US soldiers deny....and later admit to killing demonstrators

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: etech
flavio, why did you leave this part out?

"Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks."


I know you are so biased that you will do anything up to and including leaving out the fact that the troops were under fire but don't you think it just makes you look a little stupid to do so? You know that fact will be pointed out.

What do you expect troops to do when they come under fire?

Etech I didn't quote the whole article, but I did link it. I also quoted this part...

A US spokesman said troops were returning fire from a nearby building and did not aim into the crowd.

So I definitely added pieces from both perspectives. Would you like me to run this by you next time so I only get the parts that make the soldiers look good?

STFU. You got Owned and you know it.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: etech
flavio, why did you leave this part out?

"Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks."


I know you are so biased that you will do anything up to and including leaving out the fact that the troops were under fire but don't you think it just makes you look a little stupid to do so? You know that fact will be pointed out.

What do you expect troops to do when they come under fire?

Etech I didn't quote the whole article, but I did link it. I also quoted this part...

A US spokesman said troops were returning fire from a nearby building and did not aim into the crowd.

So I definitely added pieces from both perspectives. Would you like me to run this by you next time so I only get the parts that make the soldiers look good?

STFU. You got Owned and you know it.

Go ahead and explain that? If someone accusing me of posting one side of things, when it's obvious both sides were posted means getting owned to you then you're obviously mentally incapacitated. If you can manage an explanation though, I'll gladly revise my view.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
US soldiers never denied killing or shooting anyone in this incident. What they denied were charges they had shot or killed "demonstrators" because they were demonstrating.

Spin spin spin!

Do you happen to have anything to substantiate that?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: tcsenter
US soldiers never denied killing or shooting anyone in this incident. What they denied were charges they had shot or killed "demonstrators" because they were demonstrating.

Spin spin spin!

Do you happen to have anything to substantiate that?

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

Seems fairly logical they would say we did not fire indiscriminately upon a crowd BECAUSE they were only demonstrating.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: tcsenter
US soldiers never denied killing or shooting anyone in this incident. What they denied were charges they had shot or killed "demonstrators" because they were demonstrating.

Spin spin spin!

Do you happen to have anything to substantiate that?

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

Seems fairly logical they would say we did not fire indiscriminately upon a crowd BECAUSE they were only demonstrating.

The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well you kinda do gotta admit that with the WMD not lining the streets and the American people sucker punched into a way without justification, the we came to liberate idea is about all we can cling to for justification, and blowing away a bunch more civilians doesn't look real good. I can understand the temptation to pretend it didn't happen till you're forced to by that pernicious tendency of truth to out.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
flavio, why did you leave this part out?

"Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks."


I know you are so biased that you will do anything up to and including leaving out the fact that the troops were under fire but don't you think it just makes you look a little stupid to do so? You know that fact will be pointed out.

What do you expect troops to do when they come under fire?

etech, why did you leave this part out?

"The Americans [troops] were turning around the crowd. The people moved toward the government building, the children threw stones, the Americans started firing. Then they prevented the people from recovering the bodies," he said.

For all you know those that could have recoverd the bodies could of had concealed weapons or even bombs strapped to their chest.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I think his point was the initial US denial. If the govt. can think they can get away with something, they will deny it until there is too much proof to keep refuting it. It's a lot easier to insinuate that the Itaqi's shot each other than to admit it was the US, and they would do that if there was no evidence to the contrary.

The US has no problem admitting that civilians were killed, whether accidentally or not, as it did in over a dozen different incidents during the campaign in Afghanistan resulting from stray bombs, communications, or intelligence errors, but were not 'forced' to admit. But that is a neither here nor there...

Flavio's thread is materially misleading and deceptive.

US soldiers deny....and later admit to killing demonstrators

US soldiers never denied killing or shooting anyone in this incident. What they denied were charges they had shot or killed "demonstrators" because they were demonstrating.

Spin spin spin!

That's the only tactic left for the anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war crowd, ignore the facts and twist the truth. Very amusing though....

So true AliStar, Flavio if you don't like the states. Move, it really is that simple.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I think his point was the initial US denial. If the govt. can think they can get away with something, they will deny it until there is too much proof to keep refuting it. It's a lot easier to insinuate that the Itaqi's shot each other than to admit it was the US, and they would do that if there was no evidence to the contrary.

The US has no problem admitting that civilians were killed, whether accidentally or not, as it did in over a dozen different incidents during the campaign in Afghanistan resulting from stray bombs, communications, or intelligence errors, but were not 'forced' to admit. But that is a neither here nor there...

Flavio's thread is materially misleading and deceptive.

US soldiers deny....and later admit to killing demonstrators

US soldiers never denied killing or shooting anyone in this incident. What they denied were charges they had shot or killed "demonstrators" because they were demonstrating.

Spin spin spin!

That's the only tactic left for the anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war crowd, ignore the facts and twist the truth. Very amusing though....

So true AliStar, Flavio if you don't like the states. Move, it really is that simple.

Or mayby he should use democracy? last time i looked the US was in fact a democracy, i know you want it to be your own personal dictatorship, but you are wrong... though luck little one...

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Sure, it's just denying that they were the ones that did the killing and shooting.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

If they are proven guilty in a court of law, they should hang for this...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

If they are proven guilty in a court of law, they should hang for this...

They should be hung for returning fire after being fired upon?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

If they are proven guilty in a court of law, they should hang for this...

They should be hung for returning fire after being fired upon?

Myself, I don't believe it. War or self-defense, whatever you want to call it...I just don't see our boys opening up into a crowd unless threatened. If, however, they are tried and found guilty in a court of law, you wouldn't agree with the court?

Edit: Gotta learn how to quote.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

If they are proven guilty in a court of law, they should hang for this...

Myself, I don't believe it. War or self-defense, whatever you want to call it...I just don't see our boys opening up into a crowd unless threatened. If, however, they are tried and found guilty in a court of law, you wouldn't agree with the court?


They should be hung for returning fire after being fired upon?

If they were found guilty by a US Military court, I would accept the verdict. The ICC seems all to eager to go after the US.

 

[tcsenter]

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

Obviously? Where is this irrefutable evidence of criminal wrong-doing by US soldiers?

Eagerly awaiting your evidence which would necessitate a conclusion of "obvious" criminal wrong-doing.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers

An assertion for which neither evidence nor argument has been given.

are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

Hanging them based on a newspaper article versus doing nothing. Logical fallacy: False dilemma

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: SnapIT
but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers

An assertion for which neither evidence nor argument has been given.

are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

Hanging them based on a newspaper article versus doing nothing. Logical fallacy: False dilemma

He didn't say they should be hung over a newspaper article. On the site you linked what is the term for arguing a point that wasn't even made?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Nevermind. I have found this alleged "denial of killing demonstrators" (emphasis mine):

At least 10 killed in Mosul shooting, US denies accusations it is to blame

Tue Apr 15,11:12 AM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

MOSUL, Iraq (AFP) - At least 10 people were shot dead and scores wounded in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul, a hospital doctor said, with witnesses claiming US troops had opened fire on a crowd after it turned against an American-installed local governor.

Those charges were denied by a US military spokesman here, who said troops had come under fire from at least two gunmen and fired back, without aiming at the crowd.

------ end excerpt -------

As I stated, this is materially different from the claim within the thread title that US soldiers "deny...killing demonstrators". Flavio is becoming so predictable I no longer have to even read his threads to know there's a lot of spin and deception going on by him.

Also See:
U.S. Says Shot Seven Iraqis in Mosul Protests

Search for new Iraqi leadership begins, 12 killed in Mosul firefight

U.S.: At Least 7 Iraqis Killed in Mosul Protest

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: flavio
The article clearly says....

US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings on Tuesday.

Denying "responsibility" is not the same as "denying" anyone was killed or shot.

And further, where is the support for the contention Americans denied anything? That article just throws the claim out there, it doesn't cite any particular statement or article.

Even in a war, there are rules to be followed, i'm sure you know this, but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers, are you saying that they should not be responsible for their wrongdoings?

If they are proven guilty in a court of law, they should hang for this...

They should be hung for returning fire after being fired upon?

Can you say, with absolute certainty, what actully happend? No?

Neither can i, that is why i said "if they are proven guilty in a court of law"...

You like to diregard of 90% of my posts, picking your favorite parts out... it only makes you look foolish, just so you know...

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: tcsenter


As I stated, this is materially different from the claim within the thread title that US soldiers "deny...killing demonstrators". Flavio is becoming so predictable I no longer have to even read his threads to know there's a lot of spin and deception going on by him.

How are you going to accuse me of spin and deception when I simply pulled info directly from a BBC article? I'm not sure if you realize this, but I didn't write the article.

From the bit of article you pulled it looks like some descrepancy between claims that they didn't "aim at the crowd" and the opposite.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: flavio
He didn't say they should be hung over a newspaper article.

"Originally posted by: SnapIT
but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers"

The only "evidence" presented has been an article saying our soldiers killed demostrators. Did you have anything else to add?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Can you say, with absolute certainty, what actully happend? No?
Neither can i, that is why i said "if they are proven guilty in a court of law"...

You also said "but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers." Maybe you should decide what your position is before posting.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: flavio
He didn't say they should be hung over a newspaper article.

"Originally posted by: SnapIT
but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers"

The only "evidence" presented has been an article saying our soldiers killed demostrators. Did you have anything else to add?

Just that if you think that every each and one of the soldiers are innocent of any crimes you are stupid...

Does that help?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Can you say, with absolute certainty, what actully happend? No?
Neither can i, that is why i said "if they are proven guilty in a court of law"...

You also said "but obviously there have been crimes commited by soldiers." Maybe you should decide what your position is before posting.

Yes, it is pretty obvious that if you send about 100 000 soldiers some crimes are going to happen...

and you were saying?