fun war anecdotes anyone?

Later, there was some open terrain. The Marines were advancing and taking up position, hiding behind mounds of earth. They were still really tense. A small blue van was moving towards the convoy. Three not-very-accurate warning shots were fired. The shots were supposed to make the van stop. The van kept on driving, made a U-turn, took shelter and then returned slowly. The Marines opened fire. All hell broke loose. They were firing all over the place. You could hear 'Stop firing' being shouted. The silence that set in was overwhelming. Two men and a woman had just been riddled with bullets. So this was the enemy, the threat.
A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too (SEE PHOTO IN LE MONDE). As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
I'm sure that those dead Iraqis will appreciate the wonderful gift of democracy.

[JoS]

Its only cause they can get away with it. The general public in the US sees this as ok, imagine if they did that on American soil. Boiy there would be hell to pay.

[JudgeDredd]

At 9/28/03 04:39 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Its only cause they can get away with it.

Any Iraqi who speaks out against the slaughter of innocent people will be branded a "Saddam sympathizer", "an enemy combatant", or worse, "a Terrorist". This is not something new for Iraqis to come to terms with. The "think, before you speak, before your house gets ransackled, and your head gets blown off" was what they've thankfully learnt under Saddam regime. Without that instilled cautionary approach, many more vocally outspoken Iraqi's would have come to grief.

Praise be Allah for quick merciful death.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Civilians advancing on checkpoints and getting killed? That's unheard of! I can't believe America is doing that. They should take the example of Israeli Check points, Russian Checkpoints in Chechnya, and Indian checkpoints in Kashmir because they... Ohh, ohh right nevermind.

[TheTio]

Beh, you have to feel sorry for the Iraqis

They have to tolerate random outbursts of paranoia from Saddam, and Bombings from America, then they are invaded, their essentially stable although fucked government is replaced with near anarchy, and foriegners toting heavy weaponry and itchy trigger fingers...all the while supposed to be pleased and thankful

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/29/03 08:48 AM, TheTio wrote: Beh, you have to feel sorry for the Iraqis

True. They had an evil, oppressive dictator (Saddam) and they now have a nice Liberating Army.

For those of you who can't tell, that was DRIPPING with sarcasm.

It's funny how the media don't emphasize the civilian deaths, they're the real victims here.

but it's not "ha ha" funny.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 9/29/03 07:21 PM, punk_disease wrote: It's funny how the media don't emphasize the civilian deaths, they're the real victims here.

but it's not "ha ha" funny.

Then why are you smiling? It's a bad thing that the civies got killed, but sometimes you have to wonder why they somehow never hear the warning shots or take heed of them.

At 9/29/03 07:35 PM, UNpossible wrote: Then why are you smiling?

I'm being cynical dude.

It's a bad thing that the civies got killed, but sometimes you have to wonder why they somehow never hear the warning shots or take heed of them.

There are no warning shots for cluster bombs and the such.
In this case, the warning shots were fired at them.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 9/29/03 07:39 PM, punk_disease wrote:

I'm being cynical dude.

I thought that you had to do :(, not :). Besides, wait till you become a old person before being cynical. It feels better then, and you can yell all you want.

There are no warning shots for cluster bombs and the such.

The marines used cluster bombs?

In this case, the warning shots were fired at them.

Yes, but did it say that the warning shots actually HIT the Iraqis? You have to wonder why they acknowledged that they were getting warned off, and then went back anyways.

At 9/29/03 09:28 PM, UNpossible wrote: I thought that you had to do :(, not :). Besides, wait till you become a old person before being cynical. It feels better then, and you can yell all you want.

I'm going wky diving without a parachute when I get too old ^_^.

The marines used cluster bombs?

The army did.

Yes, but did it say that the warning shots actually HIT the Iraqis? You have to wonder why they acknowledged that they were getting warned off, and then went back anyways.

A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too (SEE PHOTO IN LE MONDE). As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it.

I don't see any warning shots there.

*********Sky-diving

Side note: 180 dismembered by bomb
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1342460,00.html

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 9/29/03 09:39 PM, punk_disease wrote: I'm going wky diving without a parachute when I get too old ^_^.

Whatever happened to the whole part about fighting ninjas?

The army did.

Now I'm confused. We go from talking about people with guns to people in aircraft. You drop cluster bombs, not shoot them out of tanks.

A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too (SEE PHOTO IN LE MONDE). As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it.

I don't see any warning shots there.

So let's see. The vehicle comes straight AFTER the first car has been shot to pieces, and somehow they did not hear any of the warning shots or explosions. The rules of engagement say that if you've got a person coming towards you right after you have fired upon potentially hostile forces, you are recommended to treat that person as hostile. Besides, what's a old man doing outside without anyone to help him, or without any sort of protection?

At 9/29/03 11:37 PM, UNpossible wrote: Whatever happened to the whole part about fighting ninjas?

I realised ninjas were extinct. =(

Now I'm confused. We go from talking about people with guns to people in aircraft. You drop cluster bombs, not shoot them out of tanks.

well do the people bombed get any warning shots?

So let's see. The vehicle comes straight AFTER the first car has been shot to pieces, and somehow they did not hear any of the warning shots or explosions. The rules of engagement say that if you've got a person coming towards you right after you have fired upon potentially hostile forces, you are recommended to treat that person as hostile. Besides, what's a old man doing outside without anyone to help him, or without any sort of protection?

1. how were they hostile?
2. who said they came right after?
3. he was with his grandkids.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 9/30/03 10:26 PM, punk_disease wrote:

I realised ninjas were extinct. =(

Go to Japan, please.

well do the people bombed get any warning shots?

Now you're going off topic. This article talked about ground forces, not airplanes bombing people.

1. how were they hostile?

They were given warnings. Despite shots, and whatnot, the car came back towards the marines. That means one of two things. Either the driver is blind, and deaf, or just stupid, or the people inside the car are hostile. The marines made their choice.

2. who said they came right after?

Who said that they came a few hours later?

3. he was with his grandkids.

Sources please. And the kids heard nothing?

[OCP-Lock]

At 9/29/03 02:19 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 9/29/03 08:48 AM, TheTio wrote:

True. They had an evil, oppressive dictator (Saddam) and they now have a nice Liberating Army.

For those of you who can't tell, that was DRIPPING with sarcasm.

Which part?

[adrshepard]

If the Iraqis don't want to risk danger, they should know where these checkpoints are and not go near them. If there are as many dead civilians as some would lead you to believe, surely these Iraqis knew that it is a dangerous environment. So, maybe instead of trying to make a U-turn, the van should have stopped completely and
slowly exited the vehicle. Also, why the hell did they bring children along if they knew the situation was so violent? And you would think by now they would know what cluster bombs look like and not pick them up, or watch where their children play.

Still, it does suck to be them.

[adrshepard]

This article is translated from French. I don't know how much that matters. And what does," made a U-turn, took shelter, and returned slowly" mean? If they turned around, then went back in the same direction, no wonder the soldiers were suspicious.

There was a brdige, Americans on one side, Baghdad on the other, they shot anyone who got too close to the edge on the other side.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 10/1/03 05:48 PM, punk_disease wrote: There was a brdige, Americans on one side, Baghdad on the other, they shot anyone who got too close to the edge on the other side.

First you say that the cars got warning shots. And now you're saying that the soldiers were shooting without warning shots.

I'm confused.

Re-read the story, all my claims are in there.

[D2Kvirus]

Here's a good one: Hans Blix and Richard Kay, top weapons inspectors, have both stated in a very clear way that there aren't any WMD in Iraq?

Actually, there is an irony there: Kay says that Saddam may have said they had them to stave off invasion. Bush said they had them as reason to invade them.

Damn penis envy...

[bumcheekcity]

At 9/30/03 11:40 PM, Kid_Davis wrote:

At 9/29/03 02:19 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: For those of you who can't tell, that was DRIPPING with sarcasm.

Which part?

The Liberating Army bit.

[crimson-clover666]

A photographer said it, well then it must be true.

It's not like he would have anything to gain from lying, except breaking a HUGE news story that could easily get him a promotion.

But I mean he would never lie, it would be too easy to prove him wrong, all you would need is some photographs, you know, the type photographers take...

It's so nice to see people are asking for proof of wild accusations now unlike those damn Americans who accuse the innocent Iraquis without any proof of WMD, I'm glad we finally learned from our mistakes.

[bumcheekcity]

Clover, what are you talking about?

Uhm, photographers make money/get promotions through good photography. Hence the term "photographer". Not by telling good anecdotes.

If you had bothered to read the artivle, you would've seen that he took pictures of those events, so unless he shot an old man himself, laid him down on the street and took a picture of that just to get a salary raise I don't doubt the legitimacy of that source.

[crimson-clover666]

At 10/4/03 05:10 PM, punk_disease wrote: Uhm, photographers make money/get promotions through good photography. Hence the term "photographer". Not by telling good anecdotes.

Regardless of that, do you really think he wasn't paid for that interview? And judging by what he said in the second paragraph he is in no way an unbaised source.

If you had bothered to read the artivle, you would've seen that he took pictures of those events, so unless he shot an old man himself, laid him down on the street and took a picture of that just to get a salary raise I don't doubt the legitimacy of that source.

He "took" one picture. And you must be referring to the one picture of a dead man by a car, which wasn't in that article, just in the one on le monde, which requires you to subscibe to it to see the article.

So what exactly in your last post was supposed to make it seem like the article had any legitimacy whatsoever?

It's nice to know you assume things without any evidence of proof other than that a french site said it was true.

[crimson-clover666]

At 10/4/03 05:05 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Clover, what are you talking about?

I'm simply pointing out that nothing in this article offers any evidence to support it's legitimacy.

People don't scrutinize the media enough, they automatically believe everything it says is true.

So how is this different from mass corporate media?

[crimson-clover666]

At 10/5/03 04:27 PM, punk_disease wrote: So how is this different from mass corporate media?

So, your lying is justified because other people lie?

Just admit that you lied to promote your own political agenda, don't try and excuse it, you can't.