Julian Assange being set up by Australian president Gillard and Obama stands firm

Oh really? So if China decided to invade you over debts, we shouldn't stop them?

Good to know. I guess we also made a mistake getting involved in WW1 and WW2 as well.

We should probably just scrap that whole alliance thing with you as well.

 

What has it got to do with America if a dictatorship in the middle east invades another dictatorship in the middle east? It is nowhere near America. Nothing to do with America or the west at all. China is not going to invade us and America would not do anything if they did as China has nuclear weapons,you should know by now that America and its allies only pick on states that they think cannot fight back.

 

There you go again twisting my words around. What I said was, that if I was a soldier fighting in a war, I would show my enemy no mercy. Thats what the helicopter crew did in that video. They thought they were enemy combatants though and didn't realize they were just journalists. Its a terrible mistake but I assure you the pilots had no intention of killing children and journalists.

 

Ok so now you can only revert to insults. I take it that is the end of your argument. I reported you. Thanks.

 

You keep accusing me of twisting your words but the fact is I never have. We were talking about the American helicopter attack on unarmed people and I was stating that they shot an unarmed injured guy crawling on the pavement and then shot two unarmed guys that cam to help hi and then they shot two children and then joked about it and you said that you would have done the same thing. That is that you would have murdered them as well. I can go and link to your actual post if required.

This is what you stated.

 

Thats how I have felt the last 24 ours arguing this guy. No matter what you say he finds a way to twist your meaning around and deflect with bogus questions and scenarios as a way of debating. This guy clearly doesn't care about engaging in serious dialogue or presenting an intelligent thought.

 

And where in that post did I say I would kill children and journalists? Where in that post you quoted did I say I would kill wounded journalists and children? Where did I say I would joke about killing them?

If the mods/admins can't see how obvious your trolling is getting then I give up on this place completely.

 

I have debated you with factual information at all times. It is not my fault that your debating skills are not as good as mine. Anyone can go through our discussions and see what's what.

 

This is your post.

Yeah they kicked a guy while he was down. And then they decided to unleash hell rain on others who tried to aid the wounded. If I were a soldier on the frontlines battling the enemy, I'd do everything in my power to keep them down too.

It is clearly written. We are talking about the murder of unarmed civilians and you are stating that you would do everything in your power to keep them down too. Your own words.

You keep accusing me of trolling but all I am doing is answering your posts when you have quoted me and posts that you make about me,that is not trolling. What you are doing is trolling,in that you are agreeing with a poster that has just insulted me.

 

I'v presented my argument on the matter countless times. I have tried to ask you legitimate questions to help you understand what it is i'm arguing. You can't seem to even acknowledge one word of what it is i'm saying. You are pretty much calling me a murderer when I have already condemned what those pilots did. All i was arguing is that I understood why they chose to kill those people. Yet that makes me a cold blooded murderer and a defender of those who senselessly kill. You just keep responding with the same argument everytime I present my case. Your trolling is getting old and Serfin USA can see through your BS as well.

 

I was creating a hypothetical argument of me being a soldier in the frontlines of a hypothetical battle. If I were a soldier fighting a hypothetical enemy, I would show them no mercy. I was not talking about the children or the journalists. <<<mod edit>>>

 

All you did was defend guys that murdered civilians,that was your whole argument. Anybody can go check your posts in this thread.<<<mod edit>>>

 

Yeah anyone can go back and check my posts. Anyone but you obviously. I grow tired of this nonsense. I'm done here.

 

Please stay on topic and refrain from insulting one another.

Thanks
Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

Man On Fire is correct. Your entire position was your excusing the killing of innocent people. You attempted to defend the indefensible and then when you got caught out for it you back-tracked.

 

What would you expect from those pilots anyway? They thought those journalists were armed insurgents targeting other American soldiers on the ground. Based on that limited information do you really think it was wrong for them to make that decision? Keep in mind that if those men were insurgents targeting other American soldiers, would you want to risk letting the enemy kill your fellow countrymen simply because you weren't 100% certain of who those men are? A lot can happen in just a few seconds and if the American soldiers on the ground had been killed the pilots would have been blamed for failing to stop the attack.

You keep accusing me of condoning murder and that I am defending cold blooded murderers. I don't agree with what those pilots did. But I understand why they chose that course of action. Someone should answer for what happened in that video. There is no doubt. Yet you guys keep choosing to ignore certain aspects of my position on this issue and just want to turn this into a petty argument.

 

Your attempts at justifying the unjustifiable actions of these degenerates is discusting.

Here is the sequence of events for everybody to see:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military

 

I call it voluntary amnesia due to toxic US Government brainwashing with a big dose of history denial .

 

You obviously don't have any military experience ,individual piolots do not decide to enguage a target without prior clearence for a command centre,note the piolot was discussing it with someone other then in the aircraft,imagine the friendly fire if individuals decided such things ,maybe that should be advocated.

But back to the point do you see the reason why they have a chain of command up and down,?

 

Obviously they did not make the decision alone. ut that doesn't change the fact that they believed there was a threat in front of them. You can hear them asking for permission to engage those targets and they obviously wanted to stop what they thought was a potential threat. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

Obviously they did not make the decision alone. ut that doesn't change the fact that they believed there was a threat in front of them. You can hear them asking for permission to engage those targets and they obviously wanted to stop what they thought was a potential threat. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

What those who are presenting justifications for recurring civilian attacks by the US military are overlooking is both common military practice and the legal aspects of such actions.

It is customary in any civilised military to ascertain the nature of a target, with some degree of accuracy, prior to attack. But this is dictated not only by custom, common sense, and common humanity, it is required by the laws governing conflict. To wit - the Geneva Conventions.

(From the GENEVA CONVENTIONS)

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter II: Civilians and Civilian Population

Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Article 57:

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

1. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

2. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

3. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

2. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

3. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

It therefore follows that targeting of non-combatants, even if one is unsure of their status, is in breach of the conventions, and thereby illegal. In the instance under discussion, the correct procedure would have been to move in close enough to identify the people as combatants (by the weapons they were carrying and by what they were doing with those weapons). The number of friendly fire deaths, added to the number of innocent civilian casualties from US military activity indicates very poor training at all levels in this respect. A military uniform is not a licence to act like an armed rabble, and kill everything you do not immediately recognise. The US military is immensely powerful, but with great power comes great responsibility. The power over life and death should nor lie with people who shoot first and ask questions later, and an American life is not intrinsically more valuable than an Iraqi or Afghani life.

 

The government is giving permissions for manning for some particle regions but the contractors are doing illegal activities for manning they are increasing the boarders of manning places in that so many people are loosing their land's.

 

Yeah,an injured unarmed guy is always a threat,well to you anyway and two other unarmed guys you think were a threat as well.Is there no end of your defending murderers?

 

Love your work top marks ,but can any war post bush presidency be "civilised' and the reptriation of the kid killer ,who slaughtered the 16 women and children indicates separation of US forces from the Geneva conventions ,as does GITMO,and the Assassinations throughn drone attacks ,its war without limit or restrait by action and even words ,continuing under Obama and whoever wins the coming US election.

The conventions are not worth the paper they are written on ,Murders in uniform and no honour is now demanded from the troops of US imperialism and its allies.

the thinking of Nuclear holcaust is here ,its being fermanted and imbued as we speak.MAD ,mutuallly assured destruction is not in operation anymore ,get ready for tactical nuclear weapon use in the future ,the only Nation to use them on humans ,WMD,good old uncle sam ,we know they are capable.

US Imperialism has that run on the scoreboard of history.

Unless averted by Siocialist revolution the coming war between the USA and China will not be conventional.

If we were a "minute to midnight" with the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 b,we are a nano-second to midnight today.