Author Topic: Mosque Hit 40 Dead. (Read 1734 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2004, 09:57:29 AM »

What would the alternative be? The way I see it the Marines had three choises.

1) Pull back

2) Stay put and try to return fire with small arms

3) Rely on superior firepower

1
is pretty much out of the question, because you cant just run away because an enemy is using human shields. You'd be run out of Iraq in no-time.

2
is also out of the question because then you would fight on the enemy's terms and the US units would sustain unnecessary casualties and fatalities.

3
is the only viable option, and it is what the US armed forces do. War is not supposed to be fair.

Batz · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2004, 09:59:18 AM »

Quote

The difference being that the church probably didn't have scores of civilians inside.

What do you care about "civilians". Didn't you make replies in the numerous Dresden threads to justify the "de-housing" policy?

Dowding · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:03:00 AM »

Total war versus police action. I suggest you review the context.

lazs2 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:06:05 AM »

gixer... I think it is too soon for you to celebrate... the crocadile tears are a good touch tho.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:07:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Why do some people think there should be some free zones for the terrorists?

They think they are fighting against an occupation, you cannot call them terrorists for that. Misled maybe, but not terrorists. We had a situation similar here a few hundred years ago, but I believe we called ourselves Patriots, although the king of England would have called us terrorists. They are enemy combatants, and there are no free zones.

Batz · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:16:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Total war versus police action. I suggest you review the context.

The war was over with or without Dresden. I know the context, you will defend the deaths of 40,000 civilians murdered by Brits but will then spin around with feigned indignation over 40 "civilians". You dont know if the 40 were civilians or not.

Who told you it was "Police Action"? Around this part of the world its a "real" war.

So again what do you care about civilians?

ravells · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:31:21 AM »

Those Iraqis and insurgents who want the coalition forces to leave Iraq are going to use every means at their disposal to achieve their ends. We all know that they are trying to alienate the coalition from the Iraqi majority by provoking a response the Iraqi majority will find unacceptable.

They will keep asking the coalition difficult questions, like shooting at them from mosques. What do we do? Firing back and levelling the place may solve the immediate problem but may create greater problems in the future. Not firing back will just encourage the shooters to do it more.

Tough questions.

Ravs

Pongo · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:44:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
What would the alternative be? The way I see it the Marines had three choises.

1) Pull back

2) Stay put and try to return fire with small arms

3) Rely on superior firepower

1
is pretty much out of the question, because you cant just run away because an enemy is using human shields. You'd be run out of Iraq in no-time.

2
is also out of the question because then you would fight on the enemy's terms and the US units would sustain unnecessary casualties and fatalities.

3
is the only viable option, and it is what the US armed forces do. War is not supposed to be fair.

What would you recomend the insurgents do?
A) Give up and accept the foreign invasion of thier country?
B) Line up out side town and challange the US Army to a head to head fight?
C) Keep low, inflict maximum casualties on the invader while trying to minimize your own, use every subtefuge possible to try to sting the most powerful force in the world with home made bombs and small arms. Punish anyone that collaborates with the invader and take help from where ever you can get it.

The only viable option. And its what the insurgents do. War is not supposed to be fair.

Dowding · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:46:32 AM »

The war was absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt over? Unabashed hindsight in action.

Compare Iraq with Germany all you want. One is an occupied nation after limited hostilities have ended, the other was a nation still fighting after 5 years of global conflict and conquest. Anyone with any objective reason can see your comparison is at best poor.

Real war? Compared to WW2? Don't take the piss. Iraq is an occupation now with all that entails - it is not open war against the goverment of that country.

Krusher · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:07:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
What would you recomend the insurgents do?
A) Give up and accept the foreign invasion of thier country?
The only viable option. And its what the insurgents do. War is not supposed to be fair.

I guess the indians you have in Canada should take up arms ?

freaking canadian invaders !

Torque · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:24:08 AM »

They did once in 1812, heck were else in history can you find the British, French and the Native Aboriginals fighting on the same side against a foe.

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:31:10 AM »

well... what was needed was for some of the canadians and brits on this board to all form a circle around the mosque... all holding hands and therefore protecting these brave freedom fighters who are oppossing the invasion of their country and the removal of their democratically elected and benign ruler.

lazs

Monk · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:35:17 AM »

...................and?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:36:57 AM »

there are a lot of problems with this war. this incident isn't one of them.

if targets hide in a mosque then the mosque becomes a target. if their mosques are so important to them, maybe they should try not to draw fire into them.

these kinda stupid regulations keep this hit-and-run type action going, and cost American lives.

if you are going to fight a war (and I still think we shouldn't be in this one), then you let the military fight it. don't let the media tell them what should be a valid target.

the headlines I'm reading are variations of "US rockets hit mosque", the fact that it was a mosque is secondary, the real story is that attackers fled to a building and it was rocketed. the building just happen to be a mosque.

the enemy are not stupid. when you set up "safe zones", like mosques, or other areas designated as un-targetable, they will adapt their tactics and use these for cover.

you could pick any type of structure and lable it as 'hands off' and the next day you'd find targets hidding there.

ravells · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:47:03 AM »

I could not agree more, Capt.

But the dillemma is that if we fire at the mosques we run the risk of having people who otherwise would not be shooting at our troops joining the ranks of the ones who do.

-----------------
well... what was needed was for some of the canadians and brits on this board to all form a circle around the mosque... all holding hands and therefore protecting these brave freedom fighters who are oppossing the invasion of their country and the removal of their democratically elected and benign ruler.

lazs
----------------

Or maybe we should send Lazs in as a 'one man Rambo army' with his enormous gun collection. He'd sort them out, pronto

Ravs