So, they saw a hostile enter every one of the buildings they killed people in, yet they didn't find any dead enemies, only civilians? What, were they fighting the ghost of Superman or something?
I see two viewpoints here. I am not attacking anyone, this is just the debate as I see it.
View A1. The soldiers were a bit scared (for obvious reasons). In war, you have to act on instinct. They did. And they're instincts told them that they might be enemy combatants - so, naturally, they attacked.
View A2. The soldiers wouldn't have shot so many Iraqi civilians in normal situations. It just shows you how screwed up they've become, that they're afraid of anything and anyone.
View C. The soldiers were being purely careless, and didn't bother to check. If they had done, it would have been blindingly obvious that they were civilians.
Yes, I know you count three, but to me the first two are just different interpretations on the same view.
Keep the flaming out.
View A1. The soldiers were a bit scared (for obvious reasons). In war, you have to act on instinct. They did. And they're instincts told them that they might be enemy combatants - so, naturally, they attacked.
View A2. The soldiers wouldn't have shot so many Iraqi civilians in normal situations. It just shows you how screwed up they've become, that they're afraid of anything and anyone.
View C. The soldiers were being purely careless, and didn't bother to check. If they had done, it would have been blindingly obvious that they were civilians.
Yes, I know you count three, but to me the first two are just different interpretations on the same view.
Keep the flaming out.
Last edited by Spark (2006-06-12 01:18:17)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Third: They weren't careless. They knew they were killing civilians. They did it anyway.
And you'd know this how?Bubbalo wrote:
Third: They weren't careless. They knew they were killing civilians. They did it anyway.
I presented a third possibility.
Apparently these boards are getting tired of me, which I find hilariously funny since these boards are, in fact, forums, and they don't have a mind of their own.
Apparently these boards are getting tired of me, which I find hilariously funny since these boards are, in fact, forums, and they don't have a mind of their own.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-12 04:08:19)
..it's the dead kids that shocked me. americans killing civilians is nothing new, we shouldn't be surprised, but however much you want to justify the killings (for whatever reason) the kids should have been left out of it. Like I said in another post, you can't expect too much from bored/undertrained/undisciplined rednecks when the red mist descends.
You can expect them to act like human beings.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Like I said in another post, you can't expect too much from bored/undertrained/undisciplined rednecks when the red mist descends.
So if a terrorist runs in and hides in a building, you indiscriminately kill everyone in that building and just for good measure kill everyone in the neighboring buildings? There is no justification for this. I know I haven't been in a war or in the situation those Marines were in but it obvious that they were not given enough training in street to street combat. The SAS spend hundreds of hours in the 'murder house' training before they are allowed to use their weapons in a mixed civilian environment ie small rooms and buildings.
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
I agree that it's inexcusable. I wouldn't expect human beings to kill indiscriminately.
Very true, but different armies are trained differentlyJahManRed wrote:
So if a terrorist runs in and hides in a building, you indiscriminately kill everyone in that building and just for good measure kill everyone in the neighboring buildings? There is no justification for this. I know I haven't been in a war or in the situation those Marines were in but it obvious that they were not given enough training in street to street combat. The SAS spend hundreds of hours in the 'murder house' training before they are allowed to use their weapons in a mixed civilian environment ie small rooms and buildings.
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
OK, I think that people going into buildings scared that they could die would have they're judgment blurred, so if you saw people in a room and there was reports a hostile went in there, not many people are going to wait to see if they have a gun, they are going to point and shoot. THAT IS ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING. I am not trying to sugar coat the event, it was horrible, but that is what happens in war.Bubbalo wrote:
You can expect them to act like human beings.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Like I said in another post, you can't expect too much from bored/undertrained/undisciplined rednecks when the red mist descends.
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2006-06-12 05:15:26)
See if that were true, this might have been less of an issue in the media. But they were Marines, so theoretically, they were the best of the best of the best of the best.RicardoBlanco wrote:
..it's the dead kids that shocked me. americans killing civilians is nothing new, we shouldn't be surprised, but however much you want to justify the killings (for whatever reason) the kids should have been left out of it. Like I said in another post, you can't expect too much from bored/undertrained/undisciplined rednecks when the red mist descends.
You presented one possibility Bub. we all know this is what you believe so don't act dumb. This is also why you are a moron. I hate assumers. Wait a minute...acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
And you'd know this how?Bubbalo wrote:
Third: They weren't careless. They knew they were killing civilians. They did it anyway.
Got it in one. Basically the US army itself may have superiour firepower but their personnel, training, discipline and tactics are completely shit. If not then they could have done exactly what the SAS did.JahManRed wrote:
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
Exactly...CameronPoe wrote:
Got it in one. Basically the US army itself may have superiour firepower but their personnel, training, discipline and tactics are completely shit. If not then they could have done exactly what the SAS did.JahManRed wrote:
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
Marine = frontline fighterCameronPoe wrote:
Got it in one. Basically the US army itself may have superiour firepower but their personnel, training, discipline and tactics are completely shit. If not then they could have done exactly what the SAS did.JahManRed wrote:
Looking back at the Iranian Embassy siege in the 1980s. The SAS swept and cleared a 4 story building, killing all but one terrorist and shot NO innocents. That is how you clear a building.
SAS = special forces
Seriously, enough with the unjustified U.S. bashing ok.
If they were so scared why did they run around town? Surely if they were scared they would have taken their dead and wounded and gone back to base?Adams_BJ wrote:
OK, I think that people going into buildings scared that they could die would have they're judgment blurred, so if you saw people in a room and there was reports a hostile went in there, not many people are going to wait to see if they have a gun, they are going to point and shoot. THAT IS ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING. I am not trying to sugar coat the event, it was horrible, but that is what happens in war.
I am assuming nothing. That 24 people were killed is a fact, and I fail to see any circumstances in which there could be any excuse for that.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
You presented one possibility Bub. we all know this is what you believe so don't act dumb. This is also why you are a moron. I hate assumers. Wait a minute...
Australian and British GIs have both had few incidents of killing civilians. Now tell us why the Americans can't train their troops the same?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Seriously, enough with the unjustified U.S. bashing ok.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-12 06:09:50)
Bub, you have no idea of the training of U.S. marines. Stop assuming things because you so desperately want to believe it. One instance, that you don't even know what happened because you weren't there, doesn't mean you have any idea how an army trains its troops.Bubbalo wrote:
If they were so scared why did they run around town? Surely if they were scared they would have taken their dead and wounded and gone back to base?Adams_BJ wrote:
OK, I think that people going into buildings scared that they could die would have they're judgment blurred, so if you saw people in a room and there was reports a hostile went in there, not many people are going to wait to see if they have a gun, they are going to point and shoot. THAT IS ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING. I am not trying to sugar coat the event, it was horrible, but that is what happens in war.I am assuming nothing. That 24 people were killed is a fact, and I fail to see any circumstances in which there could be any excuse for that.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
You presented one possibility Bub. we all know this is what you believe so don't act dumb. This is also why you are a moron. I hate assumers. Wait a minute...Australian and British GIs have both had few incidents of killing civilians. Now tell us why the Americans can't train their troops the same?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Seriously, enough with the unjustified U.S. bashing ok.
Well, there are two possibilities:
1) American recruits are inherently inferior to British/Australian recruits, but recieve the same training
2) American recruits are similar to British/Australian recruits, but recieve inferior training
If there's something I haven't thought of, feel free to list it.
1) American recruits are inherently inferior to British/Australian recruits, but recieve the same training
2) American recruits are similar to British/Australian recruits, but recieve inferior training
If there's something I haven't thought of, feel free to list it.
who cares....lolBubbalo wrote:
So, a standard military maneuvre is to run around killing people without bother to check what you're shooting? Well, my faith in the American army just skyrocketed. Seriously, you guys must all be brilliant tactitians.
its 2, american recruits dont get as good training as aussie or british recruits (no offence to any americans)Bubbalo wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities:
1) American recruits are inherently inferior to British/Australian recruits, but recieve the same training
2) American recruits are similar to British/Australian recruits, but recieve inferior training
If there's something I haven't thought of, feel free to list it.
but they were acting on instinct, you can never trust any1 u see, anyone could carry an IED and blow the shit outta ur squad, its not like normal war were the enemy wears uniforms, they are terrorists that dont have identible uniforms.
i personally think they should send at least rangers to do the job or special forces
Last edited by cyborg_ninja-117 (2006-06-12 06:21:33)
It's one freaking instance. My god. And the comparison someone else used was the SAS compared to the marines. If you want a fair comparison use the SEALS and the SAS.Bubbalo wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities:
1) American recruits are inherently inferior to British/Australian recruits, but recieve the same training
2) American recruits are similar to British/Australian recruits, but recieve inferior training
If there's something I haven't thought of, feel free to list it.
So, because they couldn't trust anyone they went with a kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out theory? That's great, really. How about we try it on Americans?
the tacticts the marines used are time and tested. when you open up doors where suspected insurgents might be behind and you DONT go in shooting, you end up getting killed. Time tested tactic. the marines in question did not choose the battlefield, the insurgents did.
how in the fuck would you knowcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
its 2, american recruits dont get as good training as aussie or british recruits (no offence to any americans)Bubbalo wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities:
1) American recruits are inherently inferior to British/Australian recruits, but recieve the same training
2) American recruits are similar to British/Australian recruits, but recieve inferior training
If there's something I haven't thought of, feel free to list it.
but they were acting on instinct, you can never trust any1 u see, anyone could carry an IED and blow the shit outta ur squad, its not like normal war were the enemy wears uniforms, they are terrorists that dont have identible uniforms.
i personally think they should send at least rangers to do the job or special forces