US murder 40 worshippers as they gather to prey at mosque
 

This story is being reported everywhere, I don't feel there is any need for me to add anything other than that the occupying forces shame is now complete.

Find the full article at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e_mi_ea/iraq_2

They should have retreated and left them there safely.
This is another instance that will whip them into a frenzy. This probrably more than anything because now it's 'attacking the religion'.

Oh boy.
The shit is really starting to hit the fan.

All I can hope for now is that 'our boys' (the Dutch military presence in Iraq) will not be retaliated against. They're situated in a relatively peaceful region of Iraq in which they have had true cooperation with the iraqis in rebuilding roads, schools and other much need facilities. One dutch office shot dead one Iraqi civilian a few months ago, and that was the only violence that has occured there. I hope it stays that way.

It's hard to know, but I hope the Iraq civilian population recognizes that there are only 2 aggressive foreign forces in Iraq, and that the Spanish, Dutch, and other forces are there merely for support of restoring order in their country. Then again, I also hope that our government will change the ratio of humanitarian/military presence so that it is more clear what our true purpose is there.

As for that, I also hope that bloodshed will cease, and such dehumanising acts as we saw last week will not occur again against ANY person.

I can only guess that anti-American sentiments throughout the world will rise much like anti-Israeli sentiments have been cemented, now since the American and Israeli military tactic's are indistinguishable.

Wolf Blitzer raised this point yesterday. What is fighting terrorism or terroristic factions and what is revenge.

Don't worry Silvy, have a feeling if this keeps up your leaders will come to their senses and pull out.

ANY NATION condoning killing innocent people in a place of worship is barbaric and the leaders need to be tried for murder.

I'm sure the administration will find some way to accept this as a defensive move and that we had no choice. But we add fuel to the fire and now neither the Sunnis and the Shiites want us there. This is turning more and more into Vietnam.

CNN's story
Here is the link to cnn's story of the same action.

The marines were being fired upon from a wall several hundred yards away from the mosque.

It does not matter where you are firing from, fire will be returned.
Seems to me these combatants should have been killed.

Now the cnn story also states that women are now carrying weapons, so when the Marines kill them this will be a major story for the anti-war crowd.( women killed by US Marines!!!) oh the travesty!!!!

I don't think using the same tactics as Israel use's against Palestine is going to work. I can't see how blowing up a mosque is going to help democracy and peace. Mind you I've always thought that Bush's idea of democracy is to kill / imprison everyone who disagrees with him.

Way to spin it people, honestly bravo...

If the assholes are firing at our boys from places such as behind the wall or from the mosque itself, you have to think that the Americans will return fire and rightfully so. Not to mention that these clowns are employing the cowardly tactics of Saddam's regime taking refugee in hospitals and other public buildings and firing on our troops. To hell with them.

Also who is condoning the killing of innocents here? What planet are you from? No where in the article has the administration said ANYTHING in the SLIGHTEST that comes close to condoning the murder of innocents. The American's fired on combatants, read the article, no part of the mosque was even damaged.

If they are carrying a gun shoot them, they are no longer "innocent" nor "civilian".

Yeah, that attitude has worked really well for Israel. :rolleyes:

Justified or not, firing back at people with guns, with missiles that have huge collateral damage is ultimately bad strategy. You knock out the guys who are firing on you...along with 40 innocent people whose grief-stricken families now hate Americans. When you're an occupying force you have to operate by different rules that sometimes tie your hands in individual battles. Sometimes you have to pick your fights to achieve the larger goal. "Well, they were in the way" is hardly going to fly as an excuse for why we're killing innocent civilians. In a frickin mosque, for cyring out loud. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

First off the article never said if the 40 killed were innocents or combatants. Secondly seeing as to THE MOSQUE ITSELF WAS NOT HIT, just the wall where the combatants were firing from you would assume those people were not just on their way to prayer. Oh and 40 was a speculated number.

No matter how you try and justify it, killing a bunch of people in a mosque isn't going to help the situation.
Let's just hope this madness ends soon.

I'm sad to say it doesn't matter what the facts are, mojo. Word of mouth spreads that we fired at a mosque and worshipers will killed, that's enough to fan the fires. We need to avoid any appearance of impropriety if we want to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. And this ain't it.

Sorry lurkette but you are wrong,

First of all hand tying gets troops killed plain and simple, and fight picking is not always possible, as per ambush.

Maybe if the people who were in that mosque told these combatants we dont want you in here there might have not been ANY collateral damage. (if there was any at all).

And it is up to civilians "not to be in the way" by either keeping away from hot zones or not allowing Iraqis with guns near them.

It's still a flame! Your "mistaken" transposition of prey for pray is a deliberate attempt to color the argument!

HAHA! Just kidding, Lebell. Keep the peace.

Just an fyi, I didn't alter the "prey" part. ;)

The city was told to produce the insurgents responsible for attacking Americans or the city would be taken by force. They chose not to. American Marines were being fired upon, it's their right to return fire and defend themselves. It's a shame IF innocents were killed but that is a hazard of war. Period.

Very true. And I have to wonder about all the possible solutions to this event that were discussed if any before this action was ordered. It's been a few days since the military was loading up around Fallujah.

Finding those responsible for killing the 4 last week is one thing, rockets from apache helicopters into crowds of people is another. Surprised no one has called the innocent civilians killed" human shields" yet.

Click here for source


Personally I think that dropping a huge bomb on a mosque was a very bad idea. No matter if it was an act of 'self defence' or not, it's going to raise a firestorm in the area.

Things are going to rapidly get a _lot worse_ there after news of this spreads.

why is it the US's fault for firing on a mosque (if indeed that what transpired)? why aren't all of you berating the militants who used the community's place of worship to stage a guerilla war? they know innocent lives will be put into danger. this appears to be a tactic of unmatched cowardice.

baffling...

Because they are to blinded by their hate for evil heartless America.

People seem to be very concerned about news of this spreading, but from what I have been reading lately, rumors are being spread throughout Iraq that U.S. forces are responsible for most of the car bombs going off around the country. So you can't really controll things like that anyway it seems.

If Marines were fired upon and suffered casualties, then wher ever the rounds came from should be a target period. Thats the whole reason they hide in mosques, hospitals, and around civilians. If we never returned fire under those circumstances, we would really have our hands tied.

I don't think any of us are really berrating the military for protecting themselves. What we are worried about is what the average Iraqi will do with the information that the mosque was fired on.

Though our soldiers were taking fire, it would have been more prudent to fall back and engage them at another time. This would be done to remove the APPEARANCE that we are attacking Islam itself.
That is our concern, that more americans are going to die now specifically because of this. Because it will be used as a method of inciting Iraqi's.

I know it is unfair to the engaged american military to have to retreat from certain structures when the Iraqi's take cover there but it should be done. In the long run it's best for our troops health. This is the kind of thing that may eventually unite all major Islamic factions against us there.

exactly, especially in the current situation the whole iraq and the whole muslim world is looking at the americans and how they deal with the situation.
if the americans kepp on acting like the "cowboy" cliche the fighting and the hate will continue.

I agree to some point. But think even further.
The US knew what it was getting into. If the US government did not like it, they shouldn't have started a war.
Urban warfare is a difficult and dirty type of warfare and civilians are certainly victimised by it.
Critisizing the agressor for this is a valid point in my opinion.

good post silvy...

in addition, i would argue that the US military DID know what they were getting into when they started this war. i have a lot of contact with military circles, don't think that this is unexpected to them. but, i agree that some of the politicians and certainly the news media did not consider the real implications of invading a country and occupying it for a year or so.

What I don't get is these people gathering for prayer blithely not noticing the 6-hour firefight between the Marines and the folks holed up in the mosque. Use some situational awareness, Iraqis!!

There are plenty of reasons why they may not have been able to or did not want to do that. If it were to cost more men to retake the ground you give up, if the paths of retreat are blocked, if you would be a bigger target in retreat, if you're concerned the attackers will pop up somewhere else etc, etc, etc you don't retreat you attack.

Actually NPR gave a fairly complete report from an embedded reporter in Iraq in Fallujah. I'm recalling this from memory, so I could be a bit off.

- The marines were encountering heavy resistance
- An RPG hit a humvee and injured five marines
- The marines saw about 20-30 rebels enter the mosque complex
- The marines called in a couple of Apache helicopters
- The marines then called in two laser guided precision bombs

The death count ranges from 20 to 40. The bombs were dropped during the afternoon call to prayer, so it seems likely that innocents were killed, but neither side had said anything one way or the other on that yet, as far as I know. Also, it's unconfirmed whether the actual mosque was bombed or not.

Al Jazeera (biased source) says the mosque was bombed and that the rebels weren't there when the bombs hit:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...478D565B02.htm

My take on it:
- Our forces have the right to defend themselves
- Attacking a mosque when trying to take out a religious fanatic and cut his support is idiotic. I can't think of a worse strategy that we could have used. Sadr had 10,000 supporters yesterday, I bet he has 50,000 today.

We'll see how this all shakes out, but bombing a mosque in this situation, no matter what was happening on the ground, seems like a really bad strategy.

My thoughts exactly. Very well said.

We are not attacking the government of the US, or even the war itself. We are just questionning this specific act which is getting MASSIVE worldwide attention which will most certainly come back to haunt us.

I realize this is approaching tit-for-tat and nitpicking... so this will be as far as i'll go on this line of debate. If you'll read my post, I wasn't acccusing anyone of berating the military, I was asking why anyone wasn't doing so to the militants. Admittedly, I did make a reference to posters being negative towards the soldier's actions. The differing interpretations are justified.

I have but 2 question, has major conflict ever really ended in this war, and secondly, how many soldiers, children, ordinary human beings, have to die in this mess before people realize that a country cannot be forced to peace, and democracy? This war will continue as long as Iraqis are willing to die for their country and for what they believe is right, honestly how many of you people would let a foriegn power invade your country and try to impose their rule and laws, I know I wouldn't. These are just my thoughts.

Seeing as to 80+% of the country loathed Saddam, I don't think that is the issue. You have a minority of people dicking around and fucking shit up.

Judging by the way things are going to hell a minority seems an understatement, and the coalition soldiers that are facing this minority probably doesn't consider this opposing force to be a minority.

uhh...

a majority in an issue w/2 sides (either oppose the US in arms or not) is 51% or more. an uprising led by a rogue cleric in a medium sized city is nothing like a majority.

although real bullets are being fired and injuring (and killing) real people... i seriously doubt the military is making it as big of a deal as the media and Bush's detractors want it to be.

First, I did read the article, and in my opinion blowing a wall away to a religious compound for any reason is barbaric. By blowing the wall away and knowing there were innocent lives in there is condoning their killing. In my opinion.

Do I condone the firing upon our troops? In no way shape or form and I resent anyone implying I do. I firmly believe when fired upon you fire back at those that fired (men, women, children, whomever it was), but you limit as much as possible the innocent casualties.

Blowing a wall away with 3 missiles is not limiting that.

1 missile I am sure would have sent a message.

2 missiles would have gotten the point across just fine and been overaggressive but after the first if the firing had continued acceptable.

3 missiles is overkill.

It is not showing the Iraqi or any Arab country that we mean peace and freedom. It shows we will go to extremes to make our point.

It adds fuel and more hunger to the enemy's cause and hatreds as now those who were innocent may now have been angered or the families vowing vengence against us.

We are not showing these people, (we say we are freeing from a horrendously evil dictator,) any difference between us and Saddam.

If they choose to use religious compounds to strike against us, then we do what they do. That is not fire back that is to let the press see for themselves firsthand what is happening. By doing this I guarantee you take away any sympathy and the attacks from these places stop. Because those that are innocent and those that (like myself) feel there were better ways to handle it will be able to see firsthand that we didn't fire first and we did all we could before firing back.

Also, just because I question policy or the president's motives, does not mean I hate America. IT IS MY RIGHT TO QUESTION AND NOT HAVE MY PATRIOTISM QUESTIONED. To imply or believe anything else, is not protecting freedom but stifling it and perhaps scaring, harrassing and berating others from speaking out. Noone has the right to do that to another, not in the USA.

Anytime soldiers die the military takes it seriously and makes a big deal out of it. Is 500,000 in Fallujah considered a medium sized city? I'm from a town of 15,000 so that seems like a large city. The uprising was in more than one city, Fallujah, Kut, Basra, Ramadi, Najaf, Baghdad, Karbala, al-Sadr's Mehdi Army was incontrol of Najaf with the coalition left on the outskirts so this was hardly a medium sized city uprising as you put it, I mean the US didn't take the Viet Cong seriously until Tet maybe this is a wake up call.

I'd just like to weigh in with a simple analogy.

If a mentally handicapped person is shooting at me and my friends, and my friends are dead and dying, and i'm just lucky to be upright and conscious, I'm gonna blast that fucker, no matter who or what the fuck he is.

What we have is the equivalent of the aftermath of my above hypothetical, and the title would read:

"analog shot a retard"

I'd say that there is a story here, and some of us are only getting bits and pieces of it.

1. They didn't bomb the fucking mosque. They bombed a wall that surrounds it. That's WAY different.

2. They bombed people who were- and had been for some time- actively engaging troops, and had already wounded or killed several.

3. These people chose to engage our troops FROM A CHURCH. As someone already pointed out, this was one of the disgusting tactics used by Saddam.

The only thing to debate, as far as I can tell, is whether or not we should have just pulled out completely rather than stay and engage.

You just lost several brothers- you tell me what you'd do in the moment.

I read on another message board that what cnn was reporting wasnt the truth... but i cant verify that, just what i heard..

that's only if they're not americans...:rolleyes:


do u REALLY think they are that stupid? i'm not sure i'm buying all of this..

Yeah, the big evil American Military men should just sit around and wait to be added to the list of dead and wounded rather than killing those who are trying to kill them.

I guess people's definition of "supporting the troops" varies greatly. While my "support" includes not second guessing the actions of the highly trained military professionals on the ground being fired upon, I guess others' definition of "supportive" is to say they should have just pulled back and risk being killed in retreat rather than give the appearance of "attacking a religion" without regard for the realities of what was happening on the ground at that moment.

That is not quite true.

Source is here

They didnt just knock a wall down, they fired a hellfire missle at the minaret. That is a shot right at the heart of the mosque. That would be like taking a shot right at the steeple of a christian church. The minaret is also where the call to prayer comes from.

Bad, bad move.



In my opinion picking up a gun and protecting yourself from fire that has hurt collegues as you state in your analogy is far different than calling in an airstrike and bombdrop. Those take planning and approval from higher ranks in the chain. Someone should have decided it was a very bad idea and thought of the possible consequences.

In that situation you want to pick up the biggest gun you have. That's what they did. There is no doubt there was an approval process and the consequences were considered. They decided it was the best way to proceed in this situation.

Hello?

It sounds like they are being insensitive, not us...

Ummm, no. Your own article states the minaret was hit by shrapnel which is far from firing a "missile at the minaret". Other articles also specifically state that the mosque was not the main target.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ike/index.html

My article states - The Abdel-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque was hit by U.S. aircraft that launched a Hellfire missile at its minaret

The minaret is part of the mosque.

" Witnesses said part of a wall surrounding the mosque compound was destroyed but the main building had not been damaged"

They are talking about the 2x500lb bomb damage their.

A hellfire missle was still aimed and fired at a minaret.

Anyhow, no point arguing these points.

My thoughts are that the US still made a huge mistake here and as someone said previously, if Sadr had 10,000 supporters before he will have many many more today.

It also gives a very bad visual to those outside of Iraq who already dislike the US.

But, again. The minaret is an integral part of the Mosque, and many of the innocent deaths were probrably caused when it (most likely) collapsed through into the Mosque itself.

Can you point to a single report of the minaret falling? I can find nothing of the sort.

No I can't but I can make the assumption (in tandem with the number of dead) that when a hellfire missile strikes a fragile structure on the top of a dome, destruction has taken place.

There hasn't been a single report that the Hellfire struck the minaret. Every report that I've seen says there was minimal or no damage to the mosque itself.

Video crashes my computer at work, anyone mind watching this to see if you can analyze the extent of damage?

http://news.yahoo.com//p/v?u=/ap_av/...452&f=53746348",650,450

Looks like an incomplete address. It doesn't come up for me.

Nevermind. The link worked the second time. Can't get it to run properly however.

It runs here, but it shows very litte from the fighting around the mosque. It only shows some gunfire (?) hitting a wall at the end.

I'm looking but I'm not finding any pictures of the mosque after the battle.

Off to the Arab news then.

Hey I got it to work. Installed Real Player and could actually see it.

Video was inconclusive. They showed a mosque with two minarets then they showed some helos, tanks, Marines, etc then a wall being hit by machine gune fire and then an explosion. There is no minaret in sight during this part of the segment.

When it comes down to it, one way or the other, the point is the Marines were taking fire from the mosque. The point I was making about the minaret was that there has been no statement anywhere that I can see that it was damaged seriously yet that's the story people have started to tell in this thread. The most I saw was a comment about it being hit by shrapnel.

The video shows nothing of importance to the issue in question. The footage and reporter show a mosque, but undamaged and then claim it may not even be the building in question.
Earlier in this thread someone says "if they had guns , they are no longer civilian, or innocent" or something to that effect. Yet I believe the same poster in another thread(concerning the mutilation of the four security forces) says the were civilian, and that makes it worse.

I guess it really comes down to a simple fact.

This has become a new type of war, and I dont think we really want to be in it.

In what way do you believe it is a new type of war?

I think we can all agree to that.

Our armed forces aren't equiped or trained to be able to occupy a nation. It's making the situation worse and putting our forces in danger.

No clear enemy. Fighting through a city'sinhabited buildings and religious structures.

It's not the kind of thing our military is trained for. Our forces can't respond with the type of tact that civilized society demands.

I don't think it is so very new, it is the usual guerillia style warfare, and it is always the problem with this style of fighting that the "real" military is not trained for that. They need their enemy to be a "real" opponent, to be available.
what makes the situation in iraq special are the numerous religious groups and the different mentality

The Mosque, and Specifically the Minaret, were not bombed
 

"We specifically did not target the mosque as we felt we could engage the enemy in the area with disciplined and well-aimed fire from our Marines without needing to cause extensive damage to the mosque and surrounding structures," the source said.
...

Marines, pinned down, dropped two precision-guided 500-pound bombs on the walls of the mosque and fired a Hellfire missile.

"It didn't appear to us," Kimmitt said, "to have any effect on the main dome building itself."

The wall is a few hundred yards from any structure, the source said, and the mosque building was not damaged.
...

Muslims consider all of a mosque's compound as the mosque because worshippers gather on the grounds if the structure is full.

Insurgents "firing from the mosque blatantly misused a protected symbol by conducting offensive military operations from a place of worship," the source said.

"As a result, the mosque lost its protected status and therefore became a lawful military target."

Full story here (CNN)

Absolutely agree that it is not new in the least. I do disagree with the belief that the military isn't trained for this. Urban fighting scnearios have been indoctrinated into the military training regimen for a decade or more now. Until it is confronted in real life, of course, that training can't be gauged. It seems they have done a hell of a job thus far through the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There have been countless cases of urban battles during this time.

As far as the different mentality, I disagree. The mentality involved here is classic. A man trying to cement his power by assasinating rivals and building an army so he can seize whatever he can at his earliest opportunity. In this case he uses religion to control/influence his followers. It's not a new mentality at all, it's just that we're confronting it in Iraq and not somewhere else in the world.

No it's not the urban fighting they are not trained for (although Urban combat is still the most dangerous form of combat since the technological advantage is not that importand here) it is the guerillia combat style, that you don't have your opponent in front of you. You have your opponent all around you, without a clrear frontline.

I'm not talking about Sadrs mentality here, what I meant was the mentality of the people the different cultures. That makes it difficult for the US to appear as a friend, and of course stuff like blowing up a mosque (or a part of it) doesn't help making friends.
When trying to rebuild a nation you have to work together and not appear as a occupying force. Thats what i menat with different mentality, the US troops seem to be in a nation they don't really understand. But thats a whole different topic.

Guerilla fighting is even less new than urban fighting. Training against guerilla tactics has been around since Vietnam.

Building a nation requires the elimination of lawlessness. Sadr is accused and wanted for the assassination of another Iraqi cleric. Allowing him to remain free because he is a religious leader or because he has built a small army undermines any hope of building the nation.

There is a difference between older guerilla wars and this, though. There's countless news media reporting on each and every act of the US troops. This includes some rather one-sided and biased reports aimed at Muslims worldwide.

These same Muslims won't hear about the fact that only a wall was damaged, they'll just hear that the infidels attacked a mosque, where brave resistance fighters were doing their best to protect their country, themselves (and Islam). During the attack by US airplanes, over 40 (no, wait, make that 100!) innocent Muslims were killed, with the US troopers laughing and mocking them. To top it off, the infidels pissed on the smoking corpses, and then forced everyone there to convert to Christianity.

Okay, it's a bit over the top, but that's the basic story extremists tell everyone and their dog. And it's the story that will not be ruined by such things like "facts" or "reality". It will fuel the hatred worldwide, warranted or not.

Note that I'm not saying this airstrike shouldn't have happened - I assume the soldiers on the ground can be trusted to do the right thing. And no, I'm not saying that every Muslim is an extremist, nor that every Muslim reporter is biased, or whatever. Just sayin'.

It looks like another miscalculation on the part of the CPA to have allowed Sadr to remain free this past year. When was that warrant issued for his arrest? Shortly after the death of that cleric in April, wasn't it?

I'm not disputing what you say but a journalist who was imbedded with U.S soldiers in Fallujah recounted on the CBC tv that the American's seemed confused and didn't know what they were doing.

Apparently according to this journalist ( his name escapes me) the American's were shooting at everything in sight, militants as well as civilians. According to him, anything that moved was a target.

He also said the Americans lost composure and were very scared, even calling for back up to get them out because they appeared to not know what to do.

Certainly a perspective I wasn't expecting to hear.

This is because of the love-fest the left has for ANYTHING that can be spun to make this country and our troops look like bumbling fools, as much as we all know you support them. It'd be one thing if you were as discerning of this type of info, as you were with stories that actually make this country look good.

This is the first thing i thought of when i opened this thread. This thread was purposefully posted for the above reason, no one bothered to wonder why the mosque was fired on. It really felt like the dems on this board were excited at this, without questioning initially why or under what circumstances this mosque was fired on.

As much as i avoid using this word because of the use and abuse by again, the left, yeah the originally post totally offended me. I think Strange Famous owes the board an apology, owes americans an apology.

His presence is limited to full-on anti-american sentiments, and the left never EVER questions him. That's where your patriotism is questioned, IMHO. You always give this freak militants the benefit of the doubt, and not even have the courtesy to wait till the full story is out before you start blaming America - on near every issue.

I'm sure this attitude will change if you're boy Kerry is elected, and that's all the more frustrating. Your hatred for Bush supercedes your respect for the country.

People can go rounds about whether we should be using our reserves over there, but regardless, these are still predominantly what we refer to as "weekend warriors." Not a dig, actually it's touted by people I know as fun way to serve and get some action on the weekends. I think our reserves usually do one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that they become scared (not saying that regular military doesn't get scared) and appear to not know what they're doing. I think part of training is to make many things reflexive and/or "instinctual." Not much chance of that, IMO, if you're only training one weekend a month and still retaining a civilian identity.

Wow.

Well said.

That's bunch of bullshit, dude. The reason the "left" doesn't get its shit all twisted is because we actually allow for difference of opinion. I don't think any one of us thinks SF owes anyone an apology for his opinion, anti-american or not.

The one thing that I think none of us can stand equally, and this is likely the only place where we are intolerable of a difference of opinion, is when the right constantly brands us as american hating and questions our patriotism. We grew up in the same fucking country as you. I don't even care about what right you might have to question another's loyalty, but it certainly has to be the most rude thing to say to another US citizen purely based on political ideas.

You think you're patriotic because you won't tolerate difference of political ideas? You better check your history...and stop insulting us. The only thing I would demand an apology over would be the totally inflammatory and piercing accusation that I don't love my nation and its ideals as much as anyone else who grew up here and I think it's odd that you keep on this track even though I haven't seen one person from the left calling someone from the right on this board unpatriotic or anti-american. In fact, one could even argue that an american can't, by definition and according to the tenets laid down in the constitution, be anti-american--no matter what he or she believes.

your right smooth, and my questioning of your support for our troops being completely baseless......noted.

Imagine that, confusion during war. And this guy is an expert on how people should react when fired upon and in the identification of enemy combatants I suppose. In fact most anything that moed probably was a target since most non combatants flee in the opening minutes of a prolonged battle.

As far as the claim that these are reserves doing the fighting, it's the First Marine Division not the National Guard.

Don't attribute that fucking statement to me. Strange Famous is from England and I don't appreciate your crap aimed at me, a US citizen, based off his statements. Get off your high horse.

Lefties all look alike, dude.

You need to fuckin relax. My original post was how NONE of the left question Strange Famous' motives or statements, to the contrary, they seemed to embrace them. As such - i am attributing them to you. Got it?

...and for the record, the original post was "aimed" at pan's, not you - perhaps you should get off your high horse. She wondered why her patriotism is being questioned, i told her why i thought so.

Well said. It's a shame that some people have to bring petty political nonsense into a situation like our troops being fired upon, and returning fire.

I don't know what this person's expertise is other than being a journalist. I didn't say he was any type of expert.

What I do know is that his life was in danger as was the company he was with. Do I believe him? I guess I have to since it was bullets flying by his head and not mine, unless he is biased and/or untruthful in his opinion regarding his eye witness account.

So he couldn't be confused in his account? If I had to put money on which was the more confused party in a combat situation, trained Marines who have likely been under fire before or a journalist my money will go down on the Marines.

OK 1 MORE TIME=============>

US,
LAW ABIDING,
NAVY VETERAN,
CITIZEN HERE.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION AND VOICE MY VIEWS ON MY GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESIDENT ANYWAY ANYTIME AND IN ANY CIVIL AND NON THREATENING MANNER!

TO FUCKING SAY THAT BECAUSE OF MY POLITICS I HAVE NO SAY OR IMPLY MY SAY IS OF LITTLE VALUE, IS TO SAY, YOU, SIR, TRULY DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREEDOM. FOR OUR COUNTRY IS BASED ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXCHANGING OF IDEAS PEACEFULLY, AND WITHOUT ANY FORM OF RETRIBUTION OR HARRASSMENT OF DIFFERING BELIEFS. TO CALL ME UNPATRIOTIC OR TO REFER TO ME OR MY BELIEFS AS UNPATRIOTIC IS IN AND OF ITSELF UNPATRIOTIC.

I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH (AS PROVEN WHEN I WAS IN THE NAVY) FOR MY FREEDOMS AND YOUR GRANTED TO US BY GOD AND BY THE GREAT FRAMERS OF THIS NATION, JEFFERSON, ADDAMS, FRANKLIN, HAMILTON AND SO ON.

I WILL NOT EVER SUPPORT A PRESIDENT, NOR A WAR OF TOTAL FABRICATION, LIES AND MUSCLE SHOWING (I DO, HOWEVER, PRAY FOR SAFE RETURN OF EVERY MILITARY PERSON WE SENT OVER, WHICH YES, PEOPLE CAN DO, BELIEVE IT OR NOT )

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO I AM, SO YOU HAVE NO IDEA EXCEPT FROM WHAT I HAVE SAID IN POSTS AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND HAVE BEEN TOLD TO BELIEVE (FROM OTHERS) WHAT I MEAN FROM MY POSTS.

I AM EX NAVY, MY BEST FRIEND IS NOW OVER THERE IN A MARINE UNIFORM. WE ARE BROTHERS FROM A DIFFERENT MOTHER.

I DONOT GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK I MEAN OR WHAT YOU FEEL I MEAN. DO NOT EVER QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS, YOU SHOW HOW TRULY IGNORANT YOU ARE.

Sorry for the rant but I am growing very tired of the right's implications that because I do not morally and philosophically in anyway agree with this war and believe events like this just add more fuel, then I in no way can support our troops or that I am unpatriotic.

And 1 final note: SF has the same right to speak his mind in the US as anyone else. The only reason this became a flame thread was because people took it there. It's like the media, you don't like what a guy says turn it off and walk away. Unfortunately, and I myself am very guilty of this, you read a thread you see implications being made or know from a previous thread someone is going to attack and the emotions take over.

Sad really what this country has come to. there was a time not too long ago when both sides got along and it wasn't a power struggle over who was right and who is wrong. Back then it was just do it if it helps better the country, no matter which side it came from, and people debated peacefully, maybe changed minds or at least allowed the other to see the reasoning behind their views and walked away as friends. They did not argue and fight and try to draw blood and lust for all the power, and attack private lives and families and whatever.

Heaven forbid, if you truly are like the vast 80% of Americans and by nature are a centrist you are attacked WRONGLY but equally harsh from both sides for not being able to make a decision.

IN THE END THERE IS NO LEFT THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED THE ONLY THING TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF OUR CHILDREN AND THIS COUNTRY THAT WE ALL LOVE.

Ummm not to interrupt this wonderful :rolleyes: dialogue but...

As you shout about your right to free speech, so should you realize that Matthew is allowed to voice his opinions as well. Just because someone has a right to free speech that does not mean that you have a right not to have your points disagreed with.

Can we all try to stick to the topics without getting into personal pissing contests?

....sorry i called you a "she"

It is never necessary to assault the rest of the board with that much abuse of the capslock key -- and yet, how fitting that you should do so.

Not to slam SF, but some of us lefties tend to tune him out, same as we do to some of the extreme righties. I think you only seeing enough to support your beliefs about us.

**slowly pulls himself up fighting for consciousness**

"did i win?"

I agree with the last, but I'd like to point out that while free speech is protected, slander isn't. That is all.

I supposed he could be confused about the accounts but then again I suppose the White House and the Pentagon can be confused about what happened also.

I guess it's just a matter of perception. I am just relaying one eye witness account from some one who happened to witness what when on. Who knows, maybe if he is correct he just might be pissed off that he isn't as safe as he would like to be, not that this is the problem of the U.S soldiers. I don't think anyone is forcing him to go into the hotspots.

*cracking the modwhip*

Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but folks, keep it civil. Lots of room for flaring tempers and misunderstandings here, so take a deep breath before you post. Thanks.

Carry on!

ahhh...i get it. so if i say "america sucks", you can't say "you're anti-american"

sorry - i'm leaving this thread for good.

It's not slander if it's true. Particularly, "Your hatred for Bush supercedes your respect for the country."

Democrats revel in the failures of Republicans (perceived or otherwise), and Republicans do the same. The deaths of our enlisted men and women is politicized every day -- be it Clinton's failure in Kosovo, or Bush's in Iraq. Threads like this are nothing but political maneuvering where there should be none.

Well, isn't that a clever soundbite.

This was the 2nd battalion 1st marines 1st marine division,

A unit I know very well from being in it and attached to it, they ARE NOT weekend warriors. They are professionals who train very hard at their craft.

For this journalist to say that they wear scared, is probably because they were laughing at him for shitting himself when it all went down.

And how can anyone on this thread condone the original title of US MURDERS civilians?

This isnt the first time when a news story breaks someone on the left rushes to judgement and posts something that turns out not to be true.
Just because they need something, anything to make Bush and this administration look bad.

I read somewhere, I cant remember where but GW himself ordered hellfire into a orphanage that was hosting a blind widow parade.:rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up.

I wasn't sure if this group was comprised of reserves or not--I just read that the reserves are being relied upon heavily in Iraq.

Given that you've fought next to reserves before, is my analysis of how they act correct? Are they just as well trained and stoic as the regular soldiers? I wonder about the mercs' level of training, too.

I'm just curious since we have the benefit of someone who's actually been there.

BTW, I didn't see the original title, but even if I had, just because I don't chastise someone doesn't mean I agree with the sentiment.

I'll speak to the last point.

Guard and Reserve soldiers have the same skills as their active counterparts. Many of them are combat vets and 60% of them served in the active component. The average age tends to be about 35, as opposed to 25 in the active military, but experience generally bridges the gap in physical ability.

The biggest difference is in discipline, the Reserve component is much more lax. The entire culture is different from the active component.

Who fights better? With the exception of high speed units such as the 82nd and 101st, I'd say reservists and guardsmen are every bit the equal of their active counterparts, and in some situations, such as nation-building, they are better.

Is the culture difference that reserves primarily self-identify as civilians?

If so, I wonder if that identification is correlated with their ability to be "better" at nation-(re)building.

I guess I've hijacked the thread, but at least the last three of us aren't spitting venom at each other :)

Granted :)

The dynamic of the reserve component (in which I now serve) is different on many levels.

For instance if you are a company commander, your driver may be your boss during the week. This leads to a very egalitarian relationship between officers and enlisted. In my experience this has not translated to poor battlefield discipline, although I certainly see the opportunity for that to be a problem.

The nation building issue is partialy due to self-identity (though I had not thought of that until you brought it up), but primarily due to every soldier bringing another set of skills to the table. Your tank gunner is also an AC repairman, your chaplain is also a lawyer, etc.

Hope this answered some questions...

Yep, thank you very much for the info, debaser.

See ya around.