# US Troops kill seven women and children - Iraqi setup? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585 "2003-04-01T00:03:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/181 "2003-04-04T12:19:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*This is probably stretching things a bit far. Why assume that **ExTank** has no such experience? He clearly implies in this thread that he _does_ have such experience. \*\* Sorry, but I don’t see anything that suggests he has any experience beyond standard military checkpoints. He specifically states that few soldiers have experience with similar situations. My point is that there are soldiers who DO have experience with operating in areas with a hostile population supporting terrorists. There are even soldiers on location with such experience. And they quite consistenly have expressed disgust and contempt at the way the US Forces have been interacting with others. ExTank’s comment, in the end, amounts to the soldier having a right to panic, the civilian not, which is a flat-out violation of the Geneva convention. It’s the obligation of the soldier to go out of his way to protect the civilian. NOT vice versa. Unless ExTank suggests that any waffling about liberation is sheer hypocrisy, and the ‘liberated’ part of Iraq is now a US colony, it is still the Iraqi who is at home, and the GI who is outside US territory. ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/182 "2003-04-04T12:38:42Z")
For those still reading this thread, another [car bomb](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2917107.stm) has just killed 5 people. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/183 "2003-04-04T12:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\*Thanks, **Desmostylus**. That’s about what I’d expected. \*\* **Mandelstam** , you’ve been one of the few reasonable people in this thread, what’s your take on the article? We can dismiss the clerics as unreliable, but at a _minimum_ I say the article makes it clear that the “Iraqi Ploy Theory” (IPT) is not unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/184 "2003-04-04T13:25:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*OliverH wrote:\*\*There are even soldiers on location with such experience. And they quite consistenly have expressed disgust and contempt at the way the US Forces have been interacting with others. There has been one Brit soldier cited. Since you obviously have other sources not available to the American public, could you provide some cites? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/185 "2003-04-04T13:45:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BF \* > \*\*There has been one Brit soldier cited. Since you obviously have other sources not available to the American public, could you provide some cites? \*\* Plenty of Brit soldiers took off their helmets and sunglasses to look more approachable to civilians and distance themselves from the GIs. Take a look at [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23555-2003Apr3.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23555-2003Apr3.html) and let me quote: _British military experts contend both incidents would be less likely at a British checkpoint. Under their military procedure, checkpoints are manned by only one soldier, with others covering him at a distance, to limit the potential human toll from a car bomb. The British also say they signpost their checkpoints in Arabic and place physical barriers well ahead of the stopping point to slow vehicles before they are deemed a threat._ and \*“I love Americans – they’re wonderful to work with,” said Goldsworthy, who served alongside U.S. forces in Turkey and Bosnia. “But I’m afraid the American attitude of today is like the British attitude of 120 years ago during the Empire. We thought everyone wanted to be an Englishman and live an English life, celebrate the queen and have cream tea. Americans seem to believe that everyone is envious and wants to be part of America. It’s as though they haven’t learned the lessons we’ve learned in a very hard way.” Goldsworthy cites photographs showing American soldiers ordering Iraqi civilians to lie face down in the dirt while they are checked for weapons. “For Arabs, to be spread-eagled with your face in the dust is a hugely shameful thing,” she said. What the Iraqis want more than anything is respect, and to feel valued and feel treated as human beings," she said. “What our troops show is a willingness to be humble, to lose a football match 9 to 3. If the Americans had played, I’m afraid they would have wanted to win.”\* There’s been plenty of Brits complaining about trigger-happy Americans, and foreign journalists who got to experience American paranoia first hand. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/186 "2003-04-04T14:22:00Z")
Ok, **OliverH** , I read that article yesterday. I also read an article about how the coordination of US and UK troops, based on the UK’s training in _peacekeeping_, is to allow the US to do the shooting, and allow the UK to do the peacekeeping. Sort of like bad cop/good cop. So, where are the rest of the cites? If there are foreign journalists experiencing “American paranoia” who are they writing for? The Mirror? Guardian? The Berliner Kurier? Inquiring minds want to know… ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/187 "2003-04-04T16:14:21Z")
Another report on **Aro’s** story. > [@](#): > > A woman, who appeared to be pregnant, got out of the car and began “screaming in fear” at the checkpoint, about 11 miles (18 km) southwest of the Hadithah Dam in Iraq, a Central Command statement said. > > Three coalition troops walked toward the car and it blew up, U.S. Central Command spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said, citing initial reports. > > Three coalition members were killed, along with the woman and the driver of the car. > > “She was killed by an explosion from the vehicle,” Brooks said. > > Whether the woman was a knowing participant in the attack remains unknown, but Brooks said Iraqis have used civilians in terror attacks in the past. > > “We have seen a number of examples that provide us clear evidence that this regime will take civilians and will take women, will take children and use them to lead an attack,” Brooks told reporters. > > “Whether this one was coerced or not, it’s now impossible to say. She clearly exited the vehicle in distress and she clearly showed signs of being pregnant,” he said. Kinda defeats the whole, “suicide bombers don’t kill their families” argument? Eh? [cnn link.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.car.bomb/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/188 "2003-04-04T16:32:35Z")
**OliverH:** uhm, check the link in my sig. I’ve “been there, done that,” you know what I mean? As far as what I may or may not have _implicitly_ stated (from your point-of-view, at least), I said no such thing (from my point-of-view). Civilians caught in a war not of their making have every right to be nervous; I explicitly said that nervous civilians in a war zone, who have any shred of notions of self preservation, will NOT charge (fail to stop, continue to advance, otherwise disobey) even an hastily prepared position with armored vehicle backup. And that soldiers, as human beings, have every right to that same sense of self preservation. There is nothing, in any Geneva Convention briefing/training I received, to indicate that I, or any other soldier is, was, or should be _obligated_ to die for foreign civilians in time of war. Enemy combatants are supposed to be identifiable by uniforms and rank insignias; soldiers dressing in civilian clothes to spring close range ambushes _is_, IIRC, a violation of the Geneva Convention. Civil and military authorities who hold civilians hostage as human shields are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Soldiers manning a checkpoint (even if it is just a hastily erected roadblock) shooting a vehicle, with unknown number of occupants of unknown intention, that fail or refuse to stop when ordered, are _not_ in violation of the Geneva Convention. At least not when I was in. Since that wasn’t all that long ago, I cannot conceive of the Geneva Convention having been radically altered otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/189 "2003-04-04T17:09:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > Kinda defeats the whole, “suicide bombers don’t kill their families” argument? Eh? Not really. 1. women who **appears** to be pregnant gets of car 2. she starts screaming (not running away from car) 3. soldiers are drawn towards car 4. car blows up ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/190 "2003-04-04T18:11:54Z")
**Rhum** , you’ve asked for a more detailed commentary than I can provide at the moment. Will get back you tonight or tomorrow. **ExTank** : \*" Regardless of race, religion, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, a 25 ton armored vehicle armed with a 25mm cannon, parked in the middle of a road, with armed soldiers waving you to a stop, is its own STOP sign. I know I would stop. I’m pretty sure you would stop."\* **Ex** , this “human truism” approach to this episode is of limited value since no one doubts that it’s a strange an unfortunate thing. The driver apparently believed that the stop he had made several miles before was the official stop and he seemed to think he was being waved on. We are talking about a very confused, possibly quite tired and hungry man from a remote farm, fleeing for his life with his family and as many of his worldly possessions as he can stuff in a crowded 1974 Land Rover. Can we honestly put ourselves in his place? I don’t think so. In any case, I’m trying to rationalize his behavior; I’m merely pointing out that there’s no evidence that his odd behavior was due to a hostage situation involving still other family members in some unspecified location. That’s not the story that he’s telling, there’s no evidence to back it up, and the story that he is telling is plausible enough. Have you read the two articles yet? _“So I have a very difficult time faulting those all-too-human soldiers…”_ I have not been faulting the soldiers. On the contrary, I’ve been saying that this has been a tragedy for them too. (OTOH, it’s clear that the procedures need to be improved; and your own posts on how checkpoints _should_ work provides further evidence of that.) **OliverH.** , I’d like to get back to you too on your thoughts about the tactical advantage of British troops for this type of duty. In brief for the moment: I don’t doubt it, given their experience with Northern Ireland. Still I think one should acknowledge that the American soldiers did not behave callously or defensively after the incident; as I’ve said again and again, they were clearly anguished by what had happened. As to the new car bomb incident: if anything this confirms my impression that the incident we’ve been discussing in this thread was not a voluntary or coerced suicide mission. My guess is the pregnant woman in the car bomb case either knew or suspected what her husband was up to and either panicked or tried to escape in the end. OTOH, maybe she was willingly part of it too and merely hoped to attract soldiers to the car so that they would die. In either case, there’s not much ambiguity here. By comparison, the Land Rover incident involved no bomb. It’s a different kind of situation: and at best what you’ve got is the theory that the driver was forced to drive past a checkpoint and thus risk death for himself and his family because somewhere else still other family members were being threatened. The motive in that case was just to make the US look bad. Well, maybe. But in this instance I think the US has made itself look bad, as I’ve said, by not responding in more dignified fashion to what in all likelihood was just a tragedy. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/191 "2003-04-04T18:14:16Z")
In my response to **Ex** : that should be “I’m _not_ trying to rationalize his behavior…” ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/192 "2003-04-04T22:20:15Z")
How about a little sense of proportion here? The only thing that makes this story interesting is the possibility that they were forced into provoking a tragic incident that can be blamed on the US. If that possiblilty is dismissed, the so is the significance of the story. What pecentage of the Earth’s population was killed? What percentage of Iraq’s population was killed? A handful of people you never heard of died–along with the rest of the proverbial “forty thousand men and women” who also died that day. Film at a fucking leven. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/193 "2003-04-04T22:32:08Z")
Thanks for stopping in **sqweels**. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/194 "2003-04-05T00:42:05Z")
Firebomb question: We known a Muslim in the U.S. army attacked his fellows. Why isn’t the military under orders to fire upon fellow soldiers that do not seem to be following orders or seem dangerous? Forebomb question 2: Why did news stories continue to report that no warning shots were fired, when long after the direct eyewitness account of the commander implies that there is no reason to believe that warning shots WERE fired in time? ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/195 "2003-04-05T00:53:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Firebomb question: We known a Muslim in the U.S. army attacked his fellows. Why isn’t the military under orders to fire upon fellow soldiers that do not seem to be following orders or seem dangerous? Maybe they are? What’s your point? What does the fact that the soldier was Muslim have to do with other soldiers? This must be one of those bombs that doesn’t go off. > [@](#): > > Forebomb question 2: Why did news stories continue to report that no warning shots were fired, when long after the direct eyewitness account of the commander implies that there is no reason to believe that warning shots WERE fired in time? More like incoherent bomb. I have read the above five times, I still have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I’m just stupid, but could you try to restate this? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/196 "2003-04-05T14:17:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > > **OliverH.** , I’d like to get back to you too on your thoughts about the tactical advantage of British troops for this type of duty. In brief for the moment: I don’t doubt it, given their experience with Northern Ireland. Still I think one should acknowledge that the American soldiers did not behave callously or defensively after the incident; as I’ve said again and again, they were clearly anguished by what had happened. > \*\* It clearly didn’t change their attitude a lot, given the new incident, in which people were NOT just killed in the car which didn’t stop, but in cars [BEHIND](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030405/4/dx2hq.html) it, suggesting that the whole area was hosed down with bullets. That, together with the experiences non-embedded journalists made with US troops suggests a high degree of mental problems. Riddling everything with bullets that’s moving is not a very rational thing to do. If they can’t pull themselves together, they should be relieved. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/197 "2003-04-05T14:44:44Z")
**Mandelstam:** thanks for the rational response. I know that if I were one of the soldiers at that checkpoint (regardless of however elaborate it was or wasn’t), I’d be feeling pretty goddamned awful over the incident, whether it was a planned attack or just a very bad tragedy of errors (which I acknowledge developing evidence indicates). I don’t feel that I am unique, although I will also acknowledge that suicide attacks on American troops can do very bad things to their morale, and their thought processes; things which, as **OliverH** seems to be implying, are inconsistent with the multiple objectives of 1. defeating an armed force, 2. pacifying a partially insurgent civilian population, 3. and helping scared and confused civilian noncombatant refugees in a war zone. Those three objectives, under the best of circumstances, are almost humanly incompatible; it does take an extremely disciplined armed force to absorb the casualties of #2 while NOT turning their frustration, anger and fear upon #3, thus engendering a self-sustaining negative feedback loop. Something the U.S. post-Cold-War feel-good military may not be up to…but is their responsibility under the rules of war and the tenets of human decency to attempt. I think that the vast majority of officers and long-service NCOs are up to the task; it’s the smaller, squad- and platoon-level units led by junior (thus younger, less experienced) officers and NCOs that face the greatest danger, on both accounts. I am not retracting my earlier statements that, in light of the suicide attacks from civilians upon Coalition forces, it is NOT unreasonable for Coalition troops to eventually adopt a view of ANY non-Coalition person, in uniform or not, as a potential enemy and be very nervous about them. Too much of that for too long is going to eventually be counterproductive. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/198 "2003-04-05T21:02:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > (from citation provided in his post above) > > In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. Well, legal language is about as formal as things can get in the English language, particularly when said legal language pertains to matters of international law and diplomacy. I don’t have my _Black’s Law Dictionary_ handy here (it’s at the office), but I can tell you that in the context of international treaties, “shall” explicitly means “will,” as in “is required to.” So if the U.S. occupies Iraq, they do have an affirmative obligation to protect the civilian population. Eva Luna, paralegal and former court interpreter (P.S. Any international law types who would like to expand on this, please go ahead, but the topic probably is worthy of a separate thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/199 "2003-04-05T21:18:04Z")
Well, I _do_ have my copy of _Black’s_ at hand, and while it says that the usual and preferred reading of shall is to give rise to an imperitive, it also recognizes that shall can be used as a permissive. In any event, unless someone wants to find the _actual_ language of the convention and post it, all we are dealing with is one person’s paraphrase, and that’s hardly a good place to start when dealing with legal issues. Rhum Runner, current law student and former paralegal. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585/200 "2003-04-05T21:34:00Z")
Well, if anyone knows exactly which Geneva Convention we’re talking about, I’ll take a crack at it later tonight. If not, it’ll have to wait until Monday, when I’m on my faster office Internet connection and where I have many such things bookmarked, not to mention a co-worker to bug who is a former human rights lawyer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-troops-kill-seven-women-and-children-iraqi-setup/165585.md?page=11)