|
Troops Admit To Shooting Iraqi Civilians
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PeacefulWarrior |
| quote: | "You can't distinguish between who's trying to kill you and who's not," he said. (Sergeant First Class John Meadows)
Like, the only way to get through like that was to concentrate on getting through it by killing as many people as you can, people you know are trying to kill you. Killing them first and getting home. |
| quote: | "There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger.
It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't.
...
, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the ******s. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped." (Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson) |
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Well, do you think it was right that the NYPD shot 42 bullets into that black Muslim, who pulled his wallet out of his pocket? Looks can be deceiving. |
|
|
| Konijn Island |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Well, do you think it was right that the NYPD shot 42 bullets into that black Muslim, who pulled his wallet out of his pocket? Looks can be deceiving. |
in order to be fair to the NYPD, I must point out that only 19 of the 41 shots actually hit the guy...
also, lest anyone is still questioning how we came to occupy Iraq here's a portion of the transcript between General Wesley Clark and the host of NBC's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert, taped this past Sunday, June 15th:
---
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting
immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
---
Surprisingly (or not) there wasn't even a scant mention of this exchange in the national media, despite Gen. Clark being a respected Republican--just some food for thought. |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| lets not forget the fact that the best military men and women were part of all the fighting. Dont assume the united states would put ill trained soldiers into the fighting. of course, its easy to criticise the military for this and that, but lets not forget that all of us are sitting behind computers, and they are out there risking their lives. Not saying that its ok to kill civies, but you shouldnt judge unless youve been shot at before. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| The argument isn't that the United States army personnel are badly trained. it's just that some of them are covering up te fact that they have shot and killed unarmed civilians. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn Island
in order to be fair to the NYPD, I must point out that only 19 of the 41 shots actually hit the guy...
also, lest anyone is still questioning how we came to occupy Iraq here's a portion of the transcript between General Wesley Clark and the host of NBC's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert, taped this past Sunday, June 15th:
---
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting
immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
---
Surprisingly (or not) there wasn't even a scant mention of this exchange in the national media, despite Gen. Clark being a respected Republican--just some food for thought. |
When I read that quote, I'm wondering if Bin Laden was infact the one who was standing behind the attacks or was that just an orchestration as well. I mean, it seems like Bin Laden was the one who did it only because the source which blamed him (US government) seemed trustworthy at the time. But seeing all the "evidence" they presented against Iraq, I'm beginning to wonder about validity of their evidence which accused Bin Laden (which could at best be described as scarce and superficial). |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
The problem is that the GI may not have time to assess whether the Iraqi civilian has arms with him. In close quarters combat, the GI needs to shoot first, or he gets killed himself pretty soon by some enemy using deception.
Especially if the GIs are engaged in an ambush while riding in a Humvee or armored personnel carrier, so that visibility is inevitably limited. This is in huge contrast to a carefully planned takeover operation where GIs have the advantages of intelligence and distance, so that they don't simply bump into a potential enemy.
I have no doubt that the American soldiers are quite well-trained, but here the difference between quite well-trained and extremely well-trained is decisive. Not to mention the difference between having fought for 20 years, or being a rookie.
Experience helps them to tolerate extreme stress, and to perceive common methods of deception, and that gives the soldier an extra split-second to assess whether the civilian is definitely harmless, and need not be shot.
This is the whole point of having a Delta-6 Team. In a captive scenario, the team can't just infiltrate and kill everyone who moves. They need to assess the positions of enemies and innocents.
I'm not sure, but I've read that Israelis are masters of fire control in their targeted assassinations. They have a long experience of the area, and they know they can't overkill because that would cause a media uproar. Unfortunately, the American soldiers in Iraq don't have similar experience, nor fear of media criticism. The US has by necessity used ordinary inexperienced soldiers for fighting their way through Iraq, instead of special operations soldiers who would have the extra skills for enemy neutralization without excessive collataral damage.
I would say that the military command, and ultimately, the politicians are responsible for planning operations in a more humane way. This ensures that the soldiers can operate in an environment where it's feasible to control fire. Better for the soldiers, and better for the civilians. The GIs in that interview were not very happy with the co-operation they got from war command.
I know I'm asking unrealistically much, but such extra effort should IMO be taken in an illegal invasion. Damn it, those Iraqis were defending their homes against an unprovoked aggression! |
I see what you're saying. It's simply a be killed or kill situation, which is rather unfortunate. If there was someway that the U.S. GI's could identify threats before making a decision to pull the trigger, situations like these would never happen. Unfortunately in this day and age, that's TOO realistic. |
|
|
|
|
