Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 29, 2003, 08:57:32 AM
-
Well depending on which news source you believe.
Al-Jazeera says US troops, occupying a school, opened fire on men, women and children, when rocks were thrown at them. The protestors, according to this source say the people were protesting the US presence at the school, as they wanted classes to resume.
The US military says they were fired on by infiltrators of the group, uding AK-47s, at whom they returned fire.
Of course, Al_jazeera interviews the women and children in the hospital who were just minding their own business when the big bad US Army starting shooting for laughs.
Somewhere between the Military account, and the Al-Jazeera account, lies to truth.
Why does Al-Jazeera insist on fanning the flames?
Can anyone honestly believe the US would open fire on people throwing rocks?
There was Kent state, so I suppose it's possible, but as always, I'll be waiting for the facts. I certainly won't hold my breath.
-
hell yeah. can u really tell the difference between a rock and a hand grenade, especially when a bunch of projectiles are heading towards you? And I'm sure they have some hand grenades left over from the army in Iraq. I don't blame US troops for firing into the crwod even if they weren't fired upon.
-
Yeah Udet, firing at unarmed civilians is always a justifiable reaction.
Personally, I wish British troops had shot more people at the Bloody Sunday riots.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yeah Udet, firing at unarmed civilians is always a justifiable reaction.
Personally, I wish British troops had shot more people at the Bloody Sunday riots.
Shooting into an unarmed crowd is usually justified .....even if simply in reaction to someone in the crowd sticking their tongue at our boys. Our troops don't need any crap from crowds.
-
Yeah Udet, firing at unarmed civilians is always a justifiable reaction.
they weren't unarmed. they had rocks.
-
I'm tellin' ya, we're gonna hafta send Jackie Chan over there to kick some ass. ;)
-
Yea Jackie Chan!! A great American!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
they weren't unarmed. they had rocks.
If I were in a crowd protesting an armed force, the last thing in the world I would think of doing would be to start throwing rocks or physically attacking them in any way.
When will people learn? Kinda like "bulldozer" girl if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If I were in a crowd protesting an armed force, the last thing in the world I would think of doing would be to start throwing rocks or physically attacking them in any way.
When will people learn? Kinda like "bulldozer" girl if you ask me.
People do stupid things. A friend of mine is a NYC cop, and he was over last night, for a few beers. He told me he had an arrest earlier in the week, because a woman 5'2 115lbs, jumped a National Guardsman, and tried to take away he M-16!
Now, tell me, if you were that guard, would you have opened up on her?
He did not, and she was arrested as an EDP and will probably sue the city.
EIther way, the guard did not fire. Point is, different people react to situations differently.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuke, why are the US in Iraq?
eh? Because we invaded it?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*sigh* ... What ... is ... the ... purpose ... of ... you ... being ... in ... Iraq?
I'm not in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Realy?! That surprises me! You seem to have such uncanny insight into how and what should be done that I assumed you were over there leading the troops! ... of course they would be goose-stepping if you were.
When did I claim to have insight into how and what should be done ?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Well depending on which news source you believe.
Somewhere between the Military account, and the Al-Jazeera account, lies to truth.
Why does Al-Jazeera insist on fanning the flames?
If, as you suggest, the truth is somewhere in between, then you must be assuming that both sides are not telling the truth. Why do you make the assumption that the military account is not accurate as stated?.
While I am certainly not one to automatically take the government line as truth, I am curious why we always seem to assume that it's just not quite the truth, especially in this instance with the military vs Al-Jazeera. Does anything Al Jazeera says have any, ANY, measure of validity to it? Maybe if you are Wolf Blitzer, or Christianne Amanpour or Peter Arnett.
Just curious why you phrased it as you did?:confused:
-
Hey! I saw this movie... Sammy Jackson and that other dude... um... um... Tommy Lee Jones! Decent flick, but not worth watching twice... had people firing weapons in the crowd there too.
Look - if America isnt the bad guy in the middle east the entire region is destabilized. Without America to blame for poverty, living conditions, and MacDonalds, the kings and dictators would be overthrown - it's been working for Castro thus far.
And Dowding - I cant help to notice that its usually the Americans taking the prisoners - not the British - so lets not go pointing the humanitarian stick, mmmmkay?
-
I'll say the same thing as I usually end up saying in the Israel-threads.
Dont throw stuff on armed soldiers.
Stay inside. If you cannot stay inside and you meet armed soldiers outside, be polite.
Do not pick up rocks, chairs, small pieces of wood, dead animals or whatever to throw at the soldiers. It is not smart. It does not fill any purpose and the soldiers have helmets.
Do not join any demonstration.
If you absolutely MUST join some demonstration, make sure everybody knows about the "dont throw anything at the nervous guys with guns"-rule.
See the soldiers will be outnumbered and scared. They will have one method and one method only to defend themselves...their weapons.
If you are in a demonstration and you hear vile anti-western democratic country-chants. Try to sneak away. If you see people pick up rocks, chairs, small pieces of wood or dead animals, run away. Run far away.
If shooting starts, lay down. Do not try to run away from the bullets, they are faster than you.
If you fail these simple advice...YOU are to blame for whatever happens next.
-
Well the pentagon will say what ever it has to say to get the best result they can from thier point of view. Truth is irrelivent. they are a war fighting orginization. Watching the comander in charge this AM they had a civy riot on thier hands and then several people with automatic weapons opened up. The guys on the ground are not martys..they did what they had to do to defend thier postition.
Imagine the alternative of a dozen yanks being dragged arround the streets.
-
Very good advise Hortland - in the States, we'd call you a "Conservative." This is a good thing - as evidenced by the Conservative occupation of the "Right" side of the political spectrum.
-
And Dowding - I cant help to notice that its usually the Americans taking the prisoners - not the British - so lets not go pointing the humanitarian stick, mmmmkay?
Explain.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
If, as you suggest, the truth is somewhere in between, then you must be assuming that both sides are not telling the truth. Why do you make the assumption that the military account is not accurate as stated?.
While I am certainly not one to automatically take the government line as truth, I am curious why we always seem to assume that it's just not quite the truth, especially in this instance with the military vs Al-Jazeera. Does anything Al Jazeera says have any, ANY, measure of validity to it? Maybe if you are Wolf Blitzer, or Christianne Amanpour or Peter Arnett.
Just curious why you phrased it as you did?:confused:
What I am trying to say is, I simply don't take anything at face value. Of course, I would believe the US government account would be closer to the truth, if not true, than the AL-Jazeera report. But let's face it, both side have an agenda.
The pentagon is certainly not going to open up and say: "Hey, one of our soldiers got nervous, starting firing, and the others followed suit. We mowed down 17 people, mostly kids, holding crayons and coloring books." On the other hand. this is what AL-Jazeera would have you believe.
My point is, both sides have an agenda, and the true account lies some where in between.
Do I believe the US troops fired without provocation? No, but this is a gut instinct.
It's happened before. Who's to say it did not happen again?
I certainly hope it was not unprovoked, or if the troops used more force than necessary. If there were shots fired from the crowd, than the blood of the innocent dead is on the hands of the Iraqis who opened fire.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! You did so in this very thread. You even started of with "If I were ...".
why don't you site an example from any thread where I claimed to know what was going on in Iraq or anywhere else.
While you are at it, you can look up all my "war-monger" posts for SirLoin and Dowding.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Over here he'd be called a right-wing extremist or depending on the crowd perhaps even a fascist. I'd call him far right-wing, borderline to extremist/fascist.
Funny, because I'd just call you an a..*bites tounge*
Just out of curiosity, can you list the reasons why you feel I'm "borderline fascist" or "right-wing extremist" (wich is just a code word for neo-nazi in Sweden)?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
The pentagon is certainly not going to open up and say: "Hey, one of our soldiers got nervous, starting firing, and the others followed suit."
My gut reaction to this is that is exactly what they would do. I know they didn't do so at Kent State. What you describe is exactly what happened at Kent State, as far as has been determined. I've not seen proof that any order to fire was given. Just some 18 year old NG soldier got nervous. While I wasn't there, I am old enough to vividly remember the news reports and the many investigations of that debacle. But, that was a long time ago in a country far far away. I think now, with the media so incredibly omnipresent, any smart CO would do just that, fess up, and face the music. Perhaps I ascribe too much honor or am being too hopeful.
:D :D :D
-
Lessons learned:
Throw rocks at people armed with guns and you will get shot.
What is it about being Arab that so obviously seems to predispose one to being an idiot?
-
The message being "We're idiots"?
-
Guns, germs and steel.
Read it and weep............
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If shooting starts, lay down. Do not try to run away from the bullets, they are faster than you.
If you fail these simple advice...YOU are to blame for whatever happens next.
One problem... the crowd running from the guns can kill you when they run over you in panic.
For an example, look at the latest panic in disco, caused by a pepper spray - the only casualties came from people running out in a panic, pity them who fell and couldn't get up.
or the early 20th century in Russia, when Czar decided to give free food for the starving russians - the crowds were so hungry they rushed over other people and alot of people died as the result of being run over by the crowd.
If you're in a crowd, which might suddenly start running headlessly, DO NOT lay prone.
Besides some soldiers might have a brain fart and they shoot at the people's legs to avoid death toll rising :>
(And guess which people will get worse hits when bullets are aimed towards ground)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The message being "We're idiots"?
lol!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
To some, but those are not the ones their trying to impress or influence.
Now you sound like you know their thinking and appear act like you know what's going on there. Isn't that what you wrongly accused me of doing?
reach deep into theirs minds and enlighten us all as to what they are thinking or who they are trying to influence.
-
Firing into a crowd of civilians to kill/supress a couple of gunmen kind of defeats the purpose.
Yeah, better the American soldiers should have just stood up and get killed, so the "innocent" civilians wouldn't be burned by the hot shell casings from the AK47s thier "innocent" fellow revelers were firing.
I am starting to believe you are even less intelligent and more biased than previous posts indicate.
dago
-
Children.....tst tst.
I really hope there where guns in the crowd.....
at least you can justify said action.....
but I heard that they did have guns among the gathered....
as usual there denying.....
denial....
ain't that a special AMERICAN word:D
now ya gave it to the Iraqis.....:p
-
*sigh* ... What ... is ... the ... purpose ... of ... you ... being ... in ... Iraq?
What was the purpose of you going to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
I fought for the UN in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Did the Serbs attack Norway? Musta missed that on the news shows I watched.
GScholz, reading your constant and consistant anti-USA, anti-military posts I no longer believe you to be a former soldier, rather I shall go on the assumption you are just another "voss". Remember him? Claimed to be many things, CIA agent, F16 pilot etc..
I think someone who has actually experienced combat would show more understanding and less rush to judgement of soldiers in a foreign and hostile land. You have no more information about the situation there than anyone else who has to rely on news organizations.
Why are we in Iraq? You aren't very clear on your question as to why we went in or why we are still there. Either question should have an easily apparent answer to anyone who pays at least a little attention. It's a shame you must be limited in your powers of observation and deduction that you can't figure it out.
From now on if and when I choose to respond to any of your bile laden posts, I will respond to you as GScholz-(Voss). I hope others will do the same. Trying to steal the credibility of those who have been to war is a terrible thing to do.
dago
-
The Iraqis are owned..they will get the message.
Being owned by another muslim at least they know how to deal with each other.
Putting western sensibilities in there just confuses the issue.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'll say the same thing as I usually end up saying in the Israel-threads.
Dont throw stuff on armed soldiers.
Stay inside. If you cannot stay inside and you meet armed soldiers outside, be polite.
Do not pick up rocks, chairs, small pieces of wood, dead animals or whatever to throw at the soldiers. It is not smart. It does not fill any purpose and the soldiers have helmets.
Do not join any demonstration.
If you absolutely MUST join some demonstration, make sure everybody knows about the "dont throw anything at the nervous guys with guns"-rule.
See the soldiers will be outnumbered and scared. They will have one method and one method only to defend themselves...their weapons.
If you are in a demonstration and you hear vile anti-western democratic country-chants. Try to sneak away. If you see people pick up rocks, chairs, small pieces of wood or dead animals, run away. Run far away.
If shooting starts, lay down. Do not try to run away from the bullets, they are faster than you.
If you fail these simple advice...YOU are to blame for whatever happens next.
Absolutely correct. We invaded them to give them the freedom to stay inside so they don't get shot. Makes perfect sense.
-
Originally posted by SLO
Children.....tst tst.
I really hope there where guns in the crowd.....
at least you can justify said action.....
but I heard that they did have guns among the gathered....
as usual there denying.....
denial....
ain't that a special AMERICAN word:D
now ya gave it to the Iraqis.....:p
No guns in the crowd, but there was a newsman and a car full of women and children. :rolleyes:
-
What is it about being Arab that so obviously seems to predispose one to being an idiot?
What about Bloody Sunday? Or are all Paddys idiots too?
-
13 dead, 6 of them children, 75 wounded.
Bet they were all Saddam friends.
We'll see more of this :(
Regards Blitz
btw The worst possible scenario: One country alone rules the world
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
13 dead, 6 of them children, 75 wounded.
Bet they were all Saddam friends.
We'll see more of this :(
Regards Blitz
I hope so.
-
Shooting into an unarmed crowd is usually justified .....even if simply in reaction to someone in the crowd sticking their tongue at our boys. Our troops don't need any crap from crowds.
[/i]
sigh..
they weren't unarmed. they had rocks.
[/i]
lordy...
Nuke, why are the US in Iraq?
*sigh* ... What ... is ... the ... purpose ... of ... you ... being ... in ... Iraq?
[/size]
What was the purpose of you going to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
In 1995, NATO drove Serb forces back to the Serbian border, as per agreement Slobo refused to comply with...
Now back to the question... What is the reason for the Anglo/American invasion, overthrow and occupation of Iraq?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
[/i]
sigh..
[/i]
lordy...
Nuke, why are the US in Iraq?
*sigh* ... What ... is ... the ... purpose ... of ... you ... being ... in ... Iraq?
[/size]
What was the purpose of you going to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
In 1995, NATO drove Serb forces back to the Serbian border, as per agreement Slobo refused to comply with...
Now back to the question... What is the reason for the Anglo/American invasion, overthrow and occupation of Iraq?
shhhhh, we're killing babies, stealing the oil, and trying to piss off the French
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Dowding - I cant help to notice that its usually the Americans taking the prisoners - not the British - so lets not go pointing the humanitarian stick, mmmmkay?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dowding
Explain.
What he means is the Brit forces (and Aussies and Kiwis) are better shots, and use far more efficient and deadly weapons. Hence the lower POW rate :)
Plus its kinda well known in military circles that the SAS (Brit, Aussie, and Kiwi) only take prisoners when its part of the mission objective. Dunno bout US Spec Forces but I'd assume its the same.
-
I completely agree with you.
You are ugly.:D
J/K.
-
GScholz they don't allow pot smoking in the Norwegian air force..
-
I knew G. was a girl!
-
Al-Jazeera says US troops, occupying a school, opened fire on men, women and children, when rocks were thrown at them. The protestors, according to this source say the people were protesting the US presence at the school, as they wanted classes to resume.
The US military says they were fired on by infiltrators of the group, uding AK-47s, at whom they returned fire.
Of course, Al_jazeera interviews the women and children in the hospital who were just minding their own business when the big bad US Army starting shooting for laughs.
Welcome to the middle-east america...
The media will always show the kid in the hospital and not the soldier with the brick on his head.
On the other hand, soldiers will always use excessive force.
Bozon
-
GScholz, you say you try not to rush to judgement, but that is exactly what you are guilty of. The story about American troops shooting the protestors isnt even a few hours old and already you are passing judgement.
You seem to think that the US troops should not have returned fire, but you havent said what exactly you think they should have done. If you were in the Army, in a hostile area, and someone is shooting at you and your fellow troops, what would you do? Hide behind a rock so they dont get the idea you are a mean person?
Do you or anyone else really believe that the US should have immediatly pulled out of Iraq and left them to their own devices? With no government, with widespread looting, no water being pumped to the citizens, no electricity on, no schools operating, desperatly short of hospital facilities and hospital supplies, and every swinging Abdul, Muhammed and Ahmed carrying an automatic weapon, do you really think we should just walk away????
If you think that, then you are the moron.
Its easy to pretend everything will just be okay. Its easy to point to the US and say "bad, bad, bad", its quite another to actually consider all the consequences of actions you might at first thought think correct. Are the demonstrations actually expressing the feelings of all the Iraqi people? Of course you couldn't know that. Have ****e Muslim Clerics or plants moved over from Iran to enflame the masses and push to have the USA leave Iraq so they can set up a ****e Islamic government identical to the one in Iran? Would this bring prosperity and peace for all in Iraq?
Those of you asking why we are there must have the answers. I am anxioux to hear from you scholars of international affairs, and oh btw, please include a brief sig with your degrees and experience in these areas, I am sure they must exceed those of the British and US personel who are actually working to restore services and help establish the opportunity for all the Iraqi people to have some sort of say in their own futures.
Whether you stupid shxts realize it or not, the world, including your little corner of it, is probably much safer today than it was 2 months ago, and much safer than 18 months ago because of the actions of the USA. You seem to want to make the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen if we leave things alone. Surely you must feel that all the leaders of all the countries of the world would not ever do anything, allow anything, or even support anything bad to happen. Surely there are no evil intentions, no hatred, no jealousy, corruption or greed that will cause evil to happen.
GScholz, I do not know if you were in the Army, I do not know if you saw any combat. I may have insulted you, I may have not shown you the credit you may deserve. I can live with that, and I can do so because I honestly do not think you speak as a person who has seen and experienced combat. That is my opinion, right or wrong.
Your rush to judgement, your finding fault with the US military for situations you are not in, and truthfully do not have alot of knowledge about, other than that reported by typically slanted press do not speak of a person who understands the confusion, fear and camraderie of combat.
This will be my last post in this thread, enough bad feelings and anger have resulted both from me reading the things said, and from the things I have said. Nothing has been accomplished.
dago
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I know I'm ugly, but how can you stand the thought of me in a dress?!? :D
Bit breezy flying a chopper in a dress wouldn't it?
Tronsky
-
I witnessed a demonstration in Haiti many years ago. A group of paid Haitian protesters surrounded two USMC guards at the US Embassy. One Haitian picked up a hunk of concrete and threw it at a Marine, just missing his head. This Marine leveled his M-14 at the man, but did not fire. Apparently his intent was disuade the man from doing it again. With that, this seriously stupid individual reached down for another piece of broken concrete. Again the Marine did not shoot. He did, however, step forward and cave in the idiot's head with the butt of his rifle. With that, the crowd scattered, only to reform about 100 yards distant. At that point several started throwing rocks, concrete and just about anything they could pick up. Several shots ripped through the air and two of the rock throwers collapsed in widening pools of blood. The crowd scattered again, not to return while I was there.
Were the Marines justified in using deadly force? You betcha. Ever see what three pounds of concrete can do when it hits you in the face? Rocks, concrete, even bottles can be deadly missiles. Deadly force must be met with deadly force, if for no other reason but to demonstrate that such behavior will not be tolerated, especially on Embassy grounds.
"Stupid is as stupid does" according to Gump.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You tell 'em GScholz. I suspect it will make little difference though, although Dago's assertions make him look more foolish than yourself.
Vulcan - that goes without saying. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
although Dago's assertions make him look more foolish than yourself.
I dont think that's possible.