 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
what a C gunship does to a bunch of gun toting insurgents 
to bad this isn't done more often less good soldiers would be killed
Discussion is locked
This is a good example of it. He's got the big smiley going and everything. I suppose some might argue that this is a statement of relief for the safety of our troops, but even a cursory reading indicates that is not the case.
Dan
One must assume that you're not a fan of the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" movies (grin).
But I would describe his attitude as grim acceptance, not glee.
Dan
.
and Dan when we use our weapons as they should I'm happy that means less dead on our side.
would you rather it the other way? is so then you are welcome to join them and be come holly
and as you cant possibly know my thoughts dont try as you assume to much and when you asume you know the saying.
and i never claimed to be a peacenick nor would i ever deny id rather we pulled out and use our B52s to end it
What I would rather is that there be as little killing as possible and that it be treated with the respect due to any soul's passing.
Join who? Did you mean 'holy'?
No one can know another's thoughts. We can only know you by how you present your ideas. Your statements about the deaths of these men conjured pictures of you grinning from ear to ear.
Do you want B52s to level the entire city? How many insurrectionists are there? The administration would have us believe it to be a very small number. You are eager to incur collateral damage thousands of times the target count. What level of glee would that bring you?
Dan
And who introduces the word glee? Interesting, first you say, "No one can know another's thoughts.", and then you say, " What level of glee would that bring you?".
It seems obvious to me that you are in "attack mode" with this member.
Hi, J.
I'm not sure who introduced it, but the context is that Blake, Charlie et al. have been accused of "gleefully" reporting American casualties.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
if that means 1 less american or its allies soldiers not being killed works for me and when those souls that hide in mosques, schools, hospitals die ill respect them all the way to hell.
takes a brave soul to hide in a mosque or behind a a child.
so ill leave the respecting of them to you and ill respect our troops, whom i served with back in nam
Ten of thousands of innocents, or hundreds of thousands of innocents killed as they hide in their homes as the B52s carpet bomb the city to oust a few hundred insurrectionists works for you?
Possibly the saddest thing I've heard in a long time.
Dan
well those people have choices dont they turn in the baddys or suffer along with them sorry to say that but if it means less allies dead it works for me
How is a mother and her children hiding in fear of their lives going to turn anyone in? They are the ones who will suffer from your plan of annihilation.
Dan
Hi, Mark.
What you propose (use of B-52's in an urban area) would be a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, especially when we're again preventing civilians from leaving Fallujah. As for "those people have choices dont they turn in the baddys or suffer," that's not much of a choice when the baddies have weapons and the innocents don't. Furthermore, don't forget that a lot more of the world is watching through the eyes of Al Jazeerah than those of our press briefings and semi-tame network correspondents.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Dave is the platform the problem? If not, is a cruise or "smart bomb" launched from another platform, say an F-16, also an automatic violation?
Hi, J.
No, I wouldn't consider a "smart bomb" or cruise missile to be a violation, because you're trying your best to minimize collateral damage. But Mark really seemed to be suggesting we could level the city and just say "tough luck" to the civilians killed -- probably many times the actual number of enemy combatants.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Once again you claim black is white -- indiscriminate bombing is clearly against the geneva Conventions, as shown in the following link;
search on "indiscriminate":
"indiscriminate attacks
Indiscriminate attacks are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)
This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)
This also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)
Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 4
If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)"
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Bombing an urban area is NOT "indiscriminate" as long as the area bombed houses military targets. Storage of arms, munitions, and other supplies of a military nature constitute a military target (a hospital being used in such a manner is a legitimate military target). Re-read Art. 51 section 4 AND 5 to learn what an "indiscriminate" target is (and do so within the context of section 7).
In order for Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4 to apply the civilians have to be the actual OBJECT of the attack but they haven't been nor would they be.
I have already explained the process for determination of acceptable collateral damage and that is what your second citation also states.
Again, I invite you to cite chapter and verse of the Conventions or Laws of Land Warfare as all you have done so far is verify the accuracy of what I have stated previously. You haven't READ them, you just grab a word here and there and misunderstand what is being said.
I provided additional clues that you are disregarding and that is where Terrorists fall in the Conventions and what protections they enjoy--none
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
Spies and terrorists are not protected by the laws of war; depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to torture captured terrorists.
Actually, Ed, you didn't need to read the link because the refutation to your absurd claim is right in my post in black and white, with the protocol number supplied:
>>Bombing an urban area is NOT "indiscriminate" as long as the area bombed houses military targets.<<
"indiscriminate attacks... also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)"
So your nonsense is refuted by the Conventions themselves.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
or failed to understand what you read. Try it again and read the ENTIRE Article (all sections).
You appear to be relying HEAVILY on the wording "indiscriminate attacks... also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. without understanding that if wiping out an entire town heavily infilrtated with enemy forces and weaponry/munitions is beneficial to the military effort through the reduction or elimination of massive/unacceptable friendly casualties it is fully compliant with the conventions.
Try reading it all rather than just bits and pieces of each article and you might garner a bit better understandig of the laughability of your present misunderstanding Dave.
Hi, Ed.
I certainly did, and your stretches are way off. Unless our leaders are to be disbelieved, the insurgents represent a tiny fraction of the population -- so by definition, destroying a town of 500,000 to remove a few insurgents is contrary to the particular covenant under discussion. Secondly, even if what you suggest were true, it would be a violation for us to prevent innocent civilians from leaving before the assault/bombing that would put them in harm's way. Yet that's what we were doing in Fallujah -- turning back civilians trying to flee the fighting. Yes, some insurgents would presumably abandon their weapons and join the exodus -- but sometimes humanitarian actions aren't the most militarily expedient ones. Too bad the interrogators in Abu Ghraib prison (and probably others) never learned that...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
of the conventions just as you have a flawed interpretation of the first and Second Ammendments.
Flawed support such as that offered by Iraq Platform members is not any better than the politics of the platform member.
Your words "as the B52s carpet bomb" is nonsense. That mental image was crafted by you because it suited your purposes in attacking that member. Where are B52s "carpet bombing" cities? O.K. when was the last time. BTW the term "carpet bombing" is a WWII term and refers to the tactic of the British. (night bombing raids)
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic