The Iraq Thread 2

[Acecombat 0]

Jeez go back and find out how many of your AF's guided bombs have fallen on civilians 'accidently' , read the newspapers daily to find out how many civilians/iraqi police are killed by US forces pretty much a daily occurence these days ....

So, you're saying these were intentional?

Quote[/b] ]US forces have been involved in a lot of friendly fires incidents its a fact not a myth generated by arguing for the sake of argument

Were these intentional, too?

Who knows? ...

I dont , the point was US forces have been involved in a LOT of FF incidents so the argument that this argument was just for the sake of argument is wrong and unfair , all those incidents collectively make a bad image of the US in such scenarios , for all we know those people shot could be innocent or (not).

[theavonlady 2]

all those incidents collectively make a bad image of the US in such scenarios , for all we know those people shot could be innocent or (not).

I don't think there was a war anywhere of this magnitude of greater where such incidents didn't occur.

Part of the image made is what you want to assume - intentional killing of innocents. It's fun to bash the US of A. Part of it is true. Part of it is unknown.

Wars never turn out perfect and that goes for all sides involved.

[denoir 0]

The fact of the matter is, the crew was given their assignment, they made a choice, and they accomplished their mission.  

That is actually not at all true. The sequence of events was like this (according to ABC, quoting an US army official):

1. Helicopter spots a pick up truck and starts tracking it. The pick-up stops by a larger truck and the pilot says:

"Uh, big truck over here, he's having a little powwow."

2. The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

3. "I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

4. The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

5. The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

[ After this the recording that we've seen starts. ]

---

Now, important point:

This was improvised. The pilots were not ordered to kill the men. The pilots themselves took the initiative. They were not on a mission - they reacted to something that they thought was a weapon.

And this is a very very different story form the one you're presenting NavyEEL. ABC is a respected news agency, and I don't think that they would make up the story. And nothing personal, but if you don't present a source, I see nothing that would confirm your story. As a matter of fact, it doesn't make sense.

Why would they plant an explosive device in the middle of a field? If there was an explosive device, why did it not explode when fired at with a 30mm HE cannon?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]

NEW YORK TIMES

Hussein Warned Iraqis to Beware Outside Fighters, Document Says

By JAMES RISEN

Published: January 14, 2004

ASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials.

It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.

Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.

A new, classified intelligence report circulating within the United States government describes the document and its contents, according to administration officials who asked not to be identified. The officials said they had no evidence that the document found with Mr. Hussein was a fabrication.

The role of foreign Arab fighters in the Iraqi resistance to the American-led occupation has been a source of debate within the American government ever since the fall of Baghdad in April. Initially, American analysts feared that thousands of fighters would flood into Iraq, seeking an Islamic jihad in much the same way an earlier generation of Arabs traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation.

Military and intelligence officials now believe that the number of foreign fighters who have entered Iraq is relatively small. American military units posted along the border to screen against such an influx have reported that they have seen few signs of foreign fighters trying to cross the border.

In December, American military officials in Iraq estimated that foreign fighters accounted for no more than 10 percent of the insurgency, and some officials now believe that even that figure may be too high. Only 200 to 300 people holding non-Iraqi passports are being detained in Iraq by American forces, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a military spokesman, told reporters in Baghdad in December.

"They're a threat, but the vast majority of the personnel that we have in detention for activities against the coalition, for activities against Iraqi citizens, remain personnel from this country," General Kimmitt said then.

But several officials said American forces were not certain of the accuracy of the American intelligence on the issue and acknowledge that there could be more foreigners inside the country than they currently think. "I've seen numbers from a couple hundred to a couple thousand," said one United States military official.

Another unresolved issue has been the level of coordination between foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents, many of whom are former members of Mr. Hussein's security apparatus. Military and intelligence officials say they have detected cooperation at the tactical level, on individual attacks, but have less evidence of any coordination at a broader strategic level. Asked whether it appeared that Iraqi insurgent leaders had heeded Mr. Hussein's advice to keep foreign fighters at arm's length, officials said it was difficult to tell without more information on the full extent of the cooperation between the sides.

The use of suicide car bombings as a weapon in the insurgency has made American officials wonder whether Islamic militant fighters are behind some crucial attacks. The secular Iraqis who were members of Mr. Hussein's government are unlikely recruits for martyrdom, American officials said.

"There is no question that some foreign fighters have crossed into Iraq," observed Judith Yaphe, a senior research fellow at the National Defense University in Washington and a former Middle East analyst at the C.I.A. "How many? I don't think there are more than a couple hundred. Are they significant in the insurgency? I don't think they are. There are too many Iraqis who know how to do these things. The real question is the suicide bombers, that's not strictly speaking an Iraqi thing."

In addition to its value in understanding the nature of the enemy that American and allied troops now confront in Iraq, the document found with Mr. Hussein could also be grist for further debate about his relationship with Islamic fundamentalists.

As President Bush sought to build a case for war with Iraq, one of the most hotly debated issues was whether Mr. Hussein was in league with Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Senior officials at the Pentagon who were certain that the evidence of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were strong and compelling found themselves at war with analysts at the C.I.A. who believed that the evidence showed some contacts between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an operational alliance.

At the Pentagon, several officials believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had found common ground in their hatred of the United States, while at the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr. bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.

Hell isnt this what the whole world was constantly saying! War against teror ... surely...but not in Iraq. It was clear beforehand that by logic a dictator would not cooperate with religious forces. This is against the nature of a dictatorship, it is actually opposing it.

[theavonlady 2]

Why would they plant an explosive device in the middle of a field?

To the right of the truck and the pickup, there seems to be a road.

You say it was all improvised. Could intel have told them to be on the lookout for these vehicles and this is simply the point where they spotted them?

[SgtBarnes 0]

[ After this the recording that we've seen starts. ]

<Removed link to the full video which breaks forums rules>

[theavonlady 2]

[ After this the recording that we've seen starts. ]

<Removed link to the full video which breaks forums rules>

Thank you. Indeed........................... smoke 'em.

[theavonlady 2]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush.  The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets.  And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

What kind of mine comes in an elongated tube?

[Cephalid 0]

However, I can't give more information at this time, nor will you be able to find anything about it on news websites (at least, not that I know of).  I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable...

NavyEEL, do you have an opinion on the killing of the last wounded man?

I have mixed opinions.  I fully agree that, as American soldiers (or any soldier for that matter), we have an obligation to help those who are wounded or incapacitated, regardless of what side they are on.  Since our primary mission is to serve and protect, I think it only makes sense.

Mission scenario:  a gunship is tasked with eliminating a threat which is setting up to ambush American ground troops.  Two of the men were killed instantly, while a third was "wounded" (we are not sure how severely) prior to being killed.  Based on his movements, he could have still posed a threat by arming the mines they were placing.  Therefore, I think the Apache crew had no choice but to eliminate him.  There were a lot of mixed factors, and you could argue the morality of their actions either way.  The fact of the matter is, the crew was given their assignment, they made a choice, and they accomplished their mission.  Had they let the man live, and he ended up inflicting casualties on American or coalition troops, would people think differently about how the pilots should have acted?  Just something to think about, especially if you know what it is like to be in a combat situation or losed loved ones in war.

Why not just trying to arrest this guy? With a apache monitoring the area, it shouldn’t be that a big deal. If he should resist an arrest, pulling out a gun or what ever, you still can eliminate him. Or are the US forces not able to arrest a wounded man?

As you said before, nobody here knows the background of this mission. But as far as I know, the mission for the US troops is to establish "peace" and stability. This you can't achieve if you are trigger-happy. You must try to win the trust of these people. In this case you should at least try to arrest all this guys. With killing, you just generate more hate, makes your live even more difficult. It strengthens the resistance and that is the last thing you want to have if you are the occupying power.

Have a look on the casualties, compared British with US forces.

It is at the moment 23 to 359. Of course you can't directly compare these figures, because they occupying other areas with different ethnical groups. But it still looks that mainly the Americans facing problems and I think it has mostly to do with their manner of solving problems and appearance.

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

[SgtBarnes 0]

[ After this the recording that we've seen starts. ]

<Removed link to the full video which breaks forums rules>

I have a link to a fuller version of the video, which shows more of the detail that the ABC article talks about. PM me if you want the link.

[theavonlady 2]

Why not just trying to arrest this guy? With a apache monitoring the area, it shouldn’t be that a big deal. If he should resist an arrest, pulling out a gun or what ever, you still can eliminate him. Or are the US forces not able to arrest a wounded man?

What if the nearest ground forces are an hour away? This is a bit silly. This is not a police operation where "come out with your hands up" routine step #1.

Quote[/b] ]As you said before, nobody here knows the background of this mission. But as far as I know, the mission for the US troops is to establish "peace" and stability. This you can't achieve if you are trigger-happy.

I don't see trigger happiness here. No shouts for joy, which can be found in other examples on the WEB.

Quote[/b] ]You must try to win the trust of these people.

You must also let it be known that if someone is planning on dropping off weapons to be used against Iraqis themselves or coalition forces, you may very well wind up as chopped meat and someone will have to come and literally pick up the pieces.

Quote[/b] ]With killing, you just generate more hate, makes your live even more difficult.

Do you speak on behalf of the Iraqis who have lost their own people and help from the UN and Red Cross because of these anti-Coalition (more: anti-Iraqi) assailants? I wonder......

Quote[/b] ]It strengthens the resistance and that is the last thing you want to have if you are the occupying power.

Disgaree.

Quote[/b] ]Have a look on the casualties, compared British with US forces.

Are they playing equivalent rolls in equivalent scenarios in equivalent locations in Iraq? I think you're simplifying things.

Quote[/b] ]It is at the moment 23 to 359. Of course you can't directly compare these figures, because they occupying other areas with different ethnical groups.

As you yourself said.

Quote[/b] ]But it still looks that mainly the Americans facing problems and I think it has mostly to do with their manner of solving problems and appearance.

I agree with this point but only to a certain degree.

Most of these anti-coalition forces would attack no less if the US behaved like cutie pies.

[ran 0]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

What kind of mine comes in an elongated tube?

this "tube" could have been a pole on which the mine would have been fixed

http://www.angola.npaid.org/mine_russia_mon_100.htm

http://tewton.narod.ru/mines/mon-200a.html

[ran 0]

I don't see trigger happiness here. No shouts for joy, which can be found in other examples on the WEB.

shooting the wounded was uncalled for, this is trigger happiness

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It strengthens the resistance and that is the last thing you want to have if you are the occupying power.

Disgaree.

what you don't seem to understand is that these men, the ones that die from coallition's bullets are seen as heroes and martyrs by an evergrowing part of the Iraqi people

[theavonlady 2]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush.  The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets.  And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

What kind of mine comes in an elongated tube?

this "tube" could have been a pole on which the mine would have been fixed

http://www.angola.npaid.org/mine_russia_mon_100.htm

Not in this video. The guy is dropping something in a case with a handle with some sort of tag dangling off the back. Are you saying the case contains a wooden pole? Doubtful.

[ran 0]

Why not just trying to arrest this guy? With a apache monitoring the area, it shouldn’t be that a big deal. If he should resist an arrest, pulling out a gun or what ever, you still can eliminate him. Or are the US forces not able to arrest a wounded man?

What if the nearest ground forces are an hour away? This is a bit silly. This is not a police operation where "come out with your hands up" routine step #1.

it's not a police operation, but it should be a peacekeeping operation, a thing the US forces are not too bright at.

[turms 0]

i cant believe that some people in here are advocating the "shoot first, then ask" principle. You just cant justify this incident, no matter how you twist it.

[ran 0]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

What kind of mine comes in an elongated tube?

this "tube" could have been a pole on which the mine would have been fixed

http://www.angola.npaid.org/mine_russia_mon_100.htm

Not in this video. The guy is dropping something in a case with a handle with some sort of tag dangling off the back. Are you saying the case contains a wooden pole? Doubtful.

PM me the link , i haven't watched the video in Fullscreen yet and i've just erased my most recently opened files list from my media player

-edit-: with your feline eyes you must have distinguished the various organs scattered on the ground after the HE and HEDP rounds went abblaze .....

[theavonlady 2]

I don't see trigger happiness here. No shouts for joy, which can be found in other examples on the WEB.

shooting the wounded was uncalled for, this is trigger happiness

Was it a calculated move to assure that this person, whom they cannot capture, does not come back kill another day?

I'm not saying it's legal but I wouldn't call it trigger happiness.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It strengthens the resistance and that is the last thing you want to have if you are the occupying power.

Disgaree.

what you don't seem to understand is that these men, the ones that die from coallition's bullets are seen as heroes and martyrs by an evergrowing part of the Iraqi people

And they're seen as people who want to restore a regime of Baath or Islamic brutality by others.

The coalition has chosen sides. And, as you all agree, they can't leave until they clean things up. This is, sadly, part of their responsibility.

[theavonlady 2]

i cant believe that some people in here are advocating the "shoot first, then ask" principle. You just cant justify this incident, no matter how you twist it.

You obviously didn't see the full video. Ask Sgt. Barnes for the link.

[ran 0]

And they're seen as people who want to restore a regime of Baath or Islamic brutality by others.

you're simplifying things here, there are much more saddam supporters than you think

[theavonlady 2]

And they're seen as people who want to restore a regime of Baath or Islamic brutality by others.

you're simplifying things here, there are much more saddam supporters than you think

So maybe the US should just up and leave and let the folks there settle it for themselves?

And Saddam supporters are justified?

[ran 0]

I don't see trigger happiness here. No shouts for joy, which can be found in other examples on the WEB.

shooting the wounded was uncalled for, this is trigger happiness

Was it a calculated move to assure that this person, whom they cannot capture, does not come back kill another day?

how do you know he couldn't have been captured ?

and with his injuries (more certainly fatal or at least critical considering the proximity of the HE/HEDP blast) wouldn't have allowed to continue the fact in any way in my opinion

[theavonlady 2]

-edit-: with your feline eyes you must have distinguished the various organs scattered on the ground after the HE and HEDP rounds went abblaze .....

Running this at full screen at 1600x1200 makes a lot of difference.

It's a frightening thing to watch. In all honesty, flying an Apache in OFP and watching your AI gunner take out the enemy is pretty macabre, now that I think of it.

[theavonlady 2]

how do you know he couldn't have been captured ?

I don't. I'm conjecturing, as I've done before. How do you know he could?

Quote[/b] ]and with his injuries (more certainly fatal or at least critical considering the proximity of the HE/HEDP blast) wouldn't have allowed to continue the fact in any way in my opinion

If critical, could he be back in action in a month? Two?

If less than critical, less time?

The guys in the chopper didn't know for sure at the time either.

[Cephalid 0]

What if the nearest ground forces are an hour away? This is a bit silly. This is not a police operation where "come out with your hands up" routine step #1.

Well, if you want to place mine to blow up some coalitions troops, I guess you place it nearby one of there bases, not hours away.

Quote[/b] ]

I don't see trigger happiness here. No shouts for joy, which can be found in other examples on the WEB.

Can you see any weapons pointed at the apache?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You must try to win the trust of these people.

You must also let it be known that if someone is planning on dropping off weapons to be used against Iraqis themselves or coalition forces, you may very well wind up as chopped meat and someone will have to come and literally pick up the pieces.

I agree, but it still not a reason to kill everybody you are suspecting. I guess it has to depend on the circumstances. Even if they placed a bomb, they know the position of it because of the apache. And now still somebody has to clean up the mess and you don't know if there is a bomb lying around.

In the tape it looks like they are coming to help or assist the farmer, but this we don't know.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]With killing, you just generate more hate, makes your live even more difficult.

Do you speak on behalf of the Iraqis who have lost their own people and help from the UN and Red Cross because of these anti-Coalition (more: anti-Iraqi) assailants? I wonder......

Who wants to establish peace and stability?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It strengthens the resistance and that is the last thing you want to have if you are the occupying power.

Disgaree.

Why?