US soldiers kill 10-year-old Iraqi girl

reply to post by Mr. Ree


Like I already said: this is America, not China. We don't shoot based on probable cause, especially 10 year old girls.

If you want to live somewhere that does do that kind of stuff, feel free to move, it is a free country

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by LLoyd45


So you're of the mindset that unless mainland USA is being invaded, that the military doesn't protect you directly or indirectly? It's that mindset that would put us in the position of having to defend the mainland USA.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Mr. Ree

 

Like I already said: this is America, not China. We don't shoot based on probable cause, especially 10 year old girls.
[edit on 13-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Yeah right

I think this topic quite shows a different thing.

I love how they've added a suspicious looking woman to the story. It's kind of like like the rape and murder of that 14 year old Iraqi girl.

At first she was reported as a girl, then our media started referring to her as a woman. I guess they couldn't find a way to justify the rape and murder of a little girl..

reply to post by jaamaan


There are some who fail to represent us properly. That does not change anything.

reply to post by Sublime620


I posted this earlier, but for a quick refresher-

I'm not saying kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out. I am saying that I'm not gonna be the one who ignores suspicious activity. Even in Vietnam and earlier, woman and children had been used to either signal for the initiation of ambushes or were laden with explosives. In Somalia, fighters used women and children for spotters and as human shields. By the laws of armed conflict, even women and children lose their protected status under these conditions. Perhaps these soldiers overreacted, but none of us were there, and the investigation isn't over, so how about we wait until the facts are all in.

If insurgents use women and children-

A- that is a war crime
B- it is unfortunate, but these women and children lose their protected status if in their actions are part of hostilities(i.e. forward observing, signalling ambushes, carrying explosives or weapons, etc...).

It's much the same how normally protected sites lose their status if they're being used for military purposes(i.e. mosques, schools, hospitals, ambulances, etc..)


[edit on 13-3-2008 by BlueRaja]

This shooting af a little girl proves the sorry state of affairs this war is.

Justified !?

Yeah right, maybe people see it different when they talk about their own children.

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. "
Albert Einstein

Originally posted by pepsi78
Today it is a little girl , tomorrow it's a little boy or an old lady, then a pupy or a cat thrown off the clif, or a bunch of Iraqi killed in an air strike, or prisoners tortured in a prisson, so the US can keep bringing democracy to Iraq.This does not make a surprise since convicts, gand members, criminals are recruited in to the US army at a constant rate.

Care to prove such an outlandish claim? My brother attempted to join the military but was immediately denied from all branches because of a minor drug charge when he was 14. How they found out about it is beyond me considering it was sealed. I highly doubt they let "criminals and gang members" into the army.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by palehorse23

 

Sounds justified to me..

Terrible that it happened, but its war.. and in war terrible things happen. I honestly doubt she was "waving" but perhaps another hand signal, or acting in an odd manor.. it must have been something to convince a soldier to kill an obviously young girl..

You should be ashamed of yourself sir.

Before you found out they were targeting a grown woman YOU tried to justify placing a ten year old girl in the sites of a gun and pulling the trigger for a hand signal.

Sorry but if I was at war in someone else's country I am the one that has placed myself in danger and I am not about to look through a gun-site and shoot a child. Jesus Christ!

Being a person dedicated to saving strangers lives I cannot get behind this thinking. What are you going to do call me a liberal for this humane way of thinking.

DISGUSTING!!

[edit on 13-3-2008 by LoneGunMan]

reply to post by BlueRaja
Honestly "No". I can't see how their presence all over the globe does anything to protect me or our country. If anything, it probably has just the opposite effect.

Would you like to have Russian or Chinese military personnel stationed here in the US? Probably not, but we do it to other countries all the time in the name of spreading Democracy.



[edit on 3/13/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by pugachev


You don't watch much news do you? It's already been proven and admitted that they are letting gang members in.

Also, a puppy has been thrown off of a cliff. Prisoners are being tortured. We have killed civilians with cluster bombs.

His post was filled with facts, not guesses towards the future.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

If insurgents use women and children-

A- that is a war crime
B- it is unfortunate, but these women and children lose their protected status if in their actions are part of hostilities(i.e. forward observing, signalling ambushes, carrying explosives or weapons, etc...).

It's much the same how normally protected sites lose their status if they're being used for military purposes(i.e. mosques, schools, hospitals, ambulances, etc..)

God knows I hate creeps.

WTF is wrong with you? WE should NOT be there so therefore your faulty logic does not apply.

SICK!

reply to post by jaamaan


Dude, it's just Albert Einstein. What did he ever prove? Why would anyone listen to him?

reply to post by pugachev
Here you go Pug unless you don't consider The Stars and Stripes a reliable source either.

This isn't really a big deal. It's impossible to fight a war without killing a few civilians in the process, and it's not like it's all that rare for children to be used to fight over there. Some things done to children by the forces fighting the Americans are far more cruel and not accidental at all. It's one thing not to support the war, which I believe to be rather pointless and a waste of resources, but doing so by pointing at little incidents like this that will happen in any conflict doesn't do much for me.

Originally posted by pugachev
Care to prove such an outlandish claim? My brother attempted to join the military but was immediately denied from all branches because of a minor drug charge when he was 14. How they found out about it is beyond me considering it was sealed. I highly doubt they let "criminals and gang members" into the army.

Actually, there's been plenty of history proving gang members have been able to join the US armed forces. These guys have taken knowledge of tactics, combat training and even weaponry back home with them and integrated into their gang warfare.

www.stripes.com...

usmilitary.about.com...

Originally posted by jaamaan
This shooting af a little girl proves the sorry state of affairs this war is.

Justified !?

Yeah right, maybe people see it different when they talk about their own children.

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. "
Albert Einstein

If she was doing something that was gonna result in the deaths of soldiers, she was participating in hostile activities, and as such becomes a legitimate target as tragic as it may be.

reply to post by BlueRaja


According to the original story she looked like she may have been 10 years old, she was female, and she was doing hand signals.

In what world is that okay to shoot at? Keep in mind, you are representing America, and its Founding Fathers.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

You should be ashamed of yourself sir.


Being a person dedicated to saving strangers lives I cannot get behind this thinking. What are you going to do call me a liberal for this humane way of thinking.

DISGUSTING!!

[edit on 13-3-2008 by LoneGunMan]

It's one thing to save stranger's lives. It's quite another when that stranger is either directly trying to kill you, or is assisting others that are directly trying to kill you.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


There is nothing wrong with me thank you. Your opinion of whether we should be there has nothing to do with the laws of war. If you don't like the laws of war, then your grievance isn't with me. The facts of the matter are - we are there, so it's immaterial what your opinions on that are. Soldiers don't make policy, but they have to use common sense(i.e. they aren't gonna say, well we shouldn't be here, so this person over here trying to kill me, isn't really a threat.)