War crimes by US troops

[Who is like God arbour]

To be honest, I haven't understood all what was said, but somehow that reminds me of some documentations of American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

They behave like a bull in a china shop and are astonished that they are hated by the natives.

Is my impression absurd?

[Cpl Kendall]

Well in the first case they used excessive force and in the second case Beru blew herself up. But it's a comedy so I think your missing something.

But your right, American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan generally don't act with much cultural sensitivity and end up pissing off the locals and sabotaging their own mission. This doesn't appear to be the case in this video though.

[Who is like God arbour]

Well, as I have said, I haven't understood all what was said. It was only my impression that that was an analogy to the american troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But I don't think that the fact that it is a comedy changes my impression.

A comedy, a cabaret or a parodie can still deal with actual problems.

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

These soldiers should be prosecuted.

[TheRedFear]

Yes. Big wicked evil Americans. Always picking on other people's cultures and beleifs. Rat bastards that they are. Who cares if they rid the world of a mass murdering sunuvabitch(Who's ability to aquire, and willingness to use WMDs can not be questioned. It's already a matter of historical record that the monster in question has unleashed biological WMDs on his own citizens. If, by some miracle, he just happened to get caught at a time when he didn't have any immediately on hand, that doesn't change the fact he's already demonstrated he can get them and is willing to use them when he does).

It doesn't matter that the Number One reason the people can't take advantage of their newfound independance is not the fault of america, but the fault of foreign terrorist powers deliberately inciting inter-faction violence(which frankly, doesn't need a whole lot of outside help anyway).

No, it's all the fault of wicked evil, and above all, insensitive American brutes.

Sorry folks, but the Stormtrooper/American Soldier comaprison just really does not hold up well. Especially measured against current real world issues.

[Cpl Kendall]

If you noticed I did say they used excessive force.

[Who is like God arbour]

If you noticed I did say they used excessive force.

Yes, I have noticed it. It was there clearly and precisely:

Well in the first case they used excessive force and in the second case ...

Why do you think that I may have not noticed it?

[sonofccn]

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

I do hope your not implying US soldiers go around shooting unarmed civilians as a matter of standard are you? I mean that's beyond the pale if you think US troops are no better then Imperial storm troopers.

[Who is like God arbour]

Yes. Big wicked evil Americans. Always picking on other people's cultures and beleifs. Rat bastards that they are. Who cares if they rid the world of a mass murdering sunuvabitch(Who's ability to aquire, and willingness to use WMDs can not be questioned. It's already a matter of historical record that the monster in question has unleashed biological WMDs on his own citizens. If, by some miracle, he just happened to get caught at a time when he didn't have any immediately on hand, that doesn't change the fact he's already demonstrated he can get them and is willing to use them when he does).

It doesn't matter that the Number One reason the people can't take advantage of their newfound independance is not the fault of america, but the fault of foreign terrorist powers deliberately inciting inter-faction violence(which frankly, doesn't need a whole lot of outside help anyway).

No, it's all the fault of wicked evil, and above all, insensitive American brutes.

Sorry folks, but the Stormtrooper/American Soldier comaprison just really does not hold up well. Especially measured against current real world issues.

I don't intend to excuse Saddam Hussein or derogate his crimes.

But what it true has to stay true (I hope that makes sense in English).

What he has done - or what they accuse him that he has done, has he done while he was allied with the U.S.

Rumsfeld has said that he may be a swine but he is their swine (that was the German translation of what he has said - translated back to English from me. Original he may have used other words.).

It is really hypocritically to accuse Hussein whith something that was approved as he was still a "friend" of the U.S.

And there are even American reports they affirm that the used gas against the Kurds was not Iraqi gas but Irani gas.

Please read the following sides:

• • Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
    
    Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?
    
    Iraq: Why the Rush to Execute Saddam Hussein?
    
    and most important
    
    Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq

As I have said already: that doesn't excuse all the other crimes he has done. But please, which chief of state, the President of the U.S. including, hasn't done any crimes if they send their state in a war which kills thousands. To be honest, I think that Bush is worse than Hussein. But he is the Chief ot the mightiest state of Earth and nobody could prosecute him for the crimes U.S. troops do in his name.

[Who is like God arbour]

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

I do hope your not implying US soldiers go around shooting unarmed civilians as a matter of standard are you? I mean that's beyond the pale if you think US troops are no better then Imperial storm troopers.

No, that is hopefully not standard.

But I have seen a reportage with the records of an Apache attack helicopter, who has watched unarmed civilians through their night vision device.

They have got the order to shoot at these civilians.

They have asked back to verify their order and to clarify that these are unarmed civilians.

But the order was confirmed. They have killed these unarmed civilians.

Then the reporter have shown the records (inclusive radio) an retired U.S. general. He has confirmed (as if I - as an expert on international law - wouldn't know that) that this was a war crime.

I don't say that this is standard and I hope that the responsible persons are prosecuted.

But such events are not suited to boost confidence in U.S. troops.

[sonofccn]

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

I do hope your not implying US soldiers go around shooting unarmed civilians as a matter of standard are you? I mean that's beyond the pale if you think US troops are no better then Imperial storm troopers.

No, that is hopefully not standard.

But I have seen a reportage with the records of an Apache attack helicopter, who has watched unarmed civilians through their night vision device.

They have got the order to shoot at these civilians.

They have asked back to verify their order and to clarify that these are unarmed civilians.

But the order was confirmed. They have killed these unarmed civilians.

Then the reporter have shown the records (inclusive radio) an retired U.S. general. He has confirmed (as if I - as an expert on international law - wouldn't know that) that this was a war crime.

I don't say that this is standard and I hope that the responsible persons are prosecuted.

But such events are not suited to boost confidence in U.S. troops.

That doesn't even make sense. If these were true civvies why the order to kill them? Bored commander? The need to test the combat effectiveness against a pickup truck? I mean in the current war thier are plenty of viable targets that look like civilians and some grainy nightvision footage is a thin rope to hange a warcrime on. Inshort far to few details to make a judgment call.

Second US soldiers seem to be regularly charged with warcrimes at the drop of a hat. I may be mistaken( I avoid current issues like the pluage in general) but didn't a group of marines get charged based upon testimony and footage from the very terriost slaggers they were fighting as if you can trust the enemy to be fair.

As I have said already: that doesn't excuse all the other crimes he has done. But please, which chief of state, the President of the U.S. including, hasn't done any crimes if they send their state in a war which kills thousands. To be honest, I think that Bush is worse than Hussein. But he is the Chief ot the mightiest state of Earth and nobody could prosecute him for the crimes U.S. troops do in his name.

uh going to war is not a crime. Bush declaring war on Iraq is not a crime. Brutally murdering your own people and dumping them in mass graves is a crime. Operating a real life torture chamber is a crime. When Bush has done those things then yes he will have commited a crime. To even compare Bush to Hussein is low. You can disagree with his polices all you want but compareingg him to a brutal mass mudering dictator is just wrong.

[Who is like God arbour]

That doesn't even make sense. If these were true civvies why the order to kill them? Bored commander? The need to test the combat effectiveness against a pickup truck? I mean in the current war thier are plenty of viable targets that look like civilians and some grainy nightvision footage is a thin rope to hange a warcrime on. Inshort far to few details to make a judgment call.

Second US soldiers seem to be regularly charged with warcrimes at the drop of a hat. I may be mistaken( I avoid current issues like the pluage in general) but didn't a group of marines get charged based upon testimony and footage from the very terriost slaggers they were fighting as if you can trust the enemy to be fair.

It has happened. That is a fact. Have you watched the video? They have shot at wounded and unarmed civilians. That's a war crime.

Uh going to war is not a crime. Bush declaring war on Iraq is not a crime. Brutally murdering your own people and dumping them in mass graves is a crime. Operating a real life torture chamber is a crime. When Bush has done those things then yes he will have commited a crime. To even compare Bush to Hussein is low. You can disagree with his polices all you want but compareingg him to a brutal mass mudering dictator is just wrong.

Maybe not in the U.S.
But it it prohibited by International Law (Art. 2, 4 and Art. 51 UN Charta) and it is a crime in my state to lead Germany in a war of aggression (§ 80 / 80a StGB). With that is meant every war in violation of the law of nations.

You can see it as you want, but the time in which "War is merely a continuation of politics" are over since the Nuremberg Trials, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in which wars of aggression and other crimes against peace were prosecuted. It's irrelevant what national laws are saying. One can be prosecuted nevertheless. And Bush has started wars of aggression and has done other crimes against peace. In my opinion, he is a criminal who should be prosecuted.

But because he is the chief of state of the U.S., the mightiest state on Earth, that will never happen. But that doesn't changes the facts. The wars he has started were illegal and have killed thousands. He is a mass murderer. The fact that he has used soldiers doesn't limited his responsibility just as little as the fact that Hussein has never killed one personally (as far as I know).

[sonofccn]

JMS can we split this to another thread please.

t has happened. That is a fact. Have you watched the video? They have shot at wounded and unarmed civilians. That's a war crime.

Well it didn't work the first time, I think the computer I was using was blocking it, so sorry in advance, but now having watched in on my home computer all I see are some whiteish grey human shaped guys being shot. I didn't hear anyone say they were civilians, the audio for me was garbled and choatic so if I missed it please tell me where to listen. You want me to believe US forces murdered in cold blood three or four defenless civilians. I say you need more then that footage espcially since the enemy looks "exactly" like civilians and would be undistingable from a simple camgrab like this.

Maybe not in the U.S.
But it it prohibited by International Law (Art. 2, 4 and Art. 51 UN Charta) and it is a crime in my state to lead Germany in a war of aggression (§ 80 / 80a StGB). With that is meant every war in violation of the law of nations.

Then answer me this. How do you handle a mordern day Hitler? Are you going to sanction him to death? At the end of the day War has to be your last, but viable, option.

And Bush has started wars of aggression and has done other crimes against peace. In my opinion, he is a criminal who should be prosecuted.

He merely responded in kind after we were attacked, and as to Iraq sadam broke like nineteen cease fire articals, including firing on our planes patroling the no fly zone IIRC, any one of which if broken gave us the right to renew hostilities. Hardly wars of aggression. You are of course welcome to your opinion, just as i have my opinion that he is far and away not a criminal.

But because he is the chief of state of the U.S., the mightiest state on Earth, that will never happen. But that doesn't changes the facts. The wars he has started were illegal and have killed thousands

Both were quite legal and we didn't do all the killing. It was those other guys, you know the guys who really comite war crimes and obey no rules of war unlike say I don't know the American Armed forces. Seriously you want barbaric take a look at the slaggers those US troops have to fight. Or to put it another way when was the last time you saw a bunch of US soldiers cut the head of someone while screaming praise God?

[mojo]

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

I do hope your not implying US soldiers go around shooting unarmed civilians as a matter of standard are you? I mean that's beyond the pale if you think US troops are no better then Imperial storm troopers.

I know for a fact that no American soldier has ever shot at unarmed Jawas.

[Who is like God arbour]

JMS can we split this to another thread please.

I support that plea.

Well it didn't work the first time, I think the computer I was using was blocking it, so sorry in advance, but now having watched in on my home computer all I see are some whiteish grey human shaped guys being shot. I didn't hear anyone say they were civilians, the audio for me was garbled and choatic so if I missed it please tell me where to listen. You want me to believe US forces murdered in cold blood three or four defenless civilians. I say you need more then that footage espcially since the enemy looks "exactly" like civilians and would be undistingable from a simple camgrab like this.

I know that they don't show such things in the U.S. That's the problem with self-censorship and maybe why I couldn't find an English reportage of that incident. You can see the reportage here. But it is in German. You have to trust me that they say what I say that thay say it - or you have to find someone you trust to translate it for you.
Even general Robert Gard (retired) says that especially the last fusillade was a war crime. The pilot has seen that the person was wounded. He asked if he should kill the wounded. The answer via radio: Kill him. He has done it: He has killed a wounded person, who was not fit for action. According to the Geneva Convention that's murder - even if it wouldn't have been a civilian.

If you want to know more, I recommend the following sides:

• amnesty international: Iraq Civilians under fire
  
  Wailing Children, The Wounded The Dead: Victims Of The Day Cluster Bombs Rained On Babylon
  
  Civilian death toll rises in Iraq

I know that sometimes in a war also civilians are killed. But - as Bush has said - the war in Iraq is over. And not every time civilians were killed it could have been avoided. But often enough the American forces show that they don't care if they kill civilians and there are many incidents in which they kill civilians without any need.

Then answer me this. How do you handle a mordern day Hitler? Are you going to sanction him to death? At the end of the day War has to be your last, but viable, option.

Don't compare Hussein with Hitler. That's inappropriate. And I have no problem with political and diplomatical sanctions. And if it is really necessary - and the U.N. decides so - a war is still a possibility.
But it was neither necessary nor has the U.N. permited that war.

And one has to be honest: That war wasn't done because Hussein has killed his own people. And the war wasn't done because the American government was concerned that he could get weapons of mass destruction - the official reason they have given for the "pre-emptive" attack although they have known that that is rubbish - and not allowed according to international law

And one shouldn't be hypocritical. It isn't right to demonize one person for things he has done when he was still a friend and the things he has done were approved then.

And it isn't right to demonize one person for things he has done when at the same time one is a friend of other persons who do the same.

He merely responded in kind after we were attacked, and as to Iraq sadam broke like nineteen cease fire articals, including firing on our planes patroling the no fly zone IIRC, any one of which if broken gave us the right to renew hostilities. Hardly wars of aggression. You are of course welcome to your opinion, just as i have my opinion that he is far and away not a criminal.

Not the Iraq has attacked the U.S. nor has it supported terrorism.
If one attacks you, you have the right to defend you. But your defending measures have to be directed only at the attacker and not at others you don't like.

And your right for self-defence is over when the attack is over. Self-defence is only to ward off an attack. It's not a justification to do what you have wanted to do a long time ago if it goes farther than it is necessary to ward off an attack.

Both were quite legal and we didn't do all the killing. It was those other guys, you know the guys who really comite war crimes and obey no rules of war unlike say I don't know the American Armed forces. Seriously you want barbaric take a look at the slaggers those US troops have to fight. Or to put it another way when was the last time you saw a bunch of US soldiers cut the head of someone while screaming praise God?

That's irrelevant for the question if the wars Bush has started were legal. Fact is that they were illegal and that he has known it. 9/11 can not justify the wars of aggression in Afghanistan or Iraq. These wars have violated the law of nations. That's a fact - and not merely an opinion.

Please read the following side:

• British Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War
  
  Iraq war illegal, says Annan
  
  International Law - War in Iraq - United Nations - Iraq

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, as I have said, I haven't understood all what was said. It was only my impression that that was an analogy to the american troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But I don't think that the fact that it is a comedy changes my impression.

A comedy, a cabaret or a parodie can still deal with actual problems.

They have shoot at two unarmed Jawas. That's unforgivable and out of proportionality - and exactly what American soldiers were shown to have done.

These soldiers should be prosecuted.

For the record, the Troops film largely predates the intervention in Irak.
I think it was a very cynical take on the activities of certain forces in our world.