At what point does a war become a massacre?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,01:o5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bus loads of Palestinians and some Kuwaitis who had collaborated with the Iraqis and had to flee.<span id='postcolor'>

If they were working with the enemy, that normally makes them an enemy aswell.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying it's ok to slaughter fleeing unarmed civilians because they may have supported the enemy?  And what about their kids, wives, parents, grandparents?

The Kurdish villagers that Saddam Hussein gassed had been working with the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.  Does that makes them enemies as well?  Or does your logic only apply to enemies of the USA?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 10 km convoy was also packed with civilians - bus loads of Palestinians and some Kuwaitis who had collaborated with the Iraqis and had to flee.  Many women, children and elderly were found among the dead.<span id='postcolor'>

US Intelligence had no knowledge of these civilians, and the fact that they were retreating right along with a ripe (and legitimate) target makes their deaths regrettable, but not grounds for a war crimes charge.

Along a completely seperate (and entirely more cynical) line of thought, I imagine that what was waiting for them when the Kuwaitis took back what was theirs couldn't have been much better. But of course, that shouldn't matter. Yes, it is too bad that these civilians were killed, but their deaths were unavoidable, considering the circumstances.

Also, referencing the article that Bernadotte posted (really a great read, extremely well written- almost makes me want to become a journalist); it seems to be more a general investigation of indiscretions that occurred during the 24th's drive, and does little to prove that the Battle of the Causeway was innapropriate. In fact, the article directly states that the Iraqis broke the ceasefire that was in place at the time, and Gen. McCaffrey responded in line with the general American doctrine throughout the Gulf War: apply overwhelming force to avoid a drawn-out conflict.

As for the other events referenced in the article, I agree that they are really awful, and I think it's too bad they got squelched by what appears initially to be a coverup of sorts. Still, that does not mean that the Battle of the Causeway was not appropriate, considering the circumstances and information the US had to work with at the time.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Several reports claim that napalm or other incindieries were used.  One explanation was that bombers were moving on/off the carriers so quickly that they were simply loaded with the nearest available ordinance no matter what it was.<span id='postcolor'>

Another explanation would be that the incendiaries were being used in an anti-vehicle role, rather than an anti-personnel role. This is backed up by the generally narrow strip of destrcution shown in pictures, suggesting that Iraqis fleeing on foot were not engaged by US forces with incendiary arms.

Also, armies all over the world maintain weapons that are forbidden for use in an anti-personnel role. However, these same weapons are used against vehicles and aircraft that have personnel in them. Does that mean that all these countries are in contravention of the Geneva Accords? That's just silly. Noone engages an armored column with small caliber machine gun fire.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,01:o5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bus loads of Palestinians and some Kuwaitis who had collaborated with the Iraqis and had to flee.<span id='postcolor'>

If they were working with the enemy, that normally makes them an enemy aswell.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying it's ok to slaughter fleeing unarmed civilians because they may have supported the enemy?  And what about their kids, wives, parents, grandparents?

The Kurdish villagers that Saddam Hussein gassed had been working with the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.  Does that makes them enemies as well?  Or does your logic only apply to enemies of the USA?<span id='postcolor'>

Killing innocent civilians, hell no. But in my book, and sure as hell a lot others, a civilian working with an enemy, and can quite possible end up shooting back at you someday, isn't quite that innocent.

Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...

Kurdish villagers weren't all enemy. a whole lot of children, even babies were killed in that gas attack. As well as a lot of innocent civilians.

If they were all against Iraq, still, then yes, they would be enemies of Iraq. But with a war long over, they should have been detained at the most, not killed.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...

Kurdish villagers weren't all enemy.  a whole lot of children, even babies were killed in that gas attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Children?  Babies?  Iraqi soldiers have those too, don't they?  Doh...  

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they were all against Iraq, still, then yes, they would be enemies of Iraq.  But with a war long over, they should have been detained at the most, not killed.<span id='postcolor'>

The Kurdish village of Halabja was gassed in the closing weeks of the Iran-Iraq War, when two Kurdish guerrilla groups sided against Saddam Hussein.  It lies just inside Iraq's border with Iran, and the Iranians had mounted an offensive in the region.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they were all against Iraq, still, then yes, they would be enemies of Iraq.  But with a war long over, they should have been detained at the most, not killed.<span id='postcolor'>

The Kurdish village of Halabja was gassed in the closing weeks of the Iran-Iraq War, when two Kurdish guerrilla groups sided against Saddam Hussein.  It lies just inside Iraq's border with Iran, and the Iranians had mounted an offensive in the region.<span id='postcolor'>

Doh, should brush up on my dates lol.

But I consider that to be more of a massacre. I doubt all of them were agaisn't Hussien. Hussien proabably had the power to deal with it in other ways.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...

Kurdish villagers weren't all enemy.  a whole lot of children, even babies were killed in that gas attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Children?  Babies?  Iraqi soldiers have those too, don't they?  Doh...  <span id='postcolor'>

You usually don't expect said family to be travelling right alongside the soldier in question, retreating along a highway miles away from any established civilian areas.

Now, you usually expect a village to be chock-full of those wacky civilians.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, the ROE was not accepting surrender. Anything that moved was gunned down by Apaches, A-10's and AC-130's. It was cold blooded killing. The soldiers could not run anywhere - they were trapped  - which was the whole point.<span id='postcolor'>

You have a source for this?

because I distinctly remember floods of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to our troops.

And we didn't mow them down.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,03:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, the ROE was not accepting surrender. Anything that moved was gunned down by Apaches, A-10's and AC-130's. It was cold blooded killing. The soldiers could not run anywhere - they were trapped  - which was the whole point.<span id='postcolor'>

You have a source for this?

because I distinctly remember floods of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to our troops.

And we didn't mow them down.<span id='postcolor'>

He meant during the Battle of the Causeway. And technically, surrender was impossible, as the engagement was entirely carried out by artillery and air power.

EDIT: And FS. Run away from this thread. Quickly. Please.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,03:o4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...

Kurdish villagers weren't all enemy.  a whole lot of children, even babies were killed in that gas attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Children?  Babies?  Iraqi soldiers have those too, don't they?  Doh...  <span id='postcolor'>

You usually don't expect said family to be travelling right alongside the soldier in question, retreating along a highway miles away from any established civilian areas.

Now, you usually expect a village to be chock-full of those wacky civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

Tex, one of us may have misunderstood the comparison.

[Blake 0]

Well, main target were the vehicles in the convoy. So stop the car, open door and run to the desert. That's one way to avoid being roasted alive. Simply occupying army trying to escape but ended up being hammered to the highway in their stolen vehichles. I'd assume massacre means war crime, so people thinking it was massacre mean that those responsible should be brought to trial?

And if there was war crime being commited, I'd assume the Iraqis themselves should have made a big noise out of it?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,03:o4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Feb. 19 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...

Kurdish villagers weren't all enemy.  a whole lot of children, even babies were killed in that gas attack.<span id='postcolor'>

Children?  Babies?  Iraqi soldiers have those too, don't they?  Doh...  <span id='postcolor'>

You usually don't expect said family to be travelling right alongside the soldier in question, retreating along a highway miles away from any established civilian areas.

Now, you usually expect a village to be chock-full of those wacky civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

Tex, one of us may have misunderstood the comparison. <span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely- it seems like you haven't seen the ball since kickoff. You are trying to equate intentional murder of civilians with the unintentional and uknowing deaths of civilians who were in a place they should not have been at an unfortunate time, in addition to the fact that they accepted the risks inherent in moving into a country that was essentially stolen from its rightful owners, who happened to be allies with the most powerful military in the world. The US didn't know they were there, and the civilians obviously didn't know or care that being there put their lives at risk.

Does that justify their deaths? Does it make them any less tragic? Nope. Does it mean they cannot be compared to the intentional murder of civilians? Absolutely

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,04:o2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolutely- it seems like you haven't seen the ball since kickoff. You are trying to equate intentional murder of civilians with the unintentional and uknowing deaths of civilians who were in a place they should not have been at an unfortunate time, in addition to the fact that they accepted the risks inherent in moving into a country that was essentially stolen from its rightful owners, who happened to be allies with the most powerful military in the world. The US didn't know they were there, and the civilians obviously didn't know or care that being there put their lives at risk.

Does that justify their deaths? Does it make them any less tragic? Nope. Does it mean they cannot be compared to the intentional murder of civilians? Absolutely<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps it was you who missed the kickoff, Tex.

Harnu has tried to justify killing the civilian collaborators in the convoy by saying:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...a civilian working with an enemy, and can quite possible end up shooting back at you someday, isn't quite that innocent.<span id='postcolor'>

Try and understand Tex, that I agree with you about not being able to compare the 2 massacres because US Forces apparently did not know about the presence of civilians, unlike the Iraqis when they gassed the village.  HOWEVER, Harnu doesn't use that argument.  Regarding the slaughtered kids, wives, parents and grandparents he merely replied:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...<span id='postcolor'>

So you see, if the knowledge of the civilian presence doesn't matter to Harnu then what's the difference between the 2 massacres (besides the weapons used and the number killed)?  From his perspective they each might as well be intentional.

By the way, what makes you think the Palestinian/Kuwaiti collaborators moved to Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion?  That's simply not true.  Most were already living and working in Kuwait before the invasion.  Many Palestinians who fled had not collaborated at all but feared reprisals because Arafat had sided with Hussein.  Many innocent Palestinians who suffered under the Iraqi occupation but remained in Kuwait, suffered even worse when the Kuwaitis returned to power, before being expelled entirely.

By the by the way, you really should consider a career in journalism, but not until you do something about those run-on sentences.

[Ludovico Technique 0]

The media were kept away from many of the battle sites of the Gulf War. It was something I remember watching the war unfold on the news as a kid, there were no casualties, no bodies of the victims, just lots of planes flying back and forth, tracers over Baghdad and some footage of artillery.

I think in real terms the whole war was a massacre from day one of the air campaign. The Iraqi army might as well have been equipped with flint axes and chariots for all the good their weapons were. I believe the air campaign waged by the allies was a heinous act of overkill, and had the US army simply rolled into Kuwait the Iraqi military would have folded like a bad poker hand.

Given the Iraqi military machine is only a very pale shadow of what it was in 1991 I really hope the US and its allies pull their punches with this new war they have planned. Aside from the fact that any new war with the new ultrahightech weapons is going to be the most one sided fight in modern history there is a very real chance that a second Gulf War could be akin to Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland but on a much, much bigger scale.

In short if you're going to take candy from a baby you don't have to use a chainsaw.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He meant during the Battle of the Causeway. And technically, surrender was impossible, as the engagement was entirely carried out by artillery and air power.<span id='postcolor'>

You can still not get killed by artillery or air power, it's easy.  Just don't be where they're targetting.  Planes are bombing your tank?  Leave the tank, run.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: And FS. Run away from this thread. Quickly. Please.<span id='postcolor'>

Can I ask why you want me to do this?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps it was you who missed the kickoff, Tex.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is entirely possible

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Harnu has tried to justify killing the civilian collaborators in the convoy by saying:

Quote

...a civilian working with an enemy, and can quite possible end up shooting back at you someday, isn't quite that innocent.

Try and understand Tex, that I agree with you about not being able to compare the 2 massacres because US Forces apparently did not know about the presence of civilians, unlike the Iraqis when they gassed the village. HOWEVER, Harnu doesn't use that argument. Regarding the slaughtered kids, wives, parents and grandparents he merely replied:

<span id='postcolor'>

I understand. Perhaps I shouldn't stick my nose into other arguments without figuring out what the hell is going on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, what makes you think the Palestinian/Kuwaiti collaborators moved to Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion? That's simply not true. Most were already living and working in Kuwait before the invasion. Many Palestinians who fled had not collaborated at all but feared reprisals because Arafat had sided with Hussein. Many innocent Palestinians who suffered under the Iraqi occupation but remained in Kuwait, suffered even worse when the Kuwaitis returned to power, before being expelled entirely.

<span id='postcolor'>

I thought it was a fairly reasonable assumption, considering the circumstances. Still, whether or not they did move in is essentially immaterial, considering the events as they unfolded. I'm not fully acquainted with all the plights of Palestinians, or even with persecution in general (We're fairly easy-going about that sort of thing here in America, at least in my area). Thank you for clearing up the situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the by the way, you really should consider a career in journalism, but not until you do something about those run-on sentences.<span id='postcolor'>

It stems from my desire and usual inability to communicate as much information as I can as quickly as possible. When I write papers for school I drive MS Word's spelling/grammar checker absolutely insane.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: And FS. Run away from this thread. Quickly. Please.<span id='postcolor'>

Can I ask why you want me to do this?<span id='postcolor'>

Wow, you are either pretty good at posting flamebait, or you are really....nevermind, I almost bit

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ludovico Technique @ Feb. 19 2003,06:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Given the Iraqi military machine is only a very pale shadow of what it was in 1991 I really hope the US and its allies pull their punches with this new war they have planned. Aside from the fact that any new war with the new ultrahightech weapons is going to be the most one sided fight in modern history there is a very real chance that a second Gulf War could be akin to Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland but on a much, much bigger scale.

In short if you're going to take candy from a baby you don't have to use a chainsaw.<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't be so sure that the probable war would be easier than in 91. US forces are stepping into Iraqi homeland with large cities which Saddam has stated to defend. In urban fighting on the streets of Baghdad with 5 million residents the US will most likely suffer heavy casualties. Gulf War was fought in open plains where US armor and air force advantage had it's full effect. Iraqis made no effort to defend Kuwaiti City which could have proved difficult nut to crack.

Remember US will still be facing:

7 Corps HQs

3 armored divisions

3 mechanized divisions

11 infantry divisions

6 Republican Guard Force divisions

4 Special Republican Guard brigades

5 Commando brigades

2 Special Forces brigades

3200 tanks and APCs

2000+ artillery pieces

Total personnel: 389,000

Reserves: 650,000

If you put most of these forces to cities they will be costly to take. But in the end of course, it comes down to the fact how willing the Iraqis are to fight. But taken these military facts together, the invasion should be much more difficult than Gulf War.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, you are either pretty good at posting flamebait, or you are really....nevermind, I almost bit <span id='postcolor'>

RATS!

The thing about urban warfare is that bombs are useless, so the entire bulk of the USAF is useless. Tanks are generally going to be useless (I wouldn't want to take a bulky abrahms down a crowded street), artillery will be useless. You'll have to go in with infantry. So basically Saddam figured out a way to take what we owned him with in GW1 and made sure we can't do it again. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Guest]

Let's keep future Iraq war topics in the Iraq thread.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 19 2003,05:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Harnu has tried to justify killing the civilian collaborators in the convoy by saying:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...a civilian working with an enemy, and can quite possible end up shooting back at you someday, isn't quite that innocent.<span id='postcolor'>

Try and understand Tex, that I agree with you about not being able to compare the 2 massacres because US Forces apparently did not know about the presence of civilians, unlike the Iraqis when they gassed the village.  HOWEVER, Harnu doesn't use that argument.  Regarding the slaughtered kids, wives, parents and grandparents he merely replied:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kids, wives, parents, grandparents, soldiers have those too...<span id='postcolor'>

So you see, if the knowledge of the civilian presence doesn't matter to Harnu then what's the difference between the 2 massacres (besides the weapons used and the number killed)?  From his perspective they each might as well be intentional.

By the way, what makes you think the Palestinian/Kuwaiti collaborators moved to Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion?  That's simply not true.  Most were already living and working in Kuwait before the invasion.  Many Palestinians who fled had not collaborated at all but feared reprisals because Arafat had sided with Hussein.  Many innocent Palestinians who suffered under the Iraqi occupation but remained in Kuwait, suffered even worse when the Kuwaitis returned to power, before being expelled entirely.

By the by the way, you really should consider a career in journalism, but not until you do something about those run-on sentences.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not trying to justify killing of anyone. It all sucks. I was expressing MY OPINION. A civilian that collaborated with the enemy, and most likely could very well end up shooting at me someday, IN MY OPINION, I wouldn't be as effected by his death. Because IN MY OPINION the death of an innocent civilian is horrible, but someone not so innocent, like being with the enemy, isn't all that tragic.

I fell that their deaths were already justified, because they could quite well be considered an enemy if they work with the enemy in a war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you see, if the knowledge of the civilian presence doesn't matter to Harnu <span id='postcolor'>

Are you trying to imply that I agree with the killing of innocent civilians?

Civilian presence DOES matter. The order issued to destroy the convoy headed out Iraq came suddenly after the report was made that they were fleeing. There wasn't much time for intel. And civilians there knew the risk they were taking. It's tragic for the innocent ones.

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can still not get killed by artillery or air power, it's easy. Just don't be where they're targetting. Planes are bombing your tank? Leave the tank, run.<span id='postcolor'>

Well sometimes you don't have a clue that you are being targeted.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He meant during the Battle of the Causeway. And technically, surrender was impossible, as the engagement was entirely carried out by artillery and air power.<span id='postcolor'>

You can still not get killed by artillery or air power, it's easy.  Just don't be where they're targetting.  Planes are bombing your tank?  Leave the tank, run.<span id='postcolor'>

Run where? They were trapped. And they weren't mostly in tanks but in trucks.

There is no way to run from artillery or incendiary bombs. Everything in a large area gets killed. The air is sucked out in a large radius. You have secondary explosions from vehicles.

And in the end AC-130's and AH-64's killed off with machine guns the few that survived the bombing and shelling.

[RaptorAce 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 19 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can still not get killed by artillery or air power, it's easy.  Just don't be where they're targetting.  Planes are bombing your tank?  Leave the tank, run.<span id='postcolor'>

Well sometimes you don't have a clue that you are being targeted.  <span id='postcolor'>

sure, thats understandable for the first few waves of fire, but after that its just obvious that the answer is to get the hell away from there. I know i would.