US marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of other marines

[D_Raay]

Warning: video is explicit and for mature audiences only..(that automatically excludes you sisko)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

I have nothing to say, the video says it all. Anger is my dominant emotion of late..

[dublirie04]

Holy Shit---he represents our nation? That is psycho...I thought the US is trying to stop the maddness..................sad, very sad.....I am appaulled...I wonder what that soldiers mom thinks now about his fame as a killer. :( :( :(

[infidel]

The military itself estimates 23% of the soldiers returning from Iraq will go bonkers.
It sometimes takes up to 10 years...

[dublirie04]

shit, I think I have a little bit of post traumatic stress syndrome and the only shit that happened to me was...

Being held at gunpoint 50 yards from U.S. Embassy
Running from bomb scares ( at least 3 times )
Being held at gunpoint right outside our base!!

completely unarmed for all of this....just a sitting duck

You know, there is this type of stuff here and people who have never been to iraq go ballistic for traumatic scenarios in the US (rape, drugs, gangs, car accidents, family illnesses, kidnapping, shootings) I could go on forever....I don't ever want to run into that guy --- he should be court marshalled and rot. I hope he isn't back here sittin at a coffee shot or bar bragging about that bullshit.

I hope you take it slow and be thankful that you are blessed to be alive after those experiences. Much Love, DUB L IRIE

[dublirie04]

WOOHOO! GO AMERICA! I wish I was out there now, that'd be the greatest. HEY LOOK! THERE GOES AN ARAB, SHOOT HIM!

I bet I would have the top score at the end. 10,000 BONUS POINTS!

Wow buddy, I think this is real, not a video game...don't go there, please, and also don't come here...I am scared of people like you :eek: :( (!)

[Ace42]

Time for forum Jeopardy:

#

1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

#

1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

[dublirie04]

Time for forum Jeopardy:

#

1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.

#

1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

part 1, answer 1:
what is oxymoron????????????? ;) :cool: :confused:

[Ace42]

Sorry, no cigar. Any other takers?

[STANKY808]

IRONY!?

[Ace42]

Bing bing bing, we have outselves a winner.

[STANKY808]

Bing bing bing, we have outselves a winner.

What do I win?!

Uh-oh, that whole exercise was a demonstration of irony wasn't it?

[dublirie04]

How bout some more? (y) :D

I hope I made it clear that I wanted more jeopardy, not fucked up ness in iraq!!!!

[Qdrop]

The military itself estimates 23% of the soldiers returning from Iraq will go bonkers.
It sometimes takes up to 10 years...

oh where the fuck did you get that stat? what's your source?
"i heard it somewhere"

fuckin internet.


look. it's fucking war. you kill people. in order to win, you need to be good at killing people, and not be afraid to kill people.


what do you want that guy to do? cry after every person he shoots?

yes, some people are adversly affected by what they do during war. but most are able to deal with it....to separate and rationalize it in there minds.
this how it has always been.

i would rather have THAT soldier out on the battle field than any of you bleeding heart idealists.

and no, i'm not a republican....nor did i vote for bush.

god, you people are so removed from reality.

[Schmeltz]

You're the one removed from reality if you think this is how it's always been. The extreme psychological degeneration witnessed in veterans of modern wars (take a look at Vietnam vets, for example) is a direct consequence of the psychological reconstruction undergone by these men as the modern army trains them to defy both their natural instincts and their cultural conditioning and transforms them into killing machines. This didn't used to be part of military training, it is a product of the type of warfare the modern state likes to fight and it actually prevents these men from separating and rationalizing their actions. Check out Gwynne Dyer's documentary series on war for more - I think "Anybody's Son Will Do" is particularly enlightening.

Jesus. People who do anything less than pound their chests over the barbaric behaviour of their fellow citizens are "so far from reality." Christ am I ever glad I don't live down there.

[Ace42]

Quite right too. Skinner, twisted genius?

[Qdrop]

You're the one removed from reality if you think this is how it's always been. The extreme psychological degeneration witnessed in veterans of modern wars (take a look at Vietnam vets, for example) is a direct consequence of the psychological reconstruction undergone by these men as the modern army trains them to defy both their natural instincts and their cultural conditioning and transforms them into killing machines. This didn't used to be part of military training, it is a product of the type of warfare the modern state likes to fight and it actually prevents these men from separating and rationalizing their actions. Check out Gwynne Dyer's documentary series on war for more - I think "Anybody's Son Will Do" is particularly enlightening.

Jesus. People who do anything less than pound their chests over the barbaric behaviour of their fellow citizens are "so far from reality." Christ am I ever glad I don't live down there.

i am well aware of the training....my cousing is special forces, airborne ranger.
So you conclude that he will likely come home next year as a raging homicidal lunatic?
really?

think.

(and don't say "I am thinking....you're the one not thinking)

like Public Enemy said :"don't believe the hype!!"
don't buy into every bit of liberal propaganda fed to you.
do think Noam Chomsky is Christ reborn?

sure, some will be affected adversly.....just like some sickos will watch violent movies and go kill people....but they are the tiny minority.

and this glosses over the idea of "pre-existing mental conditions"....which could be the true contributor to post-war violent behavior, ect.

this kind of training is necessary for war...to train our troops in any other way would be IRRESPONSIBLE OF US AS A COUNTRY!!
like throwing a boxer in a ring without teaching him how to throw a punch first....cause it "might make him more prone to violence."

FUCK!...HE'S GOING TO WAR.....HE NEEDS TO BE PRONE TO VIOLENCE --TO SOME EXTENT....OR HE WILL BE KILLED....OR GET SOMEONE ELSE KILLED!

you people only see one side of the issue.....the side you WANT to see.

[QueenAdrock]

yes, some people are adversly affected by what they do during war. but most are able to deal with it....to separate and rationalize it in there minds.
this how it has always been.

About 30 percent of Vietnam veterans developed PTSD at some point after the war. (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/reliving.cfm)

Yeah, I guess 23% of Iraqi vets seems irrationally high, huh?

[Ace42]

i am well aware of the training....my cousing is special forces, airborne ranger.
So you conclude that he will likely come home next year as a raging homicidal lunatic?
really?

Modern training uses "operant conditioning" to make trained responses instinctive. They occur without being filtered or called ipon by the conscious brain. In military training, these reflexes are often violent. For example, the famous example of the vietnam vet who was woken by his mother, and before he had even had chance to process it, he had jumped on her and was strangling her. It is not that they are "lunatics" - because madness does not come into it.

think.

Here's an idea, you, the fuckwit who was going on about "I read it on the internet", does some research, and then comes back and talks to us using facts, instead of unsubstantiated supposition.

don't buy into every bit of liberal propaganda fed to you.

Yeah, because the well known and undisputed fact that all modern armies make use of the well known and undisputed technique of Operant Conditioning is "liberal propoganda" - despite it being undisputed objective fact.

sure, some will be affected adversly.....just like some sickos will watch violent movies and go kill people....but they are the tiny minority.

Operant conditioning works on *ALL* normal human beings. It is a natural human function. If it "only worked on a tiny minority" it would not be worth employing.

FUCK!...HE'S GOING TO WAR.....HE NEEDS TO BE PRONE TO VIOLENCE --TO SOME EXTENT....OR HE WILL BE KILLED....OR GET SOMEONE ELSE KILLED!

Yeah, because training people to kill stops "someone else" getting killed. That's why murderers are a good thing, they STOP deaths!

you people only see one side of the issue.....the side you WANT to see.

This coming from the person who is making judgements based on ignorant supposition?

[Qdrop]

About 30 percent of Vietnam veterans developed PTSD at some point after the war. (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/reliving.cfm)

Yeah, I guess 23% of Iraqi vets seems irrationally high, huh?


did you read that study?.....did you?...that's what that little 2 next to that stat is for.

no, you didn't.

of that 30%, how many experiance SEVERE symptoms that you are mentioning? do you know.....no, you do not.

did you notice that they count just anxiety and depression as a symptom and therefore they count it as PTSD and part of the 30%.

Who DOESN'T have depression and anxiety.
do you see how these stats get inflated....and manipulated?

don't get smug with me, princess......i can spin your stats right back at you all fuckin day.
not that it would change you mind.

"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America"
by Michael Wheeler

give it a read.......

[dublirie04]

I am affected by this stupid debate...opinions are like assholes and everyone has one so fuck it....have an opinion....mine is terror is killing...if we are trying to stop terror, stop killing...This is not a non realistic view...it is my view and I will continue to pray for it and to manifest it. I have had guns to my head before and it fucking sucks to think damn, I am going to die from some idiot making a quick, irrational decision. I would rather die a slow, long drawn out death.........from laughter...Now lets lighten up kids. :D :eek: ;)

[Qdrop]

Modern training uses "operant conditioning" to make trained responses instinctive. They occur without being filtered or called ipon by the conscious brain. In military training, these reflexes are often violent. For example, the famous example of the vietnam vet who was woken by his mother, and before he had even had chance to process it, he had jumped on her and was strangling her. It is not that they are "lunatics" - because madness does not come into it.



Here's an idea, you, the fuckwit who was going on about "I read it on the internet", does some research, and then comes back and talks to us using facts, instead of unsubstantiated supposition.



Yeah, because the well known and undisputed fact that all modern armies make use of the well known and undisputed technique of Operant Conditioning is "liberal propoganda" - despite it being undisputed objective fact.



Operant conditioning works on *ALL* normal human beings. It is a natural human function. If it "only worked on a tiny minority" it would not be worth employing.



Yeah, because training people to kill stops "someone else" getting killed. That's why murderers are a good thing, they STOP deaths!



This coming from the person who is making judgements based on ignorant supposition?

you're completely flawed.

i can crush your entire tirade in one question:

why doesn't every trained soldier come back to civilian life as maniacle, twisted, unfeeling, killers?

dispite it's simplicity , that question will dismantle your entire argument rather soundly.
answer that question completely and you will find the flaws and weaknesses in your argument yourself.

God, i hope i don't have to explain that to you as well.
this is tiring.

[Schmeltz]

So you conclude that he will likely come home next year as a raging homicidal lunatic?


Well, if he's anything like his cousin he's already a raging lunatic. So if he kills anybody (homocide, they call that) while he's over there, I would say yes.

I don't dispute that this type of training is necessary for war, but soldiers can't simply be killing machines all their lives. At some point they have to be re-integrated into society and reconstructed again, built back up as normal human beings and taught to forget their military conditioning. This seems to work for most soldiers (at least insofar as it stops them from acting in the same fashion) but it won't work on all of them, which is where the trouble is going to start. Ah well, at least the DU will stop them from producing any children with whose minds to fuck.

[dublirie04]

[QUOTE=Schmeltz]Well, if he's anything like his cousin he's already a raging lunatic. So if he kills anybody (homocide, they call that) while he's over there, I would say yes.

homicide is loony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!) (!) (!)

[Ace42]

you're completely flawed.

i can crush your entire tirade in one question:

why doesn't every trained soldier come back to civilian life as maniacle, twisted, unfeeling, killers?

Because operant conditioning has nothing to do with "mania" or being "twisted" - if you weren't talking out of your ass, you would know this.

Operant conditioning works by forcing a "conditioned response" (A reflex) to a stimulus.

In military training, this comes in a variety of forms. For example, you see a target, you fire. Or you hear explosions, you hit the ground.

Many soldiers, when they return to the "real world" still exhibit these conditions, for example, they hear a car backfire, and they hit the deck. Common sense shows that there is not threat, and as soon as they have done it, they know how silly it was, but it cannot be helped. Ever seen Con Air? Wonder why Nicholas Cage's character goes mental and kills that guy? it's not because he is a murderer, but because when the stimulus is applied (a physical threat) the training takes over, and he instinctively goes for the kill. This is not just "a fictional conceit" - this is an observable phenomena. If (in the film) cage was carrying a gun, he might well've shot the guy dead instinctively, instead of engaging in hand to hand combat.

However, "back home" most vets do not carry rifles around, so when a stimulus that could be miscontrued occurs, they find themselves with hands twitching, instead of instinctively popping off a few rounds. That gives them time to realise there is no threat, time which they would not have if they were armed. This is a scenario which HAS and DOES happen.

dispite it's simplicity , that question will dismantle your entire argument rather soundly.
answer that question completely and you will find the flaws and weaknesses in your argument yourself.

All it does is illustrate that you have no idea how operant conditioning works, and thus are talking out of your ass.

God, i hope i don't have to explain that to you as well.
this is tiring.

Your 3 braincells are overheating?

[Ace42]

http://www.killology.com/art_beh_solution.htm

[ASsman]

Thanks for showing us that there are still a few idiots in NY.

It's Vietnam all over again. War crimes, PTSD, etc. Except now it's not a citizens army, just inexperienced kids.

[Echewta]

Am I blind and not seeing a date on the video? Must be because I think this is from over a year ago.

[ASsman]

Tuesday, November 16th, 2004
War Crime Caught on Tape: U.S. Marine Executes Wounded Unarmed Iraqi

An NBC cameraman caught on tape video of a US Marine executing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah. We speak with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript] This news from Iraq: an NBC cameraman has caught on tape video of a US Marine shooting dead an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah.

The NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the Iraqi man who was killed was one of five Iraqis who had been injured after the US raided a Fallujah mosque. Another 10 Iraqis had already been killed in the raid.

The Marine is heard on tape claiming the Iraqi was faking his death. A marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He faking he's [expletive] dead."

The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The Marine involved in the shooting has been removed from the field and was being questioned by the US military.

The NBC correspondent on the scene said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way".

The shooting came on the same day that another US soldier was charged with murder for the killing of an Iraqi detainee in Baghdad.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/16/1611204

[Whois]

Am I blind and not seeing a date on the video? Must be because I think this is from over a year ago.

There are two different incidences, the first being the video at the beginning of the thread (and the invasion) and the second in Fallujah.

Only the second is being investigated (as far as I can tell).

[QueenAdrock]

did you read that study?.....did you?...that's what that little 2 next to that stat is for.
The two? Oh you mean the little footnote that tells you where the information is from: "2Kulka RA, Schlenger WE, Fairbank JA, et al. Contractual report of findings from the National Vietnam veterans readjustment study. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1988." I don't get what you're trying to get at here. That's a legitamate study done by one institute, reported by another institute.

of that 30%, how many experiance SEVERE symptoms that you are mentioning? do you know.....no, you do not.

Does it matter if they're severe? We weren't arguing severity of the situation, we were talking about whether or not it HAPPENS. If you go insane after a war, it doesn't matter to WHAT DEGREE. It's still psychologically damaging, regardless of how little or how much it affects you. If you lose a thumb in war, is it as bad as losing an arm? No, but that shit's gonna affect you for the rest of your life. Here's a study of suicidal Vietnam vets after the war (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/5/586). "Nineteen of the 100 veterans had made a postservice suicide attempt, and 15 more had been preoccupied with suicide since the war." So let's see, 19 + 15 out of 100 sampled...34% in the study were suicidal. That's a random sample of the Vet's too. So you can just imagine "how severe" the rest of the vets symptoms were.

did you notice that they count just anxiety and depression as a symptom and therefore they count it as PTSD and part of the 30%.

No, they didn't: "Depression, alcohol or other substance abuse, or other anxiety disorders frequently co-occur with PTSD." Where does it say it's a symptom? They said that people who have anxiety and depression are more prone to PTSD, and Vietnam is what triggered it.

Who DOESN'T have depression and anxiety.
do you see how these stats get inflated....and manipulated?

I agree. A lot of people have depression and anxiety. One might be predisposed to having a disorder, but all they need is something really traumatic to happen to trigger it. Thus people coming home with PTSD.

I know you really badly want to say my sources are biased and things are "manipulated" and "spun" because anyone who listens to NIH is naive, but sorry, I don't think so.

And that's QUEEN to you. :)

[ASsman]

I constantly find myself killing gooks in traffic.

[D_Raay]

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush were set to face a firing squad in a small Central American country. Bill Clinton was the first one placed against the wall and just before the order was given he yelled out, "Earthquake!" The firing squad fell into a panic and Bill jumped over the wall and escaped in the confusion.

Al Gore was the second one placed against the wall. The squad was reassembled and Al pondered what he had just witnessed. Again before the order was given Al yelled out, "Tornado!" Again the squad fell apart and Al slipped over the wall.

The last person, George W. Bush, was placed against the wall. He was thinking, "I see the pattern here, just scream out something about a disaster and hop over the wall." He confidently refused the blindfold as the firing squad was reassembled. As the rifles were raised in his direction he grinned from ear to ear and yelled, "Fire!"

[ASsman]

HAHAHAHAHAHH!! Woooooweee.

From The Onion.

In the News: "Ashcroft Loses Job To Mexican"

What do you think:
The death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat could represent a turning point in the Mideast peace process. What do you think?

"If Palestine needs a hard-line religious nutjob to fill Arafat's position, our old attorney general is looking for work."

[SobaViolence]

i can't wait until America dies.

maybe then, the peace process can begin.

that's the logic these days..

[American]

I would kill them too. I guess you don't care that Iraqis are strapping explosives to their dead and injured to lure our soldiers to them. We had one die a few days ago and another injured from the same thing yesterday. They have brought it on themselves by the war crimes that they commit. It's easy to look at it on TV from the comforts of your home. Remember, there is always 2 sides to every story. Also it sounded like that soldiers interview was VERY edited. No matter what though, I know you all will attack me but I don't care. You fuckers can support Iraq all you want. I sleep easy at night knowing that I support our troops.

[Paul Nice]

"US marines execute an Iraqi"

ROFL

No wonder you people can't win an election. "Executing an Iraqi" is a rather calculated euphamism for "killing an enemy who had moments before been killing American soldiers". This enemy is known for boobytrapping their dead and faking their deaths in order to take a few extras with them in the last BANG. Does the nature of war completely elude you people? Are Europe and Canada so sissified that they believe war can be conducted gently, and in such a fashion as to not turn our stomachs? WAKE THE FUCK UP. I'm not in favor of this war one bit, but to sit there and feign this shock that in war of all places there are people *gasp* getting killed - it's either a ruse or a glaring example of naivete. An enemy combatant who had moments earlier been trying to kill Americans, who may have been injured and who may have been strapped with an explosive device or firearm, got killed. Not even worthy of a FOOTNOTE in an account of this idiot war.

You want to know why people think the left is out of touch? It's because they are. "Execute an Iraqi" - LOL.

[American]

"US marines execute an Iraqi"

ROFL

No wonder you people can't win an election. "Executing an Iraqi" is a rather calculated euphamism for "killing an enemy who had moments before been killing American soldiers". This enemy is known for boobytrapping their dead and faking their deaths in order to take a few extras with them in the last BANG. Does the nature of war completely elude you people? Are Europe and Canada so sissified that they believe war can be conducted gently, and in such a fashion as to not turn our stomachs? WAKE THE FUCK UP. I'm not in favor of this war one bit, but to sit there and feign this shock that in war of all places there are people *gasp* getting killed - it's either a ruse or a glaring example of naivete. An enemy combatant who had moments earlier been trying to kill Americans, who may have been injured and who may have been strapped with an explosive device or firearm, got killed. Not even worthy of a FOOTNOTE in an account of this idiot war.

You want to know why people think the left is out of touch? It's because they are. "Execute an Iraqi" - LOL.
Thank you for taking over my point. You did a much better job than I did. My wife is Canadian and I have made many very close friends that are Canadian. While not all of them share my views, quite a few of them are very much in "favour" of how things are being handled. As a matter of fact one of them wrote a letter that was published in the USA Today in regards to our Middle East policy and how he supports it. Anyway, I agree with everything you said, but had to stick up for a few Canadians that I am close to.

[D_Raay]

I guess you don't care that Iraqis are strapping explosives to their dead and injured to lure our soldiers to them.So that means you just shoot whoever , whenever, for whatever reason because the very military that is committing these atrocities tells you that they were booby trapping bodies?!!!!!!!! Come on man, for all your talk of left wing propaganda you actually believe this nonsense? THIS is propaganda... They are trying that one marine for murder. You want to know why!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Because there is cause and facts to back it up!!!!!!!! God. I am getting sick of arguing this and I am trying so hard to be nice and open minded but the bullshit tide is flowing very heavily lately.
Oh and Paul Nice, read some of my previous posts because I don't feel like typing it AGAIN. There is no reason to be in Iraq and killing these people, our own government admits that now.. My god, what is happening in this country where there are people complicint in this shit?!!!!!
Anyone who supports this government as it is right now is no better than real terrorists and deserves the same fate as those poor people being shot and blown up everyday... I suppose you will tell me that these people I speak of are terrorists or "insurgents" and deserve to die? BULLSHIT, they are defending there HOME most of them. What of all the innocent women and children dying? The hospitals and ambulances being shot at and blown up?
I am glad you can have all this on your conscience because I can't.. MTV generation I assume? "Neither highs nor lows"?

[Funkaloyd]

Did either of you watch the video?

[drobertson420]

Maybe he'll get a Medal out of the deal, and then he can run for President, too. ;)


Seriously, they are booby-trapping the dead and dying over there..
I would have shot anything that moved as well. A moment of hesitation will cost them their lives. It's real easy for me or anyone to Monday-Morning Quarterback this situation based on 2 minutes of video, but none of us were actually There.

I guess this is where we find out if people REALLY support the troops,
or will the "Jane Fondas" start coming out of the woodwork... :mad:

[drobertson420]

That Mosque was targeted for bombing shortly after this, so would it have mattered?

"I don't care if he dies, just as long as I don't have too see it."


Yes, that soldier was a bit malicious, but that's War.

[Ace42]

You want to know why people think the left is out of touch? It's because they are. "Execute an Iraqi" - LOL.

What he did was a war-crime. Regardless of the "previous status" of combatants, the unarmed and wounded are protected by the Geneva conventions.

"He may have been armed" is not a defence. Anyone "may" be armed, it doesn't make it justified to kill anyone who looks at you funny. There are protocols which dictate the course of action to take when dealing with a suspected "faker", and blowing him away without even the slightest attempt at enquiry is not one of them.

How do you think they "booby-trapped" him? He wasn't lying on a bouncing mine, or his writhing would've set it off. He might've been strapped with explosives, but he wasn't in a position to run full speed towards them. If he had his finger on a "dead man's trigger" killing of him would've set it off, so he CAN'T have been more of a threat alive than dead. Likewise, if he was holding a nade, killing him would've set it off. If they felt safe enough to take that risk, how can you argue they felt threatened enough to blow an injured man away? Do you think that if an injured suicide bomber self-detonates, it magically creates a bigger and more dangerous blast-radius than if it is detonated due to him being shot by soldiers?

re Europe and Canada so sissified that they believe war can be conducted gently, and in such a fashion as to not turn our stomachs?

The Geneva conventions exist for a reason. If you are seriously suggesting that the US should not adhere to them, then make that case. Be warned though, THAT argument would legitimise the Arabs flying planes into the WTC, and Palestinian suicide bombers. Infact, it would legitimise ANY terrorist act.

WW2 was not exactly a "pleasant" war, but for the most part, the combatants (certainly with exceptions on all sides) stuck to the rules, which made the most inhuman of practices (war) marginally more humane.

[drobertson420]

What are they supposed to do? Go over to the guy, get REAL CLOSE, and ask,"Before I Kill you, are you hiding any explosives on your person"
"I'd really hate to make a bad decision during combat"

"Let's worry about:
A) The political-correctness of a kill.
or
B) Preserving our own Asses.


I choose B)

Yea, the video really puts that Marine in a bad light.....
Shame....

[Ace42]

War is about being obliged to take risks. They could protect their "own asses" just by nuking the whole country. But they can't do that because it is against the Geneva conventions, conviniant though it would be for them not to have to get their hands dirty by checking to make sure they are hitting valid military targets.

And that's the clincher, by just *assuming* the wounded person is a valid military target (and as they clearly weren't, due to the absence of HE'S GOT A GUN! You all saw him, he had a gun! or even <kaboom>) they are advocating exactly the same mentality used to Nuke swathes of people.

The Geneva conventions don't exist to make it MORE dangerous for soldiers, you know.

But, just for argument's sake, here's what they could've done. They could've stayed at the safe distance they were at when they shot him (if must've been a safe distance, otherwise they'd not be shooting someone who was potentially going to explode) and shouted at him to come out with his hands up. They could've stayed and observed him, waiting for provocation before firing. They could've left him to die, or be aided by his countrymen as fortune provided. They could've made an attempt to communicate with him. They could've radioed for advice if they wanted to be absolutely clear about what the procedure was for dealing with this scenario. If the US wasn't actively preventing aid-workers from helping people, they could've let a red-crescent operative VOLUNTARILY risk their own life to help him. They could've checked him out with binocs to determine more accurately whether he was armed, and taken into account the nature of his wounds.

There was any number of courses of action open to them that would not have put them in greater risk.

[drobertson420]

Likewise, if he was holding a nade

Are you a Gamer?

[drobertson420]

Ask Nick Berg if the Geneva Convention is being adhered to.....

Oh yea, he's in pieces...... :(

[Qdrop]

thankfully i'm getting a little support now......

Ace42-

i'm sure i have just as many books, textbooks, and source material on all areas of congnative study as you, or more.
fuck off.

you still didn't answer my question. perhaps i didn't word it well enough for you....
so sorry.

WHY DOESN'T EVERY SOLDIER WHO WENT THROUGH OPERANT CONDITIONING COME HOME AND "because of conditioned responses" attack and cripple every poor shmoe who taps him on the shoulder to ask the time?

*sigh* i'll take this one, Ace.

BECAUSE ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE HAVE SUCH SEVERE, LONG LASTING SYMPTOMS, YOU FUCK!
god damn.

it's so fucking simple.......this "epidemic" you want to create doesn't exist. you're trying to cloud the issue with long winded lectures (and i'm doing the same in response....shame on me)...but it's really that simple. the real world doesn't support your theory and fears.

silicone doesn't cause breast cancer......cell phones don't cause cancer.....
but people beleive they do.....because of the media...and our culture of fear.

you're perpetuating yet another false fear, stirring up emotion and hysteria where there need be none.
for what end?....i dunno....i don't really want to go inside your head and motives here.

and for the record, i cannot fucking believe you used a piece of shit movie like Con Air as a scientific example of your theory. there are so many things wrong with that.....i wouldn't even know where to begin.
any respect i had for you is gone....not that you're crying over it.
please don't respond...just let it go.
it's over.

Queen Adrock:
perhaps i didn't explain myself to you clearly enough either....i apologize.

my point in talking about depression and anxiety and sleeplessness as symptoms AND THEREFORE BENCHMARKS TO DIAGNOSE WITH (YES, that's what they do, dear) is that this opens the door to countless false diagnoses'.
see, that's a BAD thing.
that causes inflated stats.

now why would an organization do this?...why would doctors and therapists make such overly broad diagnosis ?
*sigh*
should i get this one too?
i wish you would just research that yourself....but none of you will because it conflicts with your views and would cause cognitive dissonance....and no one likes that.

Ok...see, how do organizations such as the one conducting this study or collecting this data get funded? be it a gov't organization or a private one?
anyone?
they need to get attention.....they need to show that there is a problem....they need to show how "incredibly big that problem is".....then, they can continue convincing people that they need more funding and can stay functional and relavant.

"this is MUCH bigger problem then people even know about."
...how many times have you heard that?
you really think it's always true?
there's more to it.....but you get the point.

forget about PTSD for a minute.....just think about the bigger picture here: about stats and studies, about bias, about funding......about human nature

am i saying that there is no such thing as PTSD?...no.
are the studies and stats likely inflated..with false postives,ect?.....most likely.
not out of maliciousness.....but rather for the reasons listed above.
this is common practice.....this is the world we live in.

seriously...don't take my word for it.......call me a hack. fine. that's great.
just research this yourself!!.....read that book i mentioned for starters......TRULY understand all sides...and most importantly: be able to see the big picture....the really big picture. bigger than PTSD. i'm talking like human nature in general.


Quote from Paul Nice:
"..... Does the nature of war completely elude you people? Are Europe and Canada so sissified that they believe war can be conducted gently, and in such a fashion as to not turn our stomachs? WAKE THE FUCK UP. I'm not in favor of this war one bit, but to sit there and feign this shock that in war of all places there are people *gasp* getting killed - it's either a ruse or a glaring example of naivete. An enemy combatant who had moments earlier been trying to kill Americans, who may have been injured and who may have been strapped with an explosive device or firearm, got killed. Not even worthy of a FOOTNOTE in an account of this idiot war.

You want to know why people think the left is out of touch? It's because they are"

thankfully, a few people on this board are seeing this for what it really is: WAR!
nasty bloody war!
to sit on your couch watching CNN, demanding that our troops be a little more sensitive and a little less blood thirsty...
AHHH!
fucking bleeding heart, idealogical liberals.

I'm a broken record here.....but you really are out of touch with the world, history, and human nature.

War is not fair.....
War IS flying planes into towers full of innocents.
War IS shooting unarmed enemies.
War IS killing a moving ememy target on reflex alone, thanks to conditioning.
War IS killing and torturing prisoners....no matter what side it is.

War sucks.
It's immorral.

and it's necessary.
and it will never go away. this is what we are. we are animals. always have been. always will be.
we are following the laws of nature....just on a much more complex scale.

with all of our conscious self reflecting, imagination, physics, math, philosophy.....
we are still animals....we are still just cogs in nature wheels.
we still follow the laws of nature.....even if it's on a subconscious level....or even if it's on such a broad scale, that we can't see the forest for the trees.

i wish people would stop trying to envision themselves as "above it all" and just except what we are.

[drobertson420]

"thankfully, a few people on this board are seeing this for what it really is: WAR!
nasty bloody war!
to sit on your couch watching CNN, demanding that our troops be a little more sensitive and a little less blood thirsty...
AHHH!
fucking bleeding heart, idealogical liberals."


True Dat!^^^


"Let's Stop all this killing...I just need a Hug"

[Qdrop]

But, just for argument's sake, here's what they could've done. They could've stayed at the safe distance they were at when they shot him (if must've been a safe distance, otherwise they'd not be shooting someone who was potentially going to explode) and shouted at him to come out with his hands up. They could've stayed and observed him, waiting for provocation before firing. They could've left him to die, or be aided by his countrymen as fortune provided. They could've made an attempt to communicate with him. They could've radioed for advice if they wanted to be absolutely clear about what the procedure was for dealing with this scenario. If the US wasn't actively preventing aid-workers from helping people, they could've let a red-crescent operative VOLUNTARILY risk their own life to help him. They could've checked him out with binocs to determine more accurately whether he was armed, and taken into account the nature of his wounds.

There was any number of courses of action open to them that would not have put them in greater risk.

and you call me ignorant.
holy fuck.
do you hang crystals above you bed "to concentrate positive energy" too?

Have ever been in the armed forces?....god, if you have......

i'm glad people like you have no power, and can only sit on a message board and type this....and cannot actually try to enforce such bullshit on a battlefield.

i, without any military training, can go through each of your "alternatives" and dismantle them.
but it would be pointless....and i get nowhere with you.

so instead i shall sit back and be thankfull that you have no power to go with your out-of-touch, idealogical views.

[Ace42]

i'm sure i have just as many books, textbooks, and source material on all areas of congnative study as you, or more.

Then how come you do not know the first thing about them? This obviously false claim makes me question your claim to be able to "spin back" statistics that you made earlier. I think you are all mouth and no trousers, as you have yet to substantiate a single thing.

WHY DOESN'T EVERY SOLDIER WHO WENT THROUGH OPERANT CONDITIONING COME HOME AND "because of conditioned responses" attack and cripple every poor shmoe who taps him on the shoulder to ask the time?

*sigh* i'll take this one, Ace.

BECAUSE ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE HAVE SUCH SEVERE, LONG LASTING SYMPTOMS, YOU FUCK!

Heh, nice try, but your answer is both wrong and stupid. Responding to a stimulus in the manner you are trained to is not a "severe long lasting symptom" - it is the desired result. If only a "tiny percentage" were sucessfully conditioned, it would not be a useful training mechanism. The reason every soldier who goes through conditioning doesn't cripple everyone who taps on their shoulder is because a "tap on the soldier" is not the conditioned stimulus.

If a dog is trained to bark every time it hears a bell, it doesn't mean that it will bark when it hears a fog-horn. Likewise, soldiers do not get "tapped on the soldier" in battle, and so are not trained to respond to it. HOWEVER (and if you knew as much as you pretended to, I would not have to spell this out to you) operant conditioning works by a process of ASSOCIATION. These associations are personal, and you can quite easily create false or tertiary associations. For example, the film "Clockwork Orange" - where Alex is accidentaly conditioned to feel ill listening to Beethoven because it just happened to be playing whilst subjected to the process.

In the same way, someone who has been in a lot of combat will have a lot of random associations caused simply by being "in the field."

If you ring the right bell, in the right way, the soldiers will STILL respond in their programmed manner where possible. Again, if you knew ANYTHING about cognitive psychology (which you claim to, but evidently don't) you'd know that conditioning is generally semi-permanent. Learned behaviour can be present decades after it ceased to be reinforced. It is like riding a bike, you don't forget how to do it once you've learned. If you give a vet his gun back, and run him back through training, his conditioning remains intact. This isn't a "media conspiracy" this is scientific fact. Fact you'd be aware of if you weren't trying to ineptly bullshit your way through this forum.

the real world doesn't support your theory and fears.

It can and it does. This isn't a theory, this is quantifiable objective scientific fact. Arguing with the facts just makes you seem ignorant.

and for the record, i cannot fucking believe you used a piece of shit movie like Con Air as a scientific example of your theory. there are so many things wrong with that.....i wouldn't even know where to begin.
any respect i had for you is gone....not that you're crying over it.
please don't respond...just let it go.
it's over.

Read it again. It was an illustrative example I used to help you understand. I could cite numerous scientific examples, but they'd be less directly relevant and you'd have trouble seeing the connection. I was not saying "I developed this theory from Con Air, and because it happened in a story it must be true" - and the fact you CHOSE to read it like that shows just what a petty fuckface you are. You are more interested in patting yourself on the back than you are actually trying to look at the facts objectively.

now why would an organization do this?...why would doctors and therapists make such overly broad diagnosis ?
*sigh*

That's the second time you've tried to discredit facts by inferring motives. Hello, conspiracy theory?!?

Ok...see, how do organizations such as the one conducting this study or collecting this data get funded? be it a gov't organization or a private one?
anyone?
they need to get attention.....they need to show that there is a problem....they need to show how "incredibly big that problem is".....then, they can continue convincing people that they need more funding and can stay functional and relavant.

Con
Spiracy
Theory.

Taste of own medicine.

TRULY understand all sides...and most importantly: be able to see the big picture....the really big picture. bigger than PTSD. i'm talking like human nature in general.

How can someone who doesn't even understand how military training works try lecturing people about human nature?

You're a fucking imbercile, and the sad thing is, you believe the drivel you are spewing.

I'm a broken record here.....but you really are out of touch with the world, history, and human nature.

And yet...


War IS killing a moving ememy target on reflex alone, thanks to conditioning.

"a moving enemy target" - if it is a reflex, you can't "know" it is an enemy. It can only be a stimulus. That would certainly explain why the US army is so totally inept that it regularly shoots their allies.

BLAH BLAHBLAH
War is this.
War is that.
War IS killing and torturing prisoners....no matter what side it is.
And I know this to be true because history agrees with me, even though I have not cited a single piece of historical evidence

Yeah, says you. The Geneva conventions say otherwise. A century of warfare says otherwise. In both world wars, many prisoners on both sides were NOT tortured. Why? Because your understanding of history (like your understanding of psychology and human nature) is inherantly flawed.

this is what we are. we are animals. always have been.

That's what you are. But that's only because your mother was a pig-fucker.

i wish people would stop trying to envision themselves as "above it all" and just except what we are.

I just wish sanctimonious morons would stop making insipid generalisations. Numerous anthropoligical, psychological and philosophical theories disagree with the one you are presenting, and they have been voiced by people a lot more eloquent, who command a lot more facts than you. It's all very well that you read lord of the flies in highschool, and got a B for your book report, but that doesn't qualify you to pontificate wildly about the human condition, something which, Mr Professor of "human nature" you clearly have a very flawed a limited understanding of.

You talk big, but you think little.

[Qdrop]

Rhythm fiction:

leave it to a liberal to marginalize everything i said about human nature.
how irresponsible and underhanded of you to do so.
you should work for the media.....BBC....you'd fit right in.

i thought liberals were supposed to be more educated and enlightened to science and the world around them?

i guess you're just too clouded by ideaology.


now, if you'd excuse me.....i have to go kill and eat my children.

[Ace42]

i'm glad people like you have no power, and can only sit on a message board and type this....and cannot actually try to enforce such bullshit on a battlefield.

It's called the Geneva conventions sonny. It is part of a standard set of ROE, and is enforced by the army. Breaching the rules of engagement earns you a courts-martial, sometimes on the battlefield if need be. Stabbing an enemy with the tip of your gun (rather than striking them with the butt, IIRC) is a war-crime, and is punishable by the UK army. Likewise, interferring with compliant FMJ ammo (by making striations to create 'dum-dum' bullets) was punishable by death (now, just punishable with hard time / discharge)

i, without any military training, can go through each of your "alternatives" and dismantle them.
but it would be pointless....and i get nowhere with you.

I could, but I don't wanna!

so instead i shall sit back and be thankfull that you have no power to go with your out-of-touch, idealogical views.

Yes, following the international laws of armed conflict is so out of touch. That's why England hasn't followed them through two world wars and several successive conflicts. Because any side that doesn't break every rule in the book is going to lose.

Oh, hang on a minute, not only did the UK preside at the Hague / geneva conventions and fully ratify them, but tries to scrupulously follow them under all situations.

Well, that makes you seem like a blood-thirsty ignorant SOB who doesn't know the first thing about actual armed conflict then.

[racer5.0stang]

[racer5.0stang]

I wish the media was around back when previous wars in history were fought like they are with our troops. Not to say what the U.S. troops did is right or wrong, but the media makes it possible to view it.

[Ace42]

I wish the media was around back when previous wars in history were fought like they are with our troops. Not to say what the U.S. troops did is right or wrong, but the media makes it possible to view it.

Muh, the media are on a tighter leash for this conflict than they were in Vietnam. Listen to any of the 'Nam correspondants statements about it. The other night, a BBC 'Nam correspondant was talking about when he was onscene for the Hue offensive, and was contrasting it with Fallujah. He said, catergorically, that in 'Nam they could go wherever they wanted. In Fallujah, they can only go where their escorts allow them to, and are forcibly denied access to things the US army does not want them to see.

It is well known that this war was a step BACKWARDS for footage.

[Qdrop]

That's what you are. But that's only because your mother was a pig-fucker.



That pretty much sums up you're reasoning, and why you are in this debate.
to attack and help your sagging ego.
glad to be of service to you.



so science, anthopology, historty, ect.....doesn't back up my views on human nature and natural law?
really, ace?

really?

(just between you and me, ace....that's checkmate.)

liberal or not.....my view is the current established view of the most noted professionals in all those fields.
you obviously read alot.....you know what i say is true. you're just arguing to argue...because now you don't like me and want to defeat me in debate

you read alot......you know what i say about statistical studies is accurate and true.
there is nothing "conspiracy minded" about it.
i'm never one for conspiracy....i find them all laughable.
again....you're smart......you know what i wrote is true.

i can continue to forsake my work here in the office and pull out studies, and books, and blogs, ect to give you the sources you want (rightfully so.....that's only fair).....
but would it change your mind?
that would take me along time......and would be a waste of it.
you'd respond back to everything i posted in quotes....and disagree with everything....because you would rather swallow your testicles then conceed any point to me at this point in the debate.
no progress would be made.

this has turned into a "who has the bigger E-penis" debate.....i want no part of it.

[racer5.0stang]

Muh, the media are on a tighter leash for this conflict than they were in Vietnam. Listen to any of the 'Nam correspondants statements about it. The other night, a BBC 'Nam correspondant was talking about when he was onscene for the Hue offensive, and was contrasting it with Fallujah. He said, catergorically, that in 'Nam they could go wherever they wanted. In Fallujah, they can only go where their escorts allow them to, and are forcibly denied access to things the US army does not want them to see.

It is well known that this war was a step BACKWARDS for footage.

I don't see how that is possible when we have photos of our military personel with prisoners in ackward positions and now we have video footage of our military killing an insurgent(sp). It would seem like that wouldn't be taped if the military didn't want the public to find out a/b it.

[Qdrop]

hehehe, you crack me up

You have already marginalized human nature, YOU SAID we are animals and this is all according to the Laws of Nature. Well Mr. marmot, there are Laws of Man, Laws of Military Conduct, and Laws of God we should also follow.



There are no clouds here, I do have a clear conscience and it doesn't follow Bush's and his followers clouded Idealogy

have a nice day you have now made it to my ignore list....no need to argue with you, your a lost cause....go join the military, I've already served my country and your hopeless ass.

i didn't marginalize human nature....i generalized it....
it's helpful for debate.

and i don't believe in god, btw.
and i don't believe in bush either....nor the republican party. nor the democratic party.

i think for myself.

but you blocked me.....so you won't be able to read this.
too bad......hey, no hard feeling on my part.
sorry.

man, you're sensitive.

[Ace42]

That pretty much sums up you're reasoning, and why you are in this debate

No, that sums up what I think of your tripe. But if thinking that helps you get through the day, fuck it. It's not like facts are going to change your mind. Like numerous other things mentioned in this thread, you know the phrase "cognitive dissonance" - but do not understand it enough to see it within your own arguments.

liberal or not.....my view is the current established view of the most noted professionals in all those fields.

No, it is a populist view constructed from a patchwork series of scraps that have filled pop-culture.

you obviously read alot.....you know what i say is true. you're just arguing to argue...because now you don't like me and want to defeat me in debate

I am arguing because you are spouting off your opinions as fact, when they are anything but. I would not be doing this still if I did not dislike you. However, defeating you in debate is not high on my list of priorties, as can be seen by the fact that following this post, you will be on my ignore list forthwith.

you know what i wrote is true.

Plausible, conceivable, possible, and true are all very different words.

but would it change your mind?
that would take me along time......and would be a waste of it.

Merely listing supportive evidence is not "proof"

you'd respond back to everything i posted in quotes....and disagree with everything....because you would rather swallow your testicles then conceed any point to me at this point in the debate.
no progress would be made.

It depends on what you produced and its merits, and in no small part, how you chose to interpret it. It is certainly your interpretation I disagree with at present. And to only present one side of a debate will only give the illusion of concensus, certainly not substantiate it, let alone prove it.

this has turned in a "who has the bigger E-penis" debate.....i want no part of it.

Then let us all help you out.

Forum jeopardy time again people:

A prefix to "list";
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

[racer5.0stang]

and i don't believe in god, btw.

That is unfortunate.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[Qdrop]

ace is gonna put me on the ignore list too?

man....it's as if i was attacking any more so than you or rhythm......not even attacking really.

were they really annoyed by me to that extent?

.......or threatened (read as scared).

alas, now i shall never know.

i cry.......

[Whois]

hehehe, you crack me up

You have already marginalized human nature, YOU SAID we are animals and this is all according to the Laws of Nature. Well Mr. marmot, there are Laws of Man, Laws of Military Conduct, and Laws of God we should also follow.



There are no clouds here, I do have a clear conscience and it doesn't follow Bush's and his followers clouded Idealogy

have a nice day you have now made it to my ignore list....no need to argue with you, your a lost cause....go join the military, I've already served my country and your hopeless ass.

Please don't quote the troll.

[Ace42]

I don't see how that is possible when we have photos of our military personel with prisoners in ackward positions and now we have video footage of our military killing an insurgent(sp). It would seem like that wouldn't be taped if the military didn't want the public to find out a/b it.

Suppression of the media is not necessarily 100% sucessful. Also, the photos of the Abu Ghraib torture were taken by soldiers, not news casters, and sent to be developed *BACK IN THE US* - that is very different from chaparoned media people seeing something they are not supposed to.

Most of the BBC footage from Fallujah has the preface "This footage was approved by the US army" on it. A preface I have never ever heard them use before. To me that is a striking acknowledgement that they are not reporting in a free manner.

Let alone the fact that the US army has targeted numerous news agencies in Iraq. In one single day, 3 seperate independant news stations were bombed by the US. A reuters news team were grabbed and threatened by US soldiers, John Simpson of the BBC got strafed by what looked like an A-10 whilst in a clearly marked press convoy.

These incidents all reek of something more than coincidence.

[Space]

a hair of a second later the guy laying the floor next to him is moaning and moving, yet no gun fire...at all.

[Rockaz]

THE JAIL IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT KIND OF TROOPS, GO THE JAIL AND THROW THE KEYS.

SHITTY NAZIS

WHERE ARE THE EROES THAT HELP EUROPE AGAINST NAZIS OPPRESSOR? WHERE THEY ARE?

[Paul Nice]

What he did was a war-crime. Regardless of the "previous status" of combatants, the unarmed and wounded are protected by the Geneva conventions.

An enemy combatant who has not surrendered or been shown to be unarmed is NOT and HE WASN'T.

War crime!

LOL

John Kerry is an ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL. You people wanted him elected! ROFL And now a marine shoots an enemy soldier and you want him hung.

Has the hypocricy of the left ever been illustrated more starkly?

[Rockaz]

Somebody in the world cant decide for Election of the world governement...
Like here in Europe.

Kerry and Bush for me are the same, anyway... no difference.

But Bush have now the responsability, if you take a responsability then you must have the courage to pay the prize of the responsability.

Hitler Paid, Mussolini Paid, Saddam is Paing.. Bush have again his credit and other people pay for him.

God bless us.

[Qdrop]

i guess i just don't fucking understand this whole arguement.

why is it bad to shoot an unarmed enemy?....HE'S THE FUCKING ENEMY!!!
the fact that he is unarmed makes it all the more easy...and he can't shoot back....easy target.
i would expect nothing less of any enemy if they found me unarmed on the ground.

who the fuck came up with this idea of "sportsmanship and civility" in war.
fuckin ludicris.

this isn't a fuckin football game......it's war.
is that really what the geneva convention is all about?
i've never agreed with most of what that stands for.
trying to make war civil is like trying to teach your dog to do calculus.

[Ace42]

An enemy combatant who has not surrendered or been shown to be unarmed is NOT and HE WASN'T.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

War crime!


Yeah, clearly. Considering that "the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without a court judgement" is prohibited in *ALL* cases.

That means, you don't get to "assume" someone wounded is still a combatant.

QED.

Don't like it? Then write to your senator telling him that you don't think the US should be bound by international law. 'Cause guess what, nothing would make most of the world happier than the US pulling out, allowing all and sundry to use any means at their disposal to wage an all out war on every man woman and child in America. And your idea would legally justify it.

[Space]

John Kerry is an ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL. You people wanted him elected! ROFL And now a marine shoots an enemy soldier and you want him hung.
Has the hypocricy of the left ever been illustrated more starkly?

kerry burned down villages and shot teenagers while they were fleeing...and the liberals already said that vietnam was worse than this war, therefore that makes your arguement incorherent and you a moron.

[American]

What he did was a war-crime. Regardless of the "previous status" of combatants, the unarmed and wounded are protected by the Geneva conventions.

The Geneva Conventions offers protection to EVERYONE, not just an injured enemy that was just shooting at you trying to kill you and MAY or may not be still armed faking the severity of his injury. I know because I fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. I have served on active duty and now serve as a reservist. You people are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny anymore. "Hey man, look out here come some more Iraqis shooting at us! Hang on, I've got to go perform 1st aid on this guy that was shooting at me and I accidentally shot." You people make me sick. I guess that if someone broke in to your home and tried to kill your family you would want to cook them dinner first and maybe give them a sponge bath. Anyone can look at this on TV and say the kind of things that you are saying but not everyone can go out with their life on the line and make those decisions. I would say that you would be the soldier hiding in a corner with shit and piss in your pants crying for your mom to call the police and tell them that they are breaking the law of the Geneva Conventions. Pussy

[Qdrop]

T You people are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny anymore. "Hey man, look out here come some more Iraqis shooting at us! Hang on, I've got to go perform 1st aid on this guy that was shooting at me and I accidentally shot." You people make me sick. I guess that if someone broke in to your home and tried to kill your family you would want to cook them dinner first and maybe give them a sponge bath. Anyone can look at this on TV and say the kind of things that you are saying but not everyone can go out with their life on the line and make those decisions. I would say that you would be the soldier hiding in a corner with shit and piss in your pants crying for your mom to call the police and tell them that they are breaking the law of the Geneva Conventions. Pussy

owned.

preach on.........

[Qdrop]

i'm rather tired of people ranting on what a mistake this all was (true) and how it is being handled so poorly (also true)....

okay then, lefties.....or war haters in general...

tell me.....tell us ALL......

what should america do NOW??

not "how we fucked it up" or "what an ass bush is/was"....


what should america do now?


practical, pragmatic solutions....

ready?...GO!!!

[IceGargoylle]

we can all agree that the action wasnt proper now. but put what happened into context of the events happening over there. from memory, i think and hour or 2 before this a marine died and several injured by a guy faking "it" and blowing up himself. the marine in questions best friend had been killed by a "ddead" body with explosives. the marine in question had been shot in the face by a "dead" person.

there is a point when shoot first, Q later is acceptable.

in the footage, the guy they didnt shoot was moving and waving his hands. HE could have blown them all up,the guy they shot may have been mortally wounded, and therefore even MORE dangerous becuase with one flip of a finger, all those marines could have been killed or seriously injured.

its justified in my eyes. but it still leudes me how the peeps ont he left jump on this story when the Irish woman was shot in the head. i dont hear anything about how bad the terrorists are or how the left is repulsed by the video of her execution or any of the others who had thier HEADS cut off while they were ALIVE.

as far as im concerned, these terrorists have no rights except one....to die. int hier eyes that is our only right, to die by thier hands. it doesnt matter if we never went to iraq or afganistan, they would still do the same thing.

and fort hat, i say kill'um all.

[D_Raay]

What would you like to have happen next? Would you like our troops to start to start putting severed heads on posts outside their base? Do you believe the "Geneva convention" was rendered "quaint" by our little illegal war in Iraq? Do you believe the rules therein were hastily written without much aforethought just because the authors were "pussies"? I don't know how many times I have to say this, although it is the underlying theme behind all of this, Iraq DID not attack us, they were not responsible for 9/11, no WMD's..... You get the idea?

So excuse the fuck out of us liberals if we want to point out what illegal activities may be going on in Iraq. Oh and I am sure you fellows liken yourself to the troops and their commanders, the same commanders who saw fit to arrest that soldier for a war crime. I suppose they were wrong for that by your logic right?

Owned my ass.... I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect.

[Qdrop]

Oh and I am sure you fellows liken yourself to the troops and their commanders, the same commanders who saw fit to arrest that soldier for a war crime. I suppose they were wrong for that by your logic right?



yes.

[Ace42]

the guy they shot may have been mortally wounded, and therefore even MORE dangerous becuase with one flip of a finger, all those marines could have been killed or seriously injured.

Hello, retard. Those detonators explode when the button is RELEASED, not depressed. So when you shoot them, they let go of the button, and KABOOM. So no, all those marines would've been killed and seriously injured BECAUSE they shot him, IF he had been wired to blow.

i dont hear anything about how bad the terrorists are or how the left is repulsed by the video of her execution or any of the others who had thier HEADS cut off while they were ALIVE.

Maybe when they have worked through the 100,000 dead Iraqis who have died in equally if not more brutal fashion, they might get round to it. I expect a lot of "the left" have already mentioned it, but you were doing your usual pontius pilate act and didn't notice it among the 99,999 other deaths they were morning, which you think is perfectly fine.

as far as im concerned, these terrorists have no rights except one....to die. int hier eyes that is our only right, to die by thier hands. it doesnt matter if we never went to iraq or afganistan, they would still do the same thing.

Bullshit. They weren't doing it before you went to Iraq or Afghanistan. Ignorant pig-fucker.

and fort hat, i say kill'um all.

And you wonder why they don't like you?

[Qdrop]

Hello, retard. Those detonators explode when the button is RELEASED, not depressed. .....



how in the fuck would Ace know ANYTHING about what kind of detonation device was used?
oh wait.....he probably saw it in Con Air.




and ACe really has a thing for pig fucking too........
scary.

[Qdrop]

.....the point will bounce off their thick skulls

just like you and your ignore list.....coward.

too bad you can't see my post.
*tear*

[Space]

Bullshit. They weren't doing it before you went to Iraq or Afghanistan.

they werent doing what?

[Whois]

we can all agree that the action wasnt proper now. but put what happened into context of the events happening over there. from memory, i think and hour or 2 before this a marine died and several injured by a guy faking "it" and blowing up himself. the marine in questions best friend had been killed by a "ddead" body with explosives. the marine in question had been shot in the face by a "dead" person.

there is a point when shoot first, Q later is acceptable.

in the footage, the guy they didnt shoot was moving and waving his hands. HE could have blown them all up,the guy they shot may have been mortally wounded, and therefore even MORE dangerous becuase with one flip of a finger, all those marines could have been killed or seriously injured.

its justified in my eyes. but it still leudes me how the peeps ont he left jump on this story when the Irish woman was shot in the head. i dont hear anything about how bad the terrorists are or how the left is repulsed by the video of her execution or any of the others who had thier HEADS cut off while they were ALIVE.

as far as im concerned, these terrorists have no rights except one....to die. int hier eyes that is our only right, to die by thier hands. it doesnt matter if we never went to iraq or afganistan, they would still do the same thing.

and fort hat, i say kill'um all.


Please read my sig, welcome to Fallwell city...

[D_Raay]

For Americans, this is the profound lesson of the Iraq war. We don't need a reason to rob and kill someone anymore. Our religious president says it's the right thing to do, and has destroyed our Constitution, as well as our reputation around the world, to prove it.

And this is the lesson of 9/11. You stage a terror attack to convince the world we need to fight terror. This is what the Israelis have done over the last century to the Palestinians.

But it appears that we as a people - the American people - will never learn this lesson. Or, we will never learn it in time, anyway.

We have let our world be radically changed by a few evil, rich, white and soulless businessmen who control the information we receive and the appartus that governs us, and now we have let 200-plus years of relative freedom go down the drain simply because these men wanted to make even more money and sold us on a story that convinced us we were in danger from a foreign threat, just like they always do, just like they have always done.

They have changed the character of the world based on a big lie that we swallowed because we failed to have the courage to challenge what they said.

And look what happened. This killing will never stop, you know. The dogs of war have been unleashed. Those American kids who are doing all that killing in Iraq will bring all the stuff back home, and give it to us here.

[Ace42]

they werent doing what?

Beheading aid workers in Iraq.

[Space]

hehehe, you crack me up

and Laws of God we should also follow.

.
^ did you really mean that?

[Space]

Beheading aid workers in Iraq.

good one.

[bigkidpants]

according to the standard set at nuremburg, these marines are war criminals and should be executed. good thing we don't practice what we preach.

[Space]

hey ace,

watch this and get back with me. ok?


http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/buried_in_the_sand.htm

[Ace42]

Buried in the Sand disgusts me as much as anything I’ve seen from Michael Moore. It doesn’t matter in the least that I agree ideologically with one and not the other…propaganda is the lowest form of entertainment. It exists to stir irrational emotional reactions and suppress thoughtful debate. The fact that more and more movies like these are being made and passed off as ‘documentaries’ really makes me shudder for the political future of our nation.

^^^ Your link, not mine.

[Fladgy Glitz]

Even if you are warped by the violence of war and raised on video games you should probably know better than to murder an unarmed, injured (soon to be) prisoner. I think proper procedure is to remove them to a hospital or a detention center.
Perhaps this unit lost it's procedure manual out there in the desert somewhere.

[Whois]

Even if you are warped by the violence of war and raised on video games you should probably know better than to murder an unarmed, injured (soon to be) prisoner. I think proper procedure is to remove them to a hospital or a detention center.
Perhaps this unit lost it's procedure manual out there in the desert somewhere.

Actually it's a new form of suicide bomber...when you pick them up they emit deadly ass-gas.

[Rockaz]

Hey .. too much nazis on this group.

Shit , Land Occupation is Nazism , kill unarmed people is Nazism.

Who substain Nazis is a FUCKIN NAZI.

Here in Europe Nazis made the same things in every Land, occupation and killings unarmed people.

SHITTY NAZI PEOPLE

[drobertson420]

It's called the Geneva conventions sonny......



Which does not apply here.


G.C. Covers Uniformed Enemy Combatants Fighting for a Specific State or Country....
Not a pack of Terrorists.

Plus they were using a Mosque as a bunker.....Fuck 'Em!

[Rockaz]

It's called the Geneva conventions sonny......



Which does not apply here.


G.C. Covers Uniformed Enemy Combatants Fighting for a Specific State or Country....
Not a pack of Terrorists.

Plus they were using a Mosque as a bunker.....Fuck 'Em!

WHO IS THE TERRORIST?

FOOLS CLICK HERE!! (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/)

[Ace42]

Which does not apply here.

G.C. Covers Uniformed Enemy Combatants Fighting for a Specific State or Country....
Not a pack of Terrorists.


Nice try, but "carrying a weapon openly" qualifies someone as a designated combatant.

To be excluded from *certain* (not all) articles of the geneva convention, an individual has to be a spy, saboteour, or any "belligerant" who is trying to pass themselves off as a civillian. While the suicide bombers who pass themselves off as civilians would be a case in point, and exempt, armed individuals fighting against an occupying force are not "a pack of terrorists."

It's a nice try, but your argument only holds water if you take the words to mean things that they do not.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example, in World War II during the Battle of the Bulge, German SS troops put on American uniforms and impersonated American troops in order to surprise and kill American soldiers behind their own lines. Some of these Germans were captured and immediately executed even though they had surrendered.

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

The US is in a state of "armed conflict" and there was no "competent tribunal" thus they are clearly afforded the rights outlined in the GCs.

Sorry, but your are mistaken. I suggest you rexamine your understanding of the situation. Try being objective.

[Paul Nice]

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Since it had not been determined that the gentlemen in question had laid down his arms your entire argument is discredited. The soldier neutralized a potential threat and nothing more.


Yeah, clearly. Considering that "the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without a court judgement" is prohibited in *ALL* cases.

That means, you don't get to "assume" someone wounded is still a combatant.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that if an enemy combatant is believed to have laid down his arms then such actions are prohibited, not before.

Don't like it? Then write to your senator telling him that you don't think the US should be bound by international law.

Did that some time ago.

Cause guess what, nothing would make most of the world happier than the US pulling out, allowing all and sundry to use any means at their disposal to wage an all out war on every man woman and child in America. And your idea would legally justify it.

What a logical mind you posess! You state that the rest of the world would love to "to wage an all out war on every man woman and child in America", and yet argue that America should coddle these self same people. You must be a genius!

ROFL

[ASsman]

Sand niggers aren't people, so thereby cannot be considered anything but sub-human. They have revoked their rights by going against what is right, and America is right.



[Conrad retrieved a map from an Iraqi's soldier's butt]
Sgt. Troy Barlow: Conrad, you've washed your hands like ten times.
Conrad Vig: Lord knows what kind of vermin live in the butt of a Dune Coon.
Chief Elgin: Why do you let this cracker hang around with you, man?
Sgt. Troy Barlow: He's all right, man. He's from a group home in Dallas. He's got no high school.
Conrad Vig: Don't tell people that.
Chief Elgin: I don't care if he's from Johannesburg. I don't want to hear Dune Coon or Sand Nigger from him or anybody else.
Conrad Vig: Captain uses those terms.
Sgt. Troy Barlow: That's not the point, Conrad. The point is that Towel Head and Camel Jockey are perfectly good substitutes.
Chief Elgin: Exactly!

[Ace42]

Since it had not been determined that the gentlemen in question had laid down his arms your entire argument is discredited.

"Innocent until proven guilty" - it's not just a liberal dream, and does not "only apply to Americans and white people." As there was no "competent tribunal" formed to determine the matter, the GC consider him protected. If "we had to assume he was a combatant" was a valid defence, then the geneva conventions wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on, as any war crime could be justified by "we thought it was a threat". Sorry, it doesn't wash, as much as you would like it to be.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that if an enemy combatant is believed to have laid down his arms then such actions are prohibited, not before.

Actually it says if they have to be *found* to be an unlawful combatant before the articles cease to apply. That is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.

See - "until they are found to be an unlawful combatant" - that means, quite literally, and in no uncertain terms, it msut be established beyond doubt. Otherwise they have not been "found" to be an unlawful combatant, merely accused of it. Again, stop trying to tell me that the words mean something other than what they do. The language in the conventions was selected with care to prevent people like you saying "When it says thou shalt not kill, what it MEANS is do it all the time!"

What a logical mind you posess! You state that the rest of the world would love to "to wage an all out war on every man woman and child in America", and yet argue that America should coddle these self same people. You must be a genius!

ROFL

You really are a stupid bastard, aren't you? These people would love to, in retaliation for what the US has and is doing. As this situation has come about because the US has done the exact opposite of "coddling" them (your words, not mine. And as such, totally different to what I was saying and arguing.) the US persisting in "nega-coddling" (or, breaching international law and antagonising as is literally the case) is only going to amplify this situation.

You read my argument as:

People want to kill the US, so the US should be nice to them.

This proves you are an illiterate boob, more interested in arguing with a straw-man than actually reading what I said and maybe taking it onboard.

My argument was completely different, but if you want to misrepresent it in such terms, a closer over-simplification would be:

The US has been shitty to people, and that is why people want to kill the US. And thus the US being even shittier to more people is not going to suddenly and magically reverse this trend and fix it.

And, if you think your soldiers should not be bound by (and thus protected by) the Geneva conventions, perhaps you should ask them how they would feel about it. What with them, not you, being the ones who'd lose the protection afforded by the conventions.

[ASsman]

This should be on "stupid criminals caught on tape" . I mean really did you not see the big camera behind you? Did you not think, "hmm maybe me shooting this guy on the floor not such a good idea". He could have atleast painted some evil eyes on him, or put a fake grenade at his hand. Or maybe a dead puppy in his hand, then shot him. God, people are such idiots. Have you learned nothing from the SS and their mistakes? BAD IDEA RECORDING EXECUTIONS. Especially with sound and IN COLOR.
And when will these soldiers be rewarded with the "Iron Cross".

[Rockaz]

[QUOTE=ASsman]Sand niggers aren't people, so thereby cannot be considered anything but sub-human. They have revoked their rights by going against what is right, and America is right.


YOU JUST HAVE NO HISTORY.

YOU ARE JUST THE RESULT OF GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY.
NOBODY CAN SAVE YOU!!

oNLY THE INTELLIGENCE CAN SAVE, BUT YOU ARE IN LOSS OF IT...NAZI

[Ace42]

Muh... bing bing bing.

What is Irony?

[Whois]

[QUOTE=ASsman]Sand niggers aren't people, so thereby cannot be considered anything but sub-human. They have revoked their rights by going against what is right, and America is right.


YOU JUST HAVE NO HISTORY.

YOU ARE JUST THE RESULT OF GENOCIDE AND SLAVERY.
NOBODY CAN SAVE YOU!!

oNLY THE INTELLIGENCE CAN SAVE, BUT YOU ARE IN LOSS OF IT...NAZI

Please...for the love of Dog...caps lock.

[Whois]

What is Irony?

Condi getting to be Sec of State...does she get the cool voxbox that makes her sound like James Earl Jones?

[ASsman]

That would be DOPE!
Coincidence, James Earl Jones was playing a composer on the WB's "Everwood".

[American]

And this is the lesson of 9/11. You stage a terror attack to convince the world we need to fight terror. This is what the Israelis have done over the last century to the Palestinians.


So you are telling me that 9/11 was staged? ROFL!!!!!! I never saw that article on the BBC,,,,, ROFL!!!!!!

[American]

Even if you are warped by the violence of war and raised on video games you should probably know better than to murder an unarmed, injured (soon to be) prisoner. I think proper procedure is to remove them to a hospital or a detention center.
Perhaps this unit lost it's procedure manual out there in the desert somewhere.
You must not have heard that Iraqis were loading themselves up with explosives. Maybe you you didn't hear about our soldiers killed and wounded by "unarmed dead" Iraqis. Sitting here at my computer it is easy to say ask questions first, shoot later. I'm sure that it is not as easy while people are shooting at you!

[ASsman]

So you are telling me that 9/11 was staged? ROFL!!!!!! I never saw that article on the BBC,,,,, ROFL!!!!!!
You're an idiot if you believe the BBC is in any way biased. Im not sure if we have established that as a fact just yet.

Oh and I do believe they did that in err WWII, the Japanese would do that. Booby trap bodies and guns. Not sure of Vietnam, or I might be getting the two confused, it's still early in the morning.

[Qdrop]

You're an idiot if you believe the BBC is in any way biased.

i've read some stupid comments on message boards before......but that has got to be in the top 5.

saying the BBC isn't sharply slanted to the Euro-Left is like saying FoX news is "fair and balanced".

really now......

i mean I listen to NPR and AirAmerica radio all day.....but i am fully aware of their far lefty tones.....and can acknowledge that and take that into account when assessing thier "objectivity".

[ASsman]

Your point of reference to "objectiveness" is itself wrong. So you look at the truth as something biased. Also are you trying to argue that the BBC just hates war? And so just reports about the war in a evil way? Meh, Ace can take this. It's his country. Incase you didn't know though in England they have a sort of media watchdog type thing. Unlike here in the good ole honor system USA.

[ASsman]

JUAN GONZALEZ: But Bob, the argument that many of these conservative media outlets constantly espouse and many of their listeners also repeat is that the liberals have their own media in the so-called national press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS and ABC and so forth. And that they are constantly -- in fact, you can't find probably people who criticize the, quote, national media, as much as they do those from the conservative movement in the United States.

ROBERT PARRY: Right. But it's largely a myth. What you have in the corporate or mainstream media is not a liberal media. It's only liberal, I suppose, from the context that if you put it up against some of the hard right positions; but the position of the major media has been to try to be centrist. When I was at Newsweek there was -- it would be -- we'd talk about how the goal of Newsweek was to be in the center. Now, obviously, that means that as things move to the right, your journalism moves to the right. If you wanted to stay in the center. So what we've seen is this phenomenon of the mainstream press, which is definitely afraid of being called liberal, and this is true not just for organizations, but for individual journalists. They're afraid of being called liberal because it damages their careers. So they have moved also more to the right in trying to finesse this development. To consider the mainstream press liberal is I think -- is just mythical. It's not -- it doesn't exist; and there are obviously liberals in the media, but overall, the mainstream press it tries to be centrist, whatever that means.

"How the Far Right Built a Media Empire to Manufacture Consent"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/04/1621202

Robert Parry, veteran investigative journalist and author of the new book "Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq." For years he worked as an investigative reporter for both the Associated Press and Newsweek magazine. His reporting led to the exposure of what is now known as the "Iran-Contra" scandal.

[Qdrop]

jesus fuck......
you can post quotes and blogs till you fingers fall off.....
i have my own set of ears and a mind and can hear it for myself at this very moment.

i listen to NPR everyday....have for years. they are probably the number one american radio outlet for BBC reports, programs, ect.

i enjoy hearing NPR and BBC sides to matters.....like i said, i listen virtually everyday.
however, just by concentrating on WHAT STORIES AND REPORTS THEY FOCUS ON AND REPORT, any idiot can assess thier bias.

they play interviews and clips of views supporting anti-war sentiments, social injustice, fiscal failings.....all of which allude to being caused by the current american administrations failing (GOP) or any totalitarian opressive gov't in the region.
they bypass opposing reports and segments.....wire reports, interviews, ect.
liberal sentiment oozes from the speakers with every segment....

just as the opposite oozes from the TV screen when you have it on FOX news.

i can't believe i have explain to you what you already know.

shit, i'll put it on NPR right now and give you the fuckin blow by blow of everything reported and talked about......
it becomes pretty obvious to even the mildest objective mind.

[Ali]

just imagine, these soldiers will eventually come back to OUR country...

There have already been reports of Post-Iraq soldiers going ballistic, hurting people, committing suicide, unable to adjust to a society... Remember the Washington Sniper? Gulf war vet, wasn't he?

[ASsman]

jesus fuck......you can post quotes and blogs till you fingers fall off.....

What are you talking about? It seems it is you who ignores the truth.

[drobertson420]

Remember the Washington Sniper? Gulf war vet, wasn't he?


It was revealed that John Muhammad had been trained in the use of assault rifles while in the US army and had won a marksmanship award for his shooting skills. He was described yesterday by a fellow war veteran as "clean-cut" and "very competitive. He was just an altogether 100% soldier."


You Never Know........

[Ace42]

Meh, Ace can take this.

I can't, whomever you were referring to is on my ignore list. American, Qdrop or Ali. And I don't feel the need to defend the BBC, its quality should speak for itself.

However, the BBC has a charteral obligation to be impartial. It is one of the legal condition imposed upon it, and as Hutton proved, it can get in big toruble if it is not *seen* to be impartial.

Actually, many people view Hutton as a white-wash (especially post Butler) and so if anything, it is now pro-establishment, which means pro-Blair, pro-war. The anti-war people got the chop.

But hell, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Qdrop]

What are you talking about? It seems it is you who ignores the truth.


??
did you even make an argument there?
what was the point in the above post?

[ASsman]

I quoted you, then asked you a question. Is that too hard to follow?

[American]

You're an idiot if you believe the BBC is in any way biased. Im not sure if we have established that as a fact just yet.
I guess you came to this conclusion because it supports your point of view? Pro-Euro Anti-America?

Oh and I do believe they did that in err WWII, the Japanese would do that. Booby trap bodies and guns. Not sure of Vietnam, or I might be getting the two confused, it's still early in the morning.
Oh, I forgot, that makes it alright. We also used nukes in WWII.

[ASsman]

Who said anything about it being right....



I can't, whomever you were referring to is on my ignore list. American, Qdrop or Ali. And I don't feel the need to defend the BBC, its quality should speak for itself.

However, the BBC has a charteral obligation to be impartial. It is one of the legal condition imposed upon it, and as Hutton proved, it can get in big toruble if it is not *seen* to be impartial.

Actually, many people view Hutton as a white-wash (especially post Butler) and so if anything, it is now pro-establishment, which means pro-Blair, pro-war. The anti-war people got the chop.

But hell, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Ali]

It was revealed that John Muhammad had been trained in the use of assault rifles while in the US army and had won a marksmanship award for his shooting skills. He was described yesterday by a fellow war veteran as "clean-cut" and "very competitive. He was just an altogether 100% soldier."wheras John Kerry's fellow war vetrans said...