94 Red Bird wrote:I was unaware that you were American, Slug. I suppose it would be difficult to be racist against yourself.
John Wilken wrote:OK, one more time. Teenagers, kids, adults, Olsen twins, whoever attacks a soldier guarding a post in a war zone shouldn't be arrested. At the moment of rocks flying through the air it is a military battle, they should be shot at until such time as they either retreat or fall dead.This tactic works really well... in Gaza.
Quote:Same goings on, though John. Abu Ghraib: prisoners humiliated and improper conduct by guards. Given video: Captured persons humilitated and improper conduct by patrolling soldiers.
Gam, Abu Ghraib was a prison camp, different situation.
Quote:Again, same goings on. Situation means little when you cut out where the acts happened. Both were vulgar and egregious displays of power upon someone that was under arrest.
Rodney King, civilian during peacetime, different situation.
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:Simple solution though, don't throw rocks at guys with guns...
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Don't confuse the issue, Germany was at war with most of the rest of the world in 1939, that and there were definite aggressive actions
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Picking fights is what got you into this mess to begin with. And I pointed out earlier:
-First: Who said the kids threw a live grenade?
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:-This kind of strongarm bull@!#$ isn't acceptable in the US, and it hasn't worked to quell any rioting, and usually just encourages more violence, but if you don't believe me, ask an Israel Defence Force minister when they last managed to stop violence by meeting with violence...
Let me know when you get that answer.
Luke wrote:Carmillionaire,I have more military experience than you will probably ever have. I had a brother die in that BS war. I have a cousin that has done 2 tours over there. I have been in Bosnia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Mexico, Saudi, Poland, and a few other places. I can tell you're fresh at this just from the way you talk.
Once again, you have never been in a situation like that.
When the British soldiers were burned alive in their APC's, it started out with rock throwing and shouting, which quickly turned into fire bombs and dead friendly forces.
Now you know nothing about me, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about the ROE in that theater (ROE = rules of engagement) so dont pass judgement.
Did those kids get the ass kicking of a life time. Oh yeah, was it deserved? Not to the extent they received, I'm just saying I find no blame on the part of the soldiers, except that their heated emotions were carried over a little too far.
Chamillionaire wrote:Luke wrote:Carmillionaire,
Once again, you have never been in a situation like that.
When the British soldiers were burned alive in their APC's, it started out with rock throwing and shouting, which quickly turned into fire bombs and dead friendly forces.
Now you know nothing about me, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about the ROE in that theater (ROE = rules of engagement) so dont pass judgement.
Did those kids get the ass kicking of a life time. Oh yeah, was it deserved? Not to the extent they received, I'm just saying I find no blame on the part of the soldiers, except that their heated emotions were carried over a little too far.
There is NO American or British command that will allow this type of behavior by their soldiers to go without reprimand. I'm more than certain had they been American soldiers and it was an incident that was investigated, you would be dishonorably discharged and thrown into the jail for a little while. Apparently you have not seen what happened to the soldiers behind the prison scandal!
Chamillionaire wrote: So how about you come on back over here, as I stated before, because you do not deserve the honor of being labeled a Marine serving the United States of America, nor does anyone with your type of mindset deserve such an honor bestowed upon them.
Chamillionaire wrote:
8. Use of force up to but not including deadly force to prevent interference with MND(SE) personnel during the conduct of their mission is authorised.
Chamillionaire wrote:4. Counter harassment to a similar extent and degree to that experienced by MND(SE) forces in the AO is authorised.
Chamillionaire wrote:For American Rules of Engagement see primarily the Geneva Convention. I know for a fact that there are different ROE for each person under different command, especially during pre-battle briefings. But as I stated before, I would never believe that a commander would tell his troops to beat up on kids for throwing rocks at troops...because he'd be in a @!#$ load of trouble as well.
John Wilken wrote:Prisoners in custody is different from a battlefield. Prisoners can't throw rocks or fake grenades.
As far as your claim that no commander would allow this to go on, the prison camp soldiers were following orders.
Those commanders must have skipped "Charmillionaire's Ethics" course.[/'quote]Sorry friend, it's not my Ethics course hat I speak about. It's the Code of Conduct that is given to you when you first enlist in ANY branch of the military. Do some research, they were not ordered by commanders, these were mere Sgt ranks doing these inhumane acts. Code of Conduct Take note of the last one.
John Wilken wrote:With HIS mindset? Did you skip Paris Island?No I didn't. Paris Island teaches a Marine to be proud of who he is and what he does. It also teaches them the morals and ethics that ALL service members are to uphold. Just like Luke, a few evade that instruction and think that its okay to behave like wilder beast on a rampage. It happens all the time, and that's why they end up in Prison with dishonorable discharges.
John Wilken wrote:Sums up what happened to those teenagers. They're not dead, no violation here.If there was nothing done wrong here, then there would be no consequences to face. You need to read the entire ROE instead of just what you think is supporting your perpetual ignorance Read Here
John Wilken wrote:Under this rule, the soldiers could have thrown rocks back, potentially killing the teenagers. That would violate number 8 above.Again, you need to read the entire ROE, not just what you want to help influence your straw pulling.
Another Look
John Wilken wrote:For someone who claims to be the defacto source for the rules, you sure glazed over the American set.I gave you what you needed, but since you want a more in depth approach since you're too lazy to look up the Geneva Convention, here you go. Listen to What's said
A little more: ROE
Geneva Convention:Why You're Wrong...
John Wilken wrote:If I was guarding a post in Iraq, I'd rather be standing next to Luke than Charmillionaire.I'd rather you standing next to him as well, since your post will more than likely be the one getting hit with a suicide bomb for the heinous abuse that you display towards Iraqi children. Not only that, but I don't allow soldiers who lack discipline to maintain a position among my ranks, as I am sure I would be the NCOIC at such a post.You would be, by way of myself, recommended for courts martial through the designated commander.
John Wilken wrote:As far as getting in trouble for defending a position, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.You would not be defending a post, you would be going on a hormone induced rage..much like women do!In a situation like you are explaining, you would rather conduct yourself in an immoral way to increase your chances of living in combat zones. That just shows how much of a man you really are. You'd have no value to the Armed Forces other than to downtrodden the outlook on the United States Military. Thank you for not signing up! We need more men like you here at home where you can only piss of cops and get Rodney King'd and then go sue the dept for brutality! You're such an entertainment piece!
"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."
Chamillionaire wrote:John Wilken wrote:Prisoners in custody is different from a battlefield. Prisoners can't throw rocks or fake grenades.
As far as your claim that no commander would allow this to go on, the prison camp soldiers were following orders.
Those commanders must have skipped "Charmillionaire's Ethics" course.
Sorry friend, it's not my Ethics course hat I speak about. It's the Code of Conduct that is given to you when you first enlist in ANY branch of the military. Do some research, they were not ordered by commanders, these were mere Sgt ranks doing these inhumane acts. Code of Conduct Take note of the last one.
Charmillionaire wrote:John Wilken wrote:Sums up what happened to those teenagers. They're not dead, no violation here.If there was nothing done wrong here, then there would be no consequences to face. You need to read the entire ROE instead of just what you think is supporting your perpetual ignorance Read Here
Chamillionaire wrote:John Wilken wrote:Under this rule, the soldiers could have thrown rocks back, potentially killing the teenagers. That would violate number 8 above.Again, you need to read the entire ROE, not just what you want to help influence your straw pulling.
Another Look
Charmillionaire wrote:John Wilken wrote:For someone who claims to be the defacto source for the rules, you sure glazed over the American set.I gave you what you needed, but since you want a more in depth approach since you're too lazy to look up the Geneva Convention, here you go. Listen to What's said
Charmillionaire link wrote:The U.S. military says all soldiers heading for Iraq receive training on the operation of checkpoints. But rules of engagement at the checkpoints differ from place to place, determined by the commander on the ground.
Charmillionaire wrote:A little more: ROE
Charmillionaire wrote:Geneva Convention:Why You're Wrong...
Charmillionaire wrote:I'd rather you standing next to him as well, since your post will more than likely be the one getting hit with a suicide bomb for the heinous abuse that you display towards Iraqi children.
Charmillionaire wrote:Not only that, but I don't allow soldiers who lack discipline to maintain a position among my ranks, as I am sure I would be the NCOIC at such a post.You would be, by way of myself, recommended for courts martial through the designated commander.
Charmillionaire wrote:You would not be defending a post, you would be going on a hormone induced rage..much like women do!
Charmillionaire wrote: In a situation like you are explaining, you would rather conduct yourself in an immoral way to increase your chances of living in combat zones.
John Wilken wrote:I read through the articles, doesn't say anything about guns, tanks, planes or teenagers throwing rocks. So when exactly is it acceptable to use force, General Charmillionaire?I asked that you pay attention to the last one. Here is what it states:
John Wilken wrote:I read this news article from the BBC. Tony Blair is promising to look at their actions. As of this moment there are no charges against the soldiers. I don't understand why you would pick this link, all Mr Blair has said is they'll have an independant review on this.If you don't believe that charges will be brought upon these soldiers, you are crazy. The reason that I posted the link is because if they had not done anything wrong...it would be evident in the video am I not correct? If there is the slightest possibility that they are in the wrong, and investigation should be launched, and it has.
John Wilken wrote:Another rewrite of the BBC article. Still doesn't say the soldiers have been charged or that they will be charged. Just the promise of an investigation. And aljazeera.com? Great choice, they're not biased. You might as well have picked Fox News.You fail to see the reasons for anything don't you. Why would I post a source that will favor the Coalition Forces only? Maintain balance by posting a Muslim supporting news brief as well. Where are your supporting links anyway...the ones that support your attitude? Don't say mine do it for you...
John Wilken wrote:So ROE varies from place to place. How does this support your position?Of course you're going to pull at straws again. Typical. ROE vary from place to place, but there will still be things that are going to be the same that ROE cannot override. Take a look at Army FM 27.10 In Iraq, these rules are taught to Marines and expected to be followed by Marines as well.
John Wilken wrote:US Marine Coprs Col Thomas Hammes states that our forces can and will shoot insurgents at roadblocks.I'm glad you dug into that so deeply. Let me correct you on the biggest flaw you have going on right now...these children were not insurgents.
Reporter Question: Why couldn't the soldiers use non-lethal force at the roadblock, such as shooting out the tires at the roadblock?
US Marine Corps Col. Thomas Hammes Answer: Because it doesn't work.
That was US Marine Corps Col Thomas Hammes speaking. This link supports my position that those teenagers (insurgents) should have been shot, not arrested. Anyone reading this thread should listen to what US Marine Corp Col. Thomas Hammes has to say here.
Charmillionaire, this confirms exactly what I've been saying.
John Wilken wrote:Geneva Convention states that when a soldier can fight, they are an acceptable target.You are looking for the CONDUCT of a soldier, not when he can fight and what he is presumed as! Stay on subject!
John Wilken wrote:So that's the issue, you're afraid. It's OK, there are desk jobs in the service too.You didn't even have the balls to join. You're just the typical couch potato who talks about what they would do if they were in the military to military members. I'm sure you'll explain it away by saying you had some chronic injury that would not permit you serviceable to the Armed Forces, otherwise you would've joined. If not, that makes you even more a lame. So in either case...you're still a lame. It's easy to sit back and watch what goes on, its another to be in the action and doing it. A man's job looks really easy until you get in there and find out for yourself. I've been there MORE than once. I've done my time, and you best believe that I've seen my share of situations. What have you seen?? Let me guess...SOCOM 1, 2, and 3! Maybe even Team Bravo huh?
John Wilken wrote:Transfer my ass! You would be DISCHARGED! You don't have the guts to be a Professional Soldier. You do have the guts to be a highschool age bully picking on elementary kids though. That job field doesn't require any professional attitudes or even has guidelines to follow. That's what you lack, the discipline to adhere to things that have been part of the military history since the beginning of time.
John Wilken wrote:At least I can find where my hormones are carried.Yep, somewhere near your Fallopian Tubes. I think I'd rather keep my nuts hanging instead of growing inner and outer labia...apparently in disagreement with what you have done.
Someday you might grow a pair, but I doubt it.
John Wilken wrote:In a situation like I'm explaining, you would end up dead.So the only way to prove to someone, when you are in a position of authority, is to whack them a few times across the back, and then kick them in the nuts to show them you're not a sissy?
They'd view you as a sissy and attack at will.
That's right...so the next time a cop pulls you over give him a really hard time, and then step out of the car and slap him. I'm quite sure he will wrestle you into compliance, arrest you, and throw you in the back of the car...at least if he is a Professional. but since you prefer someone who abuses their authority, ask him to beat you with his club and kick you in the balls a few times to prove to you that he's not a sissy. Personally, I think you have a sick fetish...
I can agree that this investigation will turn up in favor of the children and the soldiers will be reprimanded. If this is not the case, I will apologize on the grounds that they provide ROE that state this was appropriate action taken against those children in that situation by the British Soldiers.
"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."
Chamillionaire wrote:
I can agree that this investigation will turn up in favor of the children and the soldiers will be reprimanded. If this is not the case, I will apologize on the grounds that they provide ROE that state this was appropriate action taken against those children in that situation by the British Soldiers.
Chamillionaire wrote:Well it appears some arrest have been made, which usually means charges have been pressed....
Newest News
Charmillionaires link wrote:Special report: politics and Iraq
Reid defends troops as police investigate beatings of Iraqis
Audrey Gillan and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian
Military police are questioning four Iraqi youths who have identified themselves as the victims of an alleged attack by British soldiers following a riot in the southern town of Amara two years ago.
Three people believed to be serving with the 1st Battalion, the Light Infantry, have been arrested in connection with the incident, allegedly filmed on video camera. Officers have also visited the area where the incident took place.
Yesterday the ruling council of Maysan province in Iraq, of which Amara is the capital, severed ties with British authorities because of the video. Last week Basra council, acting similarly, warned its employees they would be sacked if they had any involvement with British forces.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul-Jabar Haider, Maysan's council chairman, said all contact with British civilian and military authorities would be suspended pending completion of an investigation into the incident.
Today the defence secretary, John Reid, will give his backing to UK forces, saying they are operating in "difficult and dangerous circumstances" and asking critics, during a keynote speech at London's Kings College, to be "a little slower to condemn and a lot quicker to understand". Troops, he will say, are now operating on an "uneven playing field of scrutiny", where the forces' actions are analysed down to the "level of the single private soldier", while the enemy "refuses any scrutiny at all and endeavours to exploit our highly prized free media against us".
He will say: "It is this uneven battlefield ... which has done so much to encourage the perception among our troops that they are increasingly constrained while the enemy is freer than ever to perpetrate the most inhumane practices and crimes ... British forces act within the law, the terrorists do not. It is important for the country to realise the lengths to which our armed forces go to to stay within the law."
Even "the most junior" of troops faced dangers "unimaginable to most of us".
He will say: "Our officers take calculated risks, and make immediate life and death decisions upon which literally thousands of lives may depend ... our legal culture, just like our civilian culture, would do well to ponder these circumstances at length in this changing world."
Senior military commanders, including General Sir Michael Walker, chief of the defence staff, and General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, have expressed concern about the impact of allegations, and evidence, of abuse of Iraqis. Gen Walker has admitted the controversy over the invasion has affected army morale.
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, who has said that few people would not believe that Guantánamo Bay had undermined the moral authority of "what we are trying to do", yesterday said the White House should now close the centre.
Chammillionare wrote:If you consider "armed" to be some 12 year old throwing rocks...you're sad.
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Jbody2nr wrote:How does anything in that video pertain to those grown men protecting themselves from children, WAR ZONE OR NOT? Like I stated before, if they haven't done anything wrong, they won't be prosecuted. If they have there will be action taken against them, and I'm MORE than certain that they will face criminal charges. I see there are more immoral people here than I thought.Chammillionare wrote:If you consider "armed" to be some 12 year old throwing rocks...you're sad.
In a war where children set up roadside bombs and have just as much capability as killing as adults do, How would you know that the next rock couldnt be a grenade? They were protecting themselves. Get over it.
Chamillionaire wrote:How does anything in that video pertain to those grown men protecting themselves from children, WAR ZONE OR NOT? Like I stated before, if they haven't done anything wrong, they won't be prosecuted. If they have there will be action taken against them, and I'm MORE than certain that they will face criminal charges. I see there are more immoral people here than I thought.
