[Article] US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death

daveirl · 30-03-2003 4:02pm #1

This post has been deleted.

Barry Aldwell · 30-03-2003 4:08pm

“I was shooting down a street when suddenly a woman came out and casually began to cross the street with a child no older than 10,” said Gunnery Sergeant John Merriman, another Gulf war veteran. “At first I froze on seeing the civilian woman. She then crossed back again with the child and went behind a wall. Within less than a minute a guy with an RPG came out and fired at us from behind the same wall. This happened a second time so I thought, ‘Okay, I get it. Let her come out again’.

Shows what regard the Iraqi army has for it's civilians.

daveirl · 30-03-2003 4:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan · 30-03-2003 4:19pm

Actually I read that and think that even amidst the brutality of the Hussein regime, some care for the people may still exist - it seems rather that this RPG bearing soldier was trying to force the yanks to let the woman and child escape - hence the reaction of the US gunnery sergeant.

aine · 30-03-2003 4:20pm

Shows what regard the Iraqi army has for it's civilians.

for heavens sake....get a life! The Iraqi people may not like Saddam but as far as they are concerned (and I'm inclined to agree with them) their country is under attack! Now lets face it if we were attacked in the morning, all citizens military and civilians alike would be playing against the invaders! Personally what I find more disturbing is the disregard the americans have for the lives they are apparently fighting to liberate!

Meh · 30-03-2003 4:36pm

Originally posted by aine
Now lets face it if we were attacked in the morning, all citizens military and civilians alike would be playing against the invaders!

If Bertie was a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, I for one would support the invaders in any way I could.

You can't blame the civilian when she is mowed down by a US Marine's M-16!

I agree completely. You can blame the Iraqi soldiers who forced her to scout for them. Civilians don't just wander about in the middle of a firefight unless they're being made to.

mike65 · 30-03-2003 4:42pm

Its a great piece and if one can forget politics for a moment (ha!) simply illustrates the corrosive impact of war on all sides.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan · 30-03-2003 4:44pm

but then is not war a continuation of politics by other means?

bonkey · 30-03-2003 4:47pm

Originally posted by Meh
Civilians don't just wander about in the middle of a firefight unless they're being made to.

Or because they choose to.

It is also possible that some of them do see the coalition invasion as the greater threat to them - that they have bought into the "imperialism" propaganda, and that they choose to help their soldiers, even at the cost of their own lives.

Mogadishu was a good example of this, where it is pretty clear that at least some civilians - including womena and even children - chose to attack the aggressor, whilst others were coerced.

True, willful participation means you're not really a civilian, but its impossible to make the distinction without seeing someone actually pointing a gun at them.

For anyone to choose to put an infant in the line of fire, though, is horrific - whether it was a "civilian collaborator", or an Iraqi soldier.

jc

kamobe · 30-03-2003 4:49pm

If Bertie was a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, I for one would support the invaders in any way I could.

What if the invaders were to drop a bomb on your Granny down at the market place? Or blow your brother away who works in the factory down the street, would you welcome them then?

The Iraqi people never asked for American 'help'.

Éomer of Rohan · 30-03-2003 4:56pm

I must agree - if indeed there was an invasion of Ireland, then all support would be with the government - including mine; practically because they would be the only organisation capable of handling the war effort. I would not have my family suffer being irradiated by depleted uranium shells, killed by an uncaring, probably laughing American soldier (watch the 'Platoon' village scene and you will understand what I mean) or murdered while they sleep by a bomb that fell from 33,000 feet to obliterate a munitions factory but instead hit a residential area which was right beside it - for those of you in the North - remember Mackies Munitions in Belfast!

aine · 30-03-2003 5:02pm

I agree completely. You can blame the Iraqi soldiers who forced her to scout for them. Civilians don't just wander about in the middle of a firefight unless they're being made to.

how do you know!?! not everybody in Iraq wants him out! if they did then....why oh why are thousands of Iraqis returning from Jordan etc to fight for him?? why? because an invading Western force is every bit as bad!

Martin’s distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. “The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,” said Corporal Ryan Dupre. “I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.”.....

the American disregard for Iraqi life is disgusting!

Meh · 30-03-2003 5:30pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I must agree - if indeed there was an invasion of Ireland, then all support would be with the government

So you would support your own government, no matter how evil and oppressive it was? If you were Serbian in 1998, would you have supported Milosevic and his genocidal friends against NATO? If you were Cambodian in 1979, would you have supported Pol Pot against the invading Vietnamese? If you were Zimbabwean, would you support Robert Mugabe if the world decided to take action against him? "My country right or wrong" is not a subsititute for making your own moral decisions, and I'm amazed to hear a self-styled "progressive" say so.

Originally posted by aine:
how do you know!?! not everybody in Iraq wants him out!

OK, if she actually volunteered to do the scouting (highly unlikely in my opinion), she is no longer a civilian and it's not against the rules to shoot her.

because an invading Western force is every bit as bad!

Wrong. Saddam has killed many more Iraqi civilians than the US has. In fact, the US and Britain are doing all they can to minimize civilian casualties.

the American disregard for Iraqi life is disgusting!

It's ambiguous (perhaps deliberately?) from the quotes whether the dead civilians described were killed by Iraqi or US fire. If they were killed by Iraqis, I can understand the US soldiers wanting to punish the Iraqis repsonsible. If they were killed by US fire, then I agree with you.

daveirl · 30-03-2003 5:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Meh · 30-03-2003 5:40pm

Originally posted by daveirl
Read the whole article.

I would, but...

Not Found
The requested URL /article/0,,2089-628258,00.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.19 Server at www.timesonline.co.uk Port 80

daveirl · 30-03-2003 5:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Meh · 30-03-2003 5:58pm

Originally posted by daveirl
You have to register first. Then the link will work and there is a link on the Front page

Notice to overseas readers: Times Online has introduced an annual subscription fee of £39.99 for overseas readers of the newspaper editions. You will be asked to pay the subscription fee after logging in or registering as a new user. Click on a headline to reach the log-in/registration box.

Interesting debating tactic you've got there -- link to articles on a pay site, then nobody can contradict you.

30-03-2003 6:33pm

Originally posted by daveirl
The US Marines are the agressor. You can't blame the civilian when she is mowed down by a US Marine's M-16!

no you can't blame her, but you certainly can blame the person that was clearly using her for cover in this case.
That plainly is a cowardly tactic.
mm

Samson · 30-03-2003 6:54pm

Originally posted by Meh
Interesting debating tactic you've got there -- link to articles on a pay site, then nobody can contradict you.

Just put a UK address in, should be free then.

dahamsta · 30-03-2003 7:51pm

I registered on that site earlier and read the article just fine, without paying anything. It's not there now though.

adam

Éomer of Rohan · 30-03-2003 9:27pm

So you would support your own government, no matter how evil and oppressive it was? If you were Serbian in 1998, would you have supported Milosevic and his genocidal friends against NATO? If you were Cambodian in 1979, would you have supported Pol Pot against the invading Vietnamese? If you were Zimbabwean, would you support Robert Mugabe if the world decided to take action against him? "My country right or wrong" is not a subsititute for making your own moral decisions, and I'm amazed to hear a self-styled "progressive" say so.

Well, the official communist party line is that the defence of a country relies on the progression of the society based in that country measured against the progression of the invader. This was the Stalinist view of all wars dating from WWII to present. It is indeed a substitute for making moral decisions when xenophobia and other reactionary view points dictate that 'my' society is indeed more progressive and as such I am very opposed to this view point. However, you missed the point of MY argument which is based more on understanding human emotion than political dogma - are you telling me that despite your political persuasion, had your granny been killed, for example by the Americans in Vietnem and you were Vietnamese, that you would NOT have fought against the invader?? Political dogma only extends so far and any progressive knows that.

daveirl · 30-03-2003 9:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Lennoxschips · 30-03-2003 10:26pm

I read the article in today's print edition of the Sunday Times (i didn't buy it, i borrowed it

).

daveirl · 30-03-2003 11:59pm

This post has been deleted.

daveirl · 31-03-2003 12:02am

This post has been deleted.

daveirl · 31-03-2003 12:04am

This post has been deleted.

31-03-2003 12:51pm

If Bertie was a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, I for one would support the invaders in any way I could.

In which case, personally i'd count you a traitor. If Bertie, was a tyrant, it would have been our responsibilty to get rid of him. Just as it was our choice to let him into power, in the 1st place. If Ireland was invaded, I'd defend against all aggressors.

"My country right or wrong" is not a subsititute for making your own moral decisions, and I'm amazed to hear a self-styled "progressive" say so.

Its still your country. Would you not defend it against agressors both foreign & domestic? If you have a leader in power, that is a tyrant, then get rid of him. If he remains in power, it is YOU that allows him to stay in power.

Civilians don't just wander about in the middle of a firefight unless they're being made to.

Crap.

Their country has been invaded. These firefights are occuring in their back-gardens, in their neighbourhoods, their homes, and the streets of their towns. Where are they supposed to go, when during the day, roads are shelled, and at night they're considered possible enemies by both forces. Also consider, that while their homes, might be poverty-stricken, they're still their homes, with all their possessions, which they're likely to loose the second they leave.

Sand · 31-03-2003 10:47pm

Klaz, please.

Youd defend the state against all comers - regardless if our government ( and I stress our government, not us ) were right or wrong ( Eomer this is why the nation-state will never die, even the most "progressive" will still choose sides based on nationality ), but if weve got a tyrant and dont depose him its our fault. Well feck if we have tyrant and dont despose him its your fault because youll be defending him either way.

Éomer of Rohan · 31-03-2003 11:02pm

Youd defend the state against all comers - regardless if our government ( and I stress our government, not us ) were right or wrong

I would die not for my government but because my family lived in the state under attack - and if you wouldn't, even if you lived in Iraq then I despise you.

Eomer this is why the nation-state will never die, even the most "progressive" will still choose sides based on nationality

That is crap - I would choose to defend my home, my family, my children and if it meant taking up arms alongside a government I disagree with, so be it.

Well feck if we have tyrant and dont despose him its your fault because youll be defending him either way.

You are ignorant of proper revolutionary knowledge - some of the most potent forces in history have been decomissioned soldiers, back from a war and demanding better conditions than what they suffered through.

31-03-2003 11:11pm

Youd defend the state against all comers - regardless if our government ( and I stress our government, not us ) were right or wrong ( Eomer this is why the nation-state will never die, even the most "progressive" will still choose sides based on nationality ), but if weve got a tyrant and dont depose him its our fault.

Yup. If you have a tyrant its your own fault. Who are you going to blame? Some other nation, for not stopping you from electing him? hmmm.. sounds a bit stupid that. Face the responsibility of living in a country. If you let a tryant seize power, its your own fault. Just as its your fault if he stays in power.

AS for defending my nation/country. I'm not defending the tyrant. I'm defending my right to live in say Ireland. Not to be ruled by some foreign nation, who i have no guarantee is ever going to leave, or won't be worse than the current leaders.

Besides, if there was a tyrant ruling the nation i lived in, i expect i would have tried by now to have gotten rid of him/her.

Well feck if we have tyrant and dont despose him its your fault because youll be defending him either way.

The president of Ireland, is not Ireland itself. I'd be defending my country, not the tyrant. As before, it would be up to me to depose him. If i agreed with a rebellions principles i would, join that rebellion. However, if i saw the rebellion to replace the tyrant with something worse, then i would try to stop it.

Sand · 31-03-2003 11:17pm

I would die not for my government but because my family lived in the state under attack - and if you wouldn't, even if you lived in Iraq then I despise you.

Youll get the government you richly deserve then. I wouldnt fight for a evil regime, think of all the soldiers who fought for Germany who suffered and died - all the while thinking as you do that they were defending their homeland from their enemies and all the while all they were doing was buying more time for the Nazis to push the last few jews into the gas chambers.

I know , I know - thats not what you meant. But the idea thatll you side with the state in all conflicts with other states is depressing. How much better would the life of all europeans have been if Germans of the day hadnt unthinkly given their allegiance to their corrupt state as you think they should.

[Article] US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death

Comments