4 Americans Shot in the Back of Head After Copter Crashes

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
it's got nothing to do with the uniform sweety. It's to do with the fact that they are payed killers and the geneva conventions clearly states mercinaries are not covered.

However resistance movements are covered by it, like i said article 4 third convention. And for your information deltaboy, they have uniforms. each faction has its own insignia.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

Not from where I stand. Many bodies of insurgents just wear pretty much just like any civilian clothing. Its also a tactic to get rid of any possible insignias before meeting checkpoints setup by Iraqi or American troops. If I am an insurgent, I do that too, but at my own risk that could get me executed.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

How come they execute Iraqi and US soldiers?

Iraqi puppet "soldiers" are traitors and should be executed accordingly. Or hung, whatever time permits ofcource.

-----------


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

Are you saying that the Iraqi army is comprised of traitors? What about the police and government? What are they traitors against? The Iraqis voted for the government, and it's military and police are made up of volunteers from the population. Are the only non-traitors insurgents? Which insurgents(sunni or shia)? What about the Kurds?

"Anyway

That's exactly how you should shoot a mercinary. one bullet back of the head.

not that the SCUM blackwater mercinaries deserve such a painless death, but it's just more honourable this way don't you think?

It's stuff like this that makes me appretiate the resistance so

Unlike members of a regular army, mercinaries are under no obligation to follow the geneva convention. If you saw what they do, you'd know they got of lightly."

So every employee of Blackwater commits attrocities, and therefore they should all die painful deaths? Is that what I'm understanding from your statement? Should every American(or otherwise) civilian suffer this fate?

Originally posted by marcopolo
Nope, I was unaware that Michael Moore took the words of interviewees, "out of context" and had "mischaracterized/misquoted" the people, because of this I would appreciate you showing me how he done that.

Until then I will continue to believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 was indeed a very intelligient and educating documentary on US politics.

www.slate.com...

Here's just one quick snippet. If you do a little checking, you'll find Michael took a lot of artistic license in his "truth."

And another-

davekopel.org...

[edit on 25-1-2007 by BlueRaja]

Execution of those you cannot hold is logical, THINK ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID! That is the #1 mistake people make when they read what I say, they take it from THEIR standpoint not that of someone else so let me elaborate for you since you did not think over what I said:
During revolution, civil war, war, total annihilation, etc if you plan on taking enemies alive, make sure you have a place to detain them.
The Iraqis do not have anyplace to detain them, so it is let them go, use ransom which is never paid and backfires on ALL sides because NO ONE has been able to get ransom unless it is kept private, or just shoot them and know you have less enemies to worry about.
The US military takes prisoners because they have Gitmo, Iraqi prisons, and who knows how many others around the world, again, the Iraqis do not. They are on their own when they take prisoners who are mercenaries or US military personel.
I myself would NEVER take prisoners, why? I HAVE NOWHERE TO PUT THEM! THEY WOULD BE WORSE OFF ALIVE THEN DEAD! No food to spare, no water to spare, no clothing to spare, etc. It would be more humane to shoot them now, or release them. I would rather take #2, shoot them so there are less of them and take ammo, guns, and other equipment off their bodies.
Logicaly what do you do: You have 4 mercenaries who are part of a firm that murders civilians, you can let them go and KNOW nothing will happen to them LEGALY, or you can shoot them execution style and be done with it, they will harm NO ONE now. I would shoot them, they will no longer be able to murder anyone.
Logicaly what do you do: You have no place to hold your enemies, and letting them go means they will have the area they were shot down in combed and have who knows how many murdered, raped, detained and tortured. So which do you do? Get 4 of them knowing either way they are going to comb the area, or let the 4 get away to talk about it?
This is the only way they have of using law against the occupiers, they get a chance to whittle, they whittle.
Ironic, people support the US military detaining and torturing people, yet they have a heart attack if someone executes their "beloved" mercenary forces or military forces. Who is the REAL barbarian here?

Again, I ask- does every or even most Blackwater employees wantonly murder innocent civilians? These blanket statements saying that every contractor is a murderer are simply BS. They are folks with marketable skills(prior SOF backgrounds in many cases) trying to provide for their families. They understand how to protect facilities, and conduct PSD for convoys, freeing the military. They aren't out going on raids or other offensive type operations. They have a defensive mission only. Is a rent a cop a merc, because he's not really a cop? If one of their employees behaves criminally, then they should face criminal procedings. To simply say they're all murderers and need to die painfully is way above BS.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by marcopolo
Nope, I was unaware that Michael Moore took the words of interviewees, "out of context" and had "mischaracterized/misquoted" the people, because of this I would appreciate you showing me how he done that.

Until then I will continue to believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 was indeed a very intelligient and educating documentary on US politics.

www.slate.com...

Here's just one quick snippet. If you do a little checking, you'll find Michael took a lot of artistic license in his "truth."

And another-

davekopel.org...

[edit on 25-1-2007 by BlueRaja]

Thank you for taking time to show me that BlueRaja

After reading the column I think it comes down to where you stand on political loyalties, The author makes very valid points like,

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later),

Perhaps people where a little hasty in expectancy of what the President does in they kind of situations, in reality its totally feasible Bush was just as shocked as the rest of us. I too agree that the video of Bush in the classroom does get preyed on.

I believe the Author took some comments out of context aswell though,

Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few.

Heres an extract were the Author picks holes in Moores philosophy that the US shouldnt have gone to war yet criticises the fact that too few troops were sent. I think Moore was trying to emphasise the fact that despite the US sending armed forces to Afghanistan post-9/11 the amount sent was never going to be able to do the job, the way the Author construed this was that Moore was contradicting himself.

whats messed up is that the media reported that an iraqi witness to the chopper being shot down said a gunmen with a PKC machine gun downed the chopper.

not an rpg, or anti-air missile shoulder fired, but a large caliber machine gun; the kind they like to strap to the back of trucks in afghanistan and somalia.

why is that messed up? because .. i just dont hear of helicopters being downed from a single machine-gunner with a portable, carry-around machine gun.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Again, I ask- does every or even most Blackwater employees wantonly murder innocent civilians?

No. For a real good look at the 'contractor' issue in Iraq please read, "Licensed To Kill; Hired guns in the war on terror" by Robert Young Pelton.

When we nuke Iran in a few months, most of the soldiers needed will, in my opinion be 'contractors'. Probably numbering in the tens of thousands.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Iraqi puppet "soldiers" are traitors and should be executed accordingly. Or hung, whatever time permits ofcource.

Lol Just like "commandos" should be shot for not wearing a uniform...right?

No i don't think it's contradictory.. And don't be confused as to the degree of sympathy that i'm offering.

Yes its not a question of execution but more a question of how many "Accidents" happen en route to the camera..good old british riot squad style eh syrian?

Unlike members of a regular army, mercinaries are under no obligation to follow the geneva convention. If you saw what they do, you'd know they got of lightly.
[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

Just like a militia or shadowy resistance group after all look at what the IRA "resistance group" did and they were a "legitimate" army were they not? But its all perferance and who you believe, who do you believe syrian? People behind the camera? People behind the guns? Or the confused bystander on the street corner?

Deltaboy

Not from where I stand.

Yeah but who are you?

You know the Nazi's claimed that the French resistance where not covered under the geneva conventions using the exact same logic you are using. I guess you have much incommen.

Most groups wear black uniforms, or arm and head bands, flack jackets, but for smaller less organised groups without alot of money, or for those that spontaniously resist to protect their home and loved ones the iraqi head scarf suffices. All show their arms openly and if they are captured in civilian clothes without weapons then they are protected under the geneva charter for civilian POW's.

Even your own criminal regime where forced to admit it. So again, who are you? Your opinion as to wether it should apply or shouldn't has no baring on what has been decided by the international communitie.


BlueRaja (mystery man)

Are you saying that the Iraqi army is comprised of traitors?

yes.

What about the police and government?

them too.

What are they traitors against?

Their country and their people.

The Iraqis voted for the government,

LOL, at the barrel of the gun.
Freedom american style.

and it's military and police are made up of volunteers from the population.

LOL !!!!! Volunteers? you mean, they aren't payed?
No dear they are not volunteers, they commit treason for one reason, cold hard cash $$$ .

Are the only non-traitors insurgents? Which insurgents(sunni or shia)? What about the Kurds?

No, only those who collaborate with the occupation are traitors. Shia and sunni doesn't matter. And what about the kurds? what about them.

So every employee of Blackwater commits attrocities, and therefore they should all die painful deaths? Is that what I'm understanding from your statement?

Close to understanding. Ever employee of Blackwater is a mercinary, and although deserving of a painful death, should be mercifully shot in the back of the head, just as the honourable resistance has done.

So in answer to your question. Yes i think they deserve to die, and i hope they burn in hell.

Should every American(or otherwise) civilian suffer this fate?

No, only those which are mercinaries.

devilwasp

Lol Just like "commandos" should be shot for not wearing a uniform...right?

If they are dressed up like arabs like the ones caught in basra, they can be shot as spies under the geneva convention. Though perhaps they can have some rights if they have some article on their body proving them to be soldiers, i have to look into the international law a bit more about that, good question though.

Unlike members of a regular army, mercinaries are under no obligation to follow the geneva convention. If you saw what they do, you'd know they got of lightly.
[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

Just like a militia or shadowy resistance group after all look at what the IRA "resistance group" did and they were a "legitimate" army were they not? But its all perferance and who you believe, who do you believe syrian? People behind the camera? People behind the guns? Or the confused bystander on the street corner?

Mercinaries may have no obligation to follow geneva but all resistance groups do have that obligation, the IRA included, Again it's all in article 4 of the third convention. They too can face internation war crimes trials. Mercinaries though are known to be swine, the geneva conventions doesn't apply to them and so they don't have to apply the convention. It's a two way stream.

As for who i belive...that depends on the agenda and the situation doesn't it. If your bystander has no agenda then that would be the logical choice. But i'll belive the heroic resistance who are defending their homes over your proven lier government any day.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

Sister, question:

If you support the methods means and tactics of the iraqi insurgency, as well as the aim and ideology, why are you trying to level with people on issues with stuff like the Geneva conventions and international rules?

Why try to rationalize? Those insurgents would probably laugh at the notion someone was trying to defend their ideology in a western style internet forum with mostly westerners. Especially talking about Geneva convention rules..

They openly disregard them at free will and use them to ther advantage whenever possible. The coalition forces disregard the rules at times, and people get killed as a result, those soldiers also get put on trial and sentenced with murder and goto jail upon returning home on their special 1 way flight. That is, whenever it is found out about.. and fellow soldiers usually rat them out to the commanding officers.

So clearly the insurgents use DIS-obeying international rules as an integral part of their war strategy, where as coalition troops just disobey international rules 'sometimes'. So i dont think you can defend that position with what you're saying, but you cant really defend an irrational immoral strategy, just sympathize w/those doing it, right?

Originally posted by pugachev
First off, the video that went around was a British security team if I'm not mistaken.

I was talking about the reported incident involving Blackwater in Fallujah that led to their mercanaries' deaths there, not the video of the British mercanaries.

Originally posted by pugachev
Second, they are not "mercenaries". They are a security team.

It's a sanitised, media and public friendly name for mercanaries.

Originally posted by pugachev
Their job is to protect certain people and buildings.

And the rest. Mind you don't step in the BS.

@Syrian Sister

Are you a hater? I mean are you that angry you hate evrything. Why do i say this, evrytime i read your posts your full of vitriol and condemnation for evrything, never a peaceful solution. The mod will probably remove this as its not on the topic in question and thats fine by me. I just can't help commenting on somebody who appears like a Nazi. Kill the Jews, kill the christians, kill those muslims who want a future of fairness and equality, fu**em all.

Alot of people here agree with you its an illegal war fired by profit, but you still insist on thrashing around supporting extremist view points because of misplaced anger. All it shows is that you cannot be reasoned with, it casts muslims in a poor light. Maybe you should study western history and then you'd realise how much s**t your in, and you'd understand the realpolitik of this situation. Yeah stop thinking the worlds a righteous place for muslims its not, not for anyone, why don't you get with the program and stop creating opposition with the thinly veiled racist rhetoric dressed up religous indignation. To me you appear like naivety in action spouting dogma.

To strong you might say, a personal attack?. Definately NO, all i'll say is this you have more in common with Western Neo-Cons than your own people both are willing to kill people to exercise total control.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Yeah but who are you?

You know the Nazi's claimed that the French resistance where not covered under the geneva conventions using the exact same logic you are using. I guess you have much incommen.

Most groups wear black uniforms, or arm and head bands, flack jackets, but for smaller less organised groups without alot of money, or for those that spontaniously resist to protect their home and loved ones the iraqi head scarf suffices. All show their arms openly and if they are captured in civilian clothes without weapons then they are protected under the geneva charter for civilian POW's.

Even your own criminal regime where forced to admit it. So again, who are you? Your opinion as to wether it should apply or shouldn't has no baring on what has been decided by the international communitie.

Yeah Syrian Sister, the Nazis have the right to do against French resistance fighters based on the Geneva Convention. What Nazis didn't have the right to do is go kill millions of Jews based on their religion. The Geneva Convention provides that power for occupier. Same thing for any nation. These insurgents in Iraq do not wear any insignia, and many insurgents should be executed having weapons in civilian cars.

www.liveleak.com...

Heres a video of the insurgents who manage to sneak up on a Marine observation post, tell me what the insurgents wear that is considered a uniform. Adiddas shoes, black pants or blue or brown does not count. Nor does masks count as well since Special Operations forces also wear similar masks and it makes insurgents and American troops working under the same govt. LOL.


[edit on 26-1-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
BlueRaja (mystery man)

Are you saying that the Iraqi army is comprised of traitors?

yes.

What about the police and government?

them too.

What are they traitors against?

Their country and their people.

The Iraqis voted for the government,

LOL, at the barrel of the gun.
Freedom american style.

and it's military and police are made up of volunteers from the population.

LOL !!!!! Volunteers? you mean, they aren't payed?
No dear they are not volunteers, they commit treason for one reason, cold hard cash $$$ .

Are the only non-traitors insurgents? Which insurgents(sunni or shia)? What about the Kurds?

No, only those who collaborate with the occupation are traitors. Shia and sunni doesn't matter. And what about the kurds? what about them.

So every employee of Blackwater commits attrocities, and therefore they should all die painful deaths? Is that what I'm understanding from your statement?

Close to understanding. Ever employee of Blackwater is a mercinary, and although deserving of a painful death, should be mercifully shot in the back of the head, just as the honourable resistance has done.

So in answer to your question. Yes i think they deserve to die, and i hope they burn in hell.

Should every American(or otherwise) civilian suffer this fate?

No, only those which are mercinaries.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]

english.aljazeera.net...

It would appear that at least 2/3 of Iraqis are traitors then, as 67+% of the population voted. Furthermore they risked their lives, as insurgents made death threats against those participating in the voting. Who held a gun to their heads? That's a load of crap.

As for the police and military- they have volunteered(and by volunteer, I mean of their free will, not that they are working for free) in droves because they want a better Iraq, even when many are killed while trying to volunteer. They want a better more secure life for themselves and their families, and they know the only way to do that is for there to be safety and security(which means stopping the insurgent thugs who use intimidation and violence to get their way).

Finally- so you feel that anyone working for Blackwater, etc... regardless of whether they have killed any innocents or mistreated anyone, should be summarily executed and condemned to hell? Who gets to decide who deserves to die, and who elected them God? If someone commits attrocities, they should be held accountable, and given a proper trial. If they haven't committed attrocities, what's your problem with them? Is it because they are hampering insurgent efforts?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
If they are dressed up like arabs like the ones caught in basra, they can be shot as spies under the geneva convention. Though perhaps they can have some rights if they have some article on their body proving them to be soldiers, i have to look into the international law a bit more about that, good question though.

How do you define "dressed" like arabs? Your now defining a races dress code? A bit racist isnt it?

Mercinaries may have no obligation to follow geneva but all resistance groups do have that obligation, the IRA included,

Yet the IRA did NOT adhere to those resolutions and neither does some elements of the iraqi resistance , THAT is something you cannot deny. Evidence has proven that several hostages have been killed by iraqi resistance groups (or atleast groups that fall within that definition, unless you have a list of all the groups that are "the resistance"?).

Again it's all in article 4 of the third convention. They too can face internation war crimes trials. Mercinaries though are known to be swine, the geneva conventions doesn't apply to them and so they don't have to apply the convention. It's a two way stream.

Syrian who is the UN human rights court going to go to for these people? The very nature of the resistance is to hide the people that are in it from retribution from occupying forces so the UN is hardly able to walk into the resistances baghdad office and ask to see the commandant general are they?
The resistance group can commit any action it wants and be beyond retribution because it is only illegal until your caught, the resistance is an invisible army beyond legal control because it is fighting against a force trying to impose order.

As for who i belive...that depends on the agenda and the situation doesn't it. If your bystander has no agenda then that would be the logical choice. But i'll belive the heroic resistance who are defending their homes over your proven lier government any day.

For a heroic resistance they do seem to have a rather loose sense of morals considering they are willing to kill the people they are defending but then again its all in the name of freedom so civilian casualties are to be expected. I sometimes wonder whether the threat of nuclear war was better than the current state of affairs, sometimes you just miss the cold war...back then you didnt have so many splinter cells. Or religion taking control of a country....

Syrian just one last question...when does the price of war become too high? What are the limits of how dirty wars can get before people stand up and say: "No more , there are somethings you just dont do even in war"?

And lastly syrian, everyone has an agenda. Me, you, the resistance and hell even heroic fighters in iraq have thierown personal agendas which WILL play a part in the reshaping of iraq once coalition forces pull out.

21st Century Jihadis = 20th Century Nazis

As much as I disagree with the invasion of Iraq, I find portraying the Iraq insurgency as "heroes" as problematic at best.

First of all, they're killing far more Iraqis than invaders.

Second of all, it's not like we're dealing with one monolithic group - there are what, dozens of different groups each with their own agendas and methods.

I can kinda sympathize with the guys attacking our troops, even if I am not happy about it - after all we did invade and occupy their country and I can't blame them for fighting back.

On the other hand I cannot sympathize at all with people who murder their own countrymen by jamming electric drills into their heads, simply for belonging to the wrong religious sect.

Originally posted by xmotex
First of all, they're killing far more Iraqis than invaders.

On the other hand I cannot sympathize at all with people who murder their own countrymen by jamming electric drills into their heads, simply for belonging to the wrong religious sect.

The problem is there is no proof who is doing these things, no eye witnesses, no investigations, nothing. Didn't you notice that when they talk about sectarian violence, they always say they "think" it was done by the opposing group because: who could have done it otherwise?! believe me, there are no poof or whatever to who is dumping burned body's and road bombimg civilians everyday.
There are however eyewitnesess of kidnappings and driveby shootings who claim they are done by "western" people, like these captured undercovers:

Google Video Link

And if you still dont know what drives this resistance to fight against the "invaders", than this is something for YOU
It is mass media thats creating most peoples image on the war in Iraq, and many are showing a different story..

[edit on 27/1/2007 by 137]