Here’s a link to an article which says there were survivors.
Hmmm. I posted the above link after I read the first page of this thread and thought I was at the end of it. Sorry for the interruption.
Three pages and only one poster touched on what I consider a key issue here.
That is, the only choices were not just to either let the car through or shot in order to stop it. It seems pretty obvious to me that a stop sign in Arabic and barricading the road could have prevented this incident. So I don’t blame the soldiers, but rather whoever created the rules of engagement. Indeed, I have heard a report that signs and barricades are likely to be used in the future.
It’s a shame that the military planners couldn’t figure this out before killing a carload of civilians.
Having a number of possessions in the vehicle doesn’t make it any more likely that they were fleeing, than that they were forced into the vehicle, on the threat of death, and had stuff thrown in with them to make it look like they were fleeing. While I feel that they were innocent victims either way, I too doubt that this wasn’t staged (by someone other than the victims) to make the US military look bad. Nothing I’ve heard so far makes me think that the Iraqi military is above using civilians to that detestable end. 
I think this bit of news kills any suspicions of any conspiracy
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030402_399.html
This was one great big screwup. I feel really sorry for the driver now.
Indeed this was my point as well. The rules of engagement seem to allow for deadly force to be used against Iraqis, even civilians, BEFORE a clear threat is presented. In keeping with what I believed to be an excellent suggestion by Collounsbury I think it would behoove coalition forces to be willing to risk danger to themselves from situations like the exploding taxi than to use deadly force against civilian vehicles solely on grounds of suspicious activity. If we let them get close to the checkpoint without using deadly force(shooting the engine for example) then we’ve demonstrated that we’re not willing to kill them simply to prevent them from possibly endangering our troops. The rules of engagement, as they existed in this case, seem to favor preserving the lives of the soldiers even at the cost of civilian lives. Being willing to risk a suicide bomber blowing up the troops stationed at a checkpoint in order to prevent incidents like this one would help show the world that we don’t care more about our troops than we care about Iraqi civilians.
Enjoy,
Steven
The clear threat comes from the van not stopping, and potentially being full of enemy soldiers or explosives. Given that the Iraqi troops are dressing as civilians, I don’t see what other ROE can be used. If word gets out that anyone dressed as a civilian can drive straight up to a check point w/o fear because they don’t present a “clear threat” how long do you think it will be before every Iraqi irregular is pullilng the same stunt? If these people were innocents, then this is tragic, and if a simple thing like a sign would have prevented it, then it is doubly ss. But, I don’t think we should, or will, change the ROE. I suppose this response goes to Demise as well. I don’t think our troops have to accept the risk of a suicide bomber driving through their lines. Sorry, but I guess we just have to disagree on that.
If these people were innocents???
So you are still saying this family were “possibly” agents or dupes of the Iraq army out to win propaganda points by geting themselves shot up??!?!?
Lord save me from loonies.
Ok So no change in Rules of engagement has another effect:
If word gets out that anyone trying to drive straight up to a check point without being shot at because they are not given the proper instructions or warnings how long do you think it will be before every Iraqi civilian finds they don’t wish to libertated by this particular army?
You seem to only think of this operation as a matter of safety of the US troops. Last time I checked the US and British Gov’ts were also expressing concern for the well being of the Iraqi people and the importance of gaining their trust.
Hard to do that when you have these situations. And when they don’t how safe will the country be for the soldiers then?
Look, Rhum, I see where you are coming from, but I think you’re missing a lot of steps in there. I never said we should let civilians through checkpoints unquestioned, I just don’t think we should automatically begin firing at anyone who doesn’t instantly obey orders in a language that they don’t understand. There are more options than either letting vehicles though unmolested or filling them full of holes. A physical barrier would be a start. Also, Bradleys and Humvees are mobile, so I doubt that we’d have accept anyone driving through our lines, as we could just chase them down. Not to mention that suicide bombers would probably blow themselves up right at the checkpoint (which is what happened before).
Rising death tolls of civilians at these checkpoints is a sure way to get moderates to start opposing this war. It’s also ready-made propaganda for Saddam.
Or potentially being full of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.**
I don’t know, nor do I think you know. Your presumptions of what tactics the Iraqis would adopt are as speculative as my own. I am not responsible for their tactics, but as a citizen of a democracy which makes up the majority of the Coalition forces I DO feel it is my perrogative, and perhaps my duty, to express my displeasure with the tactics our forces are using. **
And I don’t think Iraqi civilians have to accept the risk of being shot to death for not understanding checkpoint protocol. These people were led to believe(via our own leaflets) that Coalition forces would protect them. They were waved through at a previous checkpoint. Now they approach a second checkpoint, expecting a wave-through as well, and they die.
I would also like to point out that the suicide bomber driving the Taxi obeyed the checkpoint protocols. He pulled over, stopped, co-operated with Coalition forces and then blew them all up. The rules of engagement stating that you should use deadly force on vehicles that don’t stop wouldn’t have prevented the Taxi suicide bomber. I’m not saying you have to let them through, but barricades or disabling the vehicle should be adequate for 99% of situations.
Enjoy,
Steven
BF:
To which I responded: Strawman.
Now I am no first language english speaker, but I would guess that “sportin ragin would” should translate to something like “eager”? And indeed, none of the post you supplied argues that all US troops are eager to waste iraqi women and children. Or something even similar to that. My post do especially not state that, but the opposite!
If I misinterpreted the meaning of “sportin ragin wood” I do apologize. Otherwise I do not.
elfkin477:
In that case you simply have not read this thread. Conspiratorial mind. You might wan’t to read the part where the passengers of the vehicle themselves describe what happened.
But oh, wait! They must be Fedayeen agents all of them, right?
A note on responsibility:
Through the geneva convention an occupying party (like the US in this case) shall uphold the safety of the civilian population. That is a fact. That is where the responsibility lies.
I do think that the reaction of the american soldiers is (psychologically) very understandable. But the above should be kept in mind when discussing Rules Of Engagement and so on…
RandySpears wrote:
One more time, unless I have totally read between the lines:
The above was summarized from my last post. Now, no where in these words does it specifically say “US troops eager to kill civilians”, or does it?
No, the clear threat comes from being in a war zone. If they can’t live with that, they should change their profession.
Well, what you have just done is give Saddam carte blanche to do whatever he wants to kill as many GIs as possible. Cause, you know, when you declare that all means are fair to defend yourself, then all means are fair. Unless, of course, you wanted to say that GIs are Ubermenschen who have rights the other side has not. Sorry, but the fact that even British troops are disgusted at the conduct of the US military pretty much shows that there is no justification for this behavior whatsoever. It is understandable that people get nervous, but if they are scared shit because they might die and shooting at everything that moves, they shouldn’t be there. Tell ya something: The Brits have quite some experience with the risk of terrorist attacks. If they don’t consider a certain conduct justifiable, you would be well advised to think it over if you want to regain credibility as ‘liberators’ of the Iraqi people.
BF:
Learn to read a sentence will ya? Save us a lot of trouble…
(If you see my temper slipping it’s due to the inanity of this threads heading, theme, and the fact that some posters still seem to think that this tragedy was some kind of Saddam conspiracy!)
Let’s break it down.
“Our troops are all…” means “all”, as in “everyone”. “Eager” means “looking forward to” as in “will enjoy”. “Waste women and children” means… Well.
“Our troops are all eager to waste women and children” would be an imbecile, false statement. If anyone would state such things for a fact I would say he had to be an idiot. No one here would say that. At least I hope so, but given some of the posts in this thread…
Now.
Does “the young soldiers” mean the same thing as “all our troops”? Which young soldiers, how many etc is unspecified and dependant on context. Does “Vietnam mode” imply “eager to kill iraqi women and children”? Obviously it does not.
“They” in this case obviously denotes the soldiers involved in the incident discussed by this thread. Clearly not identical to “all our troops”. Right?
This is a cite from a british soldier. So you may want to try to argue that “a british soldier claims that all our troops are eager to kill iraqi women and children”. But I guess “our troops” include the Brits as well, and therefore also this British soldier. Either way it would be an obviously erronous conclusion from this cite.
So, by now maybe you can work your own logic. Do “all your preemptive BS” equal “all our troops”?
This is actually a quite factual statement if you peel away the affected wording. I would interpret “your pre-emptive BS” in context to mean “this war”. So this translates into “So far, all this war has done, along with killing countless innocents such as these,”. Peel away the word “countless”, and you’re up and running.
Strawman or not? Strawman.
Hey, you win!! I have neither the time nor energy to split hairs with you. Believe what you want.
thanks, matey! i’ll take winning, believing what I wan’t, and move on to a more interesting topic. no hard feeling, i hope? 
Strawman (cite to where I said “all means are fair”?), followed by Godwin’s (cite to claim of “Ubermenschen?” but since you are in Germany, maybe you can shed some light on how to properly conduct an invasion, eh?), followed by another strawman (cite to Brits being disgusted? one ‘quote’ from one soldier about a friendly fire incident on tv means exactly nothing) which, even if true, in and of itself does not mean that there is no justification, followed up with another strawman (“shooting at everything” please cite to any report that Americans are “shooting at everything”) etc…
Blah blah blah blah…please, do come back when you understand the topic of the conversation and have something to add to it.
Rhum:
The point which I believe Oliver wants to make is valid. Since:
Even more so, when claiming to fight a humanitarian war. It is in no way clear that the safety of the US soldiers should be more important than the safety of the civilian population.