I think your being a bit harsh on the individuals in the van.
No, not at all. Abe is providing context to counter propaganda.
From their point of view, they saw some unarmed people badly injured, and tried to help. Just maybe they were not properly versed in the legalities of what is allowed and what is not allowed in war, I mean 99 percent of civilians are not. What would you do if you were driving past? Come on, be honest.
That is not the issue, peter; and your are trying to cloud to issues with opinions not based on facts (aka more propaganda).
Yes and I am equally sad to see that you have refused to learn and listen to others, when your fellow countrymen have provided information and context served in kid gloves for you. IMHO, your failure to learn demonstrates your prejudice; and it shines through in your post.
Also I dont really appreciate blaming the reporters for their deaths, they were just covering the war, its a legitimate job.
Report and observe, yes. But to render material aid to an insurgent enemy in violation of laws and instructions widely communicated by the Iraqi government to the public there:- that crosses a line from reporting to supporting.
Not everything the americans did in Iraq was all flowers and medical aid. There were incidents where they would place small IED parts (electrical items i assume) on the ground, if someone picked them up a sniper shot them.
Foreign uniformed forces deployed by governments in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are governed by rules of engagement (ROEs). Military authorities issue ROEs, which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which a country's force will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other insurgent forces encountered. Read up on the topic of ROEs, rather than posting speculative nonsense, which simply infers murder by the American military (and attempts to sell that point of view by simple and willful ignorance of restrictive ROEs governing the use of force).
The standing ROEs for US forces are published by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Secretary of Defence. These rules apply to all US forces “during all military operations and contingencies." The standing ROE establish fundamental policies and procedures that regulate the actions of military personnel engaged in armed conflict. Their primary purpose is “to provide implementation guidance on the application of force for mission accomplishment and the exercise of self-defense.” To understand the restrictive ROE concept and its application in Afghanistan (including existence of a classified Theatre Directive for ISAF forces), may I suggest reading this article by Christopher D. Amore, "
Rules of Engagement: Balancing the (inherent) right and obligation of self defense with preventing of civilian casualties."
For some background, you might want to consider reading Major Gen (Retd) Andrew James Molan's book, '
Running the War in Iraq', as a start. I highly recommend it. His book will help you understand the complexity of the ground situation in the Iraq war; and it explains quite a few details in a manner that an interested layman can understand. Have a glance at the article by Chris Amore and the book by MG (Retd) Molan before replying. It would greatly add to the quality of the discussion in this thread if you took the trouble to read before offering a rebuttal opinion.
Now maybe they were insurgents seeing that as a potential IED, but in all probability they were just curious civilains seeing what is this, what is that thing on the ground.
While we prefer to give most the benefit of the doubt and want to believe in your best intentions; we are also not fans of baseless speculation to derail a discussion thread. You are posting without bothering to listen to others in the thread, and thereby removing all doubt about the foolishness of your post about a complex situation governed by ROEs. For context on the insurgency in Iraq at that time period, Anthony H. Cordesman has a 2007 working draft on the topic: "
Iraq’s Sunni Insurgents: Looking Beyond Al Qa’ida".
I am not sure of military law, but say it was a marked ambulance, does that mean its OK to kill everyone in that too?
Some people seem to forget, that once the WMD was found to be bollocks, the sole reason for being in Iraq, was to help the Iraqis. Do you blame an Iraqi for being born in the wrong country?
No. Just simply an irrelevant attempt to derail the discussion to engage in your personal politics of disrespect while ignoring all other inconvenient facts provided to you by other members in this thread. By ignoring other facts and making throw away remarks, you demonstrate the limitations of your opinion stated in your post.
Why don't you educate yourself and read up on the concept of ROEs?
Raven22 has pointed you in the right direction and it is not as simple and clear cut, as you think it is. Your adverse reaction to the posts providing different facts/opinions from that stated in your prior post is neither unique nor surprising; and as I again say to people who are adverse to learning new facts, do everyone a favour and read the sources provided before replying.
