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

[etech]

Originally posted by: 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?

You are right. I saw one of the embedded reporters saying that some US troops had lifted some ashtrays from one of Saddam's palaces.

Next.

 

[NightTrain]

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

Well that should certainly be good enough for anyone. Off with their heads.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Just that if you think that every each and one of the soldiers are innocent of any crimes you are stupid...

This is like talking to a bot.

 

[LunarRay]

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.

Don't you need malice to bring an issue to court (mal res)? Crimes can be committed beyond the "light of day" but I'd not allege a crime with out considering the doubt consistant with the notion of "heat of battle". These are young men, our young men with their butts on the line charged with the responsibility to protect their mates butts too. Nah.. Stuff happens!

Who's law would you use anyhow...other than the UCMJ if a crime was committed in Iraq? Surely not Islamic law...

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Who's law would you use anyhow...other than the UCMJ if a crime was committed in Iraq? Surely not Islamic law...

We have several hundred thousand soldiers on the ground so obviously crimes are being committed. Where is there a need for any court or laws?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: HJD1
Who's law would you use anyhow...other than the UCMJ if a crime was committed in Iraq? Surely not Islamic law...

We have several hundred thousand soldiers on the ground so obviously crimes are being committed. Where is there a need for any court or laws?

According to statistical evidence... there are four thefts of ash trays, three camel jackings, six civil slander occurances, two hundred failure to stop at an intersection (usually by tanks), lots of destruction of personal property, and a whole slew of unlawful use of fire works.
Probably more that fall more than two standard deviations from the norm.

 

[Danatodd99]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I agree it was completely wrong of the troops to fire on cilivians in that matter, and us to deny it.

What I think is wrong is bringing a gun to a protest and then firing it off when the crowd gets out of hand.
Kind of like screaming fire in a crowded building.

What do you think would happen if you were at an anti-war rally in the U.S. and fired a gun off when the crowd was out of hand.
You'd be shot dead by about 50 police officers.
I am sure that the soldiers didn't fire at the crowd first, they were firing in self defense.
Innocent bystanders will get hurt., it is tragic, but it will happen.

 

[Danatodd99]

[sarcasm] I can see the troops in Mosul getting bored, and they conspire to have some fun. Several Marines decide to open fire on a peaceful picnicing group[/sarcasm]
COME ON ... these guys are thousands of miles from home and they are being shot at. I would have done the same thing they did.
So sue me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Danatodd99

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
I agree it was completely wrong of the troops to fire on cilivians in that matter, and us to deny it.

What I think is wrong is bringing a gun to a protest and then firing it off when the crowd gets out of hand.
Kind of like screaming fire in a crowded building.

What do you think would happen if you were at an anti-war rally in the U.S. and fired a gun off when the crowd was out of hand.
You'd be shot dead by about 50 police officers.
I am sure that the soldiers didn't fire at the crowd first, they were firing in self defense.
Innocent bystanders will get hurt., it is tragic, but it will happen.

Kent State comes to mind... and a few other places but we don't shoot protestors just people who fail to disperse here in the US of A.
Now what Archie Bunker would say... is "Them commie arabs think they're Americans and they didn't vote for Bush either... Edith stiffle."

 

[tcsenter]

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.

The article states the US denied 'responsibility' over the incident, when taken with other statements released on Tuesday and Wednesday, I interpreted that to mean the US was denying charges it shot indiscriminantly into a crowd of protestors without cause; i.e. it was denying 'fault' because the protest turned violent and shots were fired at soldiers first where upon they returned fire.

I suppose it can also be read to mean they were denying that any soldiers were involved in any kind of incident resulting in the deaths of Mosul protestors. I don't think that is what they were denying, but it appears the article could be read to support that interpretation.

I apologize for accusing you of being deliberately deceptive...for now.

 

[TheNinja]

The subject line itself is in accurate and is intended to either bash the US & our troops or start a flame war (not surprising considering the original topic creator). He did post the quote "US forces had earlier denied responsibility for the killings" but I don't think people actually understood or read that part. Allow me to clarify, the US never denied that they killed some people who were protesting, they denied that it was their fault (There is a big difference), and I highly doubt that they later admitted to it being their fault. That being sad, if Flavio wants to keep the subject line accurate it should read, "US soldiers deny responsibility.....and later admit to killing demonstrators"....which of course makes no logical sense if you think about it as one has nothing to do with the other.