SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

Originally posted by kozmo
Oh, Come on! "Most probably" tortured. You mean, he has no idea but is simply speculating something. Again, no proof whatsoever.

If you want proof, browse around the internet for photos from sites seeking to bring war crimes charges against Franks. I've personally seen photos of ambulances that we have opened fire on with tanks, whereas the ambulances were taking civilians to a hospital. I'm pretty sure that's illegal. That being only one of the things I've seen, I can already see exactly where this guy is coming from.

Check this site out:
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Warning: There are links to graphic images and videos on this site; documentation of what our soldiers have done and are doing to Iraqi civilians.

Watch the videos especially.

Here is the specific page showing an ambulance that was attacked (again: this is graphic).

Also, the use of cluster bombs, etc., just things that are generally uncalled-for and very stupid to use over densely populated areas where the vast majority of the people you're killing are civilians. I would imagine that that is illegal as well, just as someone going over Chicago and bombing the whole freaking city because of a couple gangs that allegedly reside there.

If you saw things like this on a daily basis, you would object, or you would be as cruel as the ones doing it in the first place.

At any rate, there's a source for some things that would be considered war crimes. Mostly just an insanely unnecessary amount of civilians being killed, I suppose.

Yeah and they had to send that task force in to get them out of jail.. Remember that one.

For a SAS man to come out and complain about war fighting tactics... well thats got to be a first! Selection alone is pure unadulterated brutalility, let alone continuation training.... Does make you wonder doesn't it?

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you want proof, browse around the internet for photos from sites seeking to bring war crimes charges against Franks. I've personally seen photos of ambulances that we have opened fire on with tanks, whereas the ambulances were taking civilians to a hospital. I'm pretty sure that's illegal. That being only one of the things I've seen, I can already see exactly where this guy is coming from.

Its well known Iraqis where using ambulances for fighting and to carry troops,weapons and insurgents

Marines say. Inside the city, insurgents have been using ambulances to transport weapons between neighborhoods, Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.

On Monday, Marines shot and killed two insurgents seen setting up a machine gun near their position, Byrne said. An ambulance wheeled up, and a man got out to collect the machine gun, leaving the men, he said. The ambulance man also was shot and killed.

"We have to be careful because ambulances are being used for legitimate purposes, but we are also treating them with suspicion," Byrne said.

www.boston.com... ast/articles/2004/04/12/rebels_smuggle_supplies_into_iraqi_city/

www.command-post.org...

These people werent afraid to use civilians as human shields

[edit on 12-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Anyone who thinks it has ever been possible to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is a complete fool. Whether you present them with flowers or rifle butts, the west and middle east have too different ideals of good society to ever successfully win them over.

And anyone who believes that this war is about winning hearts and minds is an even bigger fool. It was quite obvious before the start that this whole fiasco had nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqis or their freedom.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
These people werent afraid to use civilians as human shields

Nor are US soldiers afraid to open fire on ambulances and ask questions later, apparently. That's not right.

If Franks is a problem then lets have a thread on him and do some detailed back ground work on the guy. I know a lot about him already but I'm afraid to say some of what I know.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Nor are US soldiers afraid to open fire on ambulances and ask questions later, apparently. That's not right.

Well when people are using ambulances as fighting vehicles you have to fight back. Either that or let them kill you

I dont see any proof of your alleged shooting first on ambulances and ask questions later policy.

Do accidents happen in war? You better believe it, if anyone told you otherwise they lied to you.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Blahblahblah, tit for tat, eye for an eye, they did it first, fight or die...let's just all admit that there is no moral high ground here and both sides are just an organized pack of murdering cuthroats...then can we have ice cream?

I dont know if I would go that far. If the US wanted they could just flatten city after city in Iraq with MOABs and B-52 strikes etc.. They could just cut off the heads of every arab they captured and Broadcast it on TV around the world.

If some of the insurgents had the Military power of the US I doubt they would be restrained at all in killing infidels.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont see any proof of your alleged shooting first on ambulances and ask questions later policy.

Maybe you should check out those links I just posted. Two ambulances loaded up, with the civilians being transported shown in one set of pictures, blood and guts and all. I ask you: where is the evidence that they were about to assault US forces?

It looks to me as though the forces responsible weren't even that concerned, because the ambulances appear to have just been assaulted by one individual, and in one of the ambulances, the occupants at least seem to still be alive in the photos. That's pretty sick stuff; the kind of stuff that would make an SAS want to leave Iraq in disgust: some lone soldier randomly loading up an ambulance as it goes by.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Maybe you should check out those links I just posted. Two ambulances loaded up, with the civilians being transported shown in one set of pictures, blood and guts and all. I ask you: where is the evidence that they were about to assault US forces?

Even in your first link its says

Two wounded patients who were being transferred to an other hospital, when their ambulance allegedly came under attack from U.S. tanks.

Can you prove these werent fired on by accident if they really have civilians in them? Its pretty clear they were using ambulances to fight from so they could have seen these as a threat if they came speeding towards them.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Even in your first link its says

Two wounded patients who were being transferred to an other hospital, when their ambulance allegedly came under attack from U.S. tanks.

Wow. Thanks a lot for that. I guess that settles it. You had to use bold but I get it now.

Can you prove these werent fired on by accident if they really have civilians in them?

No, I think it's the job of those who loaded them up in the first place to justify what they did. The civs were kind of the victims here; I wouldn't be asking them to justify a damned thing.

With crap like this going down I can really see why so many Iraqis are upset to begin with. This, and people with reasoning such as yourself. If it happens once, better safe than sorry, better just load up anything you think is suspicious just to be on the safe side. It doesn't matter, right? They're just Iraqis, so it doesn't matter. If I were an Iraqi, I would be loading up our soldiers or blowing myself up, too. Screw being invaded and occupied by such asses for such sick reasons in the first place. The whole mentality of justifying slaughtering innocent civilians for whatever reason is just sick.

Well im still missing this proof of this shoot first policy you said to look for in your links.

You can quote it and put it in bold and everything if you know where it is.

Or are you just speculating on what happened?

Originally posted by MadGreebo

1) ultra_phoenix you are possibly the nastiest person I have come across on ATS.

2) Because of views like yours so much wrong is being commited

3) Oh and I guess you say that abu Garihb prison pictures are ok as well? lead a prisoner around on a leash shall we? Sorry. you disgust me.

4) Remeber Ultra, US/ UK chose to invade, the Iraqis then had no choice but to defend.

1) You didn't read the point 3, 3 a & 3 c but only the point 3 b.

So, to be really 100 % clear as crsytal, I'm gonna straight write it : " I DON'T THINK IRAKIS ARE SUB-HUMANS "

Is that clear in your mind now ?

2) Exactely what I think about your POV.

3) You guess wrong. I often wonder why peoples like your crying for what happened to Abu Grahib but never say a damn word when it come to what's happening in others parts of the world, especially in country like Cuba, NK, China and so on where thing far much worse as what happened in Abu Grahib are actually happening. Oh yeah I know, it's more easy to bash on the US. At least with the US you know they don't have any gulag , so no risk.

4) Remember MG, US/UK chose to invade nazis germany so the nazis then had no choice but to defend. You idiot.

P.S : And just because of you, here is a video ( rapidshare.de... )
of what Saddam soldiers were doing to their fellow Irakis during the " ol' good Saddam era ", the one you're probably missing. Becarefull, it's not a cartoon but a very hard to look video. No blood anyway, " just " beating. Follow the link, click " free " and wait for the download.

Post edited to ad the post-scriptum. U.P.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by ultra_phoenix]

With respect to the SAS even they have thier media hungry people....andy McNab and Chris Ryan have made claims just like this man.

200-300 casulties in andy's book, yeah right.

One of the factors of fighting in war is the acceptance of the priciples of why the war is occurring. Behind all wars lay the foundations of ideologies that inspire one's sense of 'duty', they prick the conscience.
All manner of excuses for invading Iraq have been used to justify the decimation of Iraq's infrastructure and treatment of the Iraqi people at the hands of the coalition forces. Did the Iraqi's ask for help? Did the Iraqi's say please come invade us, and free us from Saddam?

Many soldiers need to believe and hold faith in the principle and reason for the war, once that is lost, the soldier loses a lot of his effectiveness and discipline. This SAS soldier has seen things occurring that have withered his faith in the principle of why he is participating in Iraq. Show him a real enemy, and his effectiveness will re-engage, but his witnessing of treatment of the ordinary Iraqis at the hands of coalition forces, treatment that is outside his soldier's code, makes the reason for being in Iraq null and void.

I for one, applaud his sentiment. I wish more soldiers were as brave, perhaps then, Iraq might have a chance to stabilise. Current policies will never allow that to occur.

Regards

The guy got scared and ran. He's a deserter and he's
covering with the 'illegal acts' story. Probably enjoying
his 15 minutes of fame (and $$ from the left??) that comes with it.

He has no evidence or credible examples of those 'illegal acts' ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The guy got scared and ran. He's a deserter and he's
covering with the 'illegal acts' story.

Instead, he was discharged with a testimonial describing him as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".

Yep, he shure looks like a coward to me.

Why dont you read an article carefully for a change?

Most of you here babble about how war is not fun and games and yes, we get it. However, it's not about how ugly the war is but how distasteful the ugly war is. This man is not some average soldier with little experience but this is a SAS trooper with an exemplary experience who goes in to boot in Iraq. I can bet with you that if this we're to be an average coalition soldier-say a spanish(no offense) soldier with a rank equivalent to a private, it wouldn't be given much credit.

You want to know why? Firstly, it is because he has little or no prior experience to judge whether an event he witness is called "illegal" by international warfare code of conduct. Secondly, he has a rank of private and generally, private(s) are "low-class soldiers" (I am using the stereotype here).

The news article contradicts the example I have given above. For me, I have mixed reaction on this case.

He has probably seen his share of fights and brutal kills so he is able distinguish the right from the wrong in his battles. He is trained to be the best of the best and serve the country with pride and honour. I must say if he really holds on to this dear principle, he would commit to it til the end. Probably what he does is his way of the serving the country. Not a patriotic way but at least, a honest way. Furthermore, the fact he was discharged honourably really does say something.

I still think that he must probably have a "shellshock" from one event that he saw in Iraq. Everbody has their mental limit and maybe what he saw in Iraq is his limit. What is that "event"...

If this man was in the SAS then it would be serious. These people are dedicated soldiers known for professionalism who are trusted to carry out politically sensitive operations with discretion.
However they are naturally secretive and reticent in talking about certain operational matters.
And they are targets themselves so I find his disclosure of details about himself to be at odds with that.
I would need to see positive confirmation about him before accepting it.