[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Tempus

Its interesting to note that they address the use of human shields in that report. Do you honestly thing the US is doing that??

Yes. I'll explain why in the end.

Originally Posted by Tempus

Maybe you need to look as the other side as causing some violations. Did you know that pretending to be injured/surrender and continuing to fight is a violation of the geneva conventions and is techincally a war crime?

The fact that one side is guilty of war crimes doesn't make the other innocent. Not much I can do about violations by the resistance fighters, except work to put them out of a job.

I've read that some combatants in Fallujah have "abused" the white flag. I don't mind it as a dirty trick - they're outgunned, so they need to delude the enemy in more ways than he can imagine. They need to fight with greater cowardice than the enemy (Lother5150 dismisses the term, but until he provides a better one, I'll use this). I mind it because it robs non-combatants of the white flag's protection.

I wouldn't be surprised if some resistance fighters used human shields, to varying degrees. No doubt they think they're defending something, or someone. They might think Marines will desecrate a mosque (by entering it), for example, if they don't use force to defend the building. Some are likely defending their own family members, or think they are. There must be a few among them who in desperation would take a neighbour hostage, if those people are the same as mine.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Honestly, that link hardly supports any of you your premises.

I didn't intend it to. It's just there to remind us of the current official status, to ground the argument.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Some of the people we are fighting now don’t have our same sensibilities regarding parlay. I think it is extremely important to understand this in the context these incidence.

I tried to point out earlier that the resistance fighters believe they will be brutalised and perhaps murdered if captured. You see how that can cause problems for both sides.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

In terms of the overall operational ROE, again we have lawyers whose job it is to ensure that the ROE meets and in most cases exceeds the law and western customs of land warfare.

A good lawyer pays no regard to ethics. His function is to mark (or argue to) the limits of legal interpretation. Lawyers determined, for example, that intercepting Canadians on flight stopovers, rendering them to states infamous for torture, and pressuring those third party states to extract confessions of Al-Qaeda membership, is not illegal. Lawyers also determined that American interrogators could strip detainees naked, drug them, put them in stress positions, splash them with ice water, employ repeated rectal exams, and so forth - because they determined that unless lasting physical harm is done, or the practice has already been cited, then it's not torture and therefore not illegal. So I'm confident army lawyers are busy enough mapping out what's not illegal.

I wasn't even thinking about rules of engagement. By the "overall operation" being a war crime I meant that 250,000 people have been made refugees in a country with 75% unemployment and violence everywhere. They had to pack up and flee. Their city was ruined. Most of them are now starving or begging. Half of those refugees are children who should be in school right now. As designed, the operation destroyed 250,000 lives. If that isn't plain, then Lothar5150 you must have the most brutal understanding of human life. I think human life means a little more than just whether a person is breathing or not.

On the other hand, a pro-war newspaper published an article about 1,000 refugees lined up to receive food aid from the US military. The story included a photo of some sad character frowning behind the razorwire barrier. It said there was some confusion, and the soldiers helped the people keep order, without elaborating on what this meant.

Maybe Fallujans could use some help with ovens to get rid of the corpses. Bring in an excavator, and help.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Force protection-"I do not think it means, what you think it means" force protection is a term used to describe measures we take in order to protect our personnel and/or equipment from terrorist when we are NOT engaged in offensive operations. Please use it correctly from now on.

OK so you've negated two terms now. This is fun. Shall I keep guessing what the correct term is?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

If you want to call Americans cowards...

No.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

...cowards for targeting a hospital, which was being used for military operations… I think the cowards are the guys who used the hospital in that way...

Both sides engage in propaganda. I realise you trust statements by the US military or pro-war media as the only truth, so we'll just have to build our picture from those alone.

So, as you suggested and your fellow hawks assert, the hospital and clinics in Fallujah proper had to be destroyed to prevent the assault from looking inhumane through the lens of liberal media. I'll let that stand. The truth of the intent is self evident. Whether or not foreign fighters had violated the neutrality of those institutions, or to what degree, we can't know and probably never will.

We share a clearer view of that main hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah, taken early on by US and US led forces. Drawing only from US official statements and pro-war media quoting American forces, we get this: The hospital was surrounded. An ambulance was fired upon (and stopped) as it tried to leave. Loudspeakers were used, telling people in the hospital they'd be shot if they tried to leave. A commando group composed of foreign fighters stormed the building; they handcuffed the people inside, searched the facility. Not one shot was fired. There was little resistance. Apparently the resistance fighters had respected the neutrality of this institution. American forces and embedded journalists entered, and remained in the hospital - they still occupy it. Hospital staff and ambulance crews have not been allowed to leave the hospital, not for any reason. They can't just go home, for example. In short: they're hostages. Wounded civilians or resistance fighters have not arrived at the hospital. A US commander was quoted saying his men are "defending" the hospital. Presumably this means US forces would take up firing positions in the hospital if it came under attack.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I think the cowards are the guys who used the hospital in that way.