Friday, February 25, 2005


A US soldier filmed shooting an unarmed, wounded and helpless Iraqi will not be charged because there is "not enough evidence".

This is unbelievable. He shot the guy live on camera. How much more fucking evidence do they need?

I think this shows exactly how "serious" the US is about prosecuting its own soldiers for committing abuses, up to and including murder.


War=war idiot. When your fighting people who are willing to play dead until troops are close enough for them to kill, by blowing themselves up, ( which happened the day before) do you think you should give them that option? And would you, if you were in that soldiers position?

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 02:08:00 PM

Wasn't this exactly why the US didn't want to sign up to the International Criminal Court, lest its soldiers would be hauled before it on war crimes. They obviously don't have to face justice in the USA.

Posted by Hans Versluys : 2/25/2005 02:27:00 PM

'Free fire' zones don't legally exist, been in the wrong place at the wrong time does not remove ones right to exist. I wouldn't want to be that soldier ever because war = terrorism. His government has made him a state terrorist.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 02:34:00 PM

Remember the furore when Iraqi TV had the audacity to show captured US GI's faces on TV *gasp*?
Or the military response when the 4 civvy contractors were dismembered and hung from the bridge?
Would video footage have been enough to secure the conviction/ napalming of a village if an Iraqi had dared do the same thing? You bet it would.
Chomsky says it well - a US life is just valued sooo much higher than any lesser forms..

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 02:36:00 PM

I of course was not in the court judging the man so I dont know if he had a god defense or not but by your logic, Idiot savant, a person would be guilty of murder in any case of self defense - after all, you would have a dead body and an admission from the person that they killed - what more proof do you need?
Obviously they may be other information that is required.

Any country that says it doesnt value its own citizens more than other countries citizens is lying.

by the way there are thousands of abuse crimes going on in iraq - care of iraqi resistance - and it is VERY unlikely the majority will see punishment. So No video footage would Not get them convicted by their own side it might get them some money and a party though.

Posted by Genius : 2/25/2005 04:58:00 PM

War=Terrorism? thats good because you guys must like it then. Remember how much fun and entertainment you guys got when you witnessed those planes killing civilians?. I'm glad you guys support holding people responsible for killing innocent civilians, i would have thought you guys supported both wars then if that's your stance? Where were you guys during Saddams rule? Oh thats right his murders weren't on t.v.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 05:27:00 PM

It depends. If America wants to act as the worlds policemen, then their troops have to act more like police and less like organised criminals.

Of course, the troops are pretty much acting as they're expected to by the higher ups. If collateral damage was a problem they'd actually call it by its proper name - murder.

War=cash, in this case, and as per usual. The morals of the situation change somewhat once one accepts that the primary purpose of a military action are not self-defence (hah!) or liberation (yeah, right), but a useful method for transferring bucketloads of cash from american taxpayers into the wallets of the fatcats living off the pentagon budget.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 09:34:00 PM

"Self defence(hah)" Has Bush ever said..."we will fight them over there so we dont have to face them at home" I have also seen a few left wing sites informing us of the cost of this war! Why would they do that?

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 10:16:00 PM

Whoops sorry i thought the war was for cheep oil....wasnt it?

Posted by Anonymous : 2/25/2005 10:19:00 PM

I hope you don't actually *believe* him when he says that, Bushy? You'll be fighting them at home soon enough, because nothing inspires terrorists like a good war in the middle east. As for the left-wing sites couting costs, why wouldn't they? Are they not relevant?

I also don't buy the "cheap oil" theory. It was always a complete unknown what was going to happen after they invaded - but I'm sure they could have guessed that a nice stable situation with cheap oil resulting from it was not very likely.

I also tend to think that if the US govt wants to fight a war for oil, the cost of the war should be leveled as a petrol tax rather than just printing more money (which is why the dollar is worth bugger all at the moment). But since that would probably quadruple the price of petrol, meaning those SUVs wouldn't sell so well anymore, I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Posted by Anonymous : 2/26/2005 06:38:00 PM

Well sethop i thought in a war that is..... "for money"! I thought counting the cost wouldn't really do there cause that much good?

Posted by Anonymous : 2/26/2005 09:05:00 PM