Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Some things from Amnesty International

  1. Aug 25, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2004 #2
    Congratulations! Your subject header is actually accurate.

    I can summarize for those not wanting to bother to visit the links:

    Demonstration -> US troops fire shots -> Crowd says they were peaceful -> Troops say they weren't.

    As for my personal opinion, I will not mourn the death of any Saddam sympathizer. Those that want him to return to power are advocates of cruelty, death, and torture.
     
  4. Aug 26, 2004 #3
    Dubya's lame regurgitation of the usual crap is probably one of the better reasons for people to actually go and read the pages to which I linked.
     
  5. Aug 26, 2004 #4
    Feel free.
     
  6. Aug 26, 2004 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :confused:
     
  7. Aug 26, 2004 #6
    I would be interested to know the number of soldiers, whether they were "occupying" the school before the demonstration or seeking refuge in it as a result. The article says the demonstrators were asked to disperse and refused. Depending on the number of soldiers, they may have exhausted their options before firing. I think an investigation is certainly in order.
     
  8. Aug 26, 2004 #7
    What ever happened to the soldiers who killed some Americans at Kent State University?
     
  9. Aug 26, 2004 #8
    start a new thread about it Adam.
     
  10. Aug 26, 2004 #9
    Usually people try to get out of the line of fire in gun fights, if there was a large crowd and several people in it started shooting, I think I would disperse quickly, more so if people where shooting back in their general direction. At 70 people wounded, there must have been a lot of ammunition spent. I suspect the American troops panicked after being shot at and returned fire by giving the crowd a few short bursts. If there were a span of a minute between the first shots and the return fire, I would expect the number of wounded to be limited to the combatants. Of course how viable this is depends heavily on the situation. If all the Americans were in the school and the walls were heavy enough to stop bullets it would have been a good idea but if they were in close quarters with the combatants and away from total cover it would have resulted in injured Americans.

    In one of the link there is an interview including a link to "Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials" by the "office of the high commissioner for human rights" and in that document one of the points includes "Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; ... Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life" another point included is "Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind." If these guide lines were implemented, the American force would have been able to fight back using non-lethal force (rubber bullets, tear gas) while the crowd dispersed and resorted to deadly force after people cleared out.



    quoting JohnDubYa "As for my personal opinion, I will not mourn the death of any Saddam sympathizer. Those that want him to return to power are advocates of cruelty, death, and torture." sounds like putting value on someone's life depending on their morals and disregarding their actions. To me, this sounds exactly like the thinking of a terrorist with the exception that terrorists are more desperate and are regretless of killing people with different morals
     
  11. Aug 27, 2004 #10
    I didn't say that I advocated their killing, only that I wouldn't mourn it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Some things from Amnesty International
  1. Things Kerry will do. (Replies: 114)

  2. International Law (Replies: 9)

Loading...