quote:

---

Suddar was naked while typing this:
This really makes me sad. I can't believe shitheads like this are representing our country in Iraq. Oh wait, I can, I just wish they weren't.

---

What? He's having rocks the size of fucking baseballs thrown at his truck for doing nothing more than delivering.. something, I couldn't tell what. And he can't take any retalitory action. Did you see what it did to that fucking windshield? If it weren't bullet resistant he'd have been nailed in the face.

Fuck the kids, I feel sorry for the enlisted men having to deal with that.

quote:

---

BetaTested had this to say about Captain Planet:
That's what those kids are using, realizing it or not isn't important. If they managed another hit or two on the windshield of that guy, and it shattered and the rock hit him in the face and killed him, then what?

---

Then we'd be able to use deadly force.

quote:

---

Suddar had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I guess deadly force I could understand. I just don't like his attitude. I dunno. =\

---

I'm not excusing his behavior, but try spending 11 months over in that living hell and see how kindly you'd react to kids chucking rocks at you =)

When you're over in a foreign country, where that sack of garbage next to you could possibly have a bomb in it, constantly looking over your shoulder...the smallest things will piss you off.

Soldiers are not cops. The rules are very different.

Thought an accidental discharge here and there would teach them a lesson.

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Sean said:
What? He's having rocks the size of fucking baseballs thrown at his truck .....

---

For now, until one of these little darlings finds like a grenade. On the other hand, makes me wonder why the local police or Iraqi Miltary are not running escort to make arrests.

quote:

---

Peter has funnier quote texts than me:
For now, until one of these little darlings finds like a grenade. On the other hand, makes me wonder why the local police or Iraqi Miltary are not running escort to make arrests.

---

Fear of injury, probably. And one of those little darlings lining the sides of the street probably won't huck a grenade just like that, I'm sure. I mean, I know there have been children engaged in combat, as is the nature of these conflicts, but I doubt they're going to toss a grenade just like that, all by themselves.

That kid would have to have some serious balls.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
BTW, what I said earlier doesn't apply to all militaries. US soldiers always have the right of self defense; that's not true for many other militaries.

---

Okay, I wasn't going to go into this thread because I don't feel like discussing my views on Iraq, the war, and the rest of that stuff since it'll only lead to yet another argument, but I have to ask out of curiosity;

This right of self defense, suppose a soldier blows away a bunch of kids, claims self defense, is there some sort of review board afterwards to determine if that really was what was happening, or does the "self defense" claim basically constitute a "okay, go past start, collect $3200034541" pass?

I wonder because a Dutch soldier actually got his ass dragged into court over a self defense sort of situation :/

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while MadCat the 2nd gently hums:
Okay, I wasn't going to go into this thread because I don't feel like discussing my views on Iraq, the war, and the rest of that stuff since it'll only lead to yet another argument, but I have to ask out of curiosity;

This right of self defense, suppose a soldier blows away a bunch of kids, claims self defense, is there some sort of review board afterwards to determine if that really was what was happening, or does the "self defense" claim basically constitute a "okay, go past start, collect $3200034541" pass?

I wonder because a Dutch soldier actually got his ass dragged into court over a self defense sort of situation :/

---

The Dutch military may have ROE that restricts a soldier's right of self defense.

In terms of the situation you describe, there would probably be a review, depending upon the facts. And it wouldn't matter if they were actually armed--what matters is if he reasonably believes himself under attack or about to be given what he knows at the time. And if you've noticed the news, quite a few soldiers have found themselves under investigation for unwarranted killings, and several have gone to jail.

A lot of people are under the impression that civilians enjoy absolute protection during war. They do not. The second they violate their noncombatant status, they become legitimate targets. If they are used as shields for military targets, they lose their protected status. If they occupy military facilities, as with the infamous C2 bunker in the first Gulf War, they lose their protected status. Proportionality rules would still apply in the latter two cases, but that is all. And in nearly every situation, it's perfectly legal for a soldier to kill someone who is trying to kill him, or who he reasonably thinks is trying to kill him.

Contrary to what naysayers like to think, the US takes the laws of war very seriously.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
The Dutch military may have ROE that restricts a soldier's right of self defense.

In terms of the situation you describe, there would probably be a review, depending upon the facts. And it wouldn't matter if they were actually armed--what matters is if he reasonably believes himself under attack or about to be given what he knows at the time. And if you've noticed the news, quite a few soldiers have found themselves under investigation for unwarranted killings, and several have gone to jail.

---

Well, I don't keep up with news as much as I used to, mainly because one way or another, I'm trying to stay neutral to the whole war thing, mostly because I don't want to end up getting into protracted arguments about who's right, who's wrong, and who plain out sucks. I can spend that time elsewhere

Anyhow, there is actually a right of self defense in the ROE, last time I heard anyway. What I was curious about, and might have explained better, was whether or not the default action is to assume the soldier was wrong.

Because that's what happened with that guy. He did feel him and his squad were about to be attacked, and he tried to hold people off first by verbal commands, then with a warning shot, and when nobody vamoosed he shot and killed one person; unarmed civilian, as was later discovered.

I don't know the details of the story, but I do know that he acted as one could expect from a soldier in a war zone, but he got discharged (dishonorably, mind you), then dragged into civilian court to stand trial. In the end he was found innocent, and is now looking at a decent chunk of change.

I just wondered whether that is just something typically Dutch or whether it's more widespread.

quote:

---

Contrary to what naysayers like to think, the US takes the laws of war very seriously.

---

I don't doubt that, as much as I've had anti-US sentiments in the past, that was mostly aimed at the government itself, not the military.

But in our system there's no way a guy can be dishonorably discharged without being found guilty of violating the law by a court martial.

It was later revealed that she ordered her driver not to stop at a military checkpoint and speed through it, causing them to be shot at.

The media seems to routinely reach new lows.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan's account was hax0red to write:
This vaguely reminds me of that one reporter who screamed that the U.S. military was shooting at anything that moved when the vehicle carrying her was fired upon.

It was later revealed that she ordered her driver not to stop at a military checkpoint and speed through it, causing them to be shot at.

The media seems to routinely reach new lows.

---

Are you talking about that Italian reporter who was being held hostage but was released and when the car she was in approached a checkpoint they were fired upon, wounding her and killing the special agent that secured her release? I don't remember anything about her telling the driver to speed up, as I recall they assumed the checkpoint knew they were friendly but the checkpoint guards had no idea they were coming so when the car accelerated to get to safety (it was a dangerous area) the guards thought it was another bomber and opened fire.

quote:

---

So quoth Bloodsage:
Because everyone knows that accelerating towards a checkpoint after they tell you to stop, because you blithely assume someone called ahead for you is a good idea.

---

Yeah, I think the general consensus is that the driver probably lost his nerve during the home stretch so he didn't pay any attention to the warnings to stop.

Still, it's gotta suck to be held hostage but be freed only to get shot and have the man that rescued you die while shielding you with his body over such a stupid mistake when you were so close to safety.

quote:

---

Quoth JooJooFlop:
Yeah, I think the general consensus is that the driver probably lost his nerve during the home stretch so he didn't pay any attention to the warnings to stop.

Still, it's gotta suck to be held hostage but be freed only to get shot and have the man that rescued you die while shielding you with his body over such a stupid mistake when you were so close to safety.

---

Stupidity generally does suck, and sometimes it's even fatal. Unfortunately, too many people blame the guys at the checkpoint, who did everything exactly correctly.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about the Spice Girls:
We don't have a presumption one way or the other. If the chain of command decides a review is necessary, one will be done, although in cases where civilians are killed, I'm pretty sure a review is automatic.

But in our system there's no way a guy can be dishonorably discharged without being found guilty of violating the law by a court martial.

---

Okay, then I'm afraid to admit, the Netherlands has now officially turned into a banana republic. The guy was not court martialled, but he got his discharge due to the fact he got into this civil court case, which was basically a "the government v.s. soldier dude" type thing.

*yuAk*

Check this out too; suppose some guy decides to break into my house and walk off with my TV. If I lay a finger on him (beyond simply restraining him), or I bust his kneecaps with my trusty Lead Pipe(tm), he goes free, I go to jail for assault.

Wheeee.... fun fun fun.

I'm sure some accidents have occurred, but seems like a lot of these stories about people getting gatted at roadblocks comes down to someone didn't apply the brake when they should have. Like that Iraqi family that got fired on recently when they didn't stop.

First off, it's like a stop sign. With machine guns. You may not respect the rules, but it's got machine guns. You know they'll shoot the machine guns by now. I'm sure there's some sort of sign in Arabic that says "STOP" out in front of the roadblocks. It's not like these guys are drunk state troopers pulling college kids down for Spring Break over or something. It's the MILITARY with WEAPONS at a ROADBLOCK.

I'd be even more hesitant if I had kids on board. It's a tragedy, but tragedy does not equate to "Fault of the guys with guns".

They were in some middle-eastern country and were attempting to guard a consulate, but the rioters outside turn deadly and start throwing rocks then eventually begin firing on the soldiers. The officer, who is later the one tried holds out as long as he can, but has to order his men to return fire or be killed, injuring and killing many of the crowd, a good number of which were children.

The media covering this even visit the town, and are given sob stories, especially from a local doctor who cares for the wounded kids. But during the trial, we are given flashbacks to the actual conflict, and one of the dying kids was firing at the soldiers with a pistol during the riot. The civilians weren't so innocent as the general public saw them as.

I agree wholeheartedly with a soldier's right to defend him or herself against any reasonable danger. A rock to the head can kill, or at least cause a concussion, putting them out of action when they're needed most. If a vehicle is taking damage, heck, scatter the kids with some warning shots if possible, otherwise, take them the heck out, as you can't tell when one of those rocks will turn out to do real damage, or turn out to be a grenade.

This also reminds me of the common complaint against the Israelis, that they respond with 'excessive force' against Palestinian kids throwing rocks at them, or do 'massive reprisals' in Palestinian communities. The Israeli soldiers are often using rubber bullets. Those hurt like hell, and may cause injuries, but at least they're not being filled full of holes, which some of these kids might deserve.

And it's not like the Israeli's should just sit back and let their civilians get blown up by suicide bombers, and it's also not like they go and attack some hospital in return. They attack Hamas targets or any other terrorist cell they can locate. And if there's collateral damage, they should get mad at the terrorists hiding in the midst of civilians, not at the soldiers doing their best to hit only their enemies.

quote:

---

Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Where Israel often fails, in my opinion, is its application of proportionality. The laws of war require that collateral damage not be disproportionate to the legitimate military objective's value.

---

Where Israel fails is that they havn't carpet bombed the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

quote:

---

Naimah attempted to be funny by writing:
Where Israel fails is that they havn't carpet bombed the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

---

That would be cool and solve the problem at the same time. I dont think it would go over very well at the UN though.

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Azrael Heavenblade said:
I'm trying to recall this film that illustrates an incident sort of like this...where an officer was put on trial for firing upon a group of civilians 'without provocation'.

They were in some middle-eastern country and were attempting to guard a consulate, but the rioters outside turn deadly and start throwing rocks then eventually begin firing on the soldiers. The officer, who is later the one tried holds out as long as he can, but has to order his men to return fire or be killed, injuring and killing many of the crowd, a good number of which were children.

The media covering this even visit the town, and are given sob stories, especially from a local doctor who cares for the wounded kids. But during the trial, we are given flashbacks to the actual conflict, and one of the dying kids was firing at the soldiers with a pistol during the riot. The civilians weren't so innocent as the general public saw them as.

I agree wholeheartedly with a soldier's right to defend him or herself against any reasonable danger. A rock to the head can kill, or at least cause a concussion, putting them out of action when they're needed most. If a vehicle is taking damage, heck, scatter the kids with some warning shots if possible, otherwise, take them the heck out, as you can't tell when one of those rocks will turn out to do real damage, or turn out to be a grenade.

This also reminds me of the common complaint against the Israelis, that they respond with 'excessive force' against Palestinian kids throwing rocks at them, or do 'massive reprisals' in Palestinian communities. The Israeli soldiers are often using rubber bullets. Those hurt like hell, and may cause injuries, but at least they're not being filled full of holes, which some of these kids might deserve.

And it's not like the Israeli's should just sit back and let their civilians get blown up by suicide bombers, and it's also not like they go and attack some hospital in return. They attack Hamas targets or any other terrorist cell they can locate. And if there's collateral damage, they should get mad at the terrorists hiding in the midst of civilians, not at the soldiers doing their best to hit only their enemies.

---

The movie you're talking about was "Rules of Engagement" with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson.

quote:

---

Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Where Israel often fails, in my opinion, is its application of proportionality. The laws of war require that collateral damage not be disproportionate to the legitimate military objective's value.

---

You'd think the Israelis of all people would understand the concept of proportion. Guess not.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael gently hums:
You'd think the Israelis of all people would understand the concept of proportion. Guess not.

---

The problem is that things like proportionality matter less as a state's survival is threatened. That's why there were such excesses in WWII, and why they were accepted at the time. If it's play by the rules or die, which do you think most people will choose?

Edit: damned mouse wheel.

Anyway, the problem is the rest of the world doesn't have a stake except morally. And every time Israel does something excessive, they erode what little support they have. Small, protracted wars are won in the international court of public opinion rather than the battlefield, when they are this high-vis.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-29-2005 at 06:47 PM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
The thing in the US is that military people don't have the right to sue unless the government (the one being sued) agrees to it. Except in rare cases, one is required to use the military justice system.

---

Yeah, same here, but this was the other way around. The government sueing the soldier in question...