War Crimes [Pic]

Submitted by: piperfawn 3 years ago in Misc

And this is how things are going.
There are 61 comments:
Male 4,070
This guy was useless as a citizen and couldn`t even hold down a job for longer than 6 months. After his mother tried to talk to him, he attacked her with a knife. She kicked him out and because he was jobless and homeless he figure the military was a way to kill two birds with one stone. But was notorious for being argumentative, a wimp, and lazy in the military. He knew of and had access to all the secrets since November 2009 but didn`t decided to release anything until January 2010 after the military reprimanded him by taking his day off away because he was constantly up to an hour late for work. To which he started flipping over tables and smashing computers.

The guy is a childish histrionic nutball not a hero.
0
Reply
Male 4,070
"Gets 35 years for exposing war crimes"

What war crimes? The helicopter video of the reporters being shot? Thats wasn`t a war crime, that was misidentification of a couple of unidentified reporters who were among armed Al Qaeda insurgents that had been attacking and still were attacking U.S. troops. And the embassy cables definitely were not war crimes that needed to be exposed.

If people think this guy committed a victimless crime they are wrong. No Americans were harmed but multiple African journalists, Chinese human aid workers, pakistani hindus, and multiple others were jailed and sometimes even killed for being suspected of leaking information to the US.

Not to mention it forced thousands of other informants to clam up, and even sparked the arab spring when in Tunisia some of the first protests 10 days after the leak were because one of the cables showed that the President`s daughter and her husband had their ice-cream flown in.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]why aren`t you up in arms over Assad gassing innocent civilians in Syria instead of this nonsense.[/quote]

Well then they`d have to start think about where the gas came from and from past events that occured the answer looks like it might not fit their bantering.
0
Reply
Male 579
Oh puuuhhhlllease! It`s like you don`t even know the definition or background of the terms. If anything W went out of his way to ensure the US complied with International laws. No W ain`t perfect, but if anything I bet you could make a better case against Obama! You want war criminals, why aren`t you up in arms over Assad gassing innocent civilians in Syria instead of this nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@piperfawn

If it were oil we wanted it wouldn`t be Iraq we`d go after they`re not a top supplier to us never were. If you`re talking about the coast gaurd watch offshore oil there that would probably be because it`s a prime target for some.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
If you`re going to convict Bush of war crime you`re going to have to convict congress and all the other European leaders who followed right along they all had a hand in it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Killing Saddam would have left a brutal power vacuum for the next ruthless dictator to take his place. One that Iran could`ve cozied up to. That was Bush Sr`s reason not to depose him, a very good one mind you. Despite all the money we`ve thrown behind them, democracy by any western standard is NOT flourishing in Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 5,874
The more I see and hear of the Bradley Manning case, the more I am reminded of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empire.
The comparison of a dispenser of cluster-farks, to
a transvestite who took his nation`s shilling then betrayed the nation`s trust is facile.
I take no side in this issue, I merely observe the decline of a once great nation, rotting from within. The `gung-ho` versus the namby-pamby.
Sort your sht out America, before it is too late.

0
Reply
Male 1,983
When you lie to the government, you go to jail.
When the government lies to you, you still go to jail.

Given the current trend I wonder how much longer before calling 911 to report a crime will get you arrested?
0
Reply
Male 37,694
@WhoDat: Exactly correct!
The UN ROE in 1991 required the Coalition Forces STOP because Saddam played the "truce card".

#1 Liberate Kuwait = done!
#2 Prevent re-invasion = done!
#3 Force surrender = Wait, what?

I honestly think NO ONE believed Saddam would squirm out of this alive... but he did!!!

His "so-called surrender" proved an absolute SHAM. Of course!

So the whole world was required to go back in and finish the job! Under the leadership of the USA!

Do "liberals" grasp even the SIMPLEST parts of this? NOPE! They remain "actively ignorant"! Willfully even... it really REALLY pisses me off!
0
Reply
Male 37,694
[quote]100,000 civilian iraqis died.[/quote]
HolyGod: ?
#1 WHO killed them? Source please.
#2 If the WHOLE WORLD (except France) had not stopped him? HOW MANY MORE would have died?

Put up or STFU!

Your call dude...
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@djwajda - Agreed, and I found out that a lot of them actually felt betrayed that we didn`t finish the job in 1991. I remember this one man who was in his late 50`s (I think) coming over to talk with us the day after we took Baghdad. I was surprised because he spoke English very well and he comes over, pats a few of us on the back and says, "Well, it`s about time you guys came back. What the f*ck took you so long?" That was the best laugh I ever had in my life!
0
Reply
Male 14,826

0
Reply
Male 8,124
Crakr

"Being hyperbolic much?"

I don`t see why that is hyperbolic.

100,000 civilian iraqis died. You said it was worth it to get rid of osama and saddam. I`m asking if you would still feel that way if it was americans instead of iraqis.
0
Reply
Male 2,579
"War is a racket" retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: "If 100,000 American civilians would have died to get rid of them would it still be worth it to you?"

Being hyperbolic much?

We didn`t even lose that many civilians in the Civil War and that was the bloodiest war America has ever had.

So I`ll ask you, Were the tens of thousands of lives lost in the civil war worth ending slavery? I think so, even though it was at a terrible cost.
0
Reply
Male 37,694
[quote]Hmm weird place to defend the population from the evil tiranny.[/quote]
@piperfawn: Um, it was the DEMOCRATS who SCREAMED that Bush should withdraw from Iraq. Weren`t you paying attention? And it is OBAMA`s policies in place now.
So: you`re saying Obama is doing bad things? Obama` guarding the oil not the civilians? OK!

@HolyGod (and others) are you saying that Coalition Troops killed 100K civilians? BZZZT! The Insurgents killed plenty! On purpose! WHO do you think set off all those bombs in markets?

AND Saddam killed MILLIONS of his own people! Wars, gas, TORTURE PRISONS?

And finally: Saddam DID support terror groups, just not (directly) Al-Quida.
0
Reply
Male 37,694
Ah! "Bush Derangement Syndrome" still infecting some people, eh?
Infecting Italians now? Zomg! (lolz!)

What "War Crime" did Bush do? What did Bush do that Clinton AND/OR Obama didn`t also do? And they BOTH did worse things than Bush = fyi.

Obama actually violated the US Constitution...
0
Reply
Male 883
Or is it she now?
0
Reply
Male 883
As far as Manning goes, he`s a traitor. Had it simply been information on these `war crimes` then I could be fine with it to some degree.

Releasing intel that could have gotten soldiers or even civilians killed was complete and utter BS on his part and that is why he got what he deserves.
0
Reply
Male 883
@whodat

I agree with you 100%. During the 1st gulf war I can`t tell you how many Iraqi EPW`s would beg us to go kill Saddam. They were terrified to go back to Iraq when the war ended since they`d surrendered. Kind of always falls back to the fact that had we been allowed to finish the job the first time guys like you probably would never have had to go there in the first place!
0
Reply
Male 883
@piperfawn

Everyone loves to go to the `oil` card however if they bothered to check some facts they`d realize who is benefiting most from Iraq`s oil.

And it isn`t the USA
0
Reply
Male 560
Same with Snowden and Greenwald. Exposing he NSA spying on America fine no issue with that. Deciding to drat up spying operations on other countries because "all spying is wrong" in your books drat off. All countries spy on each other it`s natural and the done thing. Releasing information like the spying before negotiations at a G8 summit before another very important G8 summit which needed to get agreements on environmental issues and Syria is just purposely inflicting as much damage as possible because you don`t like the US of A.

Just listen to Greenwald when he was saying he would be more aggressive and releasing a lot more harmful files. Because the UK confiscated Snowden`s encrypted memory stick from Miranda acting as a data mule. The we`re exposing war crimes/attack on our citizens privacy. Runs thin when you look at their actions and motives as a whole, they`re using it as smokescreen.
0
Reply
Male 560
The motives of Manning count. If he was exposing war crimes he would have just exposed war crimes he wouldn`t have released the sheer scale and bragged about harming the us. Diplomatic cables or what Arab countries had said about Iran to the US didn`t need to be leaked. That makes him to me a guy who wanted to inflict harm to the US and if you`re going to do that while you`re in Military service you have what is coming to you. If you had just released evidence of war crimes then it would be a different case, and a lot more of the population would be in agreement with you and work to get you pardoned.
0
Reply
Male 1,182
that guy on the left is a poobag
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Money will always have its way.

It`s why morally bankrupt but financially loaded people like Bush will get away with their schemes, and the little guy shining light on the darkness will get locked up in a hole somewhere and throw away the key.

Sad but true.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
CrakrJak

"Was it worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? I believe so, the world is better off without them."

I don`t necessarily disagree with you.

But let me ask you this:

If 100,000 American civilians would have died to get rid of them would it still be worth it to you?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Bush committed no "war crimes". Both houses of congress overwhelmingly voted for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And since we all voted for those people to represent us, then if they are guilty, so are we.

"War is hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

Was it worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? I believe so, the world is better off without them.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
McGovern1981

1. I love Team America
2. I hate Sean Penn
3. I NEVER said Iraq was a good place or Saddam was a good guy.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That would require us to still be there[/quote]

It was bad policy nonetheless and has put Iran in a better strategic position since left us in a worse one.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Tell me when that was stated again and how they didn`t have terrorist groups there??[/quote]

THIS is grasping at straws, even the foreign insurgents came AFTER Saddam was toppled. The Bush admin was trying to paint picture of a close relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden even though such was demonstrably non-existent.
0
Reply
Male 5,078
McGovern1981 you are still there...but just on the oil camps. Hmm weird place to defend the population from the evil tiranny.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]It was that Iraq was tied to 9/11[/quote]

Tell me when that was stated again and how they didn`t have terrorist groups there??
0
Reply
Male 14,332
vv Holygod vv
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]It`s imperialism, not defence.[/quote]

That would require us to still be there we aren`t keep grasping a strwas though that`s this entire post.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You also can`t do it in a way that results in 100,000 civilian deaths[/quote]

Well civilian casualties a largely an unavoidable consequence of war. But like you said the rationale itself was a load of 5h17.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
whodat6484

I do not mean to be dismissive of what you did over there. I know you are very proud of your service.

I also don`t mean to say that saddam was not a bad guy. But the world is full of bad guys, a lot worse than him.

If the motives were, saddam is a bad guy and we have to get rid of him, fine, I could get behind that. But it wasn`t. It was that Iraq was tied to 9/11, they had WMDs, and they were a threat to America. We all know now that wasn`t the case.

If the USA is going to police the world and take out bad guys, fine. But you can`t say it in hindsight.

You also can`t do it in a way that results in 100,000 civilian deaths, because then guess what? We`re the bad guys.

Some people may stop to thank you, but I guarantee the mother who lost 3 of her children when the US bombed a building a terrorist was supposed to be in isn`t going to thank you anytime soon.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
Whodat6484

"See, I prefer to use what I saw with my own two eyes as opposed to what I read on Wikipedia."

Come ON man. You are telling me that your anecdotal evidence of your personal experience overrules direct quotes from a military general and studies from the pentagon? Check the sources.

I expect that s.hit from crakr or 5cats. I expect more from you.

tinyurl.com/lf6rg8b

"In 2005, the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that foreign fighters accounted for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents and argued that the U.S. and Iraqi Governments were "feeding the myth" that they comprised the backbone of the insurgency."

Perhaps the area you were in had a higher concentration of the 10% of foreign fighters. Doesn`t make my statement less true.

Plus who cares? If China invaded Canada wouldn`t we go up to defend them?
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@HolyGod - Oh yeah, while you`re at it, please tell me about the older men, women & children who came out of their homes to thank you for getting rid of a dictator who gassed and killed his own people that didn`t agree with him. Many of them told us about family members who just disappeared in the middle of the night never to be heard from again.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@HolyGod - Please tell me about the dead bodies and/or captured insurgents you searched finding passports, driver licenses, student ID`s, etc from countries like Yemen, UAE, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

See, I prefer to use what I saw with my own two eyes as opposed to what I read on Wikipedia.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
whodat6484

"Nice try, but I guess you don`t know anything about the "insurgents" in Iraq. The majority weren`t Iraqi citizens"

tinyurl.com/scfcd

"While it is not known how many of those fighting the U.S. forces in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured Insurgents are Iraqi.[44] The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon`s own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi"

WOW.

I guess YOU don`t know anything about the "insurgents" in Iraq. Odd since you were there.

So I guess my analogy was pretty close and I don`t have to try again.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I am getting tired of the "Bush was a war criminal" bu||poo. Congress voted to invade on both wars.



0
Reply
Male 3,909
@HolyGod - Nice try, but I guess you don`t know anything about the "insurgents" in Iraq. The majority weren`t Iraqi citizens, they were Jihadis who had connections with Al Qaeda coming into Iraq to fight. Even the Iraqi army said "F*ck this & f*ck Saddam" and ditched their weapons and uniforms, the only reason they were in the army in the first place was because Saddam would have had their families killed if they didn`t fight. That analogy wasn`t even close, try again.
0
Reply
Male 8,124
gladhatter

"Calling George Bush a war criminal is stupid"

If giving the order to invade a country that leads to a 100,000 civilian deaths is not a war crime what is?
0
Reply
Male 8,124
RoboPatton

"But snowden`s a "traitor" right? It`s a crime as long as a (R) is in the white house."

Are you retarded? Have you not seen the LOADS of comments on here by liberals supporting snowden?
0
Reply
Male 8,124
whodat6484

"therefore we can`t smoke him even though we all know he`s an insurgent."

If China invaded the USA, had soldiers and tanks rolling up the streets, was doing door to door house searches with automatic weapons, was dropping bombs on civilian targets, wouldn`t you take up a gun against them? Isn`t that what the second amendment is all about? Would that make you "an insurgent"?
0
Reply
Male 1,104
i do think this is a very interesting topic: how do we judge these two individuals? according to whether they were acting within or against existing laws? by the `damage`, anticipated or unexpected, or their actions? by their `achievements` for certain people and countries?
0
Reply
Male 1,104
there`s the law, and there is justice. not every law is just, and doing something just is often a crime. large numbers of nazi concentration camp guards walked free because they weren`t breaking any laws of the third reich, and von Stauffenberg was hanged for trying to rid the world of a tyrant.

the concept of "war crimes" was novel because it stipulated that actions could be wrong despite being `legal` according to local law ("crimes against humanity") nice idea, but unless there is someone to enforce it, nothing will happen.
0
Reply
Male 219
Manning is guilty of a CAPITAL crime. 35 years is a slap on his limp wrist. Calling George Bush a war criminal is stupid!
0
Reply
Male 2,424
But snowden`s a "traitor" right? It`s a crime as long as a (R) is in the white house.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@Andrew155 - EXACTLY!

When I was in Iraq our Rules of Engagement (ROE) were VERY strict. In fact, they were so strict that plenty of enemy combatants who were just shooting at us were able to walk away like nothing happened.

The ROE stated that we couldn`t initiate contact, we had to wait until we were shot at first. Also, we were only permitted to engage those who were holding a weapon.

Here`s an example (true story):

Convoy starts taking enemy fire, Marines dismount and engage. The fight lasted about 15 mins, once we gain the upper hand they run which is typical. At the start of the fight I see a guy wearing bright red track pants sprint across an alley carrying RPG rounds. 10 mins after the shooting stops I see Mr bright red track pants walking down the street. He has no visible weapons on him therefore we can`t smoke him even though we all know he`s an insurgent.

So yeah, on the ground we went out of our way to avoid civilian deaths.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Poor chelsea manning
0
Reply
Male 338
andrew155, the crime isn`t killing civilians, it`s not even about the number of civilians who die, of course many will die in the event of war.
The crime is the justification for the war (or lack thereof). The bending, hiding and ignoring information to give cause to wage war is the crime.
0
Reply
Male 3,462
Kind of expanding on what @Andrew155 was saying:

The guy with the biggest guns sets the rules as how war is to be "played". History will only remember the winner.

If you don`t like the rules, get a bigger gun.
What a war crimes is can only be defined by the state who has won the war.
0
Reply
Male 151
@ Andrew155

UHmmm... YES...?

They are ALL war criminals. Each and every one.

I love how casual we all are discussing war. "Bad intelligence." "Collateral damage."

We are talking about DEATH. Killing people. There are an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead because of Bush`s "Bad intelligence." 100 thousand people!?!

Bush INVADED a country that was not a direct threat.
It`s imperialism, not defence.

As far as I`m concerned, unless you are willing to die for the cause, or send your child off to die for it, you are against the war.

There are way to many goddam chickenhawks in this world.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
His sentence was a bit harsh methinks.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
no one likes snitches
0
Reply
Male 2,578
The definition of war crime has been so twisted recently. It no longer has its original meaning, which was originally basically a Nazi or Japanese Imperial meaning. Now it just means if civilians happen to die in your military operations, even if the level of civilian deaths is so low that it`s unprecedented in modern warfare.

Also in the traditional definition - the specific targeting of civilians in way that is not justified by military of civilian necessity. I just don`t see that as being the official US policy in Iraq. There wasn`t even any Strategic Bombing.


Nevermind the fact that "War crime" is kind of an oxymoron. Go try and wage a war without killing people.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Oh Chelsea Manning. Listen, there should be some penalties for releasing a million documents indiscriminately. He didn`t even know what he was leaking, not even 1% of it. If there is no crime in that, then it`s olly olly oxen free and anything can be released without any penalties.

But really, if Bush is guilty of war crimes for acting on bad intelligence, and waging a war incompetently, then pretty much every leader who has ever waged war is. Clinton and Obama certainly. Probably Reagan, and many more.

Bombing of Dresden? The amount of people who died in that bombing raid was more than all of the Iraq war casualties over the whole war. However, it was British and American Strat Bombing that won that war.

Abraham Lincoln would be a big war criminal.

0
Reply
Male 579
I think this would be appropriate:

Dude looks like a lady
0
Reply
Male 5,078
Link: War Crimes [Pic] [Rate Link] - And this is how things are going.
0
Reply