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

Alizarin

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.

ok.. I'm uninformed about the SAS example but isn't this straying extremely far from troops running special ops missions behind enemy lines? They may be special ops troops, but as far as I can see from the example they are operating much as the secret service does in the US: to protect the leaders of a country. While it might seem wrong for special ops troops to do that in Afghanistan, considering its a country which has always had tribal warfare and clashing.. sometimes its easier to trust someone from far away than someone who might be a distant cousin of your enemy.

as already said, most special ops missions are coducted in uniform and attempt never to be seen at all.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

In particular, footage of the CIA operating in Afghanistan showed them wearing civilian clothes. I suspect it is much the same behind the lines in Iraq. The footage of have seen of the Australian SAS and unidentified American special forces showed them in uniform.

Regarding presidential protection details, it is a criminal matter not a military one to assassinate (or protect) a politician, so Geneva doesn't apply.

Regarding the suggestion of tattooes, the mark needs to be readily noticeable according to Geneva.

what i'm saying is that these suicide bombers may be wearing uniforms, or identifiiable marks, which show themselves to be soldiers, should they step outside of the car/van. The fact that the attack was successful, would have destroyed any sign that these were actual troops or not.

Alizarin

post article
"For days, British forces have engaged in running tank and artillery battles with Iraqi forces on the outskirts of Basra, but have held off entering the city, citing the high risk of civilian casualties. But after delaying in hopes of negotiating a peaceful entry into the city, the British today declared armed elements in Basra a military target. The Iraqi forces inside the city have been using civilians as human shields, officials said, leaving the British no choice but to risk possible urban warfare they had been eager to avoid."

cnn article
"Brooks said the Fedayeen have changed into and out of uniform; used civilians, including women and children, as human shields; and threatened to execute entire families if the men did not fight coalition forces. "

cnn (notes at bottom)
"Iraqi forces Monday tried to push women and children onto a bridge between Hilla and Karbala that the forces had rigged with explosives, shooting a woman who tried to escape, Brooks said at Central Command. Coalition officials have accused the Iraqi regime of using civilians as human shields, a tactic Iraq denies."

skynews
'Irregular forces are using civilians as human shields," she said.
"Men with guns advance out of the city with civilians in front of them towards the British forces.
These civilians are being forced into this. The men are firing on the troops and they are unable to return fire. The stand-off continues."

Clintons Cat

ok.. I'm uninformed about the SAS example but isn't this straying extremely far from troops running special ops missions behind enemy lines? They may be special ops troops, but as far as I can see from the example they are operating much as the secret service does in the US: to protect the leaders of a country. While it might seem wrong for special ops troops to do that in Afghanistan, considering its a country which has always had tribal warfare and clashing.. sometimes its easier to trust someone from far away than someone who might be a distant cousin of your enemy.

If US Military forces,employed by the military,trained by the military and sent overseas to protect US interests are allowed to dress Smart Casual (Trainers Thursday Nights Only),Then surely it follows that the Republican Guards protecting Sadamn should be "allowed" by the "rules" to dress down also.

If US Military forces,employed by the military,trained by the military and sent overseas to protect US interests are allowed to dress Smart Casual (Trainers Thursday Nights Only),Then surely it follows that the Republican Guards protecting Sadamn should be "allowed" by the "rules" to dress down also.

well considering the allies are calling this a war against Saddam, himself, that would allow all iraqi troops capable of dressing-down"

Alizarin

under that flexing of the point, I guess so. otherwise we might just look through satellite photos for the one brigade wearing Gucci and pretending not to be on guard duty.

so I guess they had better all dress casual. hey, why don't the just dress like women and children since we least are likely to identify them as soldiers then!

come on guys....

this isn't a fashion show and a leaders personal guards aren't soldiers running around behind enemy lines nor defending a front a hundred miles away. the reason WHY troops are supposed to be identifiable is to protect those who are NOT soldiers, not protect the soldiers themselves. Of course, that goes under the premise that the soldiers are there to protect the civilians... something that's rather hard to argue in this situation.

I think many of the issues right now, from muslim protests in other countries, to the opinions of common iraqis, would be drastically altered if there were live coverage on all networks of some of the uglier tactics Saddam has proscribed - human shields, locating equipment in active hospitals, iraqi's firing on their own civilians... we hear about these things but pictures speak in a thousand words and language is less of a barrier.

this morning I listened to an embedded reporter near a firefight. a family of iraqis slowly made their way near him and he pulled them down into his foxhole. He spoke to them live and translated their words. they had been held hostage in their own home by iraqi troops and as the battle ensued were able to get out. they were obviously traumatized by all this but also obviously glad to be out of there, provided with food and protection.

the woman was sobbing and hugging the reporter. when a marine brought over some food packages he asked her if she wanted "chicken or beef". You could hear her laughing in relief. that was likely the first free choice they'd had in who knows how long.

its only fair to also tell good stories, even if I am against us even being there...

Éomer of Rohan

Of course, that goes under the premise that the soldiers are there to protect the civilians... something that's rather hard to argue in this situation.

I don't actually think I can find a war which has been about protecting civilians so to single out this particular war is wrong. If anyone can find one, please post it - but I am fairly sure when I say that no western power has ever involved itself in a war to protect civilians - though I understand that the above reference probably related to the Iraqi army rather than the US / UK invasion force.

I think many of the issues right now, from muslim protests in other countries, to the opinions of common iraqis, would be drastically altered if there were live coverage on all networks of some of the uglier tactics Saddam has proscribed - human shields, locating equipment in active hospitals, iraqi's firing on their own civilians... we hear about these things but pictures speak in a thousand words and language is less of a barrier.

I think it is important to note that, apart from the pacifist element, everyone in the anti-war camp was well aware what this war would entail - it has been slightly ignored but that included the tactics that Saddam would resort to in order to stop the US, though the point is well made that the US being there at all is the catalyst for such tactics.

Alizarin

though I understand that the above reference probably related to the Iraqi army rather than the US / UK invasion force

yes, that was directed at the iraqi soldiers who committed such acts. typically nations defending themselves in war are defending their way of life, their existence. without civilians, there is no way of life. without people, a nation doesn't exist. so, in my head at least, soldiers are there to defend the people (not every single one but, the idea of "the people").

as for the US "defending the people" I think that someone in another thread summed up the arguments (hawk vs dove) far better than I ever could.

I think it is important to note that, apart from the pacifist element, everyone in the anti-war camp was well aware what this war would entail - it has been slightly ignored but that included the tactics that Saddam would resort to in order to stop the US, though the point is well made that the US being there at all is the catalyst for such tactics.

some see the protestors as unpatriotic. some see them vs the soldiers. i see a far different battle of politics. The protestors, by and large, are supporting the individual soldiers, but they don't support those that sent them there. After all, the troops go out based on orders. Its not like they had a vote on whether to go to war. There had been a lot of lofty speeches made about how the troops are out there to protect the protestors and their right to protest. As I see it, the protestors are out there to protect the troops from being sent off to fight a war they shouldn't be in. both serve to help protect the other. well.. just mho...

in time a battle will likely ensue between Powell (who frankly could make a pretty decent run for president) and Rumsfeld (who basically pisses everyone off except GWB). we'll just have to wait and see how that pans out.

peace... I hope
BTW - for those who think its all pro-war propaganda in the US.. this is from the washington post Kidspost, a section where news is phrased so that kids can understand. the topics are often hard hitting rather than fluff. seeing the photos on the printed page is heartbreaking..

kidpost
usually the kidpost articles skip political positions and let the kids have their own viewpoints.. succint, sad, but true...

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I don't actually think I can find a war which has been about protecting civilians so to single out this particular war is wrong. If anyone can find one, please post it - but I am fairly sure when I say that no western power has ever involved itself in a war to protect civilians

Somalia. Kosovo. Bosnia. Sierra Leone.

Victor

Originally posted by Alizarin
After all, the troops go out based on orders. Its not like they had a vote on whether to go to war.

But neither are they conscripts. By signing up, they have tacitly approved the goverment's position.

Éomer of Rohan

Somalia. Kosovo. Bosnia. Sierra Leone.

Kosovo/Bosnia; media disaster for NATO so they took action. Also, strategic threat - last Russian 'ally' within the new NATO sphere of influence. I would also like to point out who supplied the weapons not to mention armed a terrorist force which turned on civilians as well as military targets.

Somalia; are you being serious?

Sierra Leone; Britain exercising her muscles once again. Sierra Leone is still an economically important nation with large coal reserves and Britain could not let them fall under the power of a hostile regime

Alizarin

Originally posted by Victor
But neither are they conscripts. By signing up, they have tacitly approved the goverment's position.

don't you mean follow rather than approve? i'm sure there are many US and British troops over in Iraq right now thinking they wouldn't approve of all this. Their only option though, having signed up from 1-20 years before this war, is to follow orders or go to prison (AWOL). I'm sure a fair number (that you never hear about) took option B.

my point is that after they sign up the govt decides for them. the protestors "fight" the govt to protect the soldiers as well as others.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Somalia. Kosovo. Bosnia. Sierra Leone.

The interventions were to save civilians, the wars were mostly wars of greed.

the reason WHY troops are supposed to be identifiable is to protect those who are NOT soldiers, not protect the soldiers themselves.

Actually you're incorrect on this one.

Uniforms were brought in so that on the confusion of the battlefield, they wouldn't kill their own men. Danger to civilians has only been a real concern in the last 2 hundred years. Before that, civilians weren't really thought about. Even during sieges, the attacker wouldn't care too much abt the civilians inside, except in the hope that they'd lessen the siege, by eating too much, or getting some form of plague.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Kosovo/Bosnia; media disaster for NATO so they took action.

Yes; it was a media disaster because of all the civilians who were dying. So NATO took action to protect civilians. Q.E.D.

I would also like to point out who supplied the weapons not to mention armed a terrorist force which turned on civilians as well as military targets.

So why don't you, then? The weapons in the Bosnian war were from the old Yugoslav federal army. The KLA's weapons were from looted Albanian government arsenals.

Somalia; are you being serious?

If the US didn't go into Somalia to protect civilians, then why did they go in? Somalia is one of the world's poorest countries, with no economic or strategic value whatsoever.

Sierra Leone; Britain exercising her muscles once again. Sierra Leone is still an economically important nation with large coal reserves and Britain could not let them fall under the power of a hostile regime

Because, of course, a hostile regime in Sierra Leone could hold the world to ransom by cutting off our coal supplies. :rolleyes: It's 2003, not 1803; the world doesn't run on coal any more.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
The KLA's weapons were from looted Albanian government arsenals.

But the training was CIA.

Originally posted by Meh
Because, of course, a hostile regime in Sierra Leone could hold the world to ransom by cutting off our coal supplies. :rolleyes: It's 2003, not 1803; the world doesn't run on coal any more.

Sierra Leone & Liberia were more about diamonds than coal, hence the term 'blood diamonds', but I suspect it was more about power.

Alizarin

Originally posted by klaz
Actually you're incorrect on this one.

Uniforms were brought in so that on the confusion of the battlefield, they wouldn't kill their own men. Danger to civilians has only been a real concern in the last 2 hundred years. Before that, civilians weren't really thought about. Even during sieges, the attacker wouldn't care too much abt the civilians inside, except in the hope that they'd lessen the siege, by eating too much, or getting some form of plague.

and this points out what? that the geneva conventions and the issues thus far discussed were all about friendly fire??? no.. what they are talking about is being able to identify soldiers by wearing some sort of uniform, thus identifying combatants from non-combatants. as for uniforms, if some country wants to give every soldier his own personalized copy, or use the exact same uniforms as the enemy, where's it written that they can't? as long as its about identifying soldiers as soldiers rather than civilians. what we've been discussing is regarding using civilian clothes in order to disguise soldiers and resulting in many more civilian casualties due to the deception.

they had their own problems hundreds of years ago (and their own forms of brutality). hopefully we'd be at least more well informed these days if not wiser...

Victor

This might shed some light on things. Operating under the CIA, US SFs would be out of uniform.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/sep/23us2.htm

CIA inducts special forces for Iraq
As part of its preparations for a possible attack on Iraq, the Central Intelligence Agency has drafted special operations forces to carry out covert counter-terrorism missions in the country, a move that will allow the Pentagon to maintain that the US Army is not in action, a media report said on Monday.

"In one of the most significant steps, elite special operations troops have been told to separate from the military temporarily and join CIA units that could be used in any campaign," The New York Times said quoting senior military officers.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Von

Originally posted by Meh
If the US didn't go into Somalia to protect civilians, then why did they go in? Somalia is one of the world's poorest countries, with no economic or strategic value whatsoever.

Somalia was considered important during the cold war (look where it is on a map) until the US acquired bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere and abandoned the place. Since the cold war ended, the US military has had to justify its huge budget somehow and "humanitarian" intervention is a handy way to do it. The americans insisted that they, rather than the UN were going to run the show, and so they ballsed the whole thing up, because they were more concerned with projecting a powerful image of their military.

and this points out what? that the geneva conventions and the issues thus far discussed were all about friendly fire??? no.. what they are talking about is being able to identify soldiers by wearing some sort of uniform, thus identifying combatants from non-combatants. as for uniforms, if some country wants to give every soldier his own personalized copy, or use the exact same uniforms as the enemy, where's it written that they can't? as long as its about identifying soldiers as soldiers rather than civilians. what we've been discussing is regarding using civilian clothes in order to disguise soldiers and resulting in many more civilian casualties due to the deception.

you made a statement as to the reason for uniforms. You were wrong. *shrugs* The Geneva Convention was brought in to determine the status of POW's and civilians. Its only a relativelyt recent document. Soldiers in the conventional sense generally will wear their uniforms, to distinguish themselves, from the enemy, and from civilians. However, since most non-western nations have conscripts, and irregulars, it is hard to apply these laws to them. Their traditions for war are very different to ours. Just because western nations have these rules to war, there is no real reason why eastern nations would follow them.

I'm not justifying the use of civilian clothes by regular troops, however in these circumstances i can see the reasons behind them. The Iraqi's are facing destruction by a far superior power. Its perfectly understandable that they would use any method possible to defend & attack their attackers. Since none of us, have lived personally through a war, we cannot say what goes through their heads, or how it would affect us, if we were in their situation. All we can say, is that we'd like to believe that we'd be better than that. But at the end of the day, all we have are opinions.

Alizarin

no.. i made a point as to why soldiers are supposed to be identifiable in a discussion about the geneva convention, civilians being killed today (not a couple hundred years ago), and trying to expose the reasons why such activities as the iraqis have undertaken in many areas is self-defeating IF they are trying to defend the majority of the population.

i didn't say soldiers wear uniforms to protect civilians.

i did say that soldiers are supposed to wear something which identifies them as a combatant, under the conventions of modern warfare, in order that innocent civilians might be spared or not targeted whenever possible. that was the gist of the thread.

sorry if you misunderstood. i thought stating it in context was enough.

Their traditions for war are very different to ours. Just because western nations have these rules to war, there is no real reason why eastern nations would follow them.

judging by the thousands of uniforms, used and new in plastic, that are being found, this is an intentional deception rather than a cultural difference. if we were talking about desert nomads I would accept your point, but Saddam and his men are very big on wearing intimidating or identifying uniforms. the proof of your point would be if he used these same tactics against iran and kuwait.

due to the iraqi actions, more civilian deaths and injuries have occured. this follows a trend for the regime. my basic opinion of it is its sick and short sighted. actually.. I take it back. since it was obviously given in general orders to brigades of troops, it wasn't short sighted. it was very much intentional which makes it even more sick and demented.

under your "perfectly understandable" scenario.. too much is accepted for my stomach. under that sort of reasoning, I just can't quite understand Bush's feelings and reasoning what with being stressed out by the war and how his God is directing him to act. when he pushed that button and nuked Iraq it was sad but.. I guess it was understandable considering I've never been a president during a war.

i would hope everyone would have higher aspirations for humanity. otherwise we will never reach them.

under your "perfectly understandable" scenario.. too much is accepted for my stomach. under that sort of reasoning, I just can't quite understand Bush's feelings and reasoning what with being stressed out by the war and how his God is directing him to act. when he pushed that button and nuked Iraq it was sad but.. I guess it was understandable considering I've never been a president during a war.

I understand what you're saying and for the most part i agree. However i was talking as to how i see things. It might be greatly distorted. I don't think its the common view.

pork99

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
killed by an uncaring, probably laughing American soldier (watch the 'Platoon' village scene and you will understand what I mean)

"I saw it in a film so it must be true"

But as a "socialist youth" you are probably used to believing all sorts of garbage :rolleyes:

The civilian death toll in this war is what, 300? 1,200?

Thats a horrible figure but if the Americans were out to deliberately target civliians or did not give a toss about killing civilians, a la the Russians in Chechnya, then the death toll would be at least 100 times that by now.

Sparks

We've had several examples allready of US soldiers behaving in just that manner in Iraq, pork.
And the toll of killed is between 601 and 760. But noone has a count of the injured.

Éomer of Rohan

Pork, you are the one believing 'garbage.'

Platoon was widely celebrated by Vietnam vets as being nearest the truth. And do not criticise a group like Socialist Youth about which you know little unless you are willing to back it up.

bonkey

Originally posted by pork99
"I saw it in a film so it must be true"

But as a "socialist youth" you are probably used to believing all sorts of garbage :rolleyes:

Please don't go insulting people - its against the rules if youve read them, and I will do something about it if you persist.

Also, the fact that its been covered on CNN and other channels, on more than one occasion would tend to indicate that its not "in a film".

jc