Re: virus: Protecting non-combatants - Respecting conventions.

Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 11:54:27 MDT

On 13 Aug 2002 at 11:14, Hermit wrote:

> Firstly because analysis showed that there is a strong probability
> that the person quoted in the article and the person who wrote the
> letter are not the same person. This is not final because the first
> sample is small. If we had a greater amount of material definitely
> spoken by that soldier we could be much more certain.
> But while that would be confirmatory, it is not necessary to establish
> what probably happened. Simply because the first quote is an
> "immediate recollection" As I asked Joe previously: Show us what
> Private Guckenheimer could have been trying to say when he said, "We
> were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill
> them" and how this could be taken to mean something other than what it
> said.
> I asked this because a little analysis should provide the answer. Why
> did he say exactly this? Why did this specific instruction stick in
> his mind? Surely because it was an unusual order? So what made it
> unusual? Soldiers going into combat are trained to kill people who
> oppose them - no matter who - even if wearing a fake uniform. Now look
> at the sentence again. It is already a "complex" sentence. It
> contains a qualifier - "if there were women and children" - not " if
> there were women and children shooting at you" - that, sadly, would
> not have been very unusual or surprising, would it? Under those
> circumstances he would probably not have said "specifically" would he?
> No. What struck this soldier him was the "specific" instruction to
> "kill them all."
> Secondly, we know from combat scenes, and combat statistics that
> American troops, like the French, are not particularly careful of
> non-combatants. From e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Kuwait
> and Afghanistan we have reports of the execution of non-combatants by
> Americans. This creates a framework where there appears to be a
> greater probability that the rules governing warfare were more likely
> to be broken by an American than if the soldier had been, say English,
> Danish or Dutch.
> Thirdly, we know that the rules of war have been broken in
> Afghanistan. There are strong accusations that Americans have been
> involved in executing prisoners, and we know that women and children
> were killed in Afghanistan. We also know that the combat scenes were,
> as they are in Israel, off-limits to external observers and
> deliberately destroyed, making investigation of scene evidence
> impossible. Perhaps there were other reasons for this. It is not
> impossible, buyt it should be taken as indicative.
> Fourthly we have the statements of senior members of the
> Administration that they preferred not to have prisoners, the sparcity
> of living prisoners and the evidence that prisoners were executed in
> cold-blood. Another massive contravention of the rules of war. Where
> one rule is broken, it is likely that other rules were broken too.
> Fifthly, we have the evidence that the USA is working deliberately to
> attempt to place its military and command-structure beyond the reach
> of the International court, which would investigate and try such
> offenses. If there were nothing to fear from such investigations and
> trials, why would this be necessary. The innocent need not fear an
> honest court.
> Thus despite the follow on letter, I would say that this forms a prima
> fascia case of a probable breach of the rules of war - and that the
> circumstances surrounding the writing of the letter should be
> investigated to discover who instigated it. It may just have been the
> parents attempting to protect their son. Equally it may have been
> those involved in issuing the order or somebody attempting to protect
> the tattered reputation of American soldiers. Only an investigation
> would show. And the internal and external evidence shows that an
> investigation is justified.
You really have a pathological desire to believe the very worst you can
imagine about the US, don't you, Hermit?
> Regards
> Hermit
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <;action=display;thread
> id=26018>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT