Soldier gets small sentence for killing civilians under white flag

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by adildacoolset, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. adildacoolset macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Location:
    Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
    #1
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #2
    No doubt the soldier's actions - rightly or wrongly - were attributed to the fog of war.
     
  3. adildacoolset thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Location:
    Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
    #3
    The thing is that the white flag showed that they weren't any part of it, but yet he shot them and even then, received a short sentence.
     
  4. VulchR, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #4
    According to the article the soldier denies shooting the women and her child but admits to killing somebody else. I hate Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, but it sounds like we'll never know what actually happened. I do agree that given the solider admitted to accidentally killing somebody the sentence seems much too lenient, but I also worry the soldier is being scapegoated.

    What we can be certain of is that the people who ordered the tanks in were responsible for the conduct of the troops under their command.
     
  5. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #5
    This is one of the (numerous) reasons I am against war unless absolutely, positively unavoidable (I believe both Iraq and Afganistan were, among others).

    The power of PTSD is unreal, and it hurts people on every side...and more often citizens are the ones who suffer the most from it. It can make determining a premeditated war crime from an emotionally impaired judgement into a very fine line.

    Policymakers do not seem to respect this...they often talk about the "costs of war" but they fail to look at the entire picture. This is an outcome of war, one of the many negative outcomes. War has enduring (negative) effects not only on the battlefield, but long after the way is over. Humans are not psychologically adapted to kill each other. Armed conflict may not always be avoidable, but we need to do a better job in the future of 'diplomacy before destruction'.
     
  6. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    That is what it sounds like to me as well. It was not cold blooded murder but more a fog of war where he shot before thinking.
     
  7. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #8
    Wait. The Iraq war was positively unavoidable?
     
  8. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #9
    He didn't get 45 days for murder, and wasn't convicted of murder. He got 45 days for "using a weapon illegally".

    Is he a murderer, probably, but legally he was never convicted of murder.
     
  9. adildacoolset thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Location:
    Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
    #10
    Why was the iraq war positively unavoidable?

    ----------

    sure, fine, there is nothing wrong in killing people under a white flag. He was definitely a murderer, unless the article is wrong. He wasn't convicted due to the zionist rulings are biased against the palestinians.
     
  10. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #11

    If you ask me there are injustices every day in courts with plea bargains, almost any lawyer would consider it justice or a victory in the system.

    Maybe if there was a trial he would have been found not guilty because of some technicality. Maybe temporary insanity or PTSD.
     
  11. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #12
    The army in these countries slowly become a law unto themselves.

    Sadly this is not as uncommon as you would think.
    40 years ago in 1972, the British army shot dead 12 unarmed demonstrators.

    To this day nobody has been charged with murder.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
     
  12. Fazzy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Location:
    check the tracking device
    #13
    Because since it was a Palestinian civilian, it doesn't matter. 45 days is a joke. They even had the audacity to name it as an "unnamed individual".

    But will the UN do anything about this? This is justice from "the beacon of shining light" in the middle east :rolleyes:
     
  13. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    We are finally, and at massive expense, finally opening the way for justice with Bloody Sunday. How it took so long, to even get started..

    Imagine trying to get Bush or Blair, or the lying CIA agent over Iraq. The protection governments and their pawns have is outrageous.
     
  14. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #15
    I personally think they were. George Bush should have been screaming, cussing, spitting, and throwing crap when addressing Hussein. Hussein though his (and his Father's threats) were not all that real.

    And then beyond that, there is debate as to how much Iraq posed a threat to us. It seems more soldiers have died in Iraq than civilians would die even if by chance Iraq was able to attack the CONUS.

    Finally, no other country wanted to go war at that point...so there were other people willing to keep working at a non-war solution. The bottom line is I don't think enough caution was displayed prior to going to war, and the tens of thousands dead is about all we have to show for it.
     

Share This Page