Or, for that matter, the Ba’athists.
I am arguing that a person can be considered a combatant if he possesses dangerous or certain types of contraband. I am further arguing that the person’s immediate threat level is irrelevant, whether he just wants to sell it to someone else is irrelevant, whether he is poor and whether or not we made him that way are also irrelevant.
I agree that the whole baiting thing is kinda shady, but not because the guy was “just going to sell it” or “wasn’t dangerous right that second.” I don’t think those reasons are relevant.
American Forces? No. Could be he wants to get revenge on another tribe, hates sunnis or just wants to make a suicide vest and walk into the middle of downtown. All are good reasons to shoot him. I dont care if he wants to kill Americans. The fact is that he most likely wants to kill people. If I believe that, it’s reason enough.
Could he possibly be just getting it out of the street or gathering it up to turn it in? Well, that’s relevant, I believe. I’d have to be convinced that he wasn’t! It’s specifically that level of certainty that I discussed earlier in this thread.
I dont think I’m acting like that or that I’ve implied that anywhere. It’s not my logic that’s scary, it’s your reading comprehension. I never said anyone was forced to do anything.
As far as the Iraqi informants. I never said that there was no fear of reprisal. I said that Iraqis can and DO talk with coalition forces. You stated otherwise. Informants are not an uncommon occurrance, and they play a major role in operations there.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cache+iraqi+informant
Plus, I’ve never heard of a simple informant being relocated for his safety. The cash reward is usually enough compensation.
You don’t think there might be the SLIGHTEST difference in threat level (and thus appropriateness of immediate lethal response) between someone who’s carrying around weapons/explosives, and someone who is unarmed, sees weapons/explosives laying by the side of the street, and picks them up? Especially since said lethal response comes before the picker-upper has had a chance to DO anything threatening with these weapons/explosives (which, from the descriptions, aren’t the kind that can be fired at American troops immediately, but require some preparation or additional materials to be dangerous)?
“Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a *well-disciplined * VC.”
I see a huge difference. Which is why I agree with this line from the article:
“Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined “quite meticulously” because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items.
“In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back,” Fidell said.” I think it’s shady and definitely should be examined closely. But keep in mind, it’s not the bait and shoot part of the operation that caused the murder charges and legal issues in that article, it’s the “planting after the fact”, that caused the issues.
What I don’t see even the slightest difference in threat level between are the subjects (both the ones carrying around weapons/explosives and the ones who just pick some up) who intend to make a bomb themselves and those subjects (whether carrying around weapons/explosives or just picks some up) who are simply selling the items to make a buck. That to me is irrelevant.
Selling found weapons/explosives is as deserving of instant death as actually carrying around and/or using such weapons? Why?
More garbage. Killing innocent people for the aggrandisement of the powerful is wrong. The fact that it’s often legal because the powerful write the laws doesn’t make it right.
Some were punished, when the revelation of what they were doing became too embarassing. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t on orders, or that it’s not still happening. As for robbery, the entire war is a robbery.
Yes, utter garbage. We don’t restrain ourselves to “combatants”, we simply define anyone we feel like killing as a combatant. As you are.
And in a war of aggression like this, none of the killing by the aggressors is justified. Yes, even in self defense; an American soldier has no more moral right to shoot an “insurgent” coming for him than an armed robber has a right to shoot the shop owner when the owner pulls a gun.
As if you cared.
Of course not. You obviously aren’t looking for anything other than an excuse to have random people killed. And then beat your chest about how “necessary” it was.
By that “logic” a sniper should shoot you in the head, and then himself.
Because it’s aiding the enemy. Like a citizen who merely says “The Americans are behind that wall” or points out their movement or locations to the enemy. He’s hardly doing anything wrong, you might say. But he’s acting as a forward observer and can be considered a combatant.
A person who is designing, manufacturing, selling, trafficking, or possessing IEDs or IED components in a war zone is a valid military target.
In a larger scale, think about huge factories producing war fighting tanks or bombs. These factories may not be an immediate threat and the people working there may only be doing so for the money, and they probably consider themsevles civilians. But the plant is a valid military target.
I think a guy selling or making IEDs for others to use is pretty much the same concept, just on a micro scale. Sure, he’s not an immediate threat to anyone. But to be ‘deserving of instant death’, one only needs to be a valid military target, a combatant.
Deserving is a pretty strong word, though. And I only use it because you do. It’s different to say a person “deserves” death, than to say he was a lawful military target. I think there are thousands and thousands of soldiers throughout history, on all sides and from all countries who did not deserve to die. Most US Soldiers in Vietnam or even many Germans in WWII probably didn’t deserve to die, but they were valid targets for the enemy nonetheless.
That you would believe any soldier has been ordered to rape someone says much for your grip on reality.
Well I didn’t think we were arguing about what your morals say. I think we all know what they say and nobody’s going to argue with you about your own silly ideas.
Whenever you’d like to argue fact or law, let me know. First you’ll have to admit that a soldier in Iraq has a legal right to self defense. That’s just a fact. We all know you think otherwise and I think most people are sick of hearing it.
Actually what I was looking for in this thread is a sane, factual discussion about the bait and shoot operation (or at least what little of it we know).
Can you be a “valid military target” in a non-combat zone (and by that I mean an area where there is not currently a firefight going on, as these bait-and-ambush locations apparently were)? If you are a valid target outside of the heat of combat, where it’s better to shoot someone carrying a weapon just in case because bullets are flying and explosions are going off and the slightest hesitation can mean death, how far does that apply?
Does “valid military target” mean troops can shoot down someone at a street market based on a report, even a totally valid and truthful report, that said individual has picked up abandoned weapons and sold them to the insurgents?
Should the members of the Blackwater security company who are accused of selling weapons on the Iraqi black market (exactly the same as our hypothetical person above) be shot down as soon as they’re located, because they sold weapons to insurgents and thus are “valid military targets” and can and should be gunned down even if there’s not an active firefight happening?
Why ? Rape as a method of terrorizing people is an old, old practice. Recommended by the CIA in the infamous “School of the Americas”, as I recall. And it’s not like the evil of it would cause us to hesitate for an instant.
That doesn’t make it right to shoot him!
First of all, great questions.
What I mean by combat zone is “theatre of combat”, so yes.
It depends on the particular soldiers’ area of operation and the Rules of Engagement for that area. The ROE is different based on location and operation.
There’s no way to tell that the report was in fact totally valid and truthful. And in Iraq, it usually isn’t. So no, capturing or surveilling this guy is probably a better tactic.
It would be different if soldiers actually witnessed the action take place, called up to higer to recieve a go ahead, and then engaged the target.
That is assuming that the soldiers who witnessed the act were not on a specific mission to witness such acts. If that were the case, they would already have been briefed on when, what and whom to shoot and may not have to call higher for the go ahead at all.
I dont know the details about this incident. This is the first I’m hearing about it.
But if it were similar to the situation above, it would be handled the same as above. If they were being observed by soldiers selling munitions to the enemy, then it would be handled the same. I’m betting they wouldn’t get the go ahead on that one though. Not to say that they couldn’t legally, but I dont think it would happen for political reasons. Probably would just send a spot report and CID would take it from there.
If the guys were just accussed and there’s a pending investigation and all that, then the judicial system is gonna be the best way to handle it.
Morally? Beats me. We all know I have none.
Legally it’s justified, and tactically it’s the right thing to do. If I were in the middle of a firefight, and some fucker on a roof top kept reporting the locations and movements of my guys, he’d be the first one taken out.
These people are being shot while NOT in the middle of a firefight. That’s the point I’m making: shooting a guy carrying weapons or pointing out your fellow soldiers to the enemy while bullets are flying and grenades are going off is fine.
Shooting a guy who’s walking down a quiet (for Iraq anyway) road for picking up an abandoned weapon that you yourself planted, from silent ambush, on the other hand, is bad.
Been all over the news.
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6199994
Why shouldn’t they do that when planting weapons outside of an active-firefight zone, instead of shooting these people from ambush?
With a bit of discretion, and a strong confidence that the guy in question walking off with the bomb you planted is an enemy combatant with a violent ambission, then it’s not that bad.
Gaining that level of confidence is the hard part, but it’s not impossible–especially with proper Civil Affairs and Psyop support informing the surrounding area about what not to do, and passing out pleanty of flyers and informant tipline cards and such. Some commander felt confident enough. I’m not going to argue with that, especially since we’re missing much of the details.
I’m only saying they don’t have to.
Don’t bother. Myself and any number of anti-imperialists on this board (Mr S was the best. You should look-up his incredibly detailed posts countering all the warmongers BS) have been producing fact after fact to the likes of xt, to absolutely no avail.
Just like the other Usual Suspects, anything and everything America does, he finds some sort of half-assed excuse for. Even if he does it grudgingly at times…as do the other Professional Apologists.
Rah rah, USA #1!
PS-Fully expect a totally irrelevant attack on 15/16th Century Spain if said individual deigns to reply to this post. It’d be certainly out of character if it didn’t come.
PS-Just to be clear, the poster I call “Mr. S” is formally known as Mr. Svinlesha.
I’d advice some of the newbies to read some of his earlier debates on the invasion. Guy – an American psychotherapist living in Sweden – sawed right through all the Bushies and the BS they presented as “evidence.”
His ability for research and bringing-up devastating facts into the arguments, is/was, IMO, nonpareil amongst all of us who opposed this announced carnage.
Here’s a great example of his abilities: The “Big Impact” Plan for Iraqi WMDs
I can only surmise due to the lack of responses to my prior two posts, that no true-blue warmonger wishes to tackle “Mr S.” in any way, shape or form.
Likely the first smart move I’ve seen coming from said deranged bunch.
OTOH, I can’t obviously speak for him or how much time he’s currently allowed to devote to this issue beyond his professional responsibilities. But I’d still love to see any warmonger at least, try, simply because I throughly enjoy his whip-ass hidings. Call it the sadist in me if you will.
Stone?
Scylla?
Shodan?
'Balls of steel" magellan00?
Anyone else?
I mean, besides your integrity, forthrightness and honesty, what else have you got to lose?
Fully expect for this post to go unanswered as well.
Chicken-hawks/Bushbots are really just undesserving desserts for Mr S.
Cheerio.
>>>>>>12 Hours Later A Mighty Blank For My Challenge<<<<<<
Can’t say that I am surprised. Mess withe best die like the rest.
But not a single warmonger wiling to tangle withe The Mighty Mr S.
just comes to show how secure in facts the opposing the idealogical bunkers are.
Actually quite easy winning by default. The Mighty 107st keyboard brigade, acknowledges ir has no choice but put down their mighty Bushit-bytes and/or get annihilated in the process.
Quite a turnround for all of us “anti-Americans” – regardless of nationality nor political affiliation – and our take on REALITY.
Enjoy.
Gracias.
Hey, wouldn’t the insurgents, you know, realize its a set up and not touch the stuff? Or worse, sucker some poor idiot into doing it?