Seven Iraqi Civilians Dead

[Skeptic]

In Iraq today, two US soldier shot and killed seven Iraqi women and children.

Why? Well, they were in a bus... that was rolling towards the soldiers... that did not obey the warnings to stop... including warning shots... and that furthermore did not stop even after the soldier shot at the engine... and this one day after the truck-based suicide bombing in Kuwait. So, as a last resort, the soldiers shot at the bus-convinced it is driven by a suicide bomber--apparently killing the driver and many of the passangers. Then, after they stopped it, it turned out that, in this case, they were wrong; it is not clear why the bus didn't stop (perhaps mechanical failure or some other SNAFU), but it wasn't a terorist attack.

Clearly, this is an act of PREMEDITATED MURDER by the COLONIALIST AMERICANS against INNOCENT IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN for NO REASON AT ALL! The UN had ALREADY CONDEMNED this BUTCHERY that THE ENTIRE WORLD HATES!

Oh, wait. That's only the truth(tm) when it is israelies who accidentally shoot civilians in similar circumstances.

Never mind...

P.S.

If nothing else, this war shows most of the American public a bit of the real reasons for israel's supposed "disregard for civilian life" and "deliverate attacks on their allies' ship", doesn't it?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In Iraq today, two US soldier shot and killed seven Iraqi women and children.

Why? Well, they were in a bus... that was rolling towards the soldiers... that did not obey the warnings to stop... including warning shots... and that furthermore did not stop even after the soldier shot at the engine... and this one day after the truck-based suicide bombing in Kuwait. So, as a last resort, the soldiers shot at the bus-convinced it is driven by a suicide bomber--apparently killing the driver and many of the passangers. Then, after they stopped it, it turned out that, in this case, they were wrong; it is not clear why the bus didn't stop (perhaps mechanical failure or some other SNAFU), but it wasn't a terorist attack.

Clearly, this is an act of PREMEDITATED MURDER by the COLONIALIST AMERICANS against INNOCENT IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN for NO REASON AT ALL! The UN had ALREADY CONDEMNED this BUTCHERY that THE ENTIRE WORLD HATES!

Oh, wait. That's only the truth(tm) when it is israelies who accidentally shoot civilians in similar circumstances.

Never mind...

P.S.

If nothing else, this war shows most of the American public a bit of the real reasons for israel's supposed "disregard for civilian life" and "deliverate attacks on their allies' ship", doesn't it?

Those that adopt terrorist tactics invite such tragedies. :mad: Not only that, the accidental killing of these civilians serves the terrorist's purposes as well. This is the kind of environment they are working to create.

-z

[Victor Danilchenko]

The official line is that the van didn't stop on time. However, a Washington post reporter who was present at the scene indicates that the officer shouted to the platoon commander who ordered the soldiers to open fire: "you din't fire warnings shots early enough"; or something to that effect. The point being is that there are indications that the tragedy is due to US soldiers' (non-com's, really) incompetence, rather than the van driver's error.

At least this is how I heard it this morning on NPR.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The official line is that the van didn't stop on time. However, a Washington post reporter who was present at the scene indicates that the officer shouted to the platoon commander who ordered the soldiers to open fire: "you din't fire warnings shots early enough"; or something to that effect. The point being is that there are indications that the tragedy is due to US soldiers' (non-com's, really) incompetence, rather than the van driver's error.

At least this is how I heard it this morning on NPR.

Could be. Of course, one should remember two things:

1). Even if it IS incompetence, it is hardly the same as premeditated murder.

2). It is very easy to sit in New York (or wherever) and wail about how horrible it is that the soldiers facing a possible life-and-death situation didn't do everything exactly by the book, thus proving their "incompetence". In the real-life situation, it is hard to tell if their behavior is any different than your or mine would have been.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Those that adopt terrorist tactics invite such tragedies. :mad:
-z


Something I have been meaning to ask: Can there be terrorist attacks against soldiers in war?

People keep accusing the suicide bomber last weekend of being a terrorist. However, how is that any more of a terrorist than the Kamakazis in WWII?

Japanese pilots who gave their lives in an attempt to destroy were considered nobel and honorable soldiers. Iraqis who give their lives are considered cowards and terrorists?

He took out enemy soldiers, not civilians. That's not terrorism, that's war.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The official line is that the van didn't stop on time. However, a Washington post reporter who was present at the scene indicates that the officer shouted to the platoon commander who ordered the soldiers to open fire: "you din't fire warnings shots early enough"; or something to that effect. The point being is that there are indications that the tragedy is due to US soldiers' (non-com's, really) incompetence, rather than the van driver's error.

At least this is how I heard it this morning on NPR.



This CNN web article details the incident and what the reporter saw. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.van.shooting/index.html)

From the article:

In a story on the paper's Web site, The Washington Post reporter wrote that the unit's captain ordered the first warning shot. As the four-wheel drive Toyota continued down the road, the captain ordered one round fired into its radiator.

After that failed to stop the vehicle, according to the Post reporter, the captain yelled "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!" That was followed by about a half-dozen shots from the 25 mm cannon on the platoon's Bradley armored vehicle, the reporter wrote.

"You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" the reporter quoted the captain as yelling at the platoon leader.

Regardless of the speed of the seargeant's reaction, the new rules of engagement for checkpoints allow innocents every realistic opportunity to avoid harm from coalition forces.

[Number Six]

I think the distinction is that Kamikazees were military men and didn't hide that fact while fighting in a manner that gave their lives in order to take out military men on the other side whereas the suicide bombers are posing as civilians, which makes the military men on the other side trust that they're not combantants and as a result go near them to help them and get killed in the end.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold



Something I have been meaning to ask: Can there be terrorist attacks against soldiers in war?

People keep accusing the suicide bomber last weekend of being a terrorist. However, how is that any more of a terrorist than the Kamakazis in WWII?

Japanese pilots who gave their lives in an attempt to destroy were considered nobel and honorable soldiers. Iraqis who give their lives are considered cowards and terrorists?

He took out enemy soldiers, not civilians. That's not terrorism, that's war.

It is war...a war crime.

Kamakazi pilots were in uniform and flew in marked military aircraft...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Regardless of the speed of the seargeant's reaction, the new rules of engagement for checkpoints allow innocents every realistic opportunity to avoid harm from coalition forces.


I prefer Gen Pace's response:

"Our soldiers on the ground have an absolute right to defend themselves. They will always, if they can, find a way to stop a vehicle like that without having to actually to fire at it. But in the final analysis, when their lives are threatened, and of course they thought they were, they will shoot."

Any concept of "rules of engagement" have to be dramatically altered. This action was a reasonable response to the recent events. If the Iraqis are going to use civilian-looking vehicles as a means of attacking the enemy, then we must treat civilian-looking vehicles as potential threats. There is no questioning this at all, and the media should be ashamed at the way they are falling for the Iraqi propaganda.

People complain about Peter Arnett being a shill for the enemy. Every single media outlet has just done that exact thing.

The Iraqis actions have required the US troops to treat everyone as a potential threat. This is not just paranoia, it is real.

Tragic? It's tragic whenever people die. However, these people are certainly a casuality of war. We will do our best to avoid hurting civilians. However, our soldiers will protect ourselves when threatened. And a van that does not stop at a checkpoint is most certainly a threat, regardless of how many women and children are inside.

The only story is that these types of things are going to happen as long as the Iraqis are using soldiers dressed as civilians as attack methods.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It is war...a war crime.

Kamakazi pilots were in uniform and flew in marked military aircraft...

Ahh, the idea of "civilized warfare" again, eh?

[Tmy]

If you notice when they talk about these suicide bombers they call it "terroristic tactics" and not terrorism per se'.

When I think of terrorism I think of targeting civilians. If you wantto get picky can you even say we are at war? War hasnt been declared?


(The whole uniform distinction is regoddamndiculous. If your catch an undercover spy does he not gave the same Geneva convention rights as a uniformed solider?)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Number Six
I think the distinction is that Kamikazees were military men and didn't hide that fact while fighting in a manner that gave their lives in order to take out military men on the other side whereas the suicide bombers are posing as civilians, which makes the military men on the other side trust that they're not combantants and as a result go near them to help them and get killed in the end.
Number Six is right. Kamikaze pilots did not resort to perfidy, a violation of the laws of war, in carrying out their missions. The Iraqi suicide bombers invited the confidence of the coalition soldiers to lead those soldiers to believe that they were obliged to accord the bombers protection as civilians under international law - with an intent to betray that confidence. That's not an acceptable way of waging war.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
If you notice when they talk about these suicide bombers they call it "terroristic tactics" and not terrorism per se'.

"In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime, the soldiers exercised considerable restraint to avoid the unnecessary loss of life," said Central Command...



When I think of terrorism I think of targeting civilians. If you wantto get picky can you even say we are at war? War hasnt been declared?


Not by the US, at least.

In terms of "terrorist tactics", is not crashing a plane into a crowd of people a "terroist tactic"? That's what the Kamakazis tried to do.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Number Six is right. Kamikaze pilots did not resort to perfidy, a violation of the laws of war, in carrying out their missions. The Iraqi suicide bombers invited the confidence of the coalition soldiers to lead those soldiers to believe that they were obliged to accord the bombers protection as civilians under international law - with an intent to betray that confidence. That's not an acceptable way of waging war.

Just like in 1776, hiding behind trees was not an acceptable way of waging war.

The concept of "laws of war" boggles my mind.

[Number Six]

I don't know if undercover spies are covered by the Geneva Convention or not but I assume they aren't.

And I don't think the uniform distinction is ridiculous at all. Look at it this way...if military uniforms aren't really required for combatants then how could the US military (or any military) be blamed for killing civilians? After all, if everyone is a potential combatant then there's no reason not to kill them.

[Number Six]

I don't know if military men hid behind trees in the 1770s but I don't really think that's a good comparison if they did. A good comparison would be if people pretended to be non-combatants in order to gain the British's confidence and then killed them.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't know if undercover spies are covered by the Geneva Convention or not but I assume they aren't.

And I don't think the uniform distinction is ridiculous at all. Look at it this way...if military uniforms aren't really required for combatants then how could the US military (or any military) be blamed for killing civilians? After all, if everyone is a potential combatant then there's no reason not to kill them.

Did you read what I wrote above?

Like I said, because of the Iraqi techniques, we should expect more civilian deaths as the US troops treat everyone as a potential combatant.

OTOH, your last sentance is silly. We do not kill all combatants, even when we know they are. We also take many as prisoner.

Killing is one way to deal with a potential threat. However, there are many other ways of doing so.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't know if military men hid behind trees in the 1770s but I don't really think that's a good comparison if they did.

If hiding behind trees was considered "not the proper way to conduct war" in 1776, then hiding behind trees is a perfect comparison.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tmy
(The whole uniform distinction is regoddamndiculous. If your catch an undercover spy does he not gave the same Geneva convention rights as a uniformed solider?)


I wouldn't think so. The Geneva Convention as it applies to uniforms is there to protect civilians: it forbids the deliberate targetting of civilians. How can you tell the difference between a civilian and a combatant? Anyone who is a combatant should be in a recognisable uniform. If you're fighting without a recognisable uniform, you're regarded as being outside the rules of warfare and don't get the privileges you'd be allowed as a legitimate prisoner of war if you get captured.

So your undercover spy would also be outside the rules, I should think.

[Tmy]

Would dropping the a-bombs on Japan be considered terrorism? Civilian areas were targeted. The bombs were meant to scare the bejeezus out the Japanese.

[richardm]

There was a lot of civilian targetting on all sides in WW2. I don't think that the particular part of the Geneva Convention that dealt with that was adopted until the late '40s or early '50s, as a direct result of that.


Edited to add: Prior to that I think it was largely concerned with the treatment of PoWs and the wounded, and rules of war pertaining directly to the way military fights military. I stand ready to be corrected.


Edited again to add a link to the relevant bit. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)

[ceo_esq]

Shooting from behind trees in 1776 may not have seemed a customary tactic to European military forces of the time, but no one then or now would characterize it as unacceptable in a moral sense.

The concept of international law governing armed conflict may seem mind-boggling, but I'd submit that promoting a few widely recognized, basic limitations on the manner and circumstances in which modern armies deal out death and destruction is a good thing. These rules are difficult to enforce, although in the last 50 years they have become less so. Yet their presence unquestionably tempers both the short- and long-term effects of war on societies (not least by discouraging acts that render it much more difficult, psychologically speaking, for countries to move on and live peacefully following a conflict).

By the way, #6, combatants who are captured while spying do not have the right to POW status unless they were wearing their military uniforms at the time.

[richardm]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
By the way, #6, combatants who are captured while spying do not have the right to POW status unless they were wearing their military uniforms at the time.

Which would make them highly ineffective undercover agents :D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Shooting from behind trees in 1776 may not have seemed a customary tactic to European military forces of the time, but no one then or now would characterize it as unacceptable in a moral sense.


And perhaps using soldiers dressed as civilians does not seem unacceptable in a moral sense to Iraqis right now? Considering that they are in a pretty overwhelming situation, they may feel it necessary to resort to whatever they have to in order to survive.

It's really hard for me to think about the "morality of war."

There are certainly things we should not do for strategic purposes. For example, although a nuke would do a lot toward killing people, it is a strategically bad move in terms of the repercussions. And using the tactics the Iraqis are using most certainly has consequences, such as the increased risk of civilian death, and that has to be considered by anyone who choses that approach.

But because it's immoral? Nah, I think not.

[Tmy]

Presidents wear suits n ties. Does that count as a uniform?

"Rules of war" does seem kind a silly. The only time peolple call for teh rules is when it'll benefit them.

I guess under the rules Saddams army should meet Bushs army at the flag pole after school.


What happens if your occupied? Was the French resistance in violation of the rules of war.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


The concept of "laws of war" boggles my mind.

Those "mind-boggling" laws of war have prevented thousands of additional Iraqi casualties. Look at the POW count, then try to figure how long it would take to dig that many holes.

It seems to me that the Iraqi POWs are also boggled by the laws of war, seeing as how they are still breathing, being fed and given medical treatment.

Not everyone grows up expecting that kind of lawful treatment.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
Presidents wear suits n ties. Does that count as a uniform?

"Rules of war" does seem kind a silly. I guess under the rules Saddams army should meet Bushs army at the flag pole after school.

Here we go again....

Timmy, you ignorant slut.

The rules of war being discussed- i.e., no perfidy, etc. are designed to keep non-combatants from getting killed. When you have an enemy that resorts to this kind of illegal subterfuge and we can no longer count on civilians really being civilians until the body cavity search is completed, you get incidents like this van shooting.

It is a tragic consequence of the underhanded, desperate tactics currently being employed by the Iraqi regime.

Unless of course, you support the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians who probably just couldn't find the brake pedal. Is that what you're saying, baby-killer? HUH?!

[Tmy]

Whateva Jocko! Talk to the left cause you aint right!!

We'll follow the rules as long as it suits us. Right now it suits us to play nice on the world stage. If we get peed off then semantics and see ya later rules of war. (see AL Queda, Gitmo, and "terror")

Sure we want the rules of war. If Saddm followed the rules he'd round up his army in the middle of the desert where we would drop a MOAB on there a#se.

As much fun as hta would be I just dont think Saddam will go along with it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


Here we go again....
...
The rules of war being discussed- i.e., no perfidy, etc. are designed to keep non-combatants from getting killed. When you have an enemy that resorts to this kind of illegal subterfuge and we can no longer count on civilians really being civilians until the body cavity search is completed, you get incidents like this van shooting.


I don't know anyone in this thread who has said anything other.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


Those "mind-boggling" laws of war have prevented thousands of additional Iraqi casualties.

Nonsense. It is not the "rules of war" that have prevented the US from killing thousands of Iraqi citizens. It is more that the killing of Iraqi citizens would be a horrible strategic move, and we would lose all of the international support that we have.

The US is perfectly willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, morality be damned, if they thought it was the best approach to achieving the goal. In this case, it clearly is not.

[Tmy]

Would Kamakazies be a violation? Seem more like a technology issue. They were nothing more than old school cruise missles. Now a Kamakazi would be obsolete since we have the technology to do the same job without losing a pilots life.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


The US is perfectly willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, morality be damned, if they thought it was the best approach to achieving the goal. In this case, it clearly is not.

Oh really, and where did you hear that?

You'll pardon me for not holding my breath while you try to dig up a little support for that grossly unfair characterization.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by pgwenthold



Something I have been meaning to ask: Can there be terrorist attacks against soldiers in war?

People keep accusing the suicide bomber last weekend of being a terrorist. However, how is that any more of a terrorist than the Kamakazis in WWII?

Japanese pilots who gave their lives in an attempt to destroy were considered nobel and honorable soldiers. Iraqis who give their lives are considered cowards and terrorists?

He took out enemy soldiers, not civilians. That's not terrorism, that's war.

Japanese Kamikaze pilots wore uniforms and flew military aircraft complete with the proper markings and insignia. I don't know the details of the bombing the other day, but I doubt greatly that the suicide bomber wore uniform or drove a military vehicle.

And that is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


Oh really, and where did you hear that?


What, that the US is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians if it advances our cause?

I think I heard it on the History Channel. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Nuclear bombs, you may have heard about it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I don't know anyone in this thread who has said anything other.

Well, there's you for a start, mocking the value of observance of the rules of war:

Ahh, the idea of "civilized warfare" again, eh?

Then you moved from mocking to bemusement:

The concept of "laws of war" boggles my mind.

And ultimately you just kind of threw up your hands at the whole idea:

It's really hard for me to think about the "morality of war."

But my point is that Timmy's naive assessment of the reasons for such rules is inaccurate and that there are very good reasons for observing the rules.

And contrary to your rather cynical view of things, it ain't ALL about public relations. Why do you think they have dozens of reporters and cameras on the ground there? They sure didn't do it because they had to.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


What, that the US is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians if it advances our cause?

I think I heard it on the History Channel. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Nuclear bombs, you may have heard about it.

Ah, okay. Back to that again. I didn't realize that the war was just America vs. the world. I was under the impression that we had a few allies.

You may have heard of them.

That act was performed on the behalf of the allies, not just America.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


Well, there's you for a start, mocking the value of observance of the rules of war:


Then you moved from mocking to bemusement:



You need to read the posts you write, and what I responded to.

You claimed that if there are no rules, then no one can complain about the killing of civilians in incidences like happened yesterday.

That's a total strawman, because not only has no one complained about that, I, for one, posted a rant above saying the exact same thing!

The killing of civilians like what happened yesterday is a consequence of using strategies like the Iraqis used. If they are going to use such strategies, then these things are going to happen.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


Ah, okay. Back to that again. I didn't realize that the war was just America vs. the world. I was under the impression that we had a few allies.

You may have heard of them.

That act was performed on the behalf of the allies, not just America.

I thought we had 48 countries supporting us now?

Edited to add: I have to ask: You seriously don't think that the US only developed an atomic bomb reluctantly, and only at the behest of the other allies, do you?

[c0rbin]

Japanese pilots who gave their lives in an attempt to destroy were considered nobel and honorable soldiers.

I think they were concidered honorable by the Japanese, not by the Allies who were, IIRC, perplexed and disgusted.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic


2). It is very easy to sit in New York (or wherever) and wail about how horrible it is that the soldiers facing a possible life-and-death situation didn't do everything exactly by the book, thus proving their "incompetence". In the real-life situation, it is hard to tell if their behavior is any different than your or mine would have been.

I figure the situation was like this:

Hi, we're standing in the desert. We see a bus that could either be full of Iraqui civilians fleeing, or soldiers fleeing, or 5000lbs of C4 and a detanator, with a fanatic driver.

It won't stop. It keeps coming at us!

It's still coming! DO SOMETHING NOW!

Um, this is exactly the kind of crap the terrorists hope for, they hope we'll stop shooting and they get their whack at a big group of american soldiers.

It sounds like a nasty situation, and I hope (against any reason, of course) that the (*&(* who come in armed under a white flag get theirs for this.:mad:

[jj]

Originally posted by Number Six
I don't know if military men hid behind trees in the 1770s but I don't really think that's a good comparison if they did. A good comparison would be if people pretended to be non-combatants in order to gain the British's confidence and then killed them.

Check out the South Carolina campaigns during the Revolutionary War, then :)

[c0rbin]

Modern warefare is a bitch.

I read a great book by Barbara Tuchman called "The Guns of August" describing the German advance on France and the opening months of WWI. Well written and very detailed.

It seems that the Germans, as they advanced, were sniped at in Belgium along the way. So they would turn out a town and execute the men, sometime decimate them (literally).

This war thing could be a whole lot better.

But it could also be a whole lot worse.

We Americans are ********, I'm sure, but we aren't going to commit whole-sale slaughter like we all did in the past.

No one is clean. Not even Saddam.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Modern warfare is a bitch.



I think it is more that "Warfare is a bitch." Modern or not.

Weren't there reports a week or so ago that Rumsfeld had spats with the generals because he thought they were stick in the muds who didn't understand modern warfare and were too caught up in WWII like thinking?

I don't know if it's true or not, but I think it is telling, nonetheless. War is hell. Modern smart bombs and such aren't going to change that.

[Number Six]

I've been away and lots of things have been posted in my absence so it's hard to get back into the flow by responding to specific things from 20 posts ago. But let me bring up this general point. As far as killing civilians goes, if we can't determine who is a combatant and who is not, then how is it even possible to determine how many civilians are killed? If we can't talk about civilian casualties then civilians casualties aren't really relevant. In other words, if we can't make a distinction between civilians and combatants then effectively everyone becomes a combatant. I think that is why the "If you're a combatant you gotta wear a uniform" rule exists.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
I've been away and lots of things have been posted in my absence so it's hard to get back into the flow by responding to specific things from 20 posts ago. But let me bring up this general point. As far as killing civilians goes, if we can't determine who is a combatant and who is not, then how is it even possible to determine how many civilians are killed? If we can't talk about civilian casualties then civilians casualties aren't really relevant. In other words, if we can't make a distinction between civilians and combatants then effectively everyone becomes a combatant.

_Potential_ combatant. Not necessarily a combatant, but potentially so. Yes, that is the result. And?



I think that is why the "If you're a combatant you gotta wear a uniform" rule exists.

Well, it's a useful policy to have for that reason. If we all agree to follow these procedures, then we know how to proceed. However, if some decide that they are not going to follow these procedures, then the other must respond appropriately.

IOW, if the Iraqis are going to use non-military vehicles to attack US troops, then we must consider all non-military vehicles a potential threat. That means that we have to stop vehicles that do not stop when told.

If the enemy cooperates, then we treat them in a way appropriate for that cooperation. If the enemy does not cooperate, well then they are treated like a non-cooperating enemy.

[a_unique_person]

To try to prevent a recurrence, Captain Johnson ordered signs be posted in Arabic to warn people to stop well short of the Bradleys. Before the signs could be erected, 10 people with white flags walked down the road and were allowed to walk around the Bradleys. And the war continued.



well, durr.

Where in the planning for this war has there been any checkpoint planning and training? That would appear to be the main cause of this tragedy.

[a_unique_person]

it was well known that americans would be fighting in an arabic country.

only they don't know much arabic. what sort of training has been going on all this time? The war has been coming for a long time.

http://afr.com/iraq/2003/04/02/FFXEGTLRYDD.html



Language barrier increases tensions
Apr 2
Michael Phillips, The Wall Street Journal


Second Lieutenant Isaac Moore and his 60-man platoon had been ordered to search villages for Saddam Hussein sympathisers.

That meant frisking farmers and ordering them to lie on the hot desert ground. It also meant breaking into mud huts and rifling through drawers in search of weapons to the din of a screaming baby and a sobbing woman, and all without knowing a single comforting Arabic phrase to calm them.


"All I know is 'Get down on the ground', and 'Stop, or I'll shoot'," Corporal Jeff Giesko, 22, told Lieutenant Moore as they prepared to drive their armoured assault vehicles into a village. None of the lieutenant's marines had memorised the more friendly greetings in their military-issue Arabic phrase cards.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
If you notice when they talk about these suicide bombers they call it "terroristic tactics" and not terrorism per se'.

When I think of terrorism I think of targeting civilians. If you wantto get picky can you even say we are at war? War hasnt been declared?


(The whole uniform distinction is regoddamndiculous. If your catch an undercover spy does he not gave the same Geneva convention rights as a uniformed solider?)

Enemy soldiers caught in allied uniforms can be summarily interrogated and then executed...

Illegal spys (those who are undeclared and have no diplomatic immunity) can be turned, tried, and/or executed during a time of war. Legal spys (those who are declared by their home nation and have diplomatic immunity) caught in the act are usually deported.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Just like in 1776, hiding behind trees was not an acceptable way of waging war.

The concept of "laws of war" boggles my mind.

The tactics used by the colonial army and the militia were unconventional, but hardly war crimes... :rolleyes: :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Would Kamakazies be a violation? Seem more like a technology issue. They were nothing more than old school cruise missles. Now a Kamakazi would be obsolete since we have the technology to do the same job without losing a pilots life.

Can you say "9-11"? ;)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

The tactics used by the colonial army and the militia were unconventional, but hardly war crimes... :rolleyes:the thing to remember is that it's the powerful nations -- the ones which have powerful armies, that is -- who write "the rules of war" and who get to define what is a war crime and what isn't. Killing officers and shooting from concealment were just as much "war crimes" in that time, as impersonating an enemy soldier is now.

As far as I am concerned, the only permanent rule of war should be "no targeting civilians". When an invading nation encounters military resistance by the only means which the attacked nation deems effective, it's hardly justified for the invaders to proclaim that their enemies are violating the rules of war -- as silly as it was for the redcoats to complain about american trickery and the targeting of officers.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It is war...a war crime.
Get real. A superior army has invaded his country. He has defended his country by taking out four enemy soldiers. That isn't a war crime by any stretch of the imagination.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
it was well known that americans would be fighting in an arabic country.

only they don't know much arabic. what sort of training has been going on all this time? The war has been coming for a long time.

http://afr.com/iraq/2003/04/02/FFXEGTLRYDD.html




""All I know is 'Get down on the ground', and 'Stop, or I'll shoot',"


Sounds like enough to me.. Well maybe, " Please ", would be a nice touch.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Kodiak

the thing to remember is that it's the powerful nations -- the ones which have powerful armies, that is -- who write "the rules of war" and who get to define what is a war crime and what isn't. Killing officers and shooting from concealment were just as much "war crimes" in that time, as impersonating an enemy soldier is now.

As far as I am concerned, the only permanent rule of war should be "no targeting civilians". When an invading nation encounters military resistance by the only means which the attacked nation deems effective, it's hardly justified for the invaders to proclaim that their enemies are violating the rules of war -- as silly as it was for the redcoats to complain about american trickery and the targeting of officers.

Believe it or not I think Victor, DD, and others (see linked web article) (http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030330allsfair0330p3.asp) have changed my mind about the rules of war and war crimes. There aren't any hard and fast rules.

Try not to gloat... ;)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Believe it or not I think Victor, DD, and others (see linked web article) (http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030330allsfair0330p3.asp) have changed my mind about the rules of war and war crimes. There aren't any hard and fast rules.

Try not to gloat... ;) Hi Kodiak.

I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, but I'm assuming you aren't. In which case, this would seem to be a first (i.e. you admitting that you changed your mind. ;) ) BTW, I read your linked article, which is interesting, but inconclusive.

In any case, I hope "safe" procedures for roadbloacks can be (or have been) put in place.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hi Kodiak.

I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, but I'm assuming you aren't. In which case, this would seem to be a first (i.e. you admitting that you changed your mind. ;) )

I'm absolutely serious, and it isn't a first.

What did I say about the gloating? ;)


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, I read your linked article, which is interesting, but inconclusive.

"Inconclusive"...I think that was the point the article was trying to make.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
In any case, I hope "safe" procedures for roadbloacks can be (or have been) put in place.

Depends on what you consider "safe", I suppose...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Depends on what you consider "safe", I suppose...

Can't get much safer than 'shooting' when they don't stop..


That's why they call it a road ' block '...