The title to the video is war crime. You be the judge. Link
I check this site frequently, practically every day, and it takes me to different sources such as above link.
Part of war man, sucks but it is. Innocent people all over the world are dying each day. I think the fact that he said “Aw dude” doesnt really mean much to me. In a time of war, people seek revenge.
Not saying it’s ok, but that’s how it is.
thats a cool video
I heard that those were insurgents, but it doesn’t look like it.
I like how they only have these little short clips. That way it looks like maybe innocent people are being killed.
Stupid.
Exactly. These websites only feature one side of the argument and appeal only to emotion. Don’t believe everything you see/read.
These websites only feature one side of the argument and appeal only to emotion
agreed. But you have to admit that, if indeed those people weren’t armed (I really can’t tell with this ****ty picture), it is gruesome and useless.
What is armed? Let’s say they didn’t have weapons. It’s a mob of people running down the street. Do they really need weapons to injure and kill people?
Mmmh. Guilty and then, let’s prove they’re not innocent? That’s not the way it works. Sorry. It is gruesome and useless.
The whole pre-emptive actions is starting to get on my nerves, really.
truely awesome video 
again, in a time of war you need to keep mind of what you are doing…
Apparently this was a “peaceful” mob roaming the streets of Iraq spreading peace and goodwill
ha ha 
No that is not the way it works. The way it works is you have a Forward Air Controller observing a position. They relay what they see to Command and then someone with authority makes a decision wether or not to kill the target. The order is given to an airship to kill the target.
You don’t send people down to take a poll and see who is or isn’t bad or armed or wanting to kill you. This is war, and wow in war people die. I don’t think there is a military in the world that takes as much care to stop collateral damage as the US. Also, if that were so horrible and they were killing innocent people for fun and profit, do you think we would be seeing that video? If it was released, you can bet anything that was a legitimate target.
Great way to put it :hugegrin:
Well said blindlizard
starts standing ovation
This is war, and wow in war people die
and yet you tell me you don’t understand how innocent people can be killed, blown up to pieces by “terrorists”? You must be kidding me. This is war, and wow, in war, people die.
I don’t think there is a military in the world that takes as much care to stop collateral damage as the US
Why, because they communicate more on this? Oops, collateral damage, my bad! Oops, another one! *Maybe * other militaries do not communicate so much on it because they 1) don’t wage that many wars 2) don’t do as much damage - hence less collateral damage. You’re going to have to stop trusting everything your govt says and stop taking it all for granted when they DO say it.
Look people die in war, and yes the US does more than any other country to make sure the deaths are militants and not civillians. Show me another country that uses the precision guided weapons to hit targets and not carpet bomb a reigon?
The US didn’t invent wars. Britian, Spain, France, Germany and Russia have been waring with the world since the 1300s. I love how the world calls America war mongers, but we are the first ones called when anything happens… WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kuwait. No one else fights wars today because they know that America will do it for them, and they can talk smack about us at the same time…hipocrites.
BLizard> Want me to show you other countries that use precision guided weapons? Ok. France, Italy, Spain, Russia -yes, even Russia, can you believe that!! (not Germany, they haven’t had an army to wage war since WW2). Show me facts that the US does more than any other country to make sure the deaths are militants and not civilians (and in case they really do care, explain why there has been more civilian deaths in Iraq than “militants”).
Where in HELL did you hear any here say that America is a war monger? Stop reading things you want to read and answer the ****in questions! How can you not understand how innocent people can be killed, blown up to pieces by “terrorists”? Is that because they are not an “official” army? You are so naive, you’re making me sick.
No one else fights wars today because they know that America will do it for them
Want me to recount the wars in the last 20 years where there has been many participating nations, BESIDES the US?.
they can talk smack about us at the same time
And yes, I talk smack about the US (govt) about THIS PARTICULAR WAR, because it was baseless - contrarily to Afganistan for example.
oh, and for the record, Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Russia (but you can put ANY european country in there) has been waring since the existance of nations, not the 13th century.
For yet another record, WWI, the US came to Europe in 1917 (3 years after the start of the war), in WW2, the US came in 1941 (2 years after the start of the war), in Vietnam, the US came in 20 years after the start of the war (Franco-Indochinese war, 1946-1954). Bosnia was under NATO (not only US, hey), Koweit had a coalition of 100+ countries (not only US, hey - again). Granted, I don’t know much about the Korean war… 
So saying they are the first ones called when anything happens is a bit far-fetched… Would you like to share my history books?
Pomme,
Your answers are well thought out, factual and intelligent. Keep on keeping the threads balanced.
Look at the Russia Afgah war vs the Gulf war and I think that sums it up.
Where in HELL did you hear any here say that America is a war monger? Stop reading things you want to read and answer the ****in questions! How can you not understand how innocent people can be killed, blown up to pieces by “terrorists”? Is that because they are not an “official” army? You are so naive, you’re making me sick.
Has nothing to do with an official army, it has to do with targeting civillians.
Want me to recount the wars in the last 20 years where there has been many participating nations, BESIDES the US?.
And yes, I talk smack about the US (govt) about THIS PARTICULAR WAR, because it was baseless - contrarily to Afganistan for example.
oh, and for the record, Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Russia (but you can put ANY european country in there) has been waring since the existance of nations, not the 13th century.
For yet another record, WWI, the US came to Europe in 1917 (3 years after the start of the war), in WW2, the US came in 1941 (2 years after the start of the war), in Vietnam, the US came in 20 years after the start of the war (Franco-Indochinese war, 1946-1954). Bosnia was under NATO (not only US, hey), Koweit had a coalition of 100+ countries (not only US, hey - again). Granted, I don’t know much about the Korean war… So saying they are the first ones called when anything happens is a bit far-fetched… Would you like to share my history books?
WWI - The US entered the war and slung it back in the Allies favor. The US was brought in because the allies were losing.
WW2 - The US entered the war because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We could have just sent troops to the Pacific, but instead lost hundreds of thousands protecting Britian and freeing France. Had the US not entereed, there is no way Britian could have done it alone.
Vietnam - Had the US not taken over that war, France would not have been able to pull out when it did.
Bosnia - US troops 20,000 British 12,000 French 7,000 Germans 4,000 Spain 2,000 all lead by Amierican Generals. Lets not forget where the might of NATO comes from.
Kuwait - Again who lead and had the most troops in that war? The UN imposed an embargo on Iraq and Saudi Arabia asked the US to send troops to defend against an attack. Who gave the order to begin Operation Desert Storm? President George HW Bush, not the UN. Who lead the miliotary operations, Gen Norman Schwarzkopf (General, US Army)
Yeah. With a 10-year span between the 2, the latter being much more “computerized”. It sums nothing up. There were no guided missiles back in 1979.
Has nothing to do with an official army, it has to do with targeting civillians.
Of course it has everything to do with this. I remember a few months back when someone argued that civilians close to resistant fighters KNEW what would come to them if they stayed close to terrorists/resistants/guerrilla fighters. It goes the same the other way around. You stay close to the enemy, you’re bound to be struck. Same same. You can’t ask one side only to target the army while the other one has the “collateral damage” wild card. They don’t target civilians per say, they target the ones going against their ideas/ideals. “terrorists” in Iraq haven’t perpetuated bombings in a marketplace on a friday afternoon (the equivalent of a sunday for westerners), they’ve tried bombing govt allies.
WWI - The US entered the war and slung it back in the Allies favor. The US was brought in because the allies were losing.
They were brought in because they were allied to the English. I’m not taking away the fact that they greatly helped France and England, but they didn’t come first, they came at the opportune time where they had no choice but choose a side if they wanted their own economic survival.
WW2 - The US entered the war because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We could have just sent troops to the Pacific, but instead lost hundreds of thousands protecting Britian and freeing France. Had the US not entereed, there is no way Britian could have done it alone.
same as before, I’m not taking away the fact that the greatly helped Europe against nazism, but had they gone only against Germany, they would have had to settle with making PEACE with Germany, holding over Europe. It wasn’t even a choice, it was a matter of global ideology. But they didn’t come in first either, they didn’t have a choice really.
Vietnam - Had the US not taken over that war, France would not have been able to pull out when it did.
Untrue, France lost and pulled out by herself. the US had nothing to do with this.
Bosnia - US troops 20,000 British 12,000 French 7,000 Germans 4,000 Spain 2,000 all lead by Amierican Generals. Lets not forget where the might of NATO comes from.
You do know that NATO has been multilateral for the last 10 years right? The amount of troops put in a war by NATO is proportional to the preponderance of the country in the said-organisation. Proportionally to either population and troops, England, France, Germany, etc. put up more soldiers than the Americans…
Kuwait - Again who lead and had the most troops in that war? The UN imposed an embargo on Iraq and Saudi Arabia asked the US to send troops to defend against an attack. Who gave the order to begin Operation Desert Storm? President George HW Bush, not the UN. Who lead the miliotary operations, Gen Norman Schwarzkopf (General, US Army)
Untrue. Operation Desert Storm was agreed on a UN resolution after the end of the ultimatum (remember the hostage crisis, right?). It was not to defend Saudi Arabia, it was to oust Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.
[edit]you still haven’t answered the ****in question! [/edit]
Russia didn’t pull out until 1989.
Of course it has everything to do with this. I remember a few months back when someone argued that civilians close to resistant fighters KNEW what would come to them if they stayed close to terrorists/resistants/guerrilla fighters. It goes the same the other way around. You stay close to the enemy, you’re bound to be struck. Same same. You can’t ask one side only to target the army while the other one has the “collateral damage” wild card. They don’t target civilians per say, they target the ones going against their ideas/ideals. “terrorists” in Iraq haven’t perpetuated bombings in a marketplace on a friday afternoon (the equivalent of a sunday for westerners), they’ve tried bombing govt allies.
I haven’t called the bombings of government buildings and military convoys terrorism. however, lets not forget the bombing of a Christian church on a Sunday. And yes, there have been RPG attacks are merket places. There have been bombing of liquor stores too.
They were brought in because they were allied to the English. I’m not taking away the fact that they greatly helped France and England, but they didn’t come first, they came at the opportune time where they had no choice but choose a side if they wanted their own economic survival.
No they were brought in because an ally asked for help. The US entered even when popular oppinion in the US said no.
same as before, I’m not taking away the fact that the greatly helped Europe against nazism, but had they gone only against Germany, they would have had to settle with making PEACE with Germany, holding over Europe. It wasn’t even a choice, it was a matter of global ideology. But they didn’t come in first either, they didn’t have a choice really.
Same as before allies need help and the US was there, again people in the US didn’t want their sons dying in Europe, but the US came to its allies aid again.
You do know that NATO has been multilateral for the last 10 years right? The amount of troops put in a war by NATO is proportional to the preponderance of the country in the said-organisation. Proportionally to either population and troops, England, France, Germany, etc. put up more soldiers than the Americans…
Multilater but lead by US generals and US tropps in all the wars I described.
Untrue. Operation Desert Storm was agreed on a UN resolution after the end of the ultimatum (remember the hostage crisis, right?). It was not to defend Saudi Arabia, it was to oust Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.
Saudi Arabia was afraid that Iraq would come at it next and asked for the US to help protect it. The US opened air bases in Saudi for the first time in history and was there are ready to defend it within 15 hours of mobilizing. Sure the UN voted on resolutions, but the US was there and ready anyway. The US lead the war, the US was the lead in the war.
[edit]you still haven’t answered the ****in question! [/edit]
The what? I don’t read asteriks.
By disturbing a city held by the opposing force (with the use of force), I don’t see that as terrorism however you put it. It’s war and in war people die quote unquote.
WW1> untrue, but there’s no way I could make you see otherwise
WW2> untrue, but there’s no way I could make you see otherwise
Nato stuff> true enough about the generals, but that’s on the NATO charter.
Kuweit> we WERE talking about Iraq right, not the POSSIBLE attack of Saudi Arabia? I do agree about the First Gulf war though, US was there first, provided most troops and most tech (and most propaganda, but that’s a different story altogether)
fuc*ing question, the last asterisk being a K.
