I’m with the OP on this one, it does seem a little… convenient that the van would be brimming full of women and children and wouldn’t stop. Armed men at a checkpoint waving you down? You stop if you know what’s good for you. On the other hand if you come from a culture that tends to glorify martyrdom… who knows? It certainly serves the goals of those who would like to spook soldiers enough to make them hesitiate and let a suicide bomber too close.
the North Koreans advanced on his lines forcing women and children from local villages to walk in front of them. Dad ordered his troops to open fire on all of them. Militaries that will use civilians like this need to be removed at any cost.
Sorry, doesn’t cut it. Especially not from people who have never been invaded. The responsibility is flat square on the soldiers by international law alone.
Your argument amounts to ‘Kill them all, let God sort them out’ in its final conclusion.
Earlier today, on CNN, some Iraqis who surrended in the Nothern part of Iraq were shown (they kept their faces covered and wouldn’t give their names out of fear of retaliation from Saddam’s government). The claimed that their radios had been taken by their commanders, so they had no idea that the Americans were even in their country, much less that they were at war. Until the bombs started falling on them, anyway.
It is entirely possible that the folks in the van did not know what the guards were there for, nor that they would likely not have been harmed had they stopped. As scr4 mentions, if you see foreign troops (especially when you may not have realized there were foreign troops in your country!), armed and apparently shooting at you, such actions are not likely to instill a desire to stop, but rather a desire to flee. They may have been fleeing from an attack on their city (thus their belongings), without knowning anything about the whys and whos and wherefores. This, coupled with the earlier car-bombing incident, virtually guaranteed such a tragedy. Both sides weren’t entirely sure what was going on, both panicked, and the side with the big guns won.
I’m not saying the above sceanrio is what happened, just that I think it may be more plausible than a forced charge into a guardpost with the intent of getting shot up for propaganda purposes.
So, Oliver, you are telling us that the American soldiers need to let these vehicles get close to them regardless of the fact that they know there are suicide bombers out there?
The argument doesn’t amount to “Kill them all, let God sort them out”. It amounts to “If you don’t stop the damn vehicle when we clearly want you to, we are going to fill you and your vehicle full of holes.”
Your agenda is perfectly clear. You are against this war and don’t seem to mind if American soldiers put themselves at needless risk.
Get a clue, Oliver.
I think you can chalk this up to fear on behalf of the van’s driver and an equal amount of fear on the part of the soldiers. No conspiracies. No intentional attrocities.
Better steel yourself for more of this type of sh*t, especially as we enter Baghdad.
**
Sorry, but if you go to war, you risk dying. The US had a choice, the Iraqi civilians had not.
**
Which is perfectly equivalent.
I have a clue. Your agenda, on the other hand, is to posit that a)International law is only valid for others, not for the US and b)the death of others is tolerable, the death of US citizens is not.
Sorry, but demonstrating that attitude, you will garner little support for this war. Especially not for claims of liberation.
There’s a difference, though: The soldier was a soldier, the civilians were civilians. As such, the soldier had a duty to protect the civilians, not vice versa. Also, the civilian was at home, the soldier was not. The civilians didn’t chose their home country to be invaded.
—The civilians didn’t chose their home country to be invaded.—
Sure they did: when they voted Saddam into office. Since he won 100% of the election, we know that every single person in the country voted for him and his policies which led directly to war.
A, I see. So the elections are only illegitimate when it comes to justifying why it is right to interfere with Iraqi sovereignty. Otherwise, they are perfectly legitimate.
By the way, you are wrong: 100% of the votes entered does not translate to every single person in the country.
You gotta chose. Either the election was legitimate, in which case the US has no business deposing the choice of the Iraqi people as a leader and can claim no liberation whatsoever, but only a forceful occupation. Or it wasn’t, in which case the civilian made no such choice. But I guess your next argument will be the Kurds chose to be gassed.
If the van doesn’t stop, there’s no way tell if they are civilian or military.
Some asked about shooting the tires instead of the radiator. It is very difficult to the shoot the tires of moving vehicle. You really only see that in movies. The engine is a much easier target. And as someone already pointed out, the vehicle can still move pretty fast with flat tires.
If you’re not in Iraq, there’s no need for you to tell. There’s responsibility that comes with invading another country.
They didn’t just shoot at the engine, they shot the whole thing with bullets, including the passenger room. Sorry, but you gotta decide whether you are liberator wannabees or flat-out occupiers, and with incidents like that, you don’t increase the credibility of any claims of acting out of benevolence for the Iraqi people.
It might have been a set up. But like someone above said, there could be alot of disinformation about the nature of the US soldiers in Iraq. I was watching the news a few days ago and a soldier said that when his brigade captured some Iraqis they had been told by their commanders that the US soldiers would kill them. So either that woman was a tool, or she was probably ignorant that the soldiers wouldn’t have killed her if she had stopped.
With regards to the OP, which is really more likely:
a) Driver panics, soldiers feel threatened, bad thing happens
b) Iraqi intelligence puts together a plot based around first sending in suicide bomber, then filling van with women and children and hoping that US troops can be pressured into opening fire.
The incident is horrible and a dreadful shame, very typical of the sort of dreadful accidents that can happen in war, but it is callous to then attribute it to an evil plot without any evidence.
What i meant was the Iraqi soldiers had been told by their commanders that coalition soldiers would kill them if they gave up.
OliverH, I think Apos just whooshed you.
Regarding the OP:
A US military spokesman says the soldiers motioned the vehicle to stop but their signals were ignored. However, according to the Washington Post, Captain Ronny Johnson, who was in charge of the checkpoint, blamed his own troops for ignoring orders to fire a warning shot.
“You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn’t fire a warning shot soon enough!”, he reportedly yelled at them.
And from elsewhere (a Murdoch employeee, no less!), suggests this incident is hardly unique:
“After suffering heavy losses in the southern city of Nassiriya, US marines were ordered to fire at any vehicle that drove at American positions, Sunday Times reporter Mark Franchetti reported.
He described how “one night, we listened a half dozen times as the machine guns opened fire, cutting through vans and cars like paper£”
Next morning hew said he saw 15 vehicles … He said he counted 12 dead civilians laying in the road or in nearby ditches.
One man’s body was still on fire. A girl aged no more than five lay dead in a ditch beside the body of a man who may have been her father. On the bridge an Iraqi civilian lay next to the dead carcass of a donkey ……”
Lastly, the already known problems between UK and US forces is further reported on today:
Cracks are appearing between British and American commanders which have serious implications for their future operations in Iraq.
Senior British military officers on the ground are making it clear they are dismayed by the failure of US troops to try to fight the battle for hearts and minds.
<snip>
Yesterday, British officers described the very different approach between UK and American soldiers by pointing to Uum Qasr, the Iraqi port south of Basra and the first urban area captured by US and UK marines. “Unlike the Americans, we took our helmets and sunglasses off and looked at the Iraqis eye to eye,” said a British officer.
While British soldiers “get out on their feet”, Americans, he said, were reluctant to leave their armoured vehicles. When they did do so - and this was the experience even in Uum Qasr - US marines were ordered to wear their full combat kit. “
Fwiw, I think the general view (here) is that the US forces – like most – have little or no experience of dealing with either non-regular forces or civilians. The UK specializes in both because of its 30 years in Ireland and it’s role as a Peacekeeper in many varied locations around the world – the US doesn’t ‘peacekeep’ nor has experience of ‘non-regular’ forces so, maybe, the troops panic and ask questions after.
Yes and I saw a picture of an M1 tank with a (presumably) fake human skull mounted just above the main gun. However, since the soldiers have been “in-country” less than two weeks, I am willing to bet that these are just soldiers expressing their creativity. Kind of like painting “Sadam Eat This!!” on a bomb or getting a USMC tatoo. Now if we start seeing ear necklaces, I might start to worry.
Kill or potentially get killed. Which d’ya want?
Simple. We want people capable of dealing with complex situations, instead of being able to handle merely two alternatives.