PDA

View Full Version : Recap of attrocities anyone?



LeftCoastPhin
04-02-2003, 03:26 PM
Let's recap some of Iraq's ploys here:

fake surrender, then shooting troops which causes risk to our guys obviously but also creates more risk to legitimate surrenders

Hide within civiians to fight, putting them in harms way and making us look bad when we have no choice but to fire upon them.

Use suicide bomers to kill our troops when they are merely trying to help refugees.

Use "fake" suicide bombers to make us look bad, also of course cruelty to the civilian passengers

Using hospitals as forts.

Killing our POWs, violating many laws of war


The gloves have and must come off. Screw all media who portrays our troops as bad or careless.

These tactics are only the tip of the iceberg, yet clearly gives reasons for this war in the first place.

How anyone can still object to this war is beyond my comprehension. I could somewhat understand beforehand, but not now.


:monkey: Jeneane Garalfalo and her ignorant, self serving, self harming attitude....also her poor humor :lol:

themole
04-02-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Let's recap some of Iraq's ploys here:

fake surrender, then shooting troops which causes risk to our guys obviously but also creates more risk to legitimate surrenders

Hide within civiians to fight, putting them in harms way and making us look bad when we have no choice but to fire upon them.

Use suicide bomers to kill our troops when they are merely trying to help refugees.

Use "fake" suicide bombers to make us look bad, also of course cruelty to the civilian passengers

Using hospitals as forts.

Killing our POWs, violating many laws of war


The gloves have and must come off. Screw all media who portrays our troops as bad or careless.

These tactics are only the tip of the iceberg, yet clearly gives reasons for this war in the first place.

How anyone can still object to this war is beyond my comprehension. I could somewhat understand beforehand, but not now.


:monkey: Jeneane Garalfalo and her ignorant, self serving, self harming attitude....also her poor humor :lol:

I fear we haven't seen his darkest side yet! LCP

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by themole
I fear we haven't seen his darkest side yet! LCP

unfortunately... not by a long shot mole.....

themole
04-03-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat
unfortunately... not by a long shot mole.....

Wharf....We've been throwen a lot of nasty at these madmen and according to a report I heard tonight have killed 8 divisions of them. They are playing a very underhanded game as LCP has stated, if they resort to chem/bio warfare it will be time to take the gloves off and drop back and fight fire with fire. World opinion be damned!!! Win and get out or turn left and put Syria out of their misery. We need to kill this sh!t in its seed bed.

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by themole
Wharf....We've been throwen a lot of nasty at these madmen and according to a report I heard tonight have killed 8 divisions of them. They are playing a very underhanded game as LCP has stated, if they resort to chem/bio warfare it will be time to take the gloves off and drop back and fight fire with fire. World opinion be damned!!! Win and get out or turn left and put Syria out of their misery. We need to kill this sh!t in its seed bed.

Dude... I'd be right there with ya...except if we retaliated to a bio/chem attack in kind...we'd be effecting millions of civies, who want him out as much (if not more) than we do...

Sure..we could turn Bagdad into a glass covered parking lot... but killing the citizens isn't what it's about...

Demolish his army? absolutely.

Hunt him down and stick his bloody head on a stake beside the road into the city? H#ll yes ...and his sadistic sons... and that smarmy information minister of his (every time I see him on TV... I just want to run up and smack the sh!t out of him... he comes across like a used camel salesman)

But to kill the people we're there to liberate? no.. let's keep on the high road...and do it right!

HoooWaahhh!!!

:patriot:

baccarat
04-03-2003, 12:36 AM
Don't forget that they dress like U.S. soliders, and:
1) Kill people trying to surrender.
2) Kills civilians and then trying to blame us for it.


:monkey: Jeneane Garalfalo and her ignorant, self serving, self harming attitude....also her poor humor

Bravo! Bravo!

themole
04-03-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Dude... I'd be right there with ya...except if we retaliated to a bio/chem attack in kind...we'd be effecting millions of civies, who want him out as much (if not more) than we do...

Sure..we could turn Bagdad into a glass covered parking lot... but killing the citizens isn't what it's about...

Demolish his army? absolutely.

Hunt him down and stick his bloody head on a stake beside the road into the city? H#ll yes ...and his sadistic sons... and that smarmy information minister of his (every time I see him on TV... I just want to run up and smack the sh!t out of him... he comes across like a used camel salesman)

But to kill the people we're there to liberate? no.. let's keep on the high road...and do it right!

HoooWaahhh!!!

:patriot:

Yea...I'm with ya on that. I didn't mean in kind. What I was refering to was if we take fire from a mosque...light it up! They can build another one, catch a farmer roaming around at night, light his ass up, fire from a hospital...light it up! All they can understand is brute force and we have plenty of that.

It truly saddens me to see a people so intimidated that they are afraid to wave for fear of being killed.

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by themole
Yea...I'm with ya on that. I didn't mean in kind. What I was refering to was if we take fire from a mosque...light it up! They can build another one, catch a farmer roaming around at night, light his ass up, fire from a hospital...light it up! All they can understand is brute force and we have plenty of that.

It truly saddens me to see a people so intimidated that they are afraid to wave for fear of being killed.

:whew: I didn't think you meant it that way.... I hoped not anyway...


not sure about religious buildings.. but I do know that regarding hospital/medical structures or sites... even with the red cross prominantly displayed... as soon as any offensive weapons are deployed there... it automatically cancels it's "amnesty" from being fired on...

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat
:whew: I didn't think you meant it that way.... I hoped not anyway...


not sure about religious buildings.. but I do know that regarding hospital/medical structures or sites... even with the red cross prominantly displayed... as soon as any offensive weapons are deployed there... it automatically cancels it's "amnesty" from being fired on...

Correct....Geneva convention allows you to return fire from ANY building, regardless of it's other functions. You can return fire from any building, be it a hospital, or St Peters Cathedral. Although I'd suggest that the more "PC" answer is(assuming you're recieving small arms fire, and nothing heavy) to just surround the building and keep lobbing tear gas in until you use up any filters they may have. It may take longer, but it's better PR.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 11:07 AM
Seriously... the troops should use tear gas on the mosques to smoke them out. Shooting at combatants in the mosques might be a short term solution, but will infuriate the Muslim extremists which is what Saddam wants to happen. Don't fight his kind of war.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 11:14 AM
Again, I fully agree, but only if they're facing small arms fire. If the guys inside have heavy machine guns, or other heavy weapons, it's too much of a risk to our troops. Tear gas grenades are very short ranged, so I wouldn't ask our troops to face heavy fire power just to protect a building which can be rebuilt. Sorry, but no building is worth the life of a US soldier.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 11:37 AM
I also agree that no building is worth a human life. If they got heavy weapons, that's fine. Section off the area a safe distance away and don't allow anyone in or out. Leave the choice up to them... surrender or starve.

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I also agree that no building is worth a human life. If they got heavy weapons, that's fine. Section off the area a safe distance away and don't allow anyone in or out. Leave the choice up to them... surrender or starve.

I think that's the plan.... also, if the inhabitants of the building keep shooting, eventually, they'll run out of ammo....
downside is... who/what do they hit in the meantime?

themole
04-03-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Seriously... the troops should use tear gas on the mosques to smoke them out. Shooting at combatants in the mosques might be a short term solution, but will infuriate the Muslim extremists which is what Saddam wants to happen. Don't fight his kind of war.

Sniper, consider this...why is it that we are the only ones that can't fire back on, or desecrate a mosque? I've seen time and time again militant muslims holed up in them, holding hostages, shooting from them and that somehow is OK in their eyes. Only let us, the "infidel" do the same thing and watch the news leap on and fan the fires. Although I am aware that the one in question just happens to be one of the most important ones in all of islam, if it jeopardizes the life of a soldier or the integrity of a mission... light it up! They can build another one. Remember they are the ones that built the Dome of the Rock, right on top of the King Solomon Temple site. Knowing full well that Jewish prophecy requires the new temple be rebuilt on that exact site. Just a little food for thought in the grand scheme of things.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
I think that's the plan.... also, if the inhabitants of the building keep shooting, eventually, they'll run out of ammo....
downside is... who/what do they hit in the meantime?

Hopefully, they'll hit nobody. I'd just surround them at a safe distance away. Preferably with a good shield of some type in front of them. If they are in a mosque at least the troops know where they are... This is much better than an enemy whose location you don't know.

Saddam's troops are fighting this type of dirty war because they know it will result in civilian casaulties. They also know that this will infuriate even the moderate Muslims. A full-blown Jihad becomes a very real possibility.

BTW.. Don't the troops have some other means to deploy tear gas instead of hand grenades?

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


BTW.. Don't the troops have some other means to deploy tear gas instead of hand grenades?

cannisters shot from grenade launchers slung under an M-16, certain mortars, and they can be fired from mortar-like tubes on some tanks (usually used for smoke)... but the range is still relatively short...
For instance, the grenade launcher you see under an M16, has a pretty good range when you're firing a grenade... but put a tear gas cannister in there, and the effective range drops considerably...

themole
04-03-2003, 12:19 PM
[i]

BTW.. Don't the troops have some other means to deploy tear gas instead of hand grenades? [/B]

A tear gas grenade does not explode and spread shrapnel, it just spews that nasty stuff!

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by themole
A tear gas grenade does not explode and spread shrapnel, it just spews that nasty stuff!

mole... I think he meant to ask if there was a different way to deploy it than just throwing it....

themole
04-03-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
mole... I think he meant to ask if there was a different way to deploy it than just throwing it....

:up: Thanks Wharf. In that case you covered it.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Hopefully, they'll hit nobody. I'd just surround them at a safe distance away. Preferably with a good shield of some type in front of them. If they are in a mosque at least the troops know where they are... This is much better than an enemy whose location you don't know.

Saddam's troops are fighting this type of dirty war because they know it will result in civilian casaulties. They also know that this will infuriate even the moderate Muslims. A full-blown Jihad becomes a very real possibility.

BTW.. Don't the troops have some other means to deploy tear gas instead of hand grenades?


So you'll understand the problems involved...the effective kill range of a .50cal machine gun is 2 kilometers. A mortar team can put rounds down in a similar range. If every Mosque has to be cordoned off for a 2 klick radius, we'll never get closer than 5 miles to downtown Baghdad. You can deliver tear gas with a grenade launcher, but to the best of my knowledge, you need to use the hand held launcher which only has a range of a few hundred yards. I don't remember if the Mk-19 will deploy tear gas, but even if it did, I don't think it's a viable option if the guys inside have heavy weapons. By the time we "smoked them out", they could inflict horrible casualties to surrounding civilians, and it would put our troops in greater risk than is needed. Again, imagine the building you're in being "surrounded" in a two kilometer radius(greater than that actually, 2 klicks is just the range where acuracy drops off). One mosque would require hundreds of troops to interdict.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by themole
Sniper, consider this...why is it that we are the only ones that can't fire back on, or desecrate a mosque? I've seen time and time again militant muslims holed up in them, holding hostages, shooting from them and that somehow is OK in their eyes. Only let us, the "infidel" do the same thing and watch the news leap on and fan the fires. Although I am aware that the one in question just happens to be one of the most important ones in all of islam, if it jeopardizes the life of a soldier or the integrity of a mission... light it up! They can build another one. Remember they are the ones that built the Dome of the Rock, right on top of the King Solomon Temple site. Knowing full well that Jewish prophecy requires the new temple be rebuilt on that exact site. Just a little food for thought in the grand scheme of things.

Hey Mole. How's it going with you lately?

I fully understand what you are saying. I don't want to see our troops injured. I guess what I'm trying to say it would be good to explore the options that insure the safety of our troops while minimizing anti-American feelings in that region. Maybe this option does tie up our troops hands. Hopefully it won't.

You are totally correct in how our troops shooting up a mosque, even in self-defense, will be portrayed in the middle east. I think this will result in inflaming the entire region which will result in more needless deaths to our troops. There are certainly no easy answers. I'm just throwing things out for people to consider. I certainly don't know if they are the best course of action to take.

Religion is very intertwined in this conflict. I know exactly what you mean about the prophecy. It's in Matthew 24:1,2 isn't it?

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You can deliver tear gas with a grenade launcher, but to the best of my knowledge, you need to use the hand held launcher which only has a range of a few hundred yards. I don't remember if the Mk-19 will deploy tear gas, but even if it did, I don't think it's a viable option if the guys inside have heavy weapons.

If it can fire smoke... it can fire a tear gas can... but you also made a good point... not only does the range drop...so does the accuracy.... we'd have tear cas cans all over the place, trying to get one through the window....

Sniper
04-03-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
So you'll understand the problems involved...the effective kill range of a .50cal machine gun is 2 kilometers. A mortar team can put rounds down in a similar range. If every Mosque has to be cordoned off for a 2 klick radius, we'll never get closer than 5 miles to downtown Baghdad. You can deliver tear gas with a grenade launcher, but to the best of my knowledge, you need to use the hand held launcher which only has a range of a few hundred yards. I don't remember if the Mk-19 will deploy tear gas, but even if it did, I don't think it's a viable option if the guys inside have heavy weapons. By the time we "smoked them out", they could inflict horrible casualties to surrounding civilians, and it would put our troops in greater risk than is needed. Again, imagine the building you're in being "surrounded" in a two kilometer radius(greater than that actually, 2 klicks is just the range where acuracy drops off). One mosque would require hundreds of troops to interdict.

Understood.

Here's the dilemma I see though. Is it better to have those 100 of troops keeping watch on a mosque (a waste of manpower) or is it better to pursue a course of action that could infuriate a region? I think the latter action would strengthen the enemy's resolve and in the big picture, result in more death to our troops. There's no easy answers either way.

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
There's no easy answers either way.

Very true.... hence the "fine line" we have to walk over there....

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Understood.

Here's the dilemma I see though. Is it better to have those 100 of troops keeping watch on a mosque (a waste of manpower) or is it better to pursue a course of action that could infuriate a region? I think the latter action would strengthen the enemy's resolve and in the big picture, result in more death to our troops. There's no easy answers either way.

Point taken...but we aren't talking one hundred troops. We're talking SEVERAL hundred troops. Otherwise, the guys in the mosque will just sneak out when they get tired of lobbing mortars or taking pot shots at civilians and any US troops that show their heads. When the cops surround a building in a hostage situation, you've got more than one hundred police just to get a two BLOCK interdiction. To seal off a couple of kilometers, you'd probably need 3-5 hundred troops. That's for one building. I'd hazard a guess that there are several hundred Mosques in Baghdad, and at least a few dozen that are major buildings with a lot of historical/religious signifigance. We didn't have enough troops for that in the first Gulf War, and not even close in this one. Again, I agree that we're talking about the lesser of two evils no matter what they do...but while I think that tear gas should be the first solution...once they see situations where heavy weapons are being deployed, you need to step back and take the building down around them.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Point taken...but we aren't talking one hundred troops. We're talking SEVERAL hundred troops. Otherwise, the guys in the mosque will just sneak out when they get tired of lobbing mortars or taking pot shots at civilians and any US troops that show their heads. When the cops surround a building in a hostage situation, you've got more than one hundred police just to get a two BLOCK interdiction. To seal off a couple of kilometers, you'd probably need 3-5 hundred troops. That's for one building. I'd hazard a guess that there are several hundred Mosques in Baghdad, and at least a few dozen that are major buildings with a lot of historical/religious signifigance. We didn't have enough troops for that in the first Gulf War, and not even close in this one. Again, I agree that we're talking about the lesser of two evils no matter what they do...but while I think that tear gas should be the first solution...once they see situations where heavy weapons are being deployed, you need to step back and take the building down around them.

Use the Kurds to storm the Mosques ;)

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
If it can fire smoke... it can fire a tear gas can... but you also made a good point... not only does the range drop...so does the accuracy.... we'd have tear cas cans all over the place, trying to get one through the window....


I LOVED the Mk-19....the thing was a total testosterone rush! It fires like a slow .50cal, and will empty a 50 round box of grenades in less than 20 seconds, with a range of 2 kilometers. And the rounds are so slow, you can actually watch them go down range. Not as big of a bang as the TOW, but a lot more fun to fire...:evil: That being said, I don't remember if it fires smoke/TG. The two rounds we concerned ourselves with were the HEAT, and HE rounds. I'm sure you could lay down a heck of a smoke barrage with it if it DOES fire smoke rounds, but in this circumstance, you'd probably have more than half the rounds hit OUTSIDE the building(it's accurate, but I wouldn't count on too many rounds going through windows at any long range), which means you'd just be providing a great cover for the people inside the building to escape under.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Use the Kurds to storm the Mosques ;)


Damn....doesn't having your tongue jammed THAT firmly into your cheek hurt?

Sniper
04-03-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Damn....doesn't having your tongue jammed THAT firmly into your cheek hurt?

Actually there was a serious point to it. Muslim on Muslim violence would be more acceptable in that region. Which do you think would be more acceptable? U.S. troops firing on a mosque or Muslims firing on a mosque? I was trying to make that point.

themole
04-03-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Hey Mole. How's it going with you lately?


Religion is very intertwined in this conflict. I know exactly what you mean about the prophecy. It's in Matthew 24:1,2 isn't it?

Yea..Jim that's one reference. I can't recall right off hand the one I'm speaking of but it will be found in the O.T.

IMO, verse 11 in Matt. 24 is the root of the problem here.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by themole
Yea..Jim that's one reference. I can't recall right off hand the one I'm speaking of but it will be found in the O.T.

IMO, verse 11 in Matt. 24 is the root of the problem here.

Understood buddy ;)

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Actually there was a serious point to it. Muslim on Muslim violence would be more acceptable in that region. Which do you think would be more acceptable? U.S. troops firing on a mosque or Muslims firing on a mosque? I was trying to make that point.

Whichis exactly what happened in northern Iraq... the Kurds basically routed the base on the Iranian border... and in doing so, damaged a Mosque...
no uproar about that... even though our spec. ops. personel were there....

Sniper
04-03-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Whichis exactly what happened in northern Iraq... the Kurds basically routed the base on the Iranian border... and in doing so, damaged a Mosque...
no uproar about that... even though our spec. ops. personel were there....

Okay so selective use of Muslim forces might be a viable solution for this problem then. Especially considering it worked in other situations.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Actually there was a serious point to it. Muslim on Muslim violence would be more acceptable in that region. Which do you think would be more acceptable? U.S. troops firing on a mosque or Muslims firing on a mosque? I was trying to make that point.


Actually, it could very well be worse. We'll eventually be leaving the country, but the Kurds are there to stay. If we give the impression of the Kurds ransacking Arab Mosques, it may cause as much or more violence than "infidels" doing it. Remember, as much as any group hates the "non-believer", they always hate the heretic more. If you don't believe that, look at the venom football fans reserve for their FELLOW team fans as oppossed to those fans from even hated rivals...

Sniper
04-03-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually, it could very well be worse. We'll eventually be leaving the country, but the Kurds are there to stay. If we give the impression of the Kurds ransacking Arab Mosques, it may cause as much or more violence than "infidels" doing it. Remember, as much as any group hates the "non-believer", they always hate the heretic more. If you don't believe that, look at the venom football fans reserve for their FELLOW team fans as oppossed to those fans from even hated rivals...

So really there are no good solutions then.

themole
04-03-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
So really there are no good solutions then.

I can't see one Sniper, after all this isn't new stuff! I believe it all started there with Nimrod and has been going on for over 3000 thousand years. I'm not one to believe in reincarnation, but it seems Nimrod has come back in the form of Saddam!:evil:

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
So really there are no good solutions then.


It's a war....almost by definition there are no "good" solutions. Just the lesser of two evils. Using the Kurds MAY be a great solution. I just think they need to be careful and monitor how Arabs are percieving such actions. If they start to percieve it as the Kurds taking over, it would be worse than them fostering resentment of us. The only way this war is worthwhile is if we leave Iraq signifigantly better than it was when we arrived.

Sniper
04-03-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by themole
I can't see one Sniper, after all this isn't new stuff! I believe it all started there with Nimrod and has been going on for over 3000 thousand years. I'm not one to believe in reincarnation, but it seems Nimrod has come back in the form of Saddam!:evil:

There's certainly some similarities. Both are evil tyrants who persecuted men.

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Okay so selective use of Muslim forces might be a viable solution for this problem then. Especially considering it worked in other situations.

Absolutely... The Kurds are chomping at the bit to move south... I think we'll turn them loose whenever possible... just as we did with the anti-Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and the Anti-Serbs in Kosova...

themole
04-03-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Absolutely... The Kurds are chomping at the bit to move south... I think we'll turn them loose whenever possible... just as we did with the anti-Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and the Anti-Serbs in Kosova...

Wharf...the only bug in this soup is the Kurds are looking for....LAND!:evil: The plot thickens...

Sniper
04-03-2003, 09:19 PM
The Islamic Republic of Kurdistan has a nice ring to it... :lol:

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
The Islamic Republic of Kurdistan has a nice ring to it... :lol:

Not if you're the Turkish government..... :eek:

Sniper
04-03-2003, 10:53 PM
A little sick humor...

Q. What do Little Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?

































A. They both had Kurds (Curds) in their way (whey).

WharfRat
04-03-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
A little sick humor...

Q. What do Little Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?





A. They both had Kurds (Curds) in their way (whey).


uuuuuuuuuuuuggggghhhhhhh ..... that was horrible Snipe....

:lol:

themole
04-03-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
A little sick humor...

Q. What do Little Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?

































A. They both had Kurds (Curds) in their way (whey).

:eek: