Cantr II Discussion Forum

I guess you have seen the footages of the American soldier gunning down a wounded Iraqi soldier during the latest days.

I just wonder if it has changed anyones perspective on war.

A lot of people believe the politicians and army commanders when they talk about "the clinical war" without civilian casualties and that soldiers obey the rules of war in the field.

Lately there has been a lot of camera evidence of that not being the case and it should be obvious for anyone that the examples with people stupid enough to do these things in front of cameras only represents a microscopic part of the whole problem...that countless of civilians, wounder prisoners etc. gets killed and the rules of war ignored without it ever being known to the public.
I have no experience from combat or warfare, but I'm interested enough in the subject to know at least a bit more than the public image about how gruesome and horrible wars are. Innocent and wounded people gets shot to hell and sometimes it is even on purpose.

I hope a lot of the pro-war people will finally open their eyes and understand that the war in Iraq and similar situations isn't just about friendly western troops coming in and making their lives better.
Soldiers have to experience so many horrifying things that it is only natural that a lot of them develop emotional disturbances and "go bad".

It is easy to point out how ruthless Saddam Hussein was when he killed and tortured people, but don't think that such methods are totally uncommon for Western societies. We are just more secretive about it.

A lot of camera evidence? As far as I know there has only be one incident and that incident is still unclear as to what exactly happened. If you saw the video footage then you might know that the camera went black before the incident happened though you could still hear what was happening.

First of all, you go into an area that had enemy soldiers believing that they're dead and suddenly one jumps up or at least makes a sudden move a soldier isn't going to wait and find out if the person is armed or whether that person is a threat. You are going to shoot that person and sort it out afterwards.

Now on the other hand if this person intentionally shot a wounded, unarmed enemy soldier knowing this then they have broken the rules of war. Now the person has been taken off the battlefield and his actions are under investigation. This all occurred long before this video footage came out. He will most likely get a military tribunal if they determine that malice intent was involved on the part of his actions. If found guilty he would be dishonorably discharge from the military and would serve a sentence in military prison. Just like the soldiers involved in the Abu Graib incident.

Yes, war is horrible and don't make it sound like people are pro-war because no one is. But war is sometimes necessary. We will only know 20, 30, maybe even 50 years later as to whether or not Iraq was truly necessary or not. There were a lot of people in America that thought that fighting World War II was unnecessary back 60 years ago. But today with what we know about the Holocaust and theorizing what might have happened if we did nothing we have determined that World War II was a necessary fight.

And you know it is kind of hard to fight a war where the enemy will not obey the rules of war. Most of this enemy does not wear a uniform, have been playing dead, who use civilians and civilian areas as shields, and many other abuses. It is still no excuse if this soldier or any soldier purposely killed a wounded or unarmed enemy soldier and if they did they should be dealt with by bringing them to trial and if found guilty then should face the consquences of those actions.

rklenseth wrote:A lot of camera evidence? As far as I know there has only be one incident and that incident is still unclear as to what exactly happened. If you saw the video footage then you might know that the camera went black before the incident happened though you could still hear what was happening.

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion, but the incident is a bit better documented than what you described, Richard.
On CNN, I have seen that the camera indeed went black. On another occasion, I have seen that the picture was blurred.
But in a German news broadcast, the picture wasn't in any way censored. The presumably wounded Iraqi was simply lying down, the US soldier shot him.
What the footage did not document was what had happened the day before, what was currently happening outside, and what experiences this particular soldier made before that incident, of course.

Thomas Pickert wrote:

rklenseth wrote:A lot of camera evidence? As far as I know there has only be one incident and that incident is still unclear as to what exactly happened. If you saw the video footage then you might know that the camera went black before the incident happened though you could still hear what was happening.

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion, but the incident is a bit better documented than what you described, Richard.
On CNN, I have seen that the camera indeed went black. On another occasion, I have seen that the picture was blurred.
But in a German news broadcast, the picture wasn't in any way censored. The presumably wounded Iraqi was simply lying down, the US soldier shot him.
What the footage did not document was what had happened the day before, what was currently happening outside, and what experiences this particular soldier made before that incident, of course.

That is indeed interesting. Over here the networks claim that the video went to black before the scene actually occurred. If there is more the video that is not being shown here in the US I would like to see for myself so if anyone can get me the video via internet I would appreciate it.

If the soldier did indeed shoot an unarmed and or wounded enemy soldier then he deserves a dishonorable discharge and prison sentence for this because such actions not only dishonors himself but all the other honorable soldiers that are currently fighting.

Thomas Pickert wrote:What the footage did not document was what had happened the day before, what was currently happening outside, and what experiences this particular soldier made before that incident, of course.

Exactly, almost anyone would have shot that guy, I know I would have, after experiancing what that particular soldier went through the day before.

As far as the war in general goes...after hearing about the 21 billion dollars of illicite cash (that we know of so far) that Saddam received in deals made under the "oil for food" program, I am even more determined now that the US was right in going in after him, and think that no one is helping because they didn't want us to find out where all that money came from, which is most likely the very same reason that the UN won't release the documentation concerning those affairs. Bush was wrong in lieing about the reasons to go after Saddam, but by the time this is over it will be revealed that there are much larger rats in other countries then what Bush will ever prove to be.

'oil for food' or Bush's 'oil in environmentally importnant areas for election funding'... Little difference...

The video is censored in the US - in europe it can be shown in full... it does not go black... It probably is on the net somewhere...

On the subject of censorship... The US censors EVERYTHING that comes out of Iraq that it can. Try to find a report on the war that does not have 'this report is subject to US military censorship' on screen or spoken...

Ok, so the soldier has been through a lot.. I can understand why he did what he did... I don't have a problem with that

The problem I have is with bush, Blair and any other politicians that try and pretend war is 'clinical'. War, in any form, is barbaric. It's impossible for a soldier to be in that situation and thiink reasonably... No one should expect that... There's an other clip, or a bomber asking for claerance to bomb a group or 'thirty or so, UNIDENTIFIED, people'. It shows them running, panicing, not looking for cover, from another blast. Many of the probably were Iraqiu insurgents, but many were also civilians. There was no hesitation in giving the order to bomb them... Again, the camera does not black out when the bomb hits (if shown outside the US)

But again - that's war - it's to be expected... Innocent people will die... Bush and blair try SO hard to let this get seen as little as possible - hence the heavy censorship. If people were aware of how much death is involved, maybe they'd change their mind about the war...

Saddam needed to be removed from power... But there were better excuses than lies about WMDs and terrorists...

As for terrorists... Bush needs to relaise that world security has fundamentally changed... The biggest threats no longer come from nation states, they come from terrorists, who are independent of countries. This requires a deeply findamental change in military strategy... Iraq has shown that this has not yet happnened... It's much easier to attack a country than a group of mobile people... what happened to the war on Al Quaeda anyway?...

I would argue that war was a step too far... But, if it was inevitable, then Bush and Blair could at least have been honest... That they attacked Iraq because they do not know how to get rid of terrorists, that there is Oil there that they desperatly need to arrange good deals for, and that Saddam was a brutal dictator...

But they'll never admit that...

And one last question? Why should Saddam be removed from being a brutal dictator, when the US regularly supports brutal dictatorships, especially in south america, when it provides good trade agreements for them?

hallucinatingfarmer wrote:And one last question? Why should Saddam be removed from being a brutal dictator, when the US regularly supports brutal dictatorships, especially in south america, when it provides good trade agreements for them?

Because the biggest portion of US oil comes from Mexico, but no on blames them when gas goes up.

Actually, less then 10% of US oil comes from Mexico...

http://www.warmthoughts.com/ncpma/artic ... ticle.html

rklenseth & ephiroll>

I still get the feeling that you think the incident with the American soldier is something that is extremly rare. Please think about this. You must be either very unbalanced mentally or retarded to do a thing like that in front of a camera. The same goes with the prisoner abuse and other earlier scandals.
These things happen all the time, but only a very small fragment of it happens to be caught on pictures or tape.

If you saw the video footage then you might know that the camera went black before the incident happened though you could still hear what was happening.

Seriously, if you can't even understand when things are censored you should really start thinking about how easily you can get manipulated by the media. Sometimes the things you actually see on TV isn't even true.

Yes, war is horrible and don't make it sound like people are pro-war because no one is.

I would say that all people who supported to war in Iraq are pro-war...how can you not agree?

There were a lot of people in America that thought that fighting World War II was unnecessary back 60 years ago. But today with what we know about the Holocaust and theorizing what might have happened if we did nothing we have determined that World War II was a necessary fight.

I don't think you can even compare the situations. Saddam Hussein was in no position to start invading other countries. Back in WW2 it was self defence, in Iraq USA are the ones invading. There is a HUGE difference.

And you know it is kind of hard to fight a war where the enemy will not obey the rules of war. Most of this enemy does not wear a uniform, have been playing dead, who use civilians and civilian areas as shields, and many other abuses. It is still no excuse if this soldier or any soldier purposely killed a wounded or unarmed enemy soldier and if they did they should be dealt with by bringing them to trial and if found guilty then should face the consquences of those actions.

USA isn't much better than the Iraqi insurgents. For example you are one of very few countries world wide that refuse to sign agreements not to use mines in combat. You also use cluster bombs over populated areas and a number of other very dirty tricks. The treatment of the made up "non-combatants" violated international law, not to forget that you are openly saying that you don't care about international law when it comes to American personell.

And if you attack people who can't even afford a uniform you will pretty much have to tolerate it...

Exactly, almost anyone would have shot that guy, I know I would have, after experiancing what that particular soldier went through the day before.

I wouldn't. Then again I wouldn't join the military in the first place...

As far as the war in general goes...after hearing about the 21 billion dollars of illicite cash (that we know of so far) that Saddam received in deals made under the "oil for food" program, I am even more determined now that the US was right in going in after him, and think that no one is helping because they didn't want us to find out where all that money came from...

Ah, how great. So you have finally found a reason justified to attack Iraq. Then I presume France, Germany and other countries are next...not to mention USA? Most western countries are in a league of their own when it comes to corruption.

How can you seriously justify invading a country using arguments like "their leader is corrupted". What the hell? So thousands of people have died just so Saddam won't be able to build himself another palace or two?

And if you attack people who can't even afford a uniform you will pretty much have to tolerate it...

Yeah, it's not like terrorists and the gurillia troops they organize go ununiformed because it gives them a tactical and strategic advantage...

Inability to afford uniforms, even if it were accurate (which doesn't really seem likely, considering the money backing them) would not be the reason they aren't wearing them.

Also, while I'm not claiming that Iraq and the War on Terror were legitimately linked...I seriously doubt any of the 9/11 attackers wore uniforms. Uniforms really only are relevant for sides that operate under the standard rules.

While we are on the subject of 9/11 I just felt I should post this, though I doubt many of you will actually regard it.

http://freedomunderground.org/memoryhol ... n.php#Main

Pirog wrote:I still get the feeling that you think the incident with the American soldier is something that is extremly rare. Please think about this. You must be either very unbalanced mentally or retarded to do a thing like that in front of a camera. The same goes with the prisoner abuse and other earlier scandals.
These things happen all the time, but only a very small fragment of it happens to be caught on pictures or tape.

The idiots related in the prison abuse scandel, yes, are unbalanced, and don't forget that several british troops are also being convicted of similiar things as well as some others that I can't remember where they are from and don't feel like looking up at the moment. Someone from every country who was working at the prisons in Iraq are probly guilty of it, it's just that the Americans and Brits got caught red handed.

The american shooting the Iraqi pretending to be dead was an entirly different situation and should be regarded as much. Look at it like this. If you were in a situation in which someone pretended to be dead and instead was simply waiting to blow himself up when someone got close enough, would you not take immediate action when encountering another situation just like that? I would, I woulda put a bullet in that guy just to make sure he was dead before I even bothered checking. That's war. If they intend to use tactics such as that to lure soldiers into the killing zone just so they can play suicide bomber, then they should expect an equally serious response from soldiers to defend against it.

And yes, things like this happen way more often then is reported and not just by American troops, by every army that has ever been involved in a battle, it's just not until now that cameras have been involved enough in the action to tape it happening.

The Industriallist>

Yeah, it's not like terrorists and the gurillia troops they organize go ununiformed because it gives them a tactical and strategic advantage...

Of course they do. But it just seems a bit ironic to me how the Americans are sitting around and whining about the enemy not fighting fair. Fair?!?! When has USA ever fought on equal terms against an opponent? I'm not trying to defend the Iraqi soldiers...they have no regard for international laws whatsoever...but western troops take huge liberties with the laws of war also, and it seems that some people doesn't know that.

When American forces does covert operations that violates international law I doubt they wear uniforms either...

trage>

Interesting link. I have heard about the theory before, but hadn't seen it put together like that. Still, I know too little about it to even form an opinion. It seems like it should have become a bigger deal if they had substantial evidence.

ephiroll>

I'm not trying to put this out like the Americans are the only ones that violates the laws of war...as you say probably every army does. The point was just to point out to people that what they see on the news about the clinical warfare etc. isn't what is actually going on.

I would, I woulda put a bullet in that guy just to make sure he was dead before I even bothered checking. That's war.

That is also murder. My choice would be not to take part in a war that would put me in that position.

If they intend to use tactics such as that to lure soldiers into the killing zone just so they can play suicide bomber, then they should expect an equally serious response from soldiers to defend against it.

Well, to be fair, it isn't more honorable to flush them out by dropping bombs in residental areas either...so the "serious response" is lacking from both sides.

Just to get something straight, Pirog. I am currently working and schooling in the media field. Most things are not censored and are only censored when something is too graphic for mainstream audiences which might be the case for the reason why the video went to black before the shooting. But even with the video we are still unsure of the situation and don't know what exactly happened and why.

And you claim that these atrocities happen all the time but where is your evidence? You can't just go and claim something without evidence. I know that accidents happen in war and innocence die or mistakes are made but where is this evidence of people conspiring to commit atrocities?

On Saddam, he had already invaded two other countries. He was killing his own people. There was evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed and that Saddam was conspiring to keep them hidden. Saddam disobey 17 UN Resolutions after he was beaten in the Persian Gulf War which technically voided the cease fire that ended that war. He was using money from the 'Oil for Food' program to fund Islamic terrorists (I wonder if this has even been reported in Europe). He had used WMDs and so was a danger to use them again or worse give them terrorists.

I'm still not entirely convinced that there weren't any WMDs. But after we had invaded we still found weapons (SCUDS and other missiles) that were Iraqi military hands that were in clear violations of the UN Resolutions. These were the weapons that the UN Inspectors couldn't find and we only found them because they shot them at us. So perhaps the WMDs are still hidden or worse someone else ha gotten their hands on them.

regarding some of the posts on this thread.

People can and will argue about this war, they did before, they will for years to come. My standing, always has been and always will be:

I have friends out there, FIGHTING in this war. I support my friends. Because I support my friends, I cannot in good faith, NOT support this war effort. They would be like telling someone that I loved them and then going out and telling everyone else that the person is a stupid idiot.

I am pro war, because my FRIENDS have to fight in it!

over simplified? Maybe. But bluntly, evaluating what the president does and doesnt do wont change a damn thing. It wont bring my friends home, it wont stop people from dieing, and it certainly wont stop power hungry assholes like saddam from comeing to power.

supporting this war effort may just make it move faster, i dunno, maybe... but maybe not. but if supporting MY friends out there means supporting this war then so be it.

People whined about not doing anything after 9-11. so poof, heres a war. People whined because we bombed, people whined because innocent lives are lost every day. People whine because we are in Iraq, Afganastan and prob'ly Iran right Well, if we had NOT gone in, people would have whined about that too.

stop it you want to make a difference, send letters to the president. Don't complain on a forum about it over and over again... Especially since Many of these forum members are to young to understand. I am so tired of all the separate threads I have seen on this forum that debate the war, all you do is say the same things over and over.

you want to tell me my view sucks? send me an email privatly. blast me for it, fine.... turn about IS fair play.

Negoshka@hotmail.com

Pissed off pixie