[vyper]

Suddenly I realise why they want immunity from prosecution.

[Reez]

Why do you think they voted against that age-old bill that the UN tried to make, the War Tribunal one. The American Government would be the first on the chopping block.

[Corsair]

Care to elaborate on which bill you mean?

[Gank]

international criminal court i'd say,
http://www.un.org/law/icc/

[Rictor]

also, the UN is extending immunity to British soldiers after the "handover" so that the only way a British soldier can be tried for crimes would be if an Iraqi came to Britain and appealed to a British court.

Yay for justice!

Gank: I think what you mean in the Status of Forces agreement which the US has with every country in which it has troops. Essentially, it provides immunity from local law. A filthy piece of work, it is.

[Reez]

and what makes things like Abu-Ghraib so very real

[Beowulf]

Yay?!

[Janos]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=540&ncid=716
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3741223.stm
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9727/iraqwedding3.jpgsmoke weed every day

Well, here we go again.

[vyper]

To be perfectly honest I don't think British soldiers "need" the immunity the same way the US troops do - mainly because we've taken a different approach and learned peace keeping lessons from Ireland.

[Styxx]

Does the Iraqi video show ther actual attack by the US forces?

[Rictor]

not as far as I know, but what it does show it some things which disprove the US claims. For example, the US claimed that there was no wedding going on, because there was no musical equipment, no food, decorations etc. But the video clearly shows bit of musical equpment. Not to mention the fact that one of Iraq's most popular wedding singers was killed in the attack. I wonder what he was doing there...

as I said, all the US needs to do to vindicate itself is release the tape. They have a tape of the attack, so doesn't it make sense that they would relewase it if it showed what they claim happened??

[Star Dragon]

I don't know WHO to believe and as an American ex-soldier that is a sad thing to say. On one hand it could have been a real raid on a terrorist hold up and the Iraquis are faking it (or terrorists staged it). On the other this could be one of those Vietnam type screw-ups where some gung ho officer orders a village cleared cause he is a bigot. (the type of guy who would soon have my rifle pointed at the back of his head as I order him to stand down).

   Sure I would have plenty of charges against me but at least I wouldn't be indicted for WAR CRIMES! I payed attention for the UCMJ and Geneva convention breifings when I was in the Army (88-91)...

[.::Tin Can::.]

Picked a hell of a time and place to have a wedding...

[Mr Carrot]

A nice day in the villiage where they lived, THE BASTARDS!!!

Youd think the amount of times this **** up was made in Afghn. they would have taught their pilots to NOT go in gun blazing and check first.

Bet it was Air National Guard.

[jdjtcagle]

Points finger at him, we shouldn't be out there ---->

[Jetmech Jr.]

ohh yeah, I remember those pics.

Some of the funniest stuff I ever saw, the resemblance is uncanny.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Beavis and Butthead... hahahahaha! I used to love that show... when I was 7...

But seriously, after uncovering heavy weapons at the scene, recieving fire from the ground into the air, so on and so fourth, its kinda hard to believe that the US would just open fire on a wedding for the hell of it. Mistakes have been made in the military, but cmon, if it was a wedding would we be taking fire? Of course this post will spawn a million flame-posts, since it HAS happened in the past...

[Rictor]

And you just believe the Army outright when they say whey were taking fire? I don't, and thats not really "evidence". What probably happened was that shots were fired during the wedding, and the pilot interpreted that as taking fire.

Another important fact is that shortly after the inital bombing, ground forces arrived to clean up what was left of the survivors. Now, you may dispute that as the reason they were there, but nevertheless it is a fact that they were on thr scene. A bomber does not just happen to be flying around at 3am and spots a wedding on which he fires, and ground forces just happen to be in the area. Joint air/ground operations take much planning. This was planned.

[Reez]

if it was a wedding, why would they be firing actual bullets... the more I think about it, the dumber it seems. Wouldn't they just fire blanks? What if they hit like a pidgeon and it crash landed into the cake?

And at 3am? Muslim women in 3rd world countries are famous for their virginity before marriage.... what the hell is the groom doing waiting so long?

[Janos]

Originally posted by Reez
if it was a wedding, why would they be firing actual bullets... the more I think about it, the dumber it seems. Wouldn't they just fire blanks? What if they hit like a pidgeon and it crash landed into the cake?

[/B]
Because it's what they've got. You see, in Iraq gun culture is even more prominant than in USA, for example - practically every male has a gun. It's both status symbol and - note - means of self-defence, especially since the goverment fell and situation became what it is now.
People there don't buy blanks. Why would they buy blanks - just because USA is there? Check out what happens in practically every Arab party or fest - they always shoot, and practically always they shoot live ammo. Because they can get into situation where they're needed to use their ammo, then why spend money on blanks?

And at 3am? Muslim women in 3rd world countries are famous for their virginity before marriage.... what the hell is the groom doing waiting so long?

Never been to weddings, haven't you? Groom and bride are supposed to leave and the guests are supposed to continue. I believe it's quite similar in Arab cultures. Karajorma might have more info about this stuff, given his knowledge in Islam generally and Arabs specifially (and remember, Iraq was and still is quite secular country).