It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you think that Americans in Iraq are 'trigger happy'?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Following the successful release of an Italian hostage, said person was being driven (at speed?) by bodyguards, towards an American checkpoint.

Allegedly, as the vehicle failled to slow, there was no warning just a burst of firing during which, one bodyguard was killed and the former hostage was wounded.

Does this illustrate the lack of 'Command and control' of US forces in Iraq, or that the 'Rules of Engagement' need to be looked at closely or, as is my view, are the Yanks just trigger happy?




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Maybe if they radioed ahead and told the "yanks" they were on there way...

No, not trigger happy enough. Loosen the ROE, shoot to kill, it's a war zone, get with reality.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
You wont get easy answer to this kind of question, theres so many factors in warzone that can trigger such behaviour and its not only meaning "yanks", those are just majority. And in some areas its pretty much shoot or be killed, car bomb is pretty effective bomb if used, high speed large radius and so on. Locals can monitor same way hostage release and use it as opportunity to drive their own car bomb if theres no live communications. So i wont really comment about general trigger happy, as i dont doubt some are. Wait and hear official and unofficial stories later on.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
rules of engagement dont work when your enemy uses tactics that are sudden and sneaky, roe endanger lives, if you dont know whos friend or foe and you see suspicious moves are you gonna wait till an rpg hits you in the head or a car blows your friends up before you act, you cant say you would think of following rules when all youre thinking of is fear and wondering if thats the last thing you'll see.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
The car must have noticed a road block.
If there is a fast car moving towards you, you know of similar incidents involving cars blowing up and killing your fellow soldiers, would you think, "I best not shoot, they could be friendly, better not take the risk.."? What about the risk of a high explosive car crashing into you?
ROE should be limited to shoot to kill



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
The troops did the right thing. The car was ordered to stop and didn't.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
The troops did the right thing. The car was ordered to stop and didn't.



That's being disputed right now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Car speeding at me. Common knowledge cars can be packed with explosives.

I'd shoot, to defend my own life. Sorry that people can't see that. It was foolish for them to 'speed' towards an Army base.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Car speeding at me. Common knowledge cars can be packed with explosives.

I'd shoot, to defend my own life. Sorry that people can't see that. It was foolish for them to 'speed' towards an Army base.


The car wasn't speeding and it wasn't an army base and they didn't signal them to stop.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
My mistake, checkpoint not base. But, people still use carbombs at these 'checkpoints'.

As for it not speeding, etc, etc. Depends on whose view you take.

American Army: hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and fired warning shots to get the car to stop.

Italian Journalist: there was no bright light, no signal, regular speed.

So it all depends on whose side you take. But, they must of crossed a line or came to near without stopping - otherwise they'd have not shot at them.

Unless you can think of a good reason that they would have?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
There was no reason other than self- defense for shooting at that car.

Hells bells, she is a commie, writing for a commie paper. She was there in the first place to get dirt on the USA. Then the real dirt bags took her.

Unless the kidnapping was all a set up. I wonder if Italy payed a ransom for her?

Roper



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
According to a survivor of this latest faux pas, the incident did not involve a checkpoint or road block, the vehicle or vehicles were not flagged down and nobody saw any lights or stop signs.

So who do you believe - trigger happy yanks or poor, terrified shot up Italians?

Over to you!



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well the last time I checked according to the ROE if you feel that your life or someone elses life is due for death or serious injury that constitutes deadly force.....and If I've had a few car bombs come my way Im pretty sure I would shoot as well.....
BTW, It was ordered to stop.....they were just too beligerant and full of pride to stop...
it's sad one died but rules have to be enforced....better safe than sorry
BTW us "yanks" at least have the balls to go over there and do something about it...last time I checked you all had your chance expanding and failed.....OK OK Im joking on that one


[edit on 6-3-2005 by dev_add]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I wouldnt say trigger happy, just cautious, considering the fact that, when you see a car speeding towards your military checkpoint, could be a suicide bomber, you don't think twice.

What if they didn't fire at the car and it exploded killing more american soldiers, you'd be singing a different tune then.

I don't understand why they don't just ban the use of civilian automobiles in the city limits. I know it would be commuter hell, i'm sure it would be easier to spot the car bombers then.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
If they were going to shoot they should have been more careful about what they shot at, I'm not certain but it seems that it should be possible to shoot for the front tires. Also while loosening RoE may make the soldiers safer in the short term it also makes it harder to "win their hearts and minds" when you're shooting up cars that don't hit th breaks soon enough.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
No one knows if they signaled them to stop or not; according to the Army, they fired warning shots and waved flares.

According to the reporter, no such thing. But she writes for a Communist newspaper and is very anti-American, so I do not know if I would trust her word.

Like they say though, it is a war zone, you drive very cautiously if you're on a road famous for car bombings.

I seriously doubt this was any "assassination attempt." Standard grunts don't get briefed to simply "open fire" on a car containing a freed reporter. It is incredibly selfish for the Italians to be complaining as they are without even knowing the full facts. No one knows what's going on down there.

It hasn't been mentioned if the car had a white flag or a medical symbol on it at all. And even if it had, U.S. soldiers have been tricked a good deal over there. Many of those soldiers are under high stress. No one should make any judgements whatsoever really. The point is there are two opposing viewpoints, and it's one woman's view against the Army's. Wait for more investigation to occur before making judgements. That was the problem with Vietnam.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Warning shots should be enough to stop a car. If it dosen't stop then you can assume it is hostile and should be treated as such.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
According to the reporter, no such thing. But she writes for a Communist newspaper and is very anti-American, so I do not know if I would trust her word.

Is it the red scare again?
Did some anarcist bomb the attorney general again when I wasnt looking?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Like they say though, it is a war zone, you drive very cautiously if you're on a road famous for car bombings.


They were going 25-30 miles an hour and they were on a 'prvileged' road that not many cars travel on.

2005-03-06 Conflicting Reports (MSNBC).asf

An Italian service agent also says they were travelling around 25-30 miles per hour.

EDIT: According to Italy's leading daily Corriere della Sera, the driver, an unidentified Italian agent, said: "We were driving slowly, about 40-50 km/h (25-30 mph)."
stuff.co.nz

[edit on 6-3-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TooManySecrets

I don't understand why they don't just ban the use of civilian automobiles in the city limits. I know it would be commuter hell, i'm sure it would be easier to spot the car bombers then.


Next ban clothes so, you see if suicide bomber comes nearby and no packings without officials supervision. Sure there could be lot of things to make it easier to spot guerillas, but i doubt civilians would be so eager to obey. And i remember somewhere in South America was used bomb in mule, so even if you move car factor the bombs stay around, theres really no end of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join