what I thought it read.



1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy.
(snip)


This paragraph then defines what constitutes perfidy....and the act of pretending to be dead or injured to then lead one into an ambush is certainly perfidious and thus such a combatant is not protected under international law.

This is what I was referring to. Going by what is stated, as far as I can see it doesn't say it's a violation in itself to pretend to be dead or injured. As I understand it; the violation is to do so coupled with the act of killing, injuring or capturing an adversary.

Again, I'm absolutely not taking a side here. I'm merely trying to figure out the particulars as to what can and can't be considered a violation of these 'Rules of War'.

EDIT: sp

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zero Point

I like the way you clutch at straws with the 'faking death contravenes the Geneva convention' line....your freaking loony tunes in the Pentagon don't consider the Geneva convention or International law applicable to the US anyway. Bit rich rolling out it's doctrine when it suits your own desire to sleep straight at nights.



Well, at least this side recognises the Geneva Convention. I don't see any of the extremists with a copy of it in their hand when they behead female care workers. At least we can argue about the technicalities of the Convention here in the West because we hold it dear, but those technicalities don't even exist in the militant's mind - let alone the Convention itself. They can happily carry out any atrocity with no problem of conscience.

Quite simply the Coalition Forces are not in Iraq to kill Iraqis. If they aren't attacked they don't have to shoot people. But the sad fact is that there are those in Iraq who don't want a peaceful, democratic society. The fact that Falluja contains militants who are both Saddam supporters of the former Ba'ath regime and extremists who want to impose their own brand of religous terror does not mean that it should be looked at as a place where all the poor little freedom fighters hang out. The people there aren't fighting for their society - they are fighting for themselves. They are fighting to impose a minority will on the majority. They certainly aren't fighting for freedom.

I think it plainly obvious that the Coalition would rather have their troops at home rather than having to clean up a cesspit like Falluja. But if the turds in that cesspit want to fight then unfortunately they risk being killed.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Are terrorists and insurgents party to the Geneva Convention to begin with?

Deep



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Are terrorists and insurgents party to the Geneva Convention to begin with?

Deep



I sincerely doubt it.

When has any one know any terrorists to comply with the rules of the Geneva Convention?

Terrorists don't play by rules, so they should expect none in return either.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Just found this story at the BBC,
It details the actual account of the so called NBC news reporter.

Take a look, it makes good reading.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Just found this story at the BBC,
It details the actual account of the so called NBC news reporter.

Take a look, it makes good reading.

news.bbc.co.uk...



Just so everyone realize's the shooting of the man faking being dead happened a week after the mosque incident as recorded by the NBC reporter, these are two distinct incidents. The one I posted on was to show that the earlier incident was not isolated and that faking death is indeed a tactic used by the insurgents.



[edit on 23-11-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Apologies Phoenix

I guess i was thinking about the marine and the NBC reporter.

Still, glad to here the marine was not guilty of any offence.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I am glad he was cleared. If he had been punished it could have caused them to hesitate at wrong time and would have wound up costing hundreds if not thousands of lives



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
He's been cleared? That official? I havent read that yet.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
My mistake for saying it was the first marine cleared - it was the one in the second incident. Sorry for any confusion.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
No confusion, just wanted to make sure I hadnt missed a big news tidbit.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join