www.youtube.com...
Now this video is very interesting.... shows a very human side to things (in a sense of hiw willingness to admit and talk about this).
Please watch it and give your opinions...
He talks about threat levels in battle and the how they had different ways of dealing with 'who they shot at' depending on the threat level.
Some times they could fire 'at whoever they wanted' if that specific area had been classed as a free fire zone.
He speaks of soldiers firing a grenade at a woman carrying a bag of groceries (trying to bring the US Soldiers some food) amongst other things...
'There was no rule governing who we shot at'...
SO.... if say a town in Iraq/Afghanistan consisted of say 1000 people and say 10 of them were the only people in town who wished anyone any harm i.e
the 'terrorist', would this be the right way to deal with them..?
Shooting all the other people in the town if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? An unsupecting villager perhaps...
Now imagine this in the United states? Say a dangerous and wanted criminal ran into a middle class neighbourhood (possibly to stay with a relative),
would i therefore be right for armed police to shoot anybody out in the streets? Just because they looked similar or dressed similar?
Of course not... but for some reason this rule doesn't apply outside of America.
BUT I am not bashing the soldiers here... It seems they were TOLD to act like this, told to be this menacing.... TOLD to attack the Iraqi villagers
who passed through certain checkpoints... Told to kick and punch and hit them with 'anything they had'... TOLD them to shoot 'suspect taxis',
innocent or not...
So what is the line between morality and following orders?
Who then should be the one's charged for war crimes?
The younger one's following orders in a confusing environment, commiting these acts of barbarism, or those that TELL them to kill, shoot, beat, rape,
bludgeon and shoot?
Some thoughts for you all to digest...
Mr L
[edit on 17-6-2008 by mr-lizard]