U.S POW's executed

[Animal]

Evil?
War is inherently and universally evil.

Stop trying to moralise acts of war.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Animal
Evil?
War is inherently and universally evil.

Stop trying to moralise acts of war.

This is really ****ty bait Animal... got to do better.

[Cabby44]

Yeah,  those nasty American GI's  and those "civilized, sensitive, and caring" Iraqi death squads.  They're just the same:
 



US Marine carries a wounded Iraqi soldier to an Aid Station.

C.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
They all had powderburns to their foreheads and every one of the dead that I could see had a bullet in the forehead. Maybe you think the iraq troops are that good shots, but I dont. The bastards shot them in the forehead at close enough range to leave powderburns- in other words they were executed.

Take A Look For Yourself

Ugh...went to that site...watched the film...sigh.  

Prep the Daisy Cutters.

[medicboy]

Not only are we going to treat the iraqi pow's better than they are going to treat americans.  We are going to treat iraqi's better than the iraq military treated its own people.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
This is really ****ty bait Animal... got to do better.

Not a bait, it just seems like you did not understand my point.

When you send soldiers to war, you dont expect them to be treated fairly. You have to expect them to get killed.

This is sad, but not something to be amazed or outraged at.

You wanted war? here you have it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Oh I see the misunderstaning Animal.

I'm not shocked  that the Iraqis executed our POWs, I fully expected the bastards would do it given how brutal they often were in gulf war one.   That I expected and it was no suprise.

However what I didnt excpect, but should have of course, were  the ever so thoughful, comparative, and relativitic  posts about obvious executions as seen in this thread.

Hell I was even begging to think that US GIs in WW2 were not every bit as evil as the SS camp guards - imagine that - thanks for setting me straight!

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Animal
Not a bait, it just seems like you did not understand my point.

When you send soldiers to war, you dont expect them to be treated fairly. You have to expect them to get killed.

This is sad, but not something to be amazed or outraged at.

You wanted war? here you have it.

So when Iraqi's shoot American POW's its "war."

But if/when American's shoot Iraqi POW's... hmm... can you imagine the public outcry?  More protests, we're all babykillers, Bush is Hitler, Weazel for President, Hail Victory!, goosestepping morons, death to Ameerika, Islam is peace, praise Allah, long live Palestine, Impeialist bastard, Caesar Rumsfield, etc etc etc.

Why is there a double standard?  There are rules and regulations that civilized countries are supposed to follow regarding POW's.  Im pretty sure executing prisoners by shooting them in the head at close range is covered in those rules.

If nothing else, Saddam is proving to the rest of the world that Iraq is run more like a terrorist organization than a soveriegn nation.

[Animal]

So, you would like it so we also shot their soldiers?

We made the choice not to do that sort of thing. It was our civilized choice and you cant expect every country to follow the same standards, specially Iraq, you know how they treat their own civilians, why would you expect to treat enemy soldiers any better?

Everyone should have known these would be the consequences of fighting them. The leaders and strategos knew it and expected it. As you should have.

[Hangtime]

we will win.

we will find some of these turds. we will kill some of them for atrocities. after the requiste trial.

it will have to be enough.

till next time.

[lord dolf vader]

just a observaton

after a fight the first thing you do is make shure everybodys dead. to do this you can shoot them anywhere but head is most efficient.


if they are dead they dont bleed from the enterance wound if it is not a natural flowing position.

there was only one guy with a head wound i could see in the video of the dead soldiers. (the one that started with a 6 x 6 and tank trailer with two dead us combatants with full gear/helmets.)


first he had no blood flow from the wound and no powder burns near the wound so in my estimation the only one i could see was a finishing shot. the rest of the wounds were consistant with med  to long long range fire from pros probly a ambush. few hits mostly chest and groin i.e. quick kills from folks who have done this before. militia would have torn them up worse tend to shoot full auto ect. sadam probly had at least a few really good mercinarys how many bad bellybutton ex russian opps dudes are available for dirt to do ANYTHING.


its a war yes but war has rules  but how it happend made all the difference.

[Drunky]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
just a observaton

after a fight the first thing you do is make shure everybodys dead. to do this you can shoot them anywhere but head is most efficient.  

I was going to point this out also but ya beat me to it

Anyway...I think that Seal Team 6 uses this SOP also as insurance so they don't have any nasty surprises.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
They all had powderburns to their foreheads and every one of the dead that I could see had a bullet in the forehead. Maybe you think the iraq troops are that good shots, but I dont. The bastards shot them in the forehead at close enough range to leave powderburns- in other words they were executed.

Take A Look For Yourself

Sorry to disagree but remember our troops have been moving since 3-4 days straight with out the luxury of a shower or cleaning up. Not all had powder burns. Are you sure that all those are bullet wounds? One definitely is. The others probably. A couple might not be. Could any of those wounds have been caused by grenade, mortar fragments?
I'll ask this again, if the Iraqi troops/militia executed our troops, why didn't they execute the remaining 5? Are you implying they had a change of heart mid-execution to spare the lives of the remaining 5? Especially since they would be eyewitnesses to such atrocities?

[SaburoS]

Animal ~S~! Sir.
My thoughts exactly.

[batdog]

Originally posted by Animal
So, you would like it so we also shot their soldiers?

We made the choice not to do that sort of thing. It was our civilized choice and you cant expect every country to follow the same standards, specially Iraq, you know how they treat their own civilians, why would you expect to treat enemy soldiers any better?

Everyone should have known these would be the consequences of fighting them. The leaders and strategos knew it and expected it. As you should have.

Well... yes Animal... but that doesnt excuse it. Its simply a reflection of who and what we are fighting and who and what is in power.

Yes, the US HAS done this in the past... cant argue that. It was the exception rather than the rule though. This sort of thing has been the rule for the Iraqi government only towards thier own.

The sad thing is that we. the US and our allies are going to great lengths to avoid hurting the helpless.

The arguement that are fighting for thier country is no excuse... simply becuase these indiv's are fighting for self presavation..not country. They know that many/most in thier nation will wish to treat them as they have treated thier own...