US troops killed civilians in cold blood incl. 5 children

He wouldn't protect endangered whale species, either.

Now fellow liberals - do we see Obama for what he is now?

A NeoCoN sleeper agent inside the liberal party!

 

You've been involved in many coups, installing puppet governments that have murdered thousands.

 

You claim you're NOT off topic . What has Africa got to do with
US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians in cold blood and US military attempting a cover up ?


Its late - I'm off to bed .

 

Neither and it is sometimes an excusable act in war.

No. It was a reference to the conversation we were having. So do you have anything useful to add or not?

 

We are discussing what an actual genocide is because MurkyFogs seems confused about the subject. Most of us are going with the flow of the conversation, something you seem very incapable of doing. Disengage and come back when you are less task saturated.

 

What's happening in Africa is democide (except in Rwanda which was a true genocide). Genocide is like the words racist and fascist. It will lose its original meaning, and become a sloppy and ambiguous word.

 

In the absence of proof beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt the event as you relate it did not occur.

 

Me first - ever since we've started exchanges , I've been asking that from you , sadly to no avall. Apart from self -promoting ego trip , none of your posts can said to have anything useful /contributing to explain why US military tried to conceal the murder of innocent Iraqis and why the killers have not been investigated, and if so, why the evidence was not made public.

Being as bright as you claim to be , why not use your rights as a US hotshot and gain access to any documents regarding this case . ?


..

g-nite again -
till tomorrow

 

Good to know. Let us get back on topic so Marlowe does not have another mental breakdown when he reads this later on. What we have here is someone overreacting to a news story. Things like this happen in war. No one likes it, but sometimes it is necessary to achieve the objective your unit was assigned. We can have a groundpounder expand on it, but I am fairly certain most people are handcuffed when they are present in a building being stormed.

 

Really? Handcuffing women and children, shooting them and calling in air to obliterate the crime scene is 'excusable'? It is never excusable, in war or at any other time. Or perhaps we can hear your justification for it.

 

nonsense.

There are quite a few weapons that are effective in any mountain theatre.

 

I have been discussing the issue. The public does not need to know the details because the majority of the public cannot wrap its head around what happens in combat. The problem is that people like the OP will overreact to a story without knowing the details and call foul. Why would I abuse clearance to obtain details I am not in the "need-to-know" about? To stroke your curiosity? There are reasons why things are kept classified and within their respective departments.

 

Can you prove the event happened as you allege? That's your first hurdle.

Your second hurdle is to prove the motive for the handcuffing. And how can you prove these folks were shot in the head? And if you prove that they were shot in the head, how are you going to prove who shot them? There are no presumptions at work here. Only admissible evidence is permitted.

 

I wonder how the people who didn't call foul over My Lai and William Calley felt when the truth was out...
Things are kept classified to avoid embarrassment and to keep public opinion sweet and on-side.

 

Name those weapons.

 

In an area where anyone can be an enemy, it is appropriate to detain everyone. Like I said, I am not a soldier and one of them can explain it, but it makes sense to me to handcuff them. Shooting them is difficult to argue seeing as known of us know what happened in full. When you are given orders to shoot, you shoot. When you feel threatened, you shoot. Sometimes your threat assessment can be out of whack and accidents will happen. When we are called for an airstrike, we are given coordinates and act. If there were threats in the area, then obliterating the "crime scene" is completely excusable.

 

All this hand wringing about a criminal incident in a war zone. And there doesn't seem to be much hard evidence of this crime.

So everyone that wants to, have a good wail about how absolutely horrible the US is and how they wontonly slaughter innocent civilians.

then come back to reality. Its as tho people here have some idealized vision of what a war is. some seem to think its like Call of Duty. Its nasty, its dirty, it brings out the worst and the best in people, and lots of people innocent or not get killed. Its war, it can't be sanitized, its all about breaking things and killing the enemy. Blood is its measure.

Warriors are trained to dehumanize the enemy in order to kill lots of them.
Some warriors get pretty screwed up in combat and might not be too inclined to follow rules when they can "get some back" on their enemy.

This is not regular operational procedure for the US army. It is an aberation, but of course there are those that would never see it as such, hoping that they can use this as proof of the nasty nature of America.

 

Unbelievable. When does your de-programming course begin? You need to get on it, quick.

 

In 13 years. You seem to be pretty full of your assessment even without the gritty details. Why are you so quick to jump at the throat of the military?

 

I have no gripe with the military per se. I do have a considerable gripe with the wankers who pull the strings-and with the unthinking muppets who jerk around at the end of them; because it's the 'patriotic' thing to do.
'I was just following orders' really is the most (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor excuse.

 

The only approach that has worked for conquerors willing to get involved in a ground conflict in Afghanistan is to simply kill as many of them as possible. This was the Mongol approach.

 

Yeah, I'm sure the Preznit is really sorry those pipelines have to go thru such densely populated areas.

Heil Hillary the Nazi.

 

So why isn't it working in Afghanistan for the 'coalition'? The best equipped military on the planet with the biggest toys and dicks, and it has systematically failed to subdue the Afghanis who have little more than home-made AKs and a few RPGs.
When was the last temporarily successful victory over the Afghanis? Alexander the Great, was it?

 

There aren't going to be any pipelines through Afghanistan unless they are run by the Chinese. The Chinese know how to deal effectively with Muslims.