Soldiers - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

texasmortarman · 01-17-2005, 01:50 PM

Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood by those with the courage to face the enemy. The new Iraqi Army is like ours in one big way. It is made up of volunteers wanting to make a difference in the world for more than themselves. Some of the Iraqi soldiers are not good people, some of our soldiers are not good people but they all know the risk they take when they put on the uniform and take the oath.

By the way Rdr4evr, we do what we do just for people like you. Like it or not you are allowed to live how you like and say what you like because of men like me. Warriors.

Lebell · 01-17-2005, 01:58 PM

JUST A NOTE:

Gents (Rdr and Texasmortarman),

I appreciate that both of you can express your feelings here, but please keep it polite.

(Experience tells me that servicemen replying to rdr4evr tend to get...enthusiastic, so I am posting this before that may (or may not) happen.)

cheers,

-lebell

Rdr4evr · 01-17-2005, 04:47 PM

It already has

But to avoid further problems, I will avoid the "warriors" comment.

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb2000

Just an aside, and forgive me if its a little off topic here, but as long as we are talking heroes and courage and such, I think its relevant.

Why are roadside bombings and the now infamous IEDs so often used with the word 'cowardly'? I mean do we really have such a romanticized sense of the battlefield that we expect our opponents to come out and challenge us to a duel? Plus, its perposterous to think that we don't do the same thing. Who do you think invented the Claymore Mine, or hundreds of other devices designed to strike our enemies without warning while not exposing our own troops to to harm?

I mean seriously, do we cal SEALs cowardly for planting explosives? Do we call a stealth fighter pilot when he drops a 2,000lb LGB on a terrorist hide out, giving them no warning or recourse? Heck, were the Rovolutionaries cowards for hiding behind rocks and shooting at the Redcoats from cover?

Seriously, can anyone give me a good reason why we should consider these attacks cowardly versus other military tactics? Or is our continued attachment of 'cowardly' to 'roadside bombing' evidence of an effective propaganda machine?

Josh

gosh... i thought everyone understood this. guess not.

the reason that IEDs are considered to be cowardly is that they are placed there by people who are not wearing a uniform and are not sanctioned soldiers by any government or treaty. once these guys detonate an explosive they waltz back to their homes wearing their day-to-day clothes and put their families and neighbors in grave danger. U.S. and iraqi soldiers must engage those who try to kill them, but the cowardice of those who set IEDs dictate the terms of engagement. US and iraqi soldiers must go door-to-door and raid entire neigborhoods to find the guerillas. the cowards have the luxury of obviously marked vehicles and uniformed soldiers to target.

people seem to think that soldiers wear their uniforms just to look snappy and maybe get a military discount on a Subway sandwich. nope. those uniforms are there to restrict combat to engagements between two recognizable forces in order to limit civilian damage and loss of life. U.S. soldiers honorably wear their uniforms (at their own peril)... those cowards who try to kill and shrink back to hide among women and children do not.

i can't stand it when ignorant people whine about the horrors of war and the tragic damage it does to those caught in its scope... yet they are unable to recognize the deliberate things the enemy does that make it worse.

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 06:32 PM

Irate, war doesn't have rules. That's what many of the "ignorant" people you refer to have qualms about. IED's aren't cowardly, they're war at its finest.

In any case, it takes at least two opposing forces to wage a war. I fail to see the difference between the soldier who hides behind a child and the soldier who makes the choice to shoot through the child to kill the soldier hiding behind the child(literally or figuratively). Neither is particularly courageous in my eyes.

Rekna · 01-17-2005, 06:36 PM

So is it fair to fly a jet over top of a bunch of people who have no means of fighting back and drop bombs on them?

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 06:47 PM

war certainly does have rules. it's called the law of armed conflict. there are no rules that are imposed from outside of humanity (unless you are willing to grant the involved presence of God and will count moral structures based on religious convictions) but we do limit ourselves in very meaningful ways in order to align our method with internationally accepted standards. do you think that we could not be more effective in killing our enemy without any self-imposed limitations? i'm speaking about the very limitations that our enemy does not observe.

rekna, war is not fair... not fair in the sense that each side has equal opportunity to kill the other. it can, however, be fought honorably and lawfully. dropping bombs on an army with no air force isn't fair... but in a conflict between two recognized armies it is honorable.

powerclown · 01-17-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

...war doesn't have rules.

Disagree. There are some quite formal rules to warfare, as formal as any engineering or economics paradigm. See: Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz for examples.

Quote:

those uniforms are there to restrict combat to engagements between two recognizable forces in order to limit civilian damage and loss of life.

Exactly right. What irate is describing (IED's, civilian fighter, etc.) is 'asymetrical warfare', and there are rules for that as well.

Mephisto2 · 01-17-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

war certainly does have rules. it's called the law of armed conflict.

Absolutely correct.

Quote:

there are no rules that are imposed from outside of humanity (unless you are willing to grant the involved presence of God and will count moral structures based on religious convictions) but we do limit ourselves in very meaningful ways in order to align our method with internationally accepted standards.

Like America's refusal to accept the International Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines?

Quote:

rekna, war is not fair... not fair in the sense that each side has equal opportunity to kill the other. it can, however, be fought honorably and lawfully. dropping bombs on an army with no air force isn't fair... but in a conflict between two recognized armies it is honorable.

You're right. War is not fair. And insurgents don't follow the "rules". They no longer have a State and therefore cannot, by definition, wear a uniform.

Carbombs are not typically used in conventional warfare; even though Claymores are. One car argue over the distinctions for hours (and I'll keep my personal opinion to myself on this issue), but the fact remains that the war in Iraq is not a conventional war and therefore conventional norms do not seem to apply.

One cannot expect the insurgents to throw away their arms, shrug their shoulders and say "OK, fair enough. The rules say we can't go on. You beat us fair and square". Modern invasions, occupations and rebellions simply do not work that way.

Mr Mephisto

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

war certainly does have rules. it's called the law of armed conflict. there are no rules that are imposed from outside of humanity (unless you are willing to grant the involved presence of God and will count moral structures based on religious convictions) but we do limit ourselves in very meaningful ways in order to align our method with internationally accepted standards. do you think that we could not be more effective in killing our enemy without any self-imposed limitations? i'm speaking about the very limitations that our enemy does not observe.

What are these rules? Who enforces the law of armed conflict? Is it the U.N. that america only acknowledges as a matter of convenience or is it the international criminal court that america refuses to recognize? Whatever rules you claim exist, i think they all go out the window as soon as bullets start flying. What do you think the ratio of prosecuted atrocities to unpunished atrocities is? I think we could be a lot more effective in killing our enemies, but we'd also probably be a lot more effective in killing civilians, which is bad for public support of war.

The problem with pointing to the law of armed conflict is that it really doesn't amount to anything. It might strive to make war more humane, but i would argue that such a thing is not possible. That's like coming up with a "law of sexual assault" in an effort to make rape more humane. It's lip service. In the end innocent people are still dying and someone is still getting raped. I'm not saying soldiers are rapists, either, just that war seems to have a many rape-like qualities.

I'm not saying i don't respect the role armed conflict has played throughout the history of our humanity. I'm just not trying to pretend that it is anything other than what it is, namely, horrible.

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

What are these rules?

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm has a good overview

Quote:

Who enforces the law of armed conflict?

we do. it's self-enforced for our our enemy's protection as well as our own when the tables are turned.

Quote:

Whatever rules you claim exist, i think they all go out the window as soon as bullets start flying.

think what you want, just don't think your opinion has any effect on the truth.

Quote:

I think we could be a lot more effective in killing our enemies, but we'd also probably be a lot more effective in killing civilians, which is bad for public support of war.

very true. there is certainly a practical component as well as a moral component.

Quote:

The problem with pointing to the law of armed conflict is that it really doesn't amount to anything.

why?

Quote:

It might strive to make war more humane, but i would argue that such a thing is not possible. That's like coming up with a "law of sexual assault" in an effort to make rape more humane. It's lip service. In the end innocent people are still dying and someone is still getting raped. I'm not saying soldiers are rapists, either, just that war seems to have a many rape-like qualities.

so which is it? you went from claiming there were no rules (last post) to the rules not making it more humane... even though it might?

Quote:

I'm not saying i don't respect the role armed conflict has played throughout the history of our humanity. I'm just not trying to pretend that it is anything other than what it is, namely, horrible.

who is saying it isn't horrible? as unfortunate as having to fight with lethal force is... you must grant that there are more lawful and humane ways to practice and that there are despicable and cowardly ways to prosecute it.

Manx · 01-17-2005, 08:04 PM

If IEDs are cowardly, so are smart bombs.

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm has a good overview

Okay, but since we're fighting "unlawful combatants" it would seem to me that these rules don't apply. Even so, i don't understand how dropping bombs in places where you know civilians are present doesn't amount to a violation of the pricipal of distinction.

Quote:

we do. it's self-enforced for our our enemy's protection as well as our own when the tables are turned.

It's self enforced, meaning we only enforce it when we want to.

Quote:

think what you want, just don't think your opinion has any effect on the truth.

Likewise.

Quote:

very true. there is certainly a practical component as well as a moral component.

It's all practical. We only care about the lives of civilians when it is practical to do so. We hate killing civilians, right up until civilians cease to become civilians and start being "collateral damage".

Quote:

why?

Ask the civilians who've been killed by american forces in iraq.

Quote:

so which is it? you went from claiming there were no rules (last post) to the rules not making it more humane... even though it might?

What i meant is that there are effectively no rules, because the person who is willing to do what the other guy won't has an advantage. Rules are secondary to success.

Quote:

who is saying it isn't horrible? as unfortunate as having to fight with lethal force is... you must grant that there are more lawful and humane ways to practice and that there are despicable and cowardly ways to prosecute it.

Who is more humane? The soldier that hides behind the child or the soldier who shoot through the child? Any "humanity" we inject into war is either the result of more precise technology or part of the p.r. necessary for winning the war in the minds of americans.

How is dropping a bomb less cowardly than putting it on the side of the road?

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 09:42 PM

but, if we're to take your definitions... then all laws are self-enforced (and, i suppose... inconsistently enforced by your estimation). the citizenry abides by laws that are enforced by those elected and supported by us... why is the military (an institution that must enforce the most stringent levels of discipline and regulations for its own survival) exempt from the same principle?

in fact, the military has even more people peeking over its shoulder to ensure that justice is done than anyone in the private sector does. it has the weight of 1) international law and the LOAC 2) congressional oversight and executive responsibility 3) it's own internal codes of conduct, regulations, and methods of prosecution 4) the media and press's oversight and investigation 5) each soldiers individual moral compass and discipline.

you see, given additional layers in which military policy and action is scrutinized under... i would argue that enforcement of military law and conduct is just as legitimate (or more so) as anything you're likely to find in any traditional government court. the law is one of combat and bloodshed... no doubt about that. however, i find it difficult to side with your bleak assessment of the military's overall law abiding practice when your opinion is (so far) based on nothing more than something between your ears.

and to provide an answer to your hypothetical question: the one who holds the child is the guiltier party. the one who chooses to involve the innocent will always hold the guilt, the holder of the child is dictating the rules of engagement. if you cannot win with honor... perhaps you just cannot win. there are worse things than death, holding a child in the line of fire in hopes of saving your own or incriminating your enemy is one of them.

powerclown · 01-17-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

If IEDs are cowardly, so are smart bombs.

Fair analogy.
I don't think the US military sees IEDs as 'cowardly. They are simply remote controlled landmines. Another nut for the experts to crack.

Quote:

The rise of the global terror, assisted by the proliferation of modern communications technology, introduced a shift from the familiar standard issue weapons, to the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The introduction of such makeshift weapons proliferated in Ireland, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia, Lebanon and by the Palestinians in the occupied territories. As evidently proved in Iraq and Chechnya, the use of such explosive devices is not adopted from lack of basic, standard issue weapons, but due to the tactical advantages of such systems, when employed by loosely organized urban guerilla cells. Unlike the mine which is triggered by pressure or magnetic influence, IEDs do not necessarily require physical contact or pressure for activation but can be activated by remote control, including wire, electronic signals or cellular phone. This mode of operation can be employed against selective targets, even on busy urban traffic lanes, as repeatedly demonstrated in Iraq. In fact, the IED has become the symbol of the modern urban guerilla.

link

filtherton · 01-18-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

snip

very well.

Quote:

and to provide an answer to your hypothetical question: the one who holds the child is the guiltier party. the one who chooses to involve the innocent will always hold the guilt, the holder of the child is dictating the rules of engagement. if you cannot win with honor... perhaps you just cannot win. there are worse things than death, holding a child in the line of fire in hopes of saving your own or incriminating your enemy is one of them.

The insurgent holding the child is a microcosm of war in general. Each side is both the hostage taker and the hostage taker's enemy. War always involves the killing of civilians. No war should ever be pursued without the understanding that many innocent people will be killed by either side. That is why i think so many people find war to be distasteful. The problem with hiding behing civilians is that it never works to anyone's advantage. Obviously, the threat that our invasion of iraq posed, in terms of civilian casualties, wasn't a large factor in saddam's decision to effectively tell us to "bring it on". What you don't see is that we were "holding the child" in the run up to the war. We'll be "holding the child" right up until the last remnants of america's military presence are gone. It may not be explicit, but that's what it is. Who plans a war without considering the fact that it will necessarily result in the maiming and death of large numbers of completely innocent people? I don't care how smart your bombs are, or how well trained your teenage soldiers are in any kind of law. If the powers that be gave more than just lip service to the plight of the innocent civilian war as we know it would be a thing of the past.

You cannot have a war without holding the civilan populace hostage. I fail to see the "honor" involved with doing so on a macro scale as opposed to a micro scale.

roachboy · 01-18-2005, 10:19 AM

i generally find that this is the least productive possible tack to adopt in debating, directly or indirectly, the war in iraq. this for any number of reasons, from its tendency to polarize folk across unnecessary matters to the occaisional explosion of bad taste (see the warriors remark above) that seems to be of a piece with it.

stevo · 01-19-2005, 05:10 PM

It amazes me that I am still suprised at the mentality of some of the posters here.

Most of what I want to say has already been said, so I'll keep it brief.

However you may think, whether the Iraqis are putting more at risk than the American soldiers, the truth is it is the Iraqis that have more to loose. We are there giving them the opportunity to fight for their freedom, and it is them who must stand up and fight for it.

Also, every time I hear of a car bomb or IED detonating there is always a report of Iraqi and American deaths, even if there are only Iraqi deaths, and I watch mostly FNC, but also flip around to the other cable news channels.

Rekna · 01-19-2005, 05:21 PM

stevo you should try reading aljazera and see how many stories aren't reported in the US media

Rekna · 01-19-2005, 05:26 PM

I didn't see this in the American media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...far/html/1.stm

irateplatypus · 01-19-2005, 05:59 PM

it is being carried in a more fleshed out story by newsday...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-world-big-pix

you've got to wonder why that guy didn't slow down. gosh, what an awful situation.

Rdr4evr · 01-19-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I didn't see this in the American media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...far/html/1.stm

"The statement also said that military officials extended their condolences for this "unfortunate incident" and were investigating"

Well whoopdi fucking doo...I'm sure the children who will grow up parentless will be mighty appreciative of the militaries "condolences" for murdering their parents. What a sad and disgusting story, and people wonder why I feel the way I do.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-19-2005, 10:56 PM

Ok, I'm going to run the risk of being a total ass here. But why didn't they just stop? Short of purposely lighting up this car and foul play... it's fucking tragic.

Rdr4evr · 01-19-2005, 11:00 PM

According to the article they didn't have much a chance to stop as the soldiers fired at them less than a second after the warning shots. These people probably hear gunfire everyday, they didn't even have a chance to react.

stevo · 01-20-2005, 08:17 AM

You all seem so suprised. Like this is the first car that has been shot up because the driver failed to stop at a checkpoint. Its happened before, and I've read the stories before, in fact, some have been posted on this forum before. The question remains, why didn't they stop? I doubt they were new to the country, didn't know what a checkpoint was? It was an accident either way you look at it. Do you remember the story from the other day, where a carbomber drove his truck up to the gates of an embassy, accelerated toward it and the iraqi gurad opened fire causing the bomber to detonate his load outside the gate? here, only the bomber and the Iraqi guard were killed. That is why they must shoot when a car fails to stop. I also remember this report saying how it was an Iraqi guard that was killed....hmmm funny they mention the iraqis, huh?

stevo · 01-20-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

stevo you should try reading aljazera and see how many stories aren't reported in the US media

Just because I listed what I watch does not mean these are my only sources of news. We were talking about the mainstream american media, and in my response I listed the mainstream american news channels I watch.

roachboy · 01-20-2005, 08:53 AM

you would think that, at this point in the sorry history of bushworld, that relying on mainstream american media would effectively disqualify you from debating meaningfully on the question of iraq.

stevo · 01-20-2005, 08:12 PM

Did you not read my post? I never said I rely on the mainstream american media. I actually said it is not my only source for news. Read the whole post and think a bit before you reply. It might actually help to steer the conversation somewhere constructive.

01-17-2005, 01:50 PM	#41 (permalink)
texasmortarman Upright Location: Georgia	Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood by those with the courage to face the enemy. The new Iraqi Army is like ours in one big way. It is made up of volunteers wanting to make a difference in the world for more than themselves. Some of the Iraqi soldiers are not good people, some of our soldiers are not good people but they all know the risk they take when they put on the uniform and take the oath. By the way Rdr4evr, we do what we do just for people like you. Like it or not you are allowed to live how you like and say what you like because of men like me. Warriors. __________________ There is no greater feeling than being shot at and missed Last edited by texasmortarman; 01-17-2005 at 03:42 PM..

01-17-2005, 01:58 PM	#42 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	JUST A NOTE: Gents (Rdr and Texasmortarman), I appreciate that both of you can express your feelings here, but please keep it polite. (Experience tells me that servicemen replying to rdr4evr tend to get...enthusiastic, so I am posting this before that may (or may not) happen.) cheers, -lebell __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-17-2005, 06:32 PM	#45 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Irate, war doesn't have rules. That's what many of the "ignorant" people you refer to have qualms about. IED's aren't cowardly, they're war at its finest. In any case, it takes at least two opposing forces to wage a war. I fail to see the difference between the soldier who hides behind a child and the soldier who makes the choice to shoot through the child to kill the soldier hiding behind the child(literally or figuratively). Neither is particularly courageous in my eyes. Last edited by filtherton; 01-17-2005 at 06:39 PM..

01-17-2005, 06:47 PM	#47 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	war certainly does have rules. it's called the law of armed conflict. there are no rules that are imposed from outside of humanity (unless you are willing to grant the involved presence of God and will count moral structures based on religious convictions) but we do limit ourselves in very meaningful ways in order to align our method with internationally accepted standards. do you think that we could not be more effective in killing our enemy without any self-imposed limitations? i'm speaking about the very limitations that our enemy does not observe. rekna, war is not fair... not fair in the sense that each side has equal opportunity to kill the other. it can, however, be fought honorably and lawfully. dropping bombs on an army with no air force isn't fair... but in a conflict between two recognized armies it is honorable. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-17-2005, 09:42 PM	#54 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	but, if we're to take your definitions... then all laws are self-enforced (and, i suppose... inconsistently enforced by your estimation). the citizenry abides by laws that are enforced by those elected and supported by us... why is the military (an institution that must enforce the most stringent levels of discipline and regulations for its own survival) exempt from the same principle? in fact, the military has even more people peeking over its shoulder to ensure that justice is done than anyone in the private sector does. it has the weight of 1) international law and the LOAC 2) congressional oversight and executive responsibility 3) it's own internal codes of conduct, regulations, and methods of prosecution 4) the media and press's oversight and investigation 5) each soldiers individual moral compass and discipline. you see, given additional layers in which military policy and action is scrutinized under... i would argue that enforcement of military law and conduct is just as legitimate (or more so) as anything you're likely to find in any traditional government court. the law is one of combat and bloodshed... no doubt about that. however, i find it difficult to side with your bleak assessment of the military's overall law abiding practice when your opinion is (so far) based on nothing more than something between your ears. and to provide an answer to your hypothetical question: the one who holds the child is the guiltier party. the one who chooses to involve the innocent will always hold the guilt, the holder of the child is dictating the rules of engagement. if you cannot win with honor... perhaps you just cannot win. there are worse things than death, holding a child in the line of fire in hopes of saving your own or incriminating your enemy is one of them. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 01-17-2005 at 09:49 PM..

01-17-2005, 04:47 PM	#43 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	It already has But to avoid further problems, I will avoid the "warriors" comment.

01-17-2005, 06:36 PM	#46 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So is it fair to fly a jet over top of a bunch of people who have no means of fighting back and drop bombs on them?

01-17-2005, 08:04 PM	#52 (permalink)
Manx Loser	If IEDs are cowardly, so are smart bombs.

01-18-2005, 10:19 AM	#57 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i generally find that this is the least productive possible tack to adopt in debating, directly or indirectly, the war in iraq. this for any number of reasons, from its tendency to polarize folk across unnecessary matters to the occaisional explosion of bad taste (see the warriors remark above) that seems to be of a piece with it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-19-2005, 05:10 PM	#58 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	It amazes me that I am still suprised at the mentality of some of the posters here. Most of what I want to say has already been said, so I'll keep it brief. However you may think, whether the Iraqis are putting more at risk than the American soldiers, the truth is it is the Iraqis that have more to loose. We are there giving them the opportunity to fight for their freedom, and it is them who must stand up and fight for it. Also, every time I hear of a car bomb or IED detonating there is always a report of Iraqi and American deaths, even if there are only Iraqi deaths, and I watch mostly FNC, but also flip around to the other cable news channels.

01-19-2005, 05:21 PM	#59 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	stevo you should try reading aljazera and see how many stories aren't reported in the US media

01-19-2005, 05:26 PM	#60 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I didn't see this in the American media http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...far/html/1.stm

01-19-2005, 05:59 PM	#61 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	it is being carried in a more fleshed out story by newsday... http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-world-big-pix you've got to wonder why that guy didn't slow down. gosh, what an awful situation. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-19-2005, 10:56 PM	#63 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Ok, I'm going to run the risk of being a total ass here. But why didn't they just stop? Short of purposely lighting up this car and foul play... it's fucking tragic. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-19-2005, 11:00 PM	#64 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	According to the article they didn't have much a chance to stop as the soldiers fired at them less than a second after the warning shots. These people probably hear gunfire everyday, they didn't even have a chance to react.

01-20-2005, 08:17 AM	#65 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	You all seem so suprised. Like this is the first car that has been shot up because the driver failed to stop at a checkpoint. Its happened before, and I've read the stories before, in fact, some have been posted on this forum before. The question remains, why didn't they stop? I doubt they were new to the country, didn't know what a checkpoint was? It was an accident either way you look at it. Do you remember the story from the other day, where a carbomber drove his truck up to the gates of an embassy, accelerated toward it and the iraqi gurad opened fire causing the bomber to detonate his load outside the gate? here, only the bomber and the Iraqi guard were killed. That is why they must shoot when a car fails to stop. I also remember this report saying how it was an Iraqi guard that was killed....hmmm funny they mention the iraqis, huh?

01-20-2005, 08:53 AM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you would think that, at this point in the sorry history of bushworld, that relying on mainstream american media would effectively disqualify you from debating meaningfully on the question of iraq. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-20-2005, 08:12 PM	#68 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Did you not read my post? I never said I rely on the mainstream american media. I actually said it is not my only source for news. Read the whole post and think a bit before you reply. It might actually help to steer the conversation somewhere constructive.