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

Moriarty

Originally posted by klaz
I disagree. Warfare is constantly evolving, and tactics are changing to adapt. The use of civilians has always been at the roots of guerrilla warfare. They use the concept of using the population to fade in, make the attack, and fade out. That has always been part of this type of warfare.

Hiding behinmd civilians is not a conventional warfare doctrine, however, who said that conventional warfare is applicable here for Iraq? Its not a terrorist tactic.

Iraq is holding its regular forces in residential areas, delibertly dispersed so any attack on them will mean civilian casualties aswell. The regieme is hoping for the slaugher of large numbers of its civilian population so that the us&uk public grow uneasy. This is a conventional war being fought with a terrorist mindset by the iraqi regieme.

Originally posted by klaz
Yes. Regular Military Forces. But Iraq is not fighting a conventional war. To do so, would be an instant defeat for them.

Be realistic, in this. What they are doing is very little different to the US using bombing runs, or shelling from afar. The concept is the same, limit the damage to heir own troops.

And in regard to the objective being to have the civilians killed, well, thats pure speculation. We don't know that this is the plan. Besides, the Iraqi Regime, has had no qualms killing themselves, so why bother the allies with it.

Iraq is fighting a conventional war, with the vast majority of units being conventional military units, but under a terrorist mindset.

The iraqis have not dispersed their units for the sole reason of trying to limit damage to them. Iraqi armor is despersed throughout residential districts for two reasons. It is arguable which is more important to them, but it is not argueable that either does not apply. One, the dispersal of conventional forces will slow the destruction of said forces considerably. Two, the dispersal of conventional forces into residential areas of cities will create "collateral damage" when the coallition destroy these units, therefore helping the iraqi regieme win the propaganda war.

They are getting the most "bang for their buck" because even when their units are destroyed, it will mean many civilian casualties, which in turn means increasing political pressure in the us&uk, which is a small victory for the iraqi regieme. This is an extension of terrorist tactics to a conventional war setting.

Originally posted by klaz
Also consider that the fighting is occuring in built up areas. Peoples homes are the current battlefield.

The iraqi regieme are the ones who decided to have the battlefield in peoples homes.

Originally posted by klaz
bull. So you're saying that anybody that helps the army is guilty by default? That if a civilian supplies the army with food, they're associated with the army, and loose their civilian status?

Civilians are those who do not carry arms, and are willing to use those arms. If someone is not carrying weapons, or explosives, then they are civilians.

If a civilian willingly provides an army with tactical or strategic intelligence (such as the woman mentioned at the top of this thread walking back and forth across the street), decides to act as a human shield, or otherwise actively assists an army - i wouldnt include providing food or medical aid in that -, they are no longer civilians and are legitimate targets.

Originally posted by bonkey
So you'd also be saying that any nation which has used conscription during a war is responsible for all deaths of their conscripts....as opposed to the people who actually killed them?

Conscription is a different situation. Im not going to get into a detailed discourse on why i think so, as i dont really have time, but the general gist is that conscription is issued nation-wide, under the mandate of the government. Its something that may be required to protect your country from, worst case, anihiliation and as such its a civic responsibility that you know may be enacted.

Iraq is holding its regular forces in residential areas, delibertly dispersed so any attack on them will mean civilian casualties aswell. The regieme is hoping for the slaugher of large numbers of its civilian population so that the us&uk public grow uneasy. This is a conventional war being fought with a terrorist mindset by the iraqi regieme

Their forces are dispersed, since any concentration of forces, means instant bombardment by allied forces. Consider the building in Basra, where 200 soldiers were killed by allied strikes.

This war is taking place in the cities. Considering that Baghdad has a population of 5 million, i doubt theres too many places the Iraqi army can defend from, without being somewhere close to residential areas. Besides, using these residential areas for cover is good tactics. If it means that the US may hesitate before attacking, then it helps the defenders.

Remember, the Iraqi's are not the instigators of this war. Yes they didn't co-operate fully with the UN. But it is the US/UK that have started this war & have made the choice to attack the cities.

Iraq is fighting a conventional war, with the vast majority of units being conventional military units, but under a terrorist mindset.

As for the terrorist mindset, thats just US properganda. They are using guerrilla tactics. Its the US that have labelled them as being terrorist, and alot of people have followed suit as a result. They are at war, and as such Terrorism does not come into this.

The iraqis have not dispersed their units for the sole reason of trying to limit damage to them. Iraqi armor is despersed throughout residential districts for two reasons. It is arguable which is more important to them, but it is not argueable that either does not apply. One, the dispersal of conventional forces will slow the destruction of said forces considerably. Two, the dispersal of conventional forces into residential areas of cities will create "collateral damage" when the coallition destroy these units, therefore helping the iraqi regieme win the propaganda war.

Yup i agree with you. Those are my reasons for why they do this. However, it makes sense. They're being attacked by a vastly superior army, bent on destroying them. I think that if you were part of the Iraqi army, you'd be happy to use any situation to keep you and your fellow troops alive.

They are getting the most "bang for their buck" because even when their units are destroyed, it will mean many civilian casualties, which in turn means increasing political pressure in the us&uk, which is a small victory for the iraqi regieme. This is an extension of terrorist tactics to a conventional war setting.

Again, Terrorist tactics. I disagree. This is political warfare. You'll probably say i'm picking at words, but i don't like the use of terrorism, that everyone is doing. It seems to include anything that the Iraqi's do, that steps outside of conventional warfare.

The use of warfare to achieve a political result is as old as sin. The US have been using this in their "shock & awe" methods. I don't see you complaining abt this, and calling that tactic terrorism.

And lets face it. If the allies didn't bomb Baghdad, there wouldn't be this collatoral damage.

The iraqi regieme are the ones who decided to have the battlefield in peoples homes.

well no. It was the allies who decided to invade. It was also the allies that decided to bomb the cities.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
The iraqi regieme are the ones who decided to have the battlefield in peoples homes.

Are they? It raises the question "should all military personnel immediatly evacuate an urban area as soon as the enemy approaches?". If you go strictly by Geneva, this is the case and may be one of it's failings.

Alizarin

I think that if you were part of the Iraqi army, you'd be happy to use any situation to keep you and your fellow troops alive.

BS

i'd rather shoot myself than have a child walk in front of me so I can take pot shots more safely... EVEN if the child was fully willing. Even if the child was the enemy's!

if you truly think that then you really have no idea what most people "think"

don't lump us all in together in your lowest common denominator of war... there are some people in this world that have higher concepts than just staying alive no matter the cost to everyone else.

i also think the iraqi's might be able to find SOME other place to park their tanks. at least outside of their hospitals, schools, and places of worship. if they had some limit, some compassion for the people that would make honest use of such places, then maybe you would have a point. they don't, so you don't. they aren't defending their country using these means.. they are just using it up.

Sarky

America is calling the Iraqi army going against the rules of warfare terrorism?

Did America follow the rules of warfare when it was fighting for independance from the British Empire?

Hypocrites...

Cork

So dont give me "reckless" as a criticism of one side only.

I should have given more examples.

The use of food aid as a weapon is also reckless.

So too is threating to bring in 300 suicide bombers and using such metods to inflict damage.

Iraq is holding its regular forces in residential areas, delibertly dispersed so any attack on them will mean civilian casualties aswell.

But it will be the Iraqi eople that will suffer because of this ploy. It is the same with the increased tension because since the suicide bomber.

The same goes for food aid. Food should be distributed by the UN.
Using it as a weapon for political brownie points is pretty sad.

All sides are loosing sight of the plight of the Iraqi.

They need to focus more on the people of Iraq.

Originally posted by Alizarin
BS

i'd rather shoot myself than have a child walk in front of me so I can take pot shots more safely... EVEN if the child was fully willing. Even if the child was the enemy's!

if you truly think that then you really have no idea what most people "think"

don't lump us all in together in your lowest common denominator of war... there are some people in this world that have higher concepts than just staying alive no matter the cost to everyone else.

i also think the iraqi's might be able to find SOME other place to park their tanks. at least outside of their hospitals, schools, and places of worship. if they had some limit, some compassion for the people that would make honest use of such places, then maybe you would have a point. they don't, so you don't. they aren't defending their country using these means.. they are just using it up.

First off, i haven't heard of any iraqi troops using children as shields. Is this just a comment or has it really happened?

Alizarin , i wasn't talking about the use of children as shields. I was talking about the use of adults. If those adults are willing, then its just another tactic to be used.

Besides, i didn't say what you thought, or what any other person thought, so don't get so huffed up. I said what i thought.

Alizarin, its nice that you have higher ideals especially when you're currently not being bombed, or being attacked by both your own people, or the "allies". Its all very well to say you have these higher morals, but its another thing to say it when you have lived in their circumstances.

they don't, so you don't

Huh? so you're lumping me in with the Iraqi's? Thats so very nice of you.

Actually i'm saying that i can understand these tactics, not necessarily that i totally approve of them. But then, it doesn't matter to you, that the US is currently invading a country, without just cause. Nope, you "see" Saddam as a possible threat, so you're more than happy to see this outcome. Well, this is the price the allies pay, for being so aggressive. They have to fight a modern war. They have to fight a nation thats grasping at straws to survive against almost impossible odds.

Would you have any problems with these tactics if the US proposed them, or is it just because Iraq, is a easy target?

The use of civilian areas, for military forces to hide, has been used by both sides. The only difference is that Iraq, is not bombing the sh*te out of them. So if Iraq was to attack these areas, that the allies currently have troops siuated around, would you blame the US, for deaths that might occur? In fact shouldn't you already be doing so, since they already have troops in civilian areas in and around Basra.

So too is threating to bring in 300 suicide bombers and using such metods to inflict damage

I don't see it that way. Its a bloody war for ****s sake. You really expect them to be nice, and honorable, and then wait patiently while the US smashes them to bits with their tanks? They are using the resources available to them.

Many nations throughout the years have done the same, when faced with overwhelming force. I don't see too many people berating russia for using dogs, to carry exploives to tanks, during WW2.

Not exactly the same, but the concept is the same. These methods just haven't been used, in years. Just becuase its not a western nation proposing to use em, doesn't mean its wrong.

In fact, i've seen many posts over the last year, stating that the use of Palestinian suicide bombers would be ok, if they just attacked military targets. How is the use of suicide bombers by Saddam, any different, if he attacks military targets? None.

They need to focus more on the people of Iraq.

I daresay the bombers/check-points have done enough of that already.

Alizarin

Klaz...

First off, i haven't heard of any iraqi troops using children as shields. Is this just a comment or has it really happened?

yep. iirc it was british soldiers around Basra that said they were being confronted by iraqis herding women and children in front of them as they took pot shots. in contact south of Bagdad, US soldiers witnessed troops herding women and children into the streets surrounding troop positions. can't remember where this one was from, but US soldiers approaching a small house said an innocuous looking man suddenly ran inside, 6-8 men pushed women and children through the front windows and door and started firing at the US troops. I think that's enough...

Alizarin , i wasn't talking about the use of children as shields. I was talking about the use of adults. If those adults are willing, then its just another tactic to be used.

sorry, the discussion had included both and now that I read back a few I think you only specified civilians ( which, I believe, you agree children are...). Have it your way then. change my words to "woman" or "civilian"... my statement stays the same with those words inserted.

Besides, i didn't say what you thought, or what any other person thought, so don't get so huffed up. I said what i thought.

you just generalized, as I quoted, on how happy we would likely be to make use of any "resources" available to keep me and my hypothetical troops alive. i was just stating how incredibly wrong your thought was.

Alizarin, its nice that you have higher ideals especially when you're currently not being bombed, or being attacked by both your own people, or the "allies". Its all very well to say you have these higher morals, but its another thing to say it when you have lived in their circumstances.

ohh... so I can only say I won't do realllllly incredibly nasty things like using women and children as hostages unless I've been bombed. hell.. if you're that sure, just shoot me now cuz I wouldn't ever. if you imagined yourself doing such things, how do you answer? take a peek outside at some civilians and imagine yourself ever doing such a thing. could you? would they just be "resources at hand" then?

welp, I was under threat of the sniper around DC. Whenever possible, I would walk in the best position to block our children from possible harm. please don't stoop to suggest that I would then grab them up as shields at the first sound of a shot.

quote:

---

they don't, so you don't

---

Huh? so you're lumping me in with the Iraqi's? Thats so very nice of you.

they aren't defending their country and countrymen. therefore you don't have a point. that clearer?

Actually i'm saying that i can understand these tactics, not necessarily that i totally approve of them. But then, it doesn't matter to you, that the US is currently invading a country, without just cause. Nope, you "see" Saddam as a possible threat, so you're more than happy to see this outcome. Well, this is the price the allies pay, for being so aggressive. They have to fight a modern war. They have to fight a nation thats grasping at straws to survive against almost impossible odds.

i suppose you weren't telling me what I thought again?
get off your high logical horse and think for a moment. i don't support this war. i don't support bush. i didn't want any of this. it saddens me greatly and I've posted so. i find it amazing that since i find using hostages and civilian human shields horrific that suddenly I'm out to support the war. i suppose I could continue your thought to its hypocritial conclusion that using civilian human shields it "not ok", but bombing civilians from 30,000 feet (or hundreds of miles away) "is ok". so go ahead and remove your "you"'s and put in Bush. you certainly don't describe me nor most of the people I know.

Would you have any problems with these tactics if the US proposed them, or is it just because Iraq, is a easy target?

LOL. no. I'm not a nationalistic idiot geez... sorry but that's a realllllly sad attempt to corner someone who said no matter what they would not do that. nor would I accept the US doing that. i think that would have been obvious but, since you needed confirmation... yes, i would have problems with anyone doing it, including the US. including my own brothers or sister.

conversely.. i wonder if they were not doing it and the US did, would you still say its an acceptable tactic?

The use of civilian areas, for military forces to hide, has been used by both sides. The only difference is that Iraq, is not bombing the sh*te out of them.

In Basra the gov't presence there (soldiers, irregulars, party officials, not sure which) HAVE bombed the sh*te out of them. using mortars to fire within a city which is not occupied by any enemy troops. may not be the same amount of explosives but it's what they have at hand. those same troops fired at civilians as they left the city.

So if Iraq was to attack these areas, that the allies currently have troops siuated around, would you blame the US, for deaths that might occur? In fact shouldn't you already be doing so, since they already have troops in civilian areas in and around Basra.

actually as far as I understand it... the forces are encamped some distance outside anything. statement by US forces today is that they aren't planning to occupy towns and are concentrating on Bagdad. I'm not sure of the exact situation at the port. or, if you prefer, we can look at the statement of the iraqi vp saying that the enemy has taken no towns. if US troops hid or took placement under the umbrella of civilians or religious sites, etc.. then yes, I would take issue with it and condemn it.

i do blame the soldiers that fired on the Jeep carrying 13 civilians. i also blame Saddam for sending in suicide bombers disguised as civilians. he's making sure its not safe for the people to surrender or seek aid. it keeps them under his thumb since no one is safe.

its an utter mess... i have serious issues with many in the top of US govt. I think many will remember these issues when election time rolls around. if not, I'll be sure to remind them...

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
So too is threating to bring in 300 suicide bombers and using such metods to inflict damage.

This is an interesting one actually....

The US are very quick to condemn the use of suicide bombers by Iraq in this conflict. Its barbaric. It "looks and smells like terrorism". Except that it isnt - its a military tactic, presumably being undertaken by those willing to die (although I do admit co-ercion is a lesser possibility), to achieve a military goal.

What is disturbing is that Western ethics seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea - Japanese suicide bombers in WW2 caused so much trouble, because the Allies couldnt quite get to grips with the mentality that enabled them to do this.

Thus, what we cannot understand, we condemn. We wouldnt do it, so it must be a bad thing.

On the other hand, we read so much fiction about "knew this was a one way trip" bravado from "heroes" - both within and without the arena of war. Yes indeed - the good guy willingly giving up his life for his buddies....thats a thing of touching melancholic beauty, but when its done by the enemy its a thing to be deplored.

The US are using their "Hearts and Minds" philosophy to give them a psychological advantage. As the Iraqi's have done at every opportunity, they have offerered the minimum threat to cause the maximum psychological damage - a couple of shells were reported to have brought forward the invasion timetable, because of fears of WMDs. A couple of oil wells diverted much more resources than the US wanted for fears of a scorched earth becoming reality. One car-bomber leads to a change in Rules of Engagement which will put a massive strain on the Hearts and MInds campaign . A handful of this, a sprinkling of that, and at every stage it has been massively effective at removing whatever psychological advantages the US had in that arena. Yes,its not pretty, but no aspect of war is.

Is it reckless to make noises about 300, or 4,000 suicide bombers? I'd say ues, but no more so than any other action in this war - every resistance by the Iraqis will bring more civilian deaths, just as every move to oust Saddam will as well, and this is the only realistic chance the Iraqis have.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

I think the suicide bombers who attack the invading American army are quite heroic. I have the utmost respect for the samurai who plumeted to their death for something they believed in in WW2 and I would like to think that in the same situation I would act in the same manner - for something I considered to be the greater good. What people don't understant they fear and ultimately hate so allow me to give you a 'modern' comparison - most of you will have seen the film Saving Private Ryan (as opposed to Saving Ryans Privates LOL) and it is very moving in the end sequences when we see Tom Hanks' character killed in the line of duty, bringing home a private and the ensuing scene where the Private is now an old man standing over the grave of his captain and expresses the profound hope that what he has become, that all he has done in his life was worth the sacrifice of the men who died saving him - same sort of thing.

Alizarin

not that any of this is pleasant, and I understand your point Eomer. i actually think the japanese suicide pilots were very brave and heroic.. definitely strong believers. i even understand your comparison to Tom Hanks...

I'm not so much disapproving of such acts, yes, even against the US... its the fact that it was a taxi. that the situation was made so as to appear exactly as a civilian needing help. then boom. there are some glaring differences between that and Tom Hanks (in uniform) and the kamikaze (in military planes). from the micro perspective its not nice but I can't argue strongly with the taxi driver. its the macro perspective, that another taxi was shot up yesterday approaching a checkpoint (victim in hospital now). its how that brought about many other incidents...

in the end, these suicide bombers are brave as individuals. however, the man with the iron fist on the country.. sitting in a bunker somewhere, contemplating how to gain support by sacrificing civilians... how to get some of them killed at checkpoints and surrender points so that they'll stay under that fist... now THAT man is a rotten stinking coward!

kudos for the Saudi Prince to basically say so

it was wrong to enter into all this in the first place. airing Saddam's dirty laundry on TV (broadcast outside his borders of course) for all to see would have been much better for all involved. then it would truly be up to the Iraqi's themselves.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think the suicide bombers who attack the invading American army are quite heroic.

But any soldier should wear a uniform. Any militia or volunteer should wear an identifiable armband.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think the suicide bombers who attack the invading American army are quite heroic. I have the utmost respect for the samurai who plumeted to their death for something they believed in in WW2

The kamikaze pilots weren't samurai, for the most part they were very young men with little flying experience. And while not wishing to disrespect them, they were devout subjects of the emperor and were either blind to the fact that they were being used or their honour code gave them no way to refuse to fly.

Originally posted by Alizarin
in the end, these suicide bombers are brave as individuals.

Again no disrespect to their bravery, but many are young and under the influence of people with questionable morals. Many are fanatical in the true sense, being members of cult-like organisations and having been subjected to extreme indoctrination.

Originally posted by Alizarin
its the macro perspective, that another taxi was shot up yesterday approaching a checkpoint (victim in hospital now). its how that brought about many other incidents... however, the man with the iron fist on the country.. sitting in a bunker somewhere, contemplating how to gain support by sacrificing civilians... how to get some of them killed at checkpoints

I don't think Saddam Hussein planned for the American to kill that family in that way, specifically or generally. The problem was the Americans and got lazy (they didn't plan the checkpoint properly) / slow (no prompt warning shot) / trigger-happy (ooh look someone is coming towards us, lets kill them).

Éomer of Rohan

But any soldier should wear a uniform. Any militia or volunteer should wear an identifiable armband.

Why?

The kamikaze pilots weren't samurai

Yes they were. Only samurai are allowed to commit seppuku and this was regarded as a form of that. They were all samurai.

And while not wishing to disrespect them, they were devout subjects of the emperor and were either blind to the fact that they were being used or their honour code gave them no way to refuse to fly.

I disagree. You say it yourself, they were devout subjects of the Emperor - and thus it was not that they didn't know they were being used - they willingly embraced it and went to their deaths in the hope that their deaths would bring an end to the suffering of thei people. Have you ever met a Buddhist? They are fascinating people and the Japanese religion was Zen Buddhism, a creed that defined this as their 'tao' or way and they were all willing to take it. They died as heroes.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Why?

Because
(a) it helps protect civilians
(b) Geneva insists on it and
(c) it gives the Americans an excuse to brand them "illegal combattants".

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
They died as heroes.

The unfortunate thing about heroes is they are usually dead.

Éomer of Rohan

Ever heard of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
You should make a note to pass that on to the generals etc... Just to make sure that the SAS and other special forces wear some nice "WE ARE ACTUALLY ARMY PEOPLES" caps while they are under cover behind enemy lines dressed as Arabs etc.....

These types are usually shot as spies / converted to dog food (if you will pardon the expression). They cannot claim to be militia as they aren't local so the must wear full uniforms.

Éomer of Rohan

LOL @ Mercury Tilt. Very good.

Fair point though - the US and UK special ops forces do not wear such things - why then should the special ops of the Iraqis? And suicide attacks are most certainly a special ops task!! It may be banned by the Geneva convention but hell, when has any treaty ever stopped the US?

As Stalin said to his people in 1942, on 7 November, in response to Hitler's speech at the Wolfsschanze, "If they want a war of extermination they shall have one!" and thus should the Americans be prepared to accept whatever one country may throw whenever they invade it's territory, bomb it's cities and kill it's people.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
They take people and train them to kill. Its as simplistic as that tbh.

Just because it is simple, doesn't make it right.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Well done Victor - go to the top of the class LOL.

Leonidas was one of the two Spartan Kings and while the rest of the Hellenes escaped from the invading Persian army, he and three hundred hand picked troops held the coastal path to Thermopylae against overwhelming odds - something like 40,000 Persians / Phoenicians / allies - every man stood his ground and died in the service, not just of his country but of many other countries - their deaths gave the Greeks time to fall back and prepare themselves - and eventually they destroyed the 100,000 strong Persian army. That is the sort of self sacrifice that we should look up to.

Yes the army trains to kill people however, no army can instil a sense of duty, pride and honour without those men being willing to listen - it is these latter qualities which then give men the courage to lay down their lives in things like 'last stands' and suicide attacks.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Yes the army trains to kill people however, no army can instil a sense of duty, pride and honour without those men being willing to listen - it is these latter qualities which then give men the courage to lay down their lives in things like 'last stands' and suicide attacks.

courage....lol


duty i can understand in an army but
does it need pride or honour to acomplish their objectives

it is the fool that has no fear of death...and this has been well utilised by statesman, kings, generals.....

and killing should never be an army's primary objective

Koopa

Searrard:
it is the fool that has no fear of death

id say its more like, its a fool who lets his minor fears interfere with his decisionmaking - you should always be able to see your options, and choose the better option - example: suppose there were 3 men coming to your house to kill your family and your kids, and you had a chance to take out the 3 men before they got to your house, but youd die as a result.. wouldnt it be better to take that chance, and die, than do nothing? depends on your priorities of course, but you shouldnt let anything cloud your reasoning, and once you choose a path, you would be foolish to allow a fear of death if that path involved dying (like in the above example)

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Fair point though - the US and UK special ops forces do not wear such things

I'm curious as to where this notion comes from, because it seems to be a recurring theme here - not just from Eomer, but from posters in general.

Special Ops most usually do wear "such things". In fact, it is highly rare that they undertake missions where they are infiltrating behind enemy lines and trying to pass themselves off as the enemy or as civilians.

Normally, they work in a "dont get seen" manner, and when seen their job is to get the hell out of there. Special Ops are too valuable to risk in stupid things like unnecessary fighting. For them, firing a bullet is usually a last resort.

The only place I can think of where "Special Ops" operate out of uniform is in stuff like Bond movies or XXX, or whatever else Hollywood produces. Every op that I've ever actually read about most definitely did have Special Ops in uniform.

I'm not saying that you guys are wrong...I'd just love some information or sources on confirmed Special Ops which were carried out in civilian attire.

As for the wearing of armbands or whatever.....would it have mattered in this suicide bombing? The Geneva Convention doesnt say anything about commandeering a civilian vehicle.

At the end of the day, the US wanted checkpoints, but weren't willing to implement them securely. Now, they are pissed that someone exploited that obvious security hole.

jc

But any soldier should wear a uniform. Any militia or volunteer should wear an identifiable armband

There is nothing to say that these suicide bombers didn't wear a uniform, or armband. They might have a tattoo which distinguishes themselves as soldiers to other Arabs. Just because it might not be a uniform in our traditional sense, doesn't mean that it doesn't count. Hell, some of these Arab traditions go back to before Rome.

I don't admire suicide bombers. I think they're indiots. The objective of a battle is not to loose it. The way to loose a war on the other hand, is to diminish your own troops too much. Suicide bombing has its uses, but shouldn't be used too widespread. Besides, there is no guarantee that the bomber, has the willpower to actually complete its mission. If not, then the country looses the explosives involved in the mission or such.

In regards to these suicide troops, you should also consider that most nations have told their troops at some stage to hold at all costs. This in itself, is an order to commit suicide, by taking as much of the enemy at all costs.

The US have done it, the UK certainly have, and the Third Reich did it at Stalingrad.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Clintons Cat

The Andy McNab was the example i was thinking of,but i am not sure how verifiable the example is as truth has become blurred with fiction and tabloid reporting *cough*

The Gibralter example sounds good,the SAS also monitored /set up ambushes at various IRA arms dumps in civillian clothes during the "troubles"

How about the US special forces detailed to act as Bodyguards to Hamid Karzai in Afganistan?They were caught on film in civillian dress after a Gun battle with potential assassins.

Originally posted by klaz
First off, i haven't heard of any iraqi troops using children as shields. Is this just a comment or has it really happened?

On a point of information,the very first post, by the thread starter refers to a woman and child coming in and out from behind a wall, behind which there was also a shooter.
Whether, the shooter had the gun pointed at the woman and child , each time,she went back behind the wall, who knows, but it's entirely possible.
mm

Theres no reference of them using the woman & child as a shield. I've heard references to them acting as spotters, but thats a different matter entirely.