Video from iraq

[mat69]

Now the 'interesting' thing about all these cases is that a guy coming from the back isn't seen as a threat, while cars just a few feet away (other side of the road) are seen as none.

It's easier to hit a car from the back as from the front, if cars are passing by it is hard for you (as the "terrorist") to find possible targets, you do not have much time to react, you do not see much.

 

[Rostam]

It's easier to hit a car from the back as from the front, if cars are passing by it is hard for you (as the "terrorist") to find possible targets, you do not have much time to react, you do not see much.

Not if it would have been a convoy, then you could steer RIGHT IN and then blow up whatever you have to blow up. Or just steer in and speed up, should also do some damage.

Plus I heard about this group that only placed bombs under ground and detonated from a distance. Ever since the start of the war, they still haven't lost a single man. How the hell do you battle such a tactic? Not by shooting cars, I'd say.

 

[mat69]

You can't battle the second tactic.
And your first attempt only works if the convoy is long enough and still that way you would have to be constantly tense. Driving a road for a few hours to have just a few seconds is not so great and even it it works soldiers and contractors can not do much against it.
Yet you should do what you CAN do and they do.

 

[Rostam]

I guess we just have different opinions on solving problems then. In my opinion and experience, doing what you can will make the problem move out of you reach so that can't do anything about it anymore. Like trying to stop a river from flowing by only using half a dam... Only in this case, both the civilians as the soldiers are seriously being harmed by the tactic used.

 

[5eleven]

BTW, I recently discovered that these private contractors are Unlawful Combatants, same as the classification of Gitmo prisoners. Mercenaries aren't accorded any rights, you can just execute them when you catch them.

Yeah, and since the whole war was built on LIES, LIES, LIES, Bush will be seated next to Saddam when the trials reconvene in five weeks.

Unfair. Kill Bill is over the top and hyperstylized. The blood and gore are not meant to be taken strictly seriously.

Okay, I'll buy that. Maybe a bad example. But may I ask: Whether movies such as that, or even violent video games, are not meant to be taken strictly seriously, would you agree that to some people they are taken over-seriously, and in some cases, unhealthily? (Is that even a word?)

Aren't almost all the military private military contractors under the command of the US? And not that these guys are a part of that, but isn't the Bush administration pushing heavily for privatization of parts of the intelligence/espionage world in order to increase plausible deniability when he wants to play dirty?

Excellent observation. But while private contractors are issued contracts by the US, they do not fall under the command of the military. My point was that in this example - Bush has nothing to do with these contractors.

On a side note, were those rifles suppressed?

I'll tell you, I saw a comment regarding subsonic ammo, and the only rifle I observed was not suppressed. That isn't to say that was definitely the rifle fired. To me, they sounded like a suppressed MP5. I would say that the dB level might have caused some audio problems with the video equipment they were using, but you can hear them talking, so I dunno.

Putting "keep back .."-sings on the back of the car (photos of those signs [how big they are ...] would be very important! otherwise this discussion is nearly wortheless imo) is a good way to warn followers, not to forget that there are many (22% --> the article is said to be found somewhere here, a german page said that this page is the source) illiterates in iraq, so those signs have to be clearly readable and understandable for those who can not read. I guess they have stop signs in iraq so the form of the word "stop" should be also familiar to those being not able to read.

Understand....I did not say that there are such signs on this vehicle. I don't know. All I was commenting on was the fact that on the PBS special, the private contractors working Route Irish ALL had signs that were the width of the back of their SUV, and from the bumper to the back glass. They were well marked. Of course, if the guy can't read and doesn't have a bomb.....what do you do? Wait and see when he gets close enough to detonate?

Overall there is not enough information on the video, because you see not what is in front of the car, but it seems (!) that they abuse their right. They could argue that they took out those suspicious cars, because if there is really a bomb in that car they wanted no possible threat (following them) from behind. And if they informed the army of such possible bombs the army could invistigate in that issue further and remove the vehicle from the street, but not necessary to say that it would take ages until the hit cars are removed and untill that time many other people are vulnerable.
The video leavse a bad impression, but for more I have too less information.

I don't think that the military has the time or personnel to follow up on leads or suspicious vehicles reported by private contractors, beyond the fact that some of these attacks are by "rolling vehicles" not vehicles parked along the road. And even so, they have to keep that route open - they can't just roll up with a tow truck and jerk it out of the way. Either disarming or detonating an explosive in a vehicle takes considerable logistics.

Doesn't make much sense since you can turn sounds off.

Yeah, but that is a big part of what disgusts people - the fact that there IS a soundtrack.

As for my Bush comment, it was just there to show that I do not believe this is the work of a few rotten apples. I believe this is the work of a very flawed system. Other then the vague orders that I mentioned earlier, any tactic which includes frequent shooting at civilians is a wrong one.

I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. But it isn't a system that Bush created. And Ros, the only person that made the "few rotten apples" comment was you. Regarding shooting at civilians, I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk? I'm just telling you, you might not like it, but tactics such as these are employed because of information gleaned from previous attacks and intelligence. As far as the rest of your analysis of the video, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from, and I understand your point of view. I can see where you would draw your conclusions. I just happen to see it completely differently.

 

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by Nightmare
BTW, I recently discovered that these private contractors are Unlawful Combatants, same as the classification of Gitmo prisoners. Mercenaries aren't accorded any rights, you can just execute them when you catch them.

Yeah, and since the whole war was built on LIES, LIES, LIES, Bush will be seated next to Saddam when the trials reconvene in five weeks.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Someone who gets special training in the armed forces and then joins a mercenary company in order to get ten times the pay for the same job is certainly a mercenary.

 

[ant75]

Regarding shooting at civilians, I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk? I'm just telling you, you might not like it, but tactics such as these are employed because of information gleaned from previous attacks and intelligence. As far as the rest of your analysis of the video, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from, and I understand your point of view. I can see where you would draw your conclusions. I just happen to see it completely differently.

Surely your arguments stand, from the soldier's perspective. But i'd like to go back a little and comment on geo's original post, without entering the technical debate on military tactics.
There are 2 kinds of people in this video : the ones shooting, and the ones being shot at. Maybe if we tried to adopt the viewpoint of the other side, we wouldn't be assessing such actions upon the sole factor of military efficiency.
First, you cannot take the war zone argument as a prime principle from which all actions should derive : the state of war in itself is questionnable, and should certainly not serve as an absolute justification for everything armed forces feel appropriate to do. But most importantly, you cannot apply the "the end justifies the means" logic to everything. Just because there MIGHT be a terrorist in a car, doesn't mean that you can blindly shoot at any given car that happens to drive by. Following this logic, you could say that it's ok to ban suitcases in public transport simply because a lot of terrorist use them to carry bombs. You see, it's just a matter of balance between the risk and the public benefit. In this case clearly the people's safety is totally ignored, which doesn't seem right. (and then i'm not even considering that these people were in fact "joyriding", in which case we wouldn't even be having this conversation).

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, whoever the devil is in this case . What i'm really trying to say, is that it's not because you think these people did the right thing for their own safety, that what they did is in fact right.

ps : i'm sure i can hear people talking in this video, unfortunately my poor english prevents me from understanding what they say : could anyone sum it up for me ?

 

[5eleven]

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

They are not "specially recruited" and they are not there to fight in an armed conflict. They are there to provide security to convoys, contractor infrastructure projects, and provide dignitary protection to CEO's of such companies as well as correspondents and any other civilians who choose to enter the zone for purposes of conducting business. Happens all the time. Any contractor working an infrastructure project is entitled to provide security for their personnel. They are not there to fight in an armed conflict.

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

A mercenary works for themselves. Private contractors work for security companies. They are compensated not by a party in the conflict to fight for one side or another.

It's a good comparison, it really is. But if you think that private contractors are out conducting military operations, they are not. If their pay is essentially greater than that of a military operator of equivalent skill, it makes no difference. You can't say that because a guy carries a gun and is a civilian in Iraq that he is a mercenary. Private security operations for the aforementioned purposes are not military operations.

Sorry. While it might make sense to you, it doesn't apply.

There are 2 kinds of people in this video : the ones shooting, and the ones being shot at. Maybe if we tried to adopt the viewpoint of the other side, we wouldn't be assessing such actions upon the sole factor of military efficiency.

Which other side? The other side that is the civilian casually driving down the road, or the other side that has TNT strapped in the passenger compartment? Which one is more dangerous? Which one should you watch out for, when they both look the same?

First, you cannot take the war zone argument as a prime principle from which all actions should derive : the state of war in itself is questionnable, and should certainly not serve as an absolute justification for everything armed forces feel appropriate to do.

Um, yes you can. Whether you feel that the state of war is questionable, here is something that there is no question about: It IS a state of war. I don't believe in absolute justifications. I believe that every situation is different, and tactics like this must be applied with great care. Each decision to fire has to be applied on the basis of a totality of the circumstances and each shooting must be reviewed, whether it be police, military or private security.

Just because there MIGHT be a terrorist in a car, doesn't mean that you can blindly shoot at any given car that happens to drive by.

Correct. Which is why they didn't. How many cars went by or did they go by that the did NOT fire? Common thread? Cars accelerating toward their vehicles and ignoring warning shots to stop.

Following this logic, you could say that it's ok to ban suitcases in public transport simply because a lot of terrorist use them to carry bombs. You see, it's just a matter of balance between the risk and the public benefit.

No. If I made that comparison, I would say that vehicles other than military vehicles should be banned on Route Irish. Bags can and are being searched, from the NYC transit system to the Gaza Strip. Wanna see how seriously this stuff is taken in the Middle East? Look at Israel's security checkpoints. Go to a mall in Jerusalem. The balance between public risk is simple: The road must stay open. 150 bombings in 4 months. Fire at and kill people that advance on convoys and stop their vehicles, or risk massive explosions that will certainly kill security forces and innocent civilians. Sorry guys, it's a combat zone. If you think for one minute that people traveling that stretch of road are oblivious to the rules, you've lost your mind.

 

[Rostam]

Ros, the only person that made the "few rotten apples" comment was you.

Did you happen to read this thread? I was just saying that to state right from the start that this has nothing to do with those particular soldiers / mercenaries / unlawful combatants / people with guns and cars and stuff. I wasn't replying to anyone and I certainly wasn't blaming anyone. It was an example before I led to my conclusion (all in the same paragraph in my first post). Edit: perhaps this is the easiest way to explain: I only said it to make clear that I don't think it is right to blame people. Instead, blame the situation they are in, and if possible find a way to make sure they can't get in such a situation (I believe all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation).

I only ask this question: If your enemy uses the civilian population, to blend in with, to hide behind, and to attack you from, what tactics do you employ WITHOUT risking civilians? And if you must engage, whose fault does it become that civilians are at risk?

That's TWO questions.
Erm, anyway. The tactic used right now spawns enemies. I see people around me getting mad because of the all of the smallest things all the time. Imagine how much hate there must be in Iraq, where REAL bad stuff goes on all the time. When this hate gets a form, a person or a group, things get dangerous. The enemy hiding and blending in with civlians, well; the enemy are civilians. It's not like 'the enemy' is born in a different country than the civilians, or has different genes or anything. In both Palestina and Iraq you've seen footage of the same thing a million times: someone who has just lost his entire familly. You've said yourself that you hate quite a bit of people, do you hate people that drive slow on the freeway? Do you hate people that cut a qeueing line? Would you hate those responsible for the death of those you love? Or those responsible for the destruction of your town? Well, who is responsible is not the important part, because it can be twisted and turned by anyone with a strong power of speech.
So to answer your first question, any tactic involving the risk of civilians needs to change. It helps the enemy. If you can't move across the freeway safely, then don't move across the freeway. I'm joining the military as well, but specifically only in Holland. I'll gladly give my life if it will save another, but I WILL not take a life in the Iraq mess. We don't have a draft, you choose to join the military. Civilians don't have a choice in war. With the tactics used now however, more civilians are dieing than omgterrists and soldiers put together. Something is VERY wrong, and it is making the enemy stronger.

 

[ant75]

511, clearly your logic is locked into an unilateral military viewpoint. I get your point, but if you fail to understand why people may find this video outrageous, you'll never be able to understand why some people in Iraq will never see the US troops as the benefactors they claim to be.

 

[geogob]

Well 511 surely has a different viewpoint on this topic then most of has his personal experience bring him a whole different perspective. Whether I agree with him or not on some things, I appreciate reading his vision of the subject a lot.

I still find what I see here an outrage, regardeless of if the actions where legitimate or not. But after reading what 511 had to say on the matter, I have to admit it was an eye opener. There's more to it then "people who are just shooting cars".

 

[5eleven]

if you fail to understand why people may find this video outrageous, you'll never be able to understand why some people in Iraq will never see the US troops as the benefactors they claim to be.

Nope, I totally understand why people find the video outrageous. Absolutely do, and have no qualms with their opinions on the matter. My ONLY point was to bring a different viewpoint, one that somewhat understands a tiny bit of a reasonable explanation to what you see on the video. All viewpoints take certain things for granted, and all viewpoints make certain assumptions about what is seen. Things are never always what they seem, especially in this day and age of video. Anything can be manipulated and twisted to be anything anyone wants it to be. And certainly, the same can be said for my viewpoint. Sort of like what Rostam has said about opinions, I guess.

And geo, thanks. I may be snippy at times, or frustrated, but I do appreciate everyone's opinion, especially when we can be reasonably civil and just agree to disagree.

Now to my apparent thread nemesis.

Did you happen to read this thread?

No. I started to, and it looked kind of dumb, so I quit reading. I was concentrating on this thread, when I addressed the rotten apple comment, which only you made. Sorry.

I only said it to make clear that I don't think it is right to blame people. Instead, blame the situation they are in, and if possible find a way to make sure they can't get in such a situation (I believe all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation).

I'm sorry, I didn't get that at ALL from your comments. I was under the impression from what I got from your previous posts that you were assigning a lot of blame. My mistake. And I disagree absolutely wholeheartedly about your belief that all people act the exact same way in the exact same situation. Case in point: I recently ran and videotaped SWAT raid scenarios using our team at a large metropolitan police department's shoothouse using simunition. By simply changing teams and using the exact same scenarios, the outcome of the scenarios changed drastically. The officers perceptions of the threat was drastically different and after running several scenarios where the officers were shot at with simunition and pumping them up to expect a firefight, we purposely had our actors unarmed, and had them flee upon team entry. On three occasions, the actors were not harmed or shot and taken into custody. On two other occasions, officers fired at unarmed, fleeing suspects. So no, people do not act the same in a given situation.

As far as the rest of your post, and your beliefs regarding hatred, etc: In MY OPINION, that is way too heavy, ethereal, or simplistic to explain the goings on in Iraq. When I said I hate lots of people, I was being sarcastic. But there are people that I hate, most certainly. In the examples given, no, no, yes, and probably yes. Does it mean that I would kill them, no. Not necessarily. But I'm not a pacifist either. If attacked, I will defend myself.

So to answer your first question, any tactic involving the risk of civilians needs to change. It helps the enemy. If you can't move across the freeway safely, then don't move across the freeway. I'm joining the military as well, but specifically only in Holland. I'll gladly give my life if it will save another, but I WILL not take a life in the Iraq mess. We don't have a draft, you choose to join the military. Civilians don't have a choice in war. With the tactics used now however, more civilians are dieing than omgterrists and soldiers put together. Something is VERY wrong, and it is making the enemy stronger.

No, I think you are missing the point. Insurgents, terrorists, are using civilians in order to attack military forces and even other civilians, because they assume that using civilians as cover prevents military forces from responding in kind, therefore increasing casualties while saving their own asses. When responding to attacks by insurgents, terrorists, whatever, that use civilians, you have to be fluid in your tactics. You also have to succeed. In addition to that, you don't give up real estate. You don't say, well, they are attacking us there, so let's not go there. Doesn't work that way. In order to achieve the objective, you must seize and control real estate, while suppressing and preventing casualties to your own people as well as civilians.

And maybe you are missing my point regarding civilians. Civilians, strictly in this example, are the general, law abiding, motoring public. Terrorists, insurgents, nutjobs, whatever, are NOT civilians. Just because they are not officially part of a sanctioned, state run military, doesn't mean that they are civilians.

Let's be clear about this: This isn't about a family who lost a son from a stray bomb. (Let's also be clear that fundamentalist muslims value sons a great deal more than daughters). It isn't about revenge for a needless death. It isn't about the average Iraqi in war-torn Baghdad. It isn't even about a shahada; a martyr for Islam. This is about Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalists, who want desperately to deny a democracy in the Middle East. This is about their belief in strict adherence to their version of Islam and their interpretation of the Q'uran. This is about an expanding muslim influence. This is about being muslim, converting to Islam, or being killed. This is not about America, nor is it about Bush or coalition forces. If it was, why would muslim suicide bombers attack in Jordan? Why would they attack in Egypt? I'll tell you why: Because fundamentalist muslims, represented by a small majority of extremists do not want democracies to succeed in the Middle East. They do not want a representative government, they do not want political leaders or governement period. They don't want Saddam in power any more than we do. They want Imams to rule not just Iraq, or Iran, but the entire Middle East Region. One Islamic nation, leading to one Islamic world. They know our weaknesses better than we know our own. They know our tactics better than we know our own. They know that we don't have the stomach to defeat their small numbers, based on growing American death tolls, and our distaste for lengthy wars that seem to have no purpose.

I'm all about live and let live. Until the guy I let live tells me that he'll slit my throat when given the opportunity.

And just to clear something up that I forgot to address. This video is absolutely NOTHING like the My Lai massacre. Nothing like it. My Lai was a systematic execution of unarmed civilians in a small village in Viet Nam, by a military platoon leader who cracked. It was wrong. It was identified. He was prosecuted. While you may bring up the "bad apple" argument, whether you support it or not, frankly, the military tends to address, discipline and discard it's "bad apples". Something you won't see happening to terrorist insurgents who kill Americans AND fellow muslims.

 

[AlmostAlive]

My comment about the weapon was to illustrate a point. I couldn't tell the difference between a M4, AK47 or a dildo by looking at the muzzle even if you crammed it up my arse.

 

[cracwhore]

Gay.

There. I said everything that needed to be said.

On a serious note - it appears as if Hollywood has lied to me - yet again. Your car doesn't go spinning out of control - nor does it catch on fire and instantly explode - upon being hit by a 5.56mm round or two.

Those fuckers...

 

[{GD}Odie3]

I been watching this thread and only have this to add: Only believe half of what you see, hear, or read from media sources.

Oh, cracwhore - I am about to fall out my damn chair laughing so hard at your post!

 

[hara]

Hollywood has lied

 

[5eleven]

Gay.

Thank you, Mister Obvious.

Your car doesn't go spinning out of control - nor does it catch on fire and instantly explode - upon being hit by a 5.56mm round or two.

Or twenty.
You must admit that it would have looked a lot better if that Merc had exploded upon impact with that taxi.

And Almost - dildos have muzzles?

 

[chuckus]

Referring to that side note: I think it is suppressed. In the taxi scene he's letting loose but the guy leisuring next to the taxi doesn't even seem to notice until he gets rear ended. At that range, he should have at least turned his head or hunched over in reaction to the gun fire. No one is THAT jaded to small arms fire.

Which also explains why most drivers were confused when hit. Your car starts pinging wildly then your windshield pops and all of a sudden you have a flat. How do you respond to something like that. You can't hear the gun fire so the first thing that crosses your mind is you hit a rock or something. Then what? Between the time you start taking fire to the time you realize you're being shot at with no gunfire to be heard anywhere, you're going to act pretty squirrelly in my opinion.

edit: wow totally missed the end of this thread where everyone's assing it up. So much for debate. Talk about unfashionably late.

 

[Rostam]

511:
On the exact same situation thing, I do not believe that is the exact same situation. I believe it's the exact same situation when EVERYTHING is the same, so not only the current surroundings but also life experiences so far. For example, if that very same simulation would be trained more and more often then the SWAT officers would probably start to act more and more alike.

On the muslim thing, well I disagree. Not much else to say, I've been in Iran 6 times and it just isn't anything like people think it is. Assuming it really is about muslim fundemantalism then it is about power. In any case, freedom and democracy have absolutely nothing to do with it. Just like these 2 words have nothing to do with the USA. But even then, I don't believe it is about islam, it is about a small group that wants more power and a large group that can easily be abused because of the situation.

On the My Lai example, that is WAY too simple. That commander received vague orders and twisted it to how he thought he was supposed to act. That company had quite some bad things to digest. Losses due to booby traps, bad intel causing them to expect battles that never came, and inexperienced commanders leading them. There was a funeral of a sergeant just a day before the massacre. The company was full of fear, hate and just itching for a fight. The commander in charge received orders to attack the village and kill all VC, he also heard that all civilians would be gone at that time. Furthermore he was to burn all lifestock.
My comparision with My Lai is this, vague orders makes people in those situations go after revenge or do whatever else they think they might be supposed to do.

 

[AlmostAlive]

Damn 5eleven, you are slow, aren't you. "...To prove a point"

I wouldn't take myself too seriously if you were me. I like throwing matches, sometimes even torches, to spark a heated, yet constructive, debate. If there's one thing (or two) we don't need here these days, it's dull and boring debates

I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. That was not my intention.