Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Chemical Ollie]

This happens every week in Iraq and Afhanistan. The most shocking thing is that people seem unaware of it.

[Ecofarm]

No checking IDs.

[Wernazuma III]

****!
What enrages me most is how deliberately they wish to get ANY straw to shoot them dead. Like when the wounded journalist crawls away and the soldier says"All you got to do is pick up a weapon." Or at 9:10-9:30, which is most sickening: The van comes up, they first said "picking up the bodies", then changing their opinion to "probably picking up bodies AND WEAPONS" without any reason.
This is a war crime, and I don't care that such war crimes probably happen frequently.

[Drake Tungsten]

1. It's not a war crime.

2. Soldiers aren't reluctant to kill. They wouldn't be very good at their job if they were.

3. You're a typical Eurotrash ***** who knows jack **** about war. You've probably said "war is hell" dozens of times without having the first ****ing clue what that actually means.

[Wernazuma III]

1. It's not a war crime.

2. Soldiers aren't reluctant to kill. They wouldn't be very good at their job if they were.

3. You're a typical Eurotrash ***** who knows jack **** about war. You've probably said "war is hell" dozens of times without having the first ****ing clue what that actually means.

1. Hindering humanitarian aid is already a war crime, and deliberately killing civilians is even more so. I would call any person without a uniform AND without a weapon a civilian.
The video shows clearly a deliberate misinformation about what was happening when the van came.

2. With the same dumb argument you could justify whatever any army did anywhere. We could judge how good soldiers are simply by the number of executed civilians, fine?

3. If war is about deliberately slaughtering civilians who pose no danger, I'm proud AND LUCKY to know jack **** about it.
You're pathetic at trying to defend something that can't be defended. Ameriklans

[Drake Tungsten]

Hindering humanitarian aid is already a war crime

A random van isn't "humanitarian aid". There's a reason soldiers are supposed to wear uniforms and medical assistance is supposed to be marked with a red cross/crescent. Clear marking of combatants help to reduce the fog of war and prevent incidents like this.

I would call any person without a uniform AND without a weapon a civilian.

That's a really intelligent ROE. All an insurgent has to do to escape from American forces is drop his weapon and walk away...

With the same dumb argument you could justify whatever any army did anywhere

My argument is that you're a sheltered, ignorant moron if you're shocked that professional soldiers aren't shy about killing. That's their ****ing job, and they've been trained for years in order to do it efficiently.

If war is about deliberately slaughtering civilians who pose no danger, I'm proud AND LUCKY to know jack **** about it.

Civilians get killed accidentally in wars all the time, and it's a particular problem in conflicts where the enemy doesn't follow the rules of war and eschews uniforms and other distinguishing characteristics in order to blend in with the civilian population. The fact that you don't know this just demonstrates how worthless your opinion on this subject is.

You're pathetic at trying to defend something that can't be defended.

It's pretty easy to defend, actually. An idiot like you certainly isn't going to make me have to expend much effort doing so.

[Wernazuma III]

Hindering humanitarian aid is already a war crime

A random van isn't "humanitarian aid". There's a reason soldiers are supposed to wear uniforms and medical assistance is supposed to be marked with a red cross/crescent. Clear marking of combatants help to reduce the fog of war and prevent incidents like this.

You clearly haven't watched the video or you're blind, or dumb. Guess which option I consider most likely.

My argument is that you're a sheltered, ignorant moron if you're shocked that professional soldiers aren't shy about killing. That's their ****ing job, and they've been trained for years in order to do it efficiently. [...] It's pretty easy to defend, actually. An idiot like you certainly isn't going to make me have to expend much effort doing so.

Just keep up calling me names, makes me more important.
This judges your poor character good enough. Your ways of drawing conclusions are so poor, no effort whatsoever could change that anyway. Point made. I good, you idiot; no need for further argument.

[Drake Tungsten]

You clearly haven't watched the video or you're blind, or dumb.

I clearly have watched the video, as I've already discussed portions of it with a more intelligent critic than yourself (Asher).

Just keep up calling me names, makes me more important.

Stop acting like an ignorant ****** and I'll stop referring to you as one.

[Wiglaf]

Hindering humanitarian aid is already a war crime

This is false. Didn't read the rest, going to go fill my car with GAS, but I wanted to let you know you are a douche bag.

[Wezil]

Just keep up calling me names, makes me more important.
This judges your poor character good enough. Your ways of drawing conclusions are so poor, no effort whatsoever could change that anyway. Point made. I good, you idiot; no need for further argument.

You noticed? He compensates for his weak arguments with name calling.

[Ecofarm]

I can't wait till all these terrorist-sympathizers start calling Obama a war criminal.

[Wiglaf]

Probably worth noting that two RPGs and several AK 47s were found after the Army searched the bodies. The reporters were embedded with insurgents.

[Patroklos]

1. Hindering humanitarian aid is already a war crime, and deliberately killing civilians is even more so. I would call any person without a uniform AND without a weapon a civilian.

The rules you seem to be refering to, and doing it very poorly, are the First Geneva Convention, chapters III-VII. What you will come away with is for anyone to recieve protected status on the basis of being medical personel they have to 1.) be part of a regularly constituted and organized medical service and 2.) be clearly marked in compliance this convention and with protocol III, which means a red cross/red cressant/red crystal (the diamond is new, from 2005).

Civilians are not supposed to run into firefights to take care of the wounded, because that further blurs the lines between combatant and civilian (as this video stands testiment to). The belligernets are expressly given responsibility for taking care of the wounded under their control because presumably they have regularly constituted medical services which display clear markings.

[Asher]

Civilians are not supposed to run into firefights to take care of the wounded

Dude, this isn't a formal battlefield. You're talking about people who were minding their own business in their own city when they come across a dying man slowly dragging himself along the ground. There wasn't even an active firefight going. As others have already said, the helicopter was kilometers away and the people likely had no idea it was there. This was not an active firefight, this was in the calm aftermath of one with no military in sight.

Many, many reasonable people would have an instinct to help a dying man trying to crawl away. Especially if you are clearly unarmed and have children with you in a ****ing minivan.

There's no defending this. Stop digging a hole.

[Wernazuma III]

The rules you seem to be refering to, and doing it very poorly, are the First Geneva Convention, chapters III-VII. What you will come away with is for anyone to recieve protected status on the basis of being medical personel they have to 1.) be part of a regularly constituted and organized medical service and 2.) be clearly marked in compliance this convention and with protocol III, which means a red cross/red cressant/red crystal (the diamond is new, from 2005).

Civilians are not supposed to run into firefights to take care of the wounded, because that further blurs the lines between combatant and civilian (as this video stands testiment to). The belligernets are expressly given responsibility for taking care of the wounded under their control because presumably they have regularly constituted medical services which display clear markings.

Except that the fire in this "battle" came exlusively from one side, there apparently were no belligerents, and there was no firefighting at all when the van came to the scene.