I don't give legal advice, I just state the facts.
No you don't, you lie.
You said:
The guardian specifically has misrepresented many of the actual source documents. The incident where US helicopters supposedly shot people who surrendered was not explained in full.
So, what the the Guardian hide? You say:
The people who "surrendered" had mortared US troops, fled, "surrendered" and while waiting on ground troops, fled again
The detailed account of events on that February morning begins with a common occurrence: insurgents near the huge Taji airbase start lobbing rockets and mortar shells, in the hope of killing Americans. US troops return the shelling, and Crazyhorse 18 is dispatched on a mission to see whether the retaliation has had any effect. At 11.34am, three minutes after takeoff, the crew spot the insurgents fleeing their launch site with a mortar and tripod on the back of a Bongo – a light truck manufactured by Kia.
The crew confirm a "positive identification" of the enemy. But it is 13 minutes before the pilots are officially "cleared to engage" with automatic cannonfire by their headquarters.
The Apache opens fire, and two Iraqis fling themselves out of the Bongo as the heavy shells blast the truck and cause its stock of mortar ammunition to "cook off".
The enemy gunners try to make their escape in a dumper truck, driving northwards. At 12.33pm, the Apache reports that it has fired on the truck, "and then they came out wanting to surrender".
Two minutes later, "Crazyhorse 18 reports they got back into truck and are heading north". Four minutes after that: "Crazyhorse 18 cleared to engage dumptruck. 1/227 [1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment] lawyer states they cannot surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets."
The two Iraqis try to take refuge in a shack. After a 13-minute delay, another instruction appears to come from a remarkably high level: the office of the commander [IH6] of the Ironhorse brigade at Camp Taji.
The signal reads: "IH6 approves Crazyhorse 18 to engage shack."
After the killing, the helicopter pilots summarise what for them and their superiors has apparently been a successful chase: "Ix engagement with 30mm. 2x AIF killed in action. 1x mortar system destroyed. 1x Bongo truck destroyed with many secondary explosions. 1x dumptruck destroyed. 1x shack destroyed."
At 1.25pm, their gunship heads home to Taji to refuel and reload with ammunition.
We are not simply fighting terrorism. To call it that is pure political correctness bullshit. We are fighting an ideology where by the members are praised for doing Gods work in his name. Focus on the root cause, not the periphery.
Actually we're not doing either. We've already won the war against the loony islamists, that's why they've resorted to terrorism. They first tried to gain power by popular revolution, that failed, then by coups d'etat, that failed, then as they resorted to terrorism.
Their only chance of victory is if we hand it to them by destroying everything about us they hate, and yes, to use a cliche, that does include our freedom.
so you see current world situation as consisting of a fight to the death between Qatar and the USA?
Strange.
All countries and organisations obviously have their point of view, but how could they all be "opposite" to that of the USA?
(Some hints - Qatar is one of your allies, Al Jazeerah is strongly pro liberty, democracy and free speach - it was largeley formed by the team the BBC formed for its failed attempt to set up an Arabic TV station. Sir David Frost works for Al Jazeera fo fucks sake).
but the news sites that have had access to the database for much longer are not alleging that US troops tortured anyone.
In Samarra US troops interrogating captives threatened to turn them over to the Iraqi "Wolf Brigade" (Iraqi Interior ministry commandos) knowing they would be tortured. Maybe you think their hands are clean.
In Samarra, the series of log entries in 2004 and 2005 describe repeated raids by US infantry, who then handed their captives over to the Wolf Brigade for "further questioning". Typical entries read: "All 5 detainees were turned over to Ministry of Interior for further questioning" (from 29 November 2004) and "The detainee was then turned over to the 2nd Ministry of Interior Commando Battalion for further questioning" (30 November 2004).
"On 14 December 2005, a raid was conducted whereby five individuals were detained for suspicion of emplacement of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] as a result of a pid [positive identification]. "During the interrogation process the RO [ranking officer] threatened the subject detainee that he would never see his family again and would be sent to the 'Wolf Battalion' where he would be subject to all the pain and agony that the 'Wolf Battalion' is known to exact upon its detainees."
Can something the UN had a pile of resolutions in support of, with a dozen countries participating in the invasion and occupation, really be considered 'in direct violation of international law'?
Yes.
The UN is not a global government, it has no authority to order an attack on a country.
The only valid reason under international law for going to war is self defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)
Duh, it's a satellite phone.
Some people are so dumb.
No you don't, you lie.
You said:
So, what the the Guardian hide? You say:
The Guardian said:
So, what exactly did the Guardian hide?
Oh, we have lots of balls.
And we dress up in pretty dresses to go to them.
Takes one to know one, dearie.
The US can't be Canada's balls.
Everyone knows Canada has no balls.
Actually we're not doing either. We've already won the war against the loony islamists, that's why they've resorted to terrorism. They first tried to gain power by popular revolution, that failed, then by coups d'etat, that failed, then as they resorted to terrorism.
Their only chance of victory is if we hand it to them by destroying everything about us they hate, and yes, to use a cliche, that does include our freedom.
What, Japanese people? Or pregnant Irishwomen?
The Israelis are not stupid enough to think that the threat comes from a "very specific group of people".
Ah, a simple ad-hom attack on the Guardian.
About what I'd expect from a lawyer.
so you see current world situation as consisting of a fight to the death between Qatar and the USA?
Strange.
All countries and organisations obviously have their point of view, but how could they all be "opposite" to that of the USA?
(Some hints - Qatar is one of your allies, Al Jazeerah is strongly pro liberty, democracy and free speach - it was largeley formed by the team the BBC formed for its failed attempt to set up an Arabic TV station. Sir David Frost works for Al Jazeera fo fucks sake).
And this replies to my comment how?
Maybe the Pentagon have an app you can use?
Isn't stuff written by the government supposed to be public domain?
ITYM 65536 (16bit) limit.
(It may be "32 bit software" (whatever the fuck that means) but limiting things to 64K is the sign of a 16 bit limit somewhere.
Fuckload of AC's coming out with this crap. Wonder who they're working for.
Newsflash - there is no war in the Sudan at the moment.
Probably starting up again real soon, but nothing much going on now.
I don't know. Putting all this shit in a place where one low ranking soldier can leak it all strikes me as pretty fucking incompetent.
So what were the orders before 2009?
This stuff covers 2003-2009 you know.
Frago 242 was dated June 2004.
Nope, not an AC, it's poor old bradass87.
Remind me which country bombed a civilian television station?
Remind me which countries president had to be persuaded that bombing another civilian television station in an allied country would be a bad idea?
That's a (Milton, or possibly Thomas) Friedman slip, not a Freudian one.
What, you mean you missed WikiLeaks to release secret Russia, China logs.
Also http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it
In Samarra US troops interrogating captives threatened to turn them over to the Iraqi "Wolf Brigade" (Iraqi Interior ministry commandos) knowing they would be tortured. Maybe you think their hands are clean.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-us-iraqi-torture
Actually Saddam's replacement seems to have been forced to go to Tehran to get the Iranian OK.
And Karzai seems to have his office expenses paid by Iran.
So who is appointing these replacements again?
(Cheney is the Iranian candidate, It's the only explanation that makes sense).
Why on earth do you say this? Have you ever watched Al Jazeera? I could imagine why you might think they'd be pro-Qatari, but why anti-American?
And these citizens, stateside, were menaced by Saddam Hossein how exactly?
Yes.
The UN is not a global government, it has no authority to order an attack on a country.
The only valid reason under international law for going to war is self defense.