Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on April 07, 2004, 09:09:44 AM
-
"U.S. helicopter hit a mosque with three missiles in the besieged city of Fallujah on Wednesday, killing about 40 people, witnesses said. "
Guess they've given up on winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Shame as increase in violence just plays into the hands of the Al-Sadr.
...-Gixer
-
Link?
-
Link? It's all over the news..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56942-2004Apr7.html
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Link? It's all over the news..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56942-2004Apr7.html
Gimme a link I can get to w/o red tape
-
Well I for one am weary of the "shoot at the troops and hide in the Mosque" baloney. They've known for a long time if they run there, we wont go chase, wary to not "offend" them.
Well fark that. Send in the Daisy Cutter.
-
Five Marines had been shot from the mosque before commanders authorized the use of air power and laser-guided missiles against it. They had rejected the air attack several times, according to Marine officers and radio communications monitored from a command post by a Washington Post reporter.
Sounds like an honorable amount of restraint.
-
Nice policy. Invade their country and use daisy cutters on their places of worship.
Thankfully, the US military isn't populated by morons so I'd doubt they'd take you up on your advice.
A difficult situation.
-
Why do some people think there should be some free zones for the terrorists?
Hide in a mosque and shoot at our troops...we wont shoot back because of the PR fallout?
Use ambulances to transport ammunition and leaders, we wont target those because of the PR fallout.
Hide in crowds hide in schools, use civilians as human shields, we wont shoot back because of the PR fallout?
shreck em. The blood of the innocent civilians are on their hands.
Now maybe some people will realize what the Israelis have been up against since the start of the second intifada.
-
Well Dowding beleives in "goal", ala "Hide n Go Seek"
-
worked for the germans right?
"no louie, can't shoot that sniper, he's in the churchbell tower" :rolleyes:
time for alittle
(http://www.bobkilburg.com/print/portfolio/hardball.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Gimme a link I can get to w/o red tape
Click the pic!
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040407/thumb.bag10604071346.iraq_bag106.jpg) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)
-
The difference being that the church probably didn't have scores of civilians inside.
-
Problem is the so called "Iron Fist" tactics don't work. They've been tried and failed before. In this very same area.
It just helps to increase the support for Al-Sadr and hatered against the US. Even if the Marines were getting shot at the end result is a destroyed Mosque and civilians (as well as gunmen) dead. Plays well for those looking to expand the revolt.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Problem is the so called "Iron Fist" tactics don't work. They've been tried and failed before. In this very same area.
It just helps to increase the support for Al-Sadr and hatered against the US. Even if the Marines were getting shot at the end result is a destroyed Mosque and civilians (as well as gunmen) dead. Plays well for those looking to expand the revolt.
...-Gixer
Nope.. how do you figure Saddam kept all in check, albiet probably the citizens. The terrorist probably ran rampant. The trick is to do it effciently, without to many innocent dieing...... but then again you can never know once they're dead.
-BM
-
From the AP article BlckMgk posted:
"Witnesses said a helicopter fired three missiles into the compound, destroying part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not damaging the main building."
No destroyed mosque.
I wonder if these people understand that the less this crap happens the sooner we'll be out.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Total war versus police action. I suggest you review the context.
-
gixer... I think it is too soon for you to celebrate... the crocadile tears are a good touch tho.
lazs
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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
-
...................and?
-
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.
-
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
-
Not me. I say lets follow the plan. I believe that we are scheduled to pull out in June?
Now, if you are saying that you would let me pull the trigger on the missles aimed at the mosque... well... that's a different story...
lazs
-
OH MY COD!!!!!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not me. I say lets follow the plan. I believe that we are scheduled to pull out in June?
Who's pulling out in June?
Maybe June 2008.
Were just handing over the Government, American Troops will be there for a long time.
-
This is a ticky one..
1. shooting at holy places is very bad.
2. shooting from holy places is just as bad
3. isolating them in there without food and water until they give up or run may work but that would tie up alot of troops and could draw lots of bad guys to the area..
I don't have a simple solution to this one.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
This is a ticky one..
1. shooting at holy places is very bad.
2. shooting from holy places is just as bad
3. isolating them in there without food and water until they give up or run may work but that would tie up alot of troops and could draw lots of bad guys to the area..
I don't have a simple solution to this one.
Car bomb it and make it look like the other faction did it. Sit back and watch.
-
hehe Monk. apart from the moral aspect of it....think about what would happen if the media found out.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
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.
Agreed. Takes balls to fight their war and they have my respect for what they do.
-
Coalition would get blamed anyways..........yup, it's doable.
-
Originally posted by Batz
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?
It's not a war anymore, didn't you listen when GWB said it was over?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
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.
Sure the war was over.
After the fact Churchill himself expressed distaste for the Dresden bombing. Knowing the war would be over soon he ordered all future "de-housing" raids to be stopped.
(http://www.gasthof-thoerner.de/phpBB2/files/memorandum.jpg)
I didn't compare World War 2 to Iraq, you did. I asked a specific question in regards to civilian deaths. I used the specific bombing of Dresden as an example of your justification of civilian’s death in that case and compared that to your replies in this thread.
An insurgency like in Iraq will mean that civilians are put at risk. The modern American response is far less harsh on civilians then at any other time. The only other modern comparison would be how Israel handles the Palestinians.
Lets look at how the British handled Iraq following WW1:
WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq
How the British bombed Iraq in the 1920s
By Henry Michaels
1 April 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The US and British governments, and most Western media pundits, have tried to explain the determined resistance of the Iraqi people to the US-led assault by referring to the first Bush administration’s 1991 betrayal of the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. Once Iraqis are confident that the Allies are serious about occupying the country, the argument goes, they will rise up and welcome them as liberators.
These assertions ignore the deeply-felt hostility to decades of colonial and semi-colonial rule by the Western powers, who long plundered Iraq’s oil reserves. During World War I, Mesopotamia was occupied by British forces, and it became a British mandated territory in 1920. In 1921, a kingdom was established under Faisal I, son of King Hussein of Hejaz and leader of the Arab Army in World War I. Britain withdrew from Iraq in 1932, but British and American oil companies retained their grip over the country.
One of the most bitter chapters in this history, one with direct parallels to the current military campaign, occurred during the 1920s. In many respects, the air war now being employed in Iraq is an offshoot of a military policy developed by Britain as it clung to its Iraqi colony 80 years ago.
Confronting a financial crisis after World War I, in mid-February 1920 Minister of War and Air Winston Churchill asked Chief of the Air Staff Hugh Trenchard to draw up a plan whereby Mesopotamia could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.
Several months later, a widespread uprising broke out, which was only put down through months of heavy aerial bombardment, including the use of mustard gas. At the height of the suppression, both Churchill and Trenchard tried to put the most flattering light upon actions of the Royal Air Force.
British historian David Omissi, author of Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939, records: “During the first week of July there was fierce fighting around Samawa and Rumaitha on the Euphrates but, Churchill told the Cabinet on 7 July, ‘our attack was successful.... The enemy were bombed and machine-gunned with effect by aeroplanes which cooperated with the troops’.”
The order issued by one RAF wing commander, J.A. Chamier, specified: “The attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle.”
Arthur “Bomber” Harris, a young RAF squadron commander, reported after a mission in 1924: “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”
The RAF sent a report to the British Parliament outlining the steps that its pilots had taken to avoid civilian casualties. The air war was less brutal than other forms of military control, it stated, concluding that “the main purpose is to bring about submission with the minimum of destruction and loss of life.”
Knowing the truth, at least one military officer resigned. Air Commander Lionel Charlton sent a letter of protest and resigned in 1923 over what he considered the “policy of intimidation by bomb” after visiting a local hospital full of injured civilians.
The methods pioneered in Iraq were applied throughout the Middle East. Omissi writes: “The policing role of most political moment carried out by the Royal Air Force during the 1920s was to maintain the power of the Arab kingdoms in Transjordan and Iraq; but aeroplanes also helped to dominate other populations under British sway.
“Schemes of air control similar to that practiced in Mesopotamia were set up in the Palestine Mandate in 1922 and in the Aden Protectorate six years later. Bombers were active at various times against rioters in Egypt, tribesmen on the Frontier, pastoralists in the Southern Sudan and nomads in the Somali hinterland.”
I could compare the same to how the French handled Syria etc...
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Agreed. Takes balls to fight their war and they have my respect for what they do.
Please come to America we would love to hear you blab that watermelon to alll the widows of the dead GIs.
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Please come to America we would love to hear you blab that watermelon to alll the widows of the dead GIs.
So far there are many more dead Iraqis. That's what you get when you fight the world's mightiest army with only small arms and grenades. Takes a lot of guts to do it.
And poor GIs ? Coming to occupy a country and someone actually fought back ?
You're getting yourself an urban Vietnam, it seems.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
You're getting yourself an urban Vietnam, it seems.
Nope just a bunch of dead ragheads with many more to come:aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Nope just a bunch of dead ragheads with many more to come:aok
And a lot of bodybags coming back to US, just like 40 years ago.
GIs have their wives and mothes, but Iraqis are just ragheads, eh ? No wonder they fight back.
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Please come to America we would love to hear you blab that watermelon to alll the widows of the dead GIs.
Mr. Cobra, black, rc51, whatever your name is, why dont you do the same out of the windows of all the Iraqis dead?
It will take a longer time, tho.
-
LOL do the # s I think we are killing them at a better than 10to 1 ratio .
I think we can continue that till all the muslim morons are dead :aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Nope just a bunch of dead ragheads with many more to come:aok
Start gassing them.
Or use Saddam as counselor, he knows very well how to kill Iraqis (In fact he was better than you in it, even if you are improving).
-
Originally posted by Naso
Mr. Cobra, black, rc51, whatever your name is, why dont you do the same out of the windows of all the Iraqis dead?
It will take a longer time, tho.
Because I cant stop laughing long enough:aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Because I cant stop laughing long enough:aok
Maybe you should talk to wives of dead GIs, so they laugh too ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Maybe you should talk to wives of dead GIs, so they laugh too ?
Nice try but that makes no sense.
-
ragheads and muslim morons LAWCobra?
grow up
*sigh*
-
ragheads and muslim morons
====
OH MY COD!
-
There are certianly cowards and heros on both sides. the way they fight has nothing to do with that.
The two sides are just fighting the only war that thier capabilies and objectives demand. My post was just to finish Hortland which I aggree with. The US isnt cowardly for fighting this to thier strenghts and the insurgents arent cowerdly for trying to limit the fight to thier strengths.
Its been going on for 100s of years in 100s of wars.
Cobra..tell the widows to talk to Lazs. He will assure them that those people would have died anyway. Its all good training!
Lazs,
Your normaly quite thick but how the hell did you get the idea that the US army will be pulling out 6 weeks from now...lol
what the hell is that? Even dubya hasnt said anything as rediculous as that. There will be more troops there in June..not less.
-
No let me see If I understand this right.
threy are mad at us for removing and evil dictator and trying to help them build a government were everyone will have a chance for an education and personal wealth.
So you are telling me that It would be better to let them continue being an unstable country where terrorist can go and train?
What did we do besides try to offer them a better life?
LOL and If they dont what to get shot at all they gotta do Is stop shooting at the troops DUH!
-
now this deserves a LOL ;)
They are so ungrateful for being liberated, eh ? ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
ragheads and muslim morons LAWCobra?
grow up
*sigh*
Hey I call em like I see em.
As a jewish American I can assure you I have NO love for Muslims.
I do not exspect you to understand nor do I care.
-
I guess they dont believe that Cobra.
They are a little closer to the situation then us and they dont seem to see it that way.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I guess they dont believe that Cobra.
They are a little closer to the situation then us and they dont seem to see it that way.
Well you can leed a horse to water but you cant make him drink it.
So I say just drown the SOB:aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Well you can leed a horse to water but you cant make him drink it.
So I say just drown the SOB:aok
But this horse kicks.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
But this horse kicks.
LOL It is more like a jackarse:aok
-
when the last 8 posts are between histro, pongo and lawcobra
-
Now would be a great time to drop some propaganda on the Iraqis. I would make leaflets that said "If Fighting The Americans Is So Righteous, Why Didn't Allah Save Those In The Mosque?"
-
People, there is no tolerance for racism or bigotry on this board. There is no excuse or rationalization that makes it acceptable. If you choose to be ignorant and express such negative traits on this board, I will assume you want to be dropped from this board.