Most of the young Iraqi men and boys mingling around the burning wreckage of a US armoured car in Baghdad were unfazed by the clattering of an American helicopter gunship overhead. Moments later they were under fire.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9BE69E7B-058D-404F-81CB-43816BA7A5F0.htm
making gross abstract comparisons doesn't make you any more right (less wrong)Adam said:Good grief. It's the fault of civilians when they get shot by military aircraft, when they're in their own civilian cities?
So if I was flying around in New York, and had my tanks occupying the ground, and troops everywhere, would it be the fault of the civilians there if I dropped a few cluster bombs?
russ_watters said:Not a good idea to interfere with combat troops in combat. Those people chose to give up their "civilian" status and died for it. They took their chances and paid the consequences.
Healey01 said:How did the armored car get destroyed? Why were "civialians" on top of it and around it celebrating its destruction? It was still burning, so how long ago was it attacked? Were American troops killed in its destruction?
Also, did anyone read many died? I couldn't find it anywhere though they said people died. (im not trying to be sarcastic, i actually want to know)
you think those two are mutually exclusive?Adam said:Which is it?
Now that's funny.Major Phil Smith, a spokesman for the 1st Cavalry Division, said the helicopter fired to try to destroy the burning vehicle "for the safety of the people around it".
As the Americans withdrew, jubilant fighters and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several young men placed a black banner of al-Qaeda-backed Tawhid and Jihad, led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun.
Artman said:That's not.
Adam said:Certainly, if the civilians were celebrating, as Healey said.
Adam said:Since a news cerw was right there, we saw the reporter get hit and die right in front of the camera, just as others around him also died.
As the Americans withdrew, jubilant fighters and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several young men placed a black banner of al-Qaeda-backed Tawhid and Jihad, led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun.
What does a terrorist look like? They look pretty much like any civilian, except maybe when they ae carrying a flag that indicates they are part of a terrorist organization and dancing on top of a burning USA military vehicle, then they look a lot more like terrorists.jcsd said:The incident was captured on TV, despite the prescence of some fighters the crowd was still mostly civilians and no-one in it posed any therat to any American forces. Completely unjustifed, if this was one of the other coalstion forces you can bet that the personal responsible would be court-martialed, but I just can't see thta happening in this case.
Dissident Dan said:Oh, jeez, you will defend the actions of those on "your side" at any cost. Just because you don't like what they were doing (celebrating on top of the vehicle, etc.) does no make killing them by firing (apparently indiscriminately) into a crowd justified.
Come on Dan, I said investigate the incident.Dissident Dan said:Oh, jeez, you will defend the actions of those on "your side" at any cost. Just because you don't like what they were doing (celebrating on top of the vehicle, etc.) does no make killing them by firing (apparently indiscriminately) into a crowd justified.
So it's ok that an Apache fired on a crowd of civilians?motai said:The death of the journalist is tragic indeed, but he probably knew the full risks associated with his job in his area.
So those civilians should know US military protocols?Don't the terrorists know that its standard U.S. policy to destroy damaged American vehicles that cannot be recovered so as to keep it out of the hands of the enemy? Sounds like they walked right into it.
phatmonky said:I do so tire of these games:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040912/capt.bag11109120645.iraq_blasts_bag111.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040912/capt.bag10909120630.iraq_blasts_bag109.jpg
On fire, celbrating on top.
Yes, it is indeed rather stupid.JohnDubYa said:Do they have any brains at all? I am astounded that anyone would be so stupid as to stand on top of a burning military vehicle.
Especially in their own front yards.I think one of the biggest problems we face are the hordes of morons we encounter who have no respect or understanding of the dangers of war.
I think one of the biggest problems we face are the hordes of morons we encounter who have no respect or understanding of the dangers of war.
Gza said:1>I see that as a very disrespectful statement. We invaded their country with no authority or pretenses whatsoever,
2>and bombed the living sh*t out of it.
3>We have now resorted to attacking civilians who celebrate in manners we don't find appropriate (freedom in the general sense for the Iraqi people, doesn't involve freedom of speech I take it,)
4>and now you call the deceased morons, because they don't understand "the dangers of war"?
5>Do you understand the dangers of war as you sit comfortably in you cushy seat?
6> There is no class or seminar on it, so enlighten us, please.
7>Perhaps a pamphlet entitled "The Dangers of War" would be appropriate. Here, i'll help with getting started; Rule 1 would read:
Rule 1: If you celebrate openly in a jovial manner near damaged US vehicles, you will be killed immeadiatly.
Its standard procedure of every military, ever to destroy your own damaged equipment to prevent it from falling into enemy hands (as already mentioned). Civilians choosing to be near an APC choose to risk death when it is destroyed. They choose to give up their civilian status.jcsd said:In fact only by being actively involved in hostilites do you give up your 'civilian statu's, besides which there were no American troops in the immediate vicinty fo them to 'interfere' with, the personel carrier had been abandoned.
Enemy fighters in the crowd most certainly do pose a threat to American forces. Are you suggesting we shouldn't pursue them but only shoot at them when they shoot at us?The incident was captured on TV, despite the prescence of some fighters the crowd was still mostly civilians and no-one in it posed any therat to any American forces. Completely unjustifed...
Besides, of course, a treaty Saddam broke (or rather, never complied with) and several UN resolutions.Gza said:I see that as a very disrespectful statement. We invaded their country with no authority or pretenses whatsoever, and bombed the living sh*t out of it.
A wholly incorrect characterization of the situation.We have now resorted to attacking civilians who celebrate in manners we don't find appropriate (freedom in the general sense for the Iraqi people, doesn't involve freedom of speech I take it,)
Do you? Would you have chosen to climb atop a burning military vehicle immediately after the battle? Would your common sense have told you it might not be a safe thing to do? Would your common sense tell you that waving the flag of the enemy might identify you as the enemy?and now you call the deceased morons, because they don't understand "the dangers of war"? Do you understand the dangers of war as you sit comfortably in you cushy seat? There is no class or seminar on it, so enlighten us, please. Perhaps a pamphlet entitled "The Dangers of War" would be appropriate...
Do you have a source for that? That makes my earlier statement irrelevant if true: any civilians in the crowd jumped right into the middle of a battle. Climbing on a burning vehicle after a battle is pretty dumb, but running into a firefight is just plain suicidal.phatmonky said:3>Or perhaps you will read the statement where the apach took small arms fire, instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
It isn't one.1>Stop pushing that lie.
Man, that's so lame, how did you ever become a mentor of anything? Civilians in their own home town, dancing in the streets because a piece of the invader's military hardware was destroyed, become valid targets because they are having a party? Your attempts at justifying these acts by the invading force are becoming more ludicrous by the day.Its standard procedure of every military, ever to destroy your own damaged equipment to prevent it from falling into enemy hands (as already mentioned). Civilians choosing to be near an APC choose to risk death when it is destroyed. They choose to give up their civilian status.
Next, some of the people on the APC were enemy combatants (how many, no on knows), and that makes them a legitimate target. Again, civilians choosing to mingle with enemy combatants are choosing to be in the line of fire. They choose to give up their civilian status.
russ_watters said:Just one little quickie: Do you have a source for that? That makes my earlier statement irrelevant if true: any civilians in the crowd jumped right into the middle of a battle. Climbing on a burning vehicle after a battle is pretty dumb, but running into a firefight is just plain suicidal.
"As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small-arms fire from the insurgents in vicinity of the vehicle," a military statement said. "Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."