English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name

2006-07-25 03:42:14 · 13 answers · asked by TRT 1 in Politics & Government Military

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/soldiers_say_they_were_ordered_kill_all_adult_males.htm

2006-07-25 09:29:03 · update #1

13 answers

I'd take the info given on that page with a giant grain of salt. I first noticed the site's conspiracy/paranoia theme, and could'nt find anything other than a general copyright notice for the website. (copyrighted to alex jones) this does'nt mean that the article was written by alex jones. I'm skeptical of anything I see online, especially with claims like that article, and doubly when there's no information on who it was that actually wrote the article. It may be acurate, and it may actually have all the relevant information included, but I doubt it. It's a common tactic used by all forms of media to omit certain facts, and emphasize others in order to give their story the an appearance that's not based in reality.

2006-07-25 14:51:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Um...who is 'our' men? Only my 'man' a Senior British Commander who has served two tours of Iraq, and all those who served with him, were under no such orders and would have refused to comply with any such order, on grounds of simple humanity & illegality. Much of his time there was spent engaging his Troops in helping the Iraqi people back on their feet after the bloody mess that was made. I do loathe sad little men who sit in their dark bedrooms tapping away at this nonsense with absolutely no clue of what is ACTUALLY happening.

2006-07-25 06:26:23 · answer #2 · answered by Kitty 3 · 0 0

you need to be more specific, and give the entire mission objective. i have heard from people who have served in combat there, that the orders are to kill anyone in the area of roadside bombs, just to secure the area. also, to kill anyone out after curfew. the truth is, anyone in the area of a roadside bomb attack knew it was there. these are mostly small towns, and people know whats up. they know the curfew, so if you are in those areas, you have already been warned, and you are going to get killed. not pretty, but those are wartime rules.

2006-07-25 03:50:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I remember the same bull during Vietnam conflict. Pure Bull

2006-07-25 03:49:05 · answer #4 · answered by sevenkwalker 2 · 0 0

IF they were doing things to make the troops think they were terrorists. Did they have guns? Were they aggressive/hostile to the troops? Did they make threats? YES. They engaged our troops. Therefore they were fair game.

2006-07-25 03:46:33 · answer #5 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 0 0

very few ought to have study this questions and extremely few replied it although i'm additionally between them a citizen of u . s . a . of america in the previous an Indian as we can't stay a citizen of two worldwide places with the aid of fact being American resident we're not from now on Indian yet we are in a position to bypass to our mom land for ever and are loose to stay there too loosing all advantages if we live longer i think of , each physique loves peace and hate a place the place there is not any protection . when I see terrorism is a worldwide situation each physique ought to play his or her functionality . whilst Malala a muslim lady can combat for coaching of girls folk ,whilst a baby needs his or her freedom a terrorist lives in terror and not loose from its effects ,an afternoon could come whilst people could come forward to wipe it from human minds despite if this is in basic terms too previous due already , there are a variety of of of ability of destruction to wipe entire humanity if mandatory action isn't taken quicker . i'm too small to take any action ,yet all form of violent movies ought to be removed from media so as that we don't have get right of entry to to them with the aid of any ability . people can lease maximum of those video clips for couple dollars and arise to combat with kinfolk then to next neighbor then at artwork then someplace at procuring mall ,then everywhere he does not think of suitable introduced on with the aid of media and supplies he can get right of entry to from cafes and famous person greenback who supply this freedom so actual . Then we try to calm the strategies this is already bombarded with plenty adverse information worldwide .

2016-10-08 07:26:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

there are no civilians over there. everyone has a weapon, when our soldiers shoot somebody, their buddies just take the gun out of their hands and let the news crew see how the US is out shooting civilians. never mind the powder stains on that corpse's hands.

2006-07-25 05:49:13 · answer #7 · answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5 · 0 0

false info, its so not true, do you have any idea how much this will affect our reputation as human right protectors. i wonder where you got this from.

2006-07-25 05:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

before of after they see the bombs strapped around their waists,,,

2006-07-25 04:00:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

More BS.

2006-07-25 06:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers