Terrorists Use Children as Shields; Child Dies in Firefight

as i returned from the states in a recent leave i walked to the bench to wait for the convoy that would take me to the base. as i walked up i saw a man sitting with tears in his eyes waiting for the plane to take him back to america. i asked why he cried and he looked at me and told his story. he began by telling me of when he first joined up. that he had been critisised so much that he became bitter. while he was fighting in iraq he had hated bush, hated the war and couldnt wait to get home. then his eyes faded and he began to tell me how his seargent had noticed his bitterness and had asked him about it. and he had began to tell him why were they over here fighting someones elses war? he had read many letters critizing the govt. and he had lost spirit. the seargent said, why dont you go on the evening patrol. he asked why and the seargent responded just do as your ordered and pay close attention. so he told me how they had walked down the street that evening and he had noticed the children playing in the streets. he heard the laughter and asked himself is this what the sargent wants me to see? had the noises of war drowned out this part of the country? was he so used to the exsplosions, the yells, the screams, gunshots that his ears drowned this out? he than began to cry uncontrollably and i sat down and waited not wanting to disturb him. when he was done he looked up and said," sir the reason im crying is cuz i dont want to leave, i dont want to leave my buddies, i dont want to leave thinking that the moment i leave they get shot cuz i wasnt there." i told him i knew how he felt for i had felt the same. and he continued his story, as they walked down the street gunfire had suddenly errupted and he immediatly hit the dirt. the laughter turned to screams, the joy turned to pain, he was sobbing and i couldnt understand why if we as marines had gone through this lots of times, and he said, "we had to take it, we had to watch our buddies get shot, we had to, the children had been caught in the crossfire, and we couldnt shoot back in fear of hitting them, so we had to watch the insurgents shoot the living hell out of us, and we had to take it, but the worst part was,there wasnt laughter on that street anymore, the kids were dead." at this moment tears filled my eyes and i understood why were over here. who could justify those actions? he looked up and said" from that day on i fought with everything i had, i fought until i could not go to sleep from exhaustion, becuase that day i had witnessed why were over here, because that day i became a true marine"

maybe thats why were over here, so one day there could be laughter on that street.


i posted this story on another thread, but it seems more like it belongs here. this is my response to those who falsely accuse us. i ask those who do, have you ever personally seen a marine shoot a kid, i tell you i havent. and im sure you havent either. just because the internet accuses us of doing these things doesnt mean its true.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Why? Just so you can evade the proof and say it's from a questionable source?

Why do I want proof? Because I believe in seeing both truths before makeing judgement.
Also, what "proof" is there?

See what Vietnam vets ADMIT to doing in Vietnam in their own words, and fast forward a few years.

www.wintersoldierfilm.com...

That was over 2 decades ago, are you trying to imply the military doesnt chance in 2 decades nor does it learn from its mistakes?

While I don't 100% believe that US troops would rape children, I am also not ready to 100% discount it.

Mabye then you actually post the source and let us see.

War makes men do terrible things.

Yeah, it also makes men see horrible things, sometimes when they didnt happen.

And you started this one. So all the terrible things happening are on your heads.
[edit on 28-9-2005 by Jakomo]

Yeah but all the good things are on our heads too.

Originally posted by Danie
as i returned from the states in a recent leave i walked to the bench to wait for the convoy that would take me to the base. as i walked up i saw a man sitting with tears in his eyes waiting for the plane to take him back to america. i asked why he cried and he looked at me and told his story. he began by telling me of when he first joined up. that he had been critisised so much that he became bitter. while he was fighting in iraq he had hated bush, etc...

That's a beautifull/sad story. Too often soldiers are treated as these obscure, mean, lean, killing machines with no human emotion. They might be hard arses when the going gets tough, but afterwards, they're affected just as much as you or I.

A very nice story and well made point and you get one of these: You have voted Danie for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Biker:

With respect Jakomo

I asked for a link from the BBC so i could read the story of the 'US soldiers rape and sodomize girls'. I cannot find the story anywhere.

AZ Cowboy said it was the BBC. Seems a little over the top, to be honest, especially from the BBC, and is probably as unsubstantiated as the original Miltary Report that reported this whole "human shield" fiasco.

Seymour Hersch, the man who broke the My Lai and Abu Ghraib stories, claims to have seen pictures and videos of US soldiers raping and sodomizing boys at Abu Ghraib. These were among the photos still unreleased (but which a judge has just ruled as of 20 minutes ago should be. We will see what comes of that.)

His story, if you want a source, was in the New Yorker magazine originally, but they have recently limited their archives to the past few months.

A blog entry with the relevant details is here... Blog for Arizona

Seymour Hersh warns that far worse than we have seen, or heard of, to date is coming... the sodomizing of children on tape in front of their mothers. Hersh is quoted as saying, "You haven't begun to see evil.... Horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."

I don't post this to defame the troops. The majority are decent people, etc, etc. If it's true, then it speaks for itself. Seymour Hersch has quite a track record with these things. Frankly, I think when it comes to war, the onus is on people who claim rape isn't present to prove their claim, rather than the other way around. War is bad.

-koji K.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Jakomo
Biker:

With respect Jakomo

I asked for a link from the BBC so i could read the story of the 'US soldiers rape and sodomize girls'. I cannot find the story anywhere.

AZ Cowboy said it was the BBC. Seems a little over the top, to be honest, especially from the BBC, and is probably as unsubstantiated as the original Miltary Report that reported this whole "human shield" fiasco.

Sorry, maybe i should have stressed the fact that it was AZ cowboy that quoted the BBC as covering the story.
My apologies for any misinterpretation.

devilwasp:

That was over 2 decades ago, are you trying to imply the military doesnt chance in 2 decades nor does it learn from its mistakes?

No, I am implying that HUMAN NATURE doesn't change in 2 decades. Human nature overides any military orders.

Soldiers have raped and pillaged since the first weapon was created, so this is nothing new. What makes an American soldier so much better than any other one? Is it because he was raised in America, on strong values of non-violence and compassion? LOL!

And, um, no, the military RARELY learns from its' mistakes.

There is already a thread discussing the Abu Ghraib childrape videos, I'll try and find the link to it (the thread, not the video).

Yeah, it also makes men see horrible things, sometimes when they didnt happen.

What does that mean? Post Traumatic Stress?

Yeah but all the good things are on our heads too.

Yeah, name 5 good things that have happened in Iraq since the US invasion.

jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
No, I am implying that HUMAN NATURE doesn't change in 2 decades. Human nature overides any military orders.

Human nature changes every day.

Soldiers have raped and pillaged since the first weapon was created, so this is nothing new. What makes an American soldier so much better than any other one? Is it because he was raised in America, on strong values of non-violence and compassion? LOL!

What makes them better?
They are trained , they are filtered to stop this sort of thing happening.
If they where no diffrent from the original soldeirs then they wouldnt have developed tactics or the advanced weapon they had before.

And, um, no, the military RARELY learns from its' mistakes.

Really?
Hmm seems WW2 proves your theory wrong.

There is already a thread discussing the Abu Ghraib childrape videos, I'll try and find the link to it (the thread, not the video).

Abu Ghraib had a few nuts in it, ofcourse there were crimes commited. The soldeirs where punished for it.

Yeah, name 5 good things that have happened in Iraq since the US invasion.

jako

American invasion?

Yeah nice american looking flag there..

Link

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Lord Goofus

your message looked as though you where trying to whitewash a warcrime.

I have a very strong suspicion the part that photo does not show, is at least one US soldier standing to the side or in front of the vehicle with a gun pointed at the boys.

Then answer me this. For what purpose? if those boys where waiting to be searched why do they look like they have been there a long time, why does the soldier look like he has no concern about what kind of weapons they might have? Why does he look so relaxed that no RPG is going to hit him? RPG's are a big threat to0

It is possible this pic was taken just after a fire fight or a raid, and the boys are being held there in "the calm after the storm" and told not to move while other US soldiers gather up any remaining enemy.

These photos came out from fallujah. If they wanted to hold the boys, they would have put them on the ground and tide them up. Not spread them out on top of the humvee like human shields


Your false assumptions.

a) Looking away from the front of the vehicle where the boys are. If the "shields" are at the front, it is reasonable to assume that means the enemy fire is coming from the front. Why would you conceivably look away from the enemy fire like that?

Why would you assume that? An RPG from any direction would cause damage to the boys that's s why no resistance fighter would fire. Whatever way the soldier is facing, he is safe from rpg fire. What is very telling though is that the US soldier isn't looking at the boys, that means he sees them as no danger.

The soldier isn't manning the what looks like a 30caliber mounted on the roof (I may be wrong about the type of gun, I'm not an expert). If he were truely using the boys as shields, thus meaning he was either under fire, or under threat of fire, he would be manning the gun ready to take down anyone who threatens him.

There where no israeli soldiers manning any guns when they where using human shields. The US soldier isn't manning any guns because he feels safe now that he has some human shields.

Also, notice the gun is actually facing away from the direct of the boys. Again, if the soldiers life were under threat, it would be facing in the direction of the boys, as obviously that's where the fire would be coming from...

The strangest of all your assumptions. Why would the fire come from the direction of the boys? what are the resistane aiming for them or something? Are they magnetic? isn't that the opposite of the whole point of a human shields? YOu have strange logic.
The fact that the soldier doesn't have guns pointed at them, shows that they are percieved as no threat.

12m8keall2c

They encourage to engage in this form of violent struggle by telling them they will be "martyrs" or 'shuhada', a position highly valued by God according to the Qur'an. They also promise them multiple rewards in heaven in addition to securing heaven for the entire family of the martyr [half way down the page]

That's not in the quran and that's not in islam. YOur quote is not from a muslim. nor is it from the quran. Infact, it's from an israeli source it seems, since hebrew is written under the arabic.


Your other quote said nothing about family. Your going to teach me about my religion? HAH!

THese is just another western lie and myth caught out. Blessing your family, i never heard anything stupider.

Everyone has to face their own sins, and their own deeds. no one can eraze them for you.

Martyr, it has nothing to do with suicide, which is against islam.

"I don't recall stating that one had to die to become a marty"

OFCOURCE YOU HAVE TO DIE, you just don't have to commit suicide, infact it's wrong to.

quote: I will choose to be a human being.
Actually by your own statement you would choose to be dead.

yeah i'd rather die than kill innocent people, i'd rather be a dead human being, than a live cockroach.

As to your absolute proof, your photo,

I never said my photo was absolute proof. But i always said IT"S MORE PROOF THAN THE OTHER SIDE EVER HAD!!!!!!!!!

Jakomo


You are great.

You have voted Jakomo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

But the US do rape children at abu gharib.

www.boingboing.net...

" Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.

Danie

You mean the same children your buddies sodomised and killed?

"we had to, the children had been caught in the crossfire"

Meaning, your gunho troops who by the people on this threads own admition, have more concern over their own lifes than that of innocent civilians, fired carelessly into crowds as they are trying to hit a percieved threat. Is that what you mean by "crossfire".

I guess that's what being a true marine is all about ay?

The only moving part about your story, is the fact that those children have such strong spirits, they will continue laughing even through the war. Their spirit will defeat you in the end. i guarantee it.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Syrian Sister,

There are many radicals and Muslim extremists who in fact do interpret the Quran to say just that. If you deny this then I feel you are acting as the proverbial ostrich with your head in the sand.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Danie

You mean the same children your buddies sodomised and killed?

Buddies?
So your using the "if one screws up everyone gets blamed" approach?
If so, then kindly explain why you are not complaining about the iraqis who murder rape and pillage the local people and forign troops with out remorse?
Or is that yet again a diffrent matter?

Meaning, your gunho troops who by the people on this threads own admition, have more concern over their own lifes than that of innocent civilians, fired carelessly into crowds as they are trying to hit a percieved threat. Is that what you mean by "crossfire".

If a man kills your best friend is he threat or is he just misunderstood?

I guess that's what being a true marine is all about ay?

No one but marines know what it means to be a marine, but I can tell you this.
Those marines in iraq and all over the world showed part of what being a true marine by adhearing to the geneva convention, an international treaty desgined to defend civilians and inocents, which is far more than I can say for the iraqi "resistance".

They constantly break the geneva convention to fight "thier" war, frankly my opinion on this conflict has changed...on one side we have morals which binds soldiers hands, while on the other we have efficiency...which lacks any morals at all.


The insurgents have shown us how "efficient" it is to have no morals, is it time to give up on morals and "sink" to thier level?
Mabye so, mabye it would finally show the world that we are not as bad them...

The only moving part about your story, is the fact that those children have such strong spirits, they will continue laughing even through the war. Their spirit will defeat you in the end. i guarantee it.
[edit on 1-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

IMO thats a very well put together propaganda message.
Notice how the careful picking of points and the careful wording.
No where did the post adress WHY the soldeirs where attacked where there was an obvios civilian presance.
Nor was there anymention that the civilians where used as shields, yet again very well put together.




[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Okie dokie, let's try this again. Syrian, no-where in my previous comment that you picked apart did I state something as fact. I thought I'd made it quite clear that I was offering suggestions.

note: I will explicitly state it this time as you seemed to mis-interpret what I said in the previous post. What I say in this post is merely a group of SUGGESTIONS, NOT statements of fact. I do not know the facts, as I was not present when this photo was taken, nor were you, so all we can do is debate, pass suggestions back and forth and see if we can come to some sort of concensus about the matter.

You seem to believe an RPG is the only weapon the resistance have. As I said, grab an AK, as long as you had a steady hand and a decent eye, you'd be able to pick that soldier off without hitting the kids at the front of the vehicle. Use a sniper rifle and it would be like taking candy from a baby

Putting myself into the shoes of a resistance fighter, assuming it is just that one single soldier sitting on the roof of the vehicle, and just those two boys lying on the bonnet, if I had a firearm, I would sneak up from the direction the soldier is not looking and take him out. Indeed, the way he is sitting and positioning of the kids, I'd easily be able to go beserk with an automatic weapon "spray-n-pray" style from the rear of the vehicle and have almost no chance of hitting the kids, but quite a good chance of hitting the soldier, thusly making his "human shield" useless.

That is why I was questioning why, if those kids were human shields, why the soldier was not manning his gun (ie: on the alert for any resistance righters that may be trying to sneak up on him). When you armour something, you put armour where the something is most likely to be hit. The kids were at the front of the vehicle, so it is safe to ASSUME that this is where any enemy fire would most likely come from. Thus, it makes no sense the soldier would not be looking towards the front of the vehicle.

Then answer me this. For what purpose? if those boys where waiting to be searched why do they look like they have been there a long time, why does the soldier look like he has no concern about what kind of weapons they might have? Why does he look so relaxed that no RPG is going to hit him? RPG's are a big threat to0

Yes, I would imagine trying to do a sweep of a few blocks of houses would take quite a while to do. In the meantime you need to secure any suspicious people, and keep any non-combatants in clear view and out of danger. As I explained, the photo may not show soldiers also guarding the kids. If there is another soldier or two pointing guns at the kids, then the soldier on the roof of the vehicle is able to relax slightly isn't he? It may not be a wise idea to relax in that circumstance, but, it's a possibility.

These photos came out from fallujah. If they wanted to hold the boys, they would have put them on the ground and tide them up. Not spread them out on top of the humvee like human shields

I'm not calling you a lier (before you get a chance to have a go at me for that ) but can you prove this is a pic from fallujah? What was your original source? The more information I can get about the situation that led to this picture, the more accurate idea I can get as to why those kids are where they are. Sorry, but one persons opinion or websites which are quite clearly anti-american (or the other way around ) are not enough evidence to convince me that these kids are being used a human shields.

Your false assumptions.

How do you know my assumptions are false. How do I know your assumptions are accurate? Can you see what the problem is here? With no cold, hard facts, and only personal points of view to draw on, no-one can win this debate. I'm just offering alternative explanations of why those kids are where they are.

Why would you assume that? An RPG from any direction would cause damage to the boys that's s why no resistance fighter would fire. Whatever way the soldier is facing, he is safe from rpg fire. What is very telling though is that the US soldier isn't looking at the boys, that means he sees them as no danger.

Well yes it is very obvious he sees them as no threat. Personally, I believe this is because there are soldiers just out of frame of the camera guarding the kids. At least we agre on one thing. I've already explained the resistance-fighter-with-a-firearm scenario, so I don't need to repeat myself agin.

There where no israeli soldiers manning any guns when they where using human shields. The US soldier isn't manning any guns because he feels safe now that he has some human shields.

*promptly falls off my chair* again, I agree. He does not feel they are a threat. But again, assumptions my dear. Where is the logic or fact to backup your assumption? I don't see how what Israeli soldiers did relates to soldiers from a totally different country, fighting in a totally different war, fighting a totally different enemy.

The strangest of all your assumptions. Why would the fire come from the direction of the boys? what are the resistane aiming for them or something? Are they magnetic? isn't that the opposite of the whole point of a human shields? YOu have strange logic.

If you replace the RPG that this pesky lil invisible resistance fighter we're talking about has with an AK47 or a sniper rifle, then take into account armour is only placed on areas where the object is going to take fire, the assumption that enemy fire would be coming from the front of the vehicle does not seem so strange

Btw, human shields can be used in two ways:

1) To PREVENT being shot (because the enemy won't kill civilians) or
2) To ABSORB bullets/shrapnel etc ie: they are used as armour.

As far as I see it, the two big differences between you and I is, you see the resistance fighter with an RPG, I see him with an AK. This is probably why you're unable to see things from my point of view

RPG = dead boys, destroyed truck, one hell of a mess to cleanup ie: your opinion on the situation (human shields) is the correct one.

AK47/Sniper = dead soldier, boys alive, & one resistance fighter who for his/her sake I hope can run very very very fast. ie: my opinion on the situation ('hostages' being held while the rest of the roundup continues) is the correct one.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject as this thread has gone on WAY too long about (mostly) one silly little pic. I just hope I've managed to enable you to see things from a different perspective

12m8keall2c

there are many radicals and Muslim extremists who in fact do interpret the Quran to say just that.

Please, don't begin to tell me about my religion and the quran, i doubt very much that you read it.

Look, no where in the quran does it say anything about your "family" going to heaven if you become a martyr, that's just ridiculous because it goes against the underlying core of islam.

Being that every soul is responsible for their own actions. Good or bad. You won't go to heaven because of your families good deeds.

And just so you know in future, being a martyr has nothing to do with killing yourself. It's if you get Killed by another force, when fighting for something.

Anyway what does this have to do with US soldiers using children as human shields?




--------------

devilwasp

If so, then kindly explain why you are not complaining about the iraqis who murder rape and pillage the local people and forign troops with out remorse?
Or is that yet again a diffrent matter?

The resistance never murdered raped or pillage any people. They did kill occupation troops or as you so aptly call them "foreign troops" without remorse though. That because they are fighting a war against the invaders. As far as i know, that's no problem under teh geneva conventions.

If a man kills your best friend is he threat or is he just misunderstood?

That depends on wether you and your best friend are in his home and country, when you haven't the right.

Those marines in iraq and all over the world showed part of what being a true marine by adhearing to the geneva convention, an international treaty desgined to defend civilians and inocents.

LoL they adheared to the geneva conventions by breaking it constantly, by your own admition you place the lives of your brave marines in higher regard than innocent civilians, and they have killed oh they have, and you admit what many of them did in abu gharib.

which is far more than I can say for the iraqi "resistance"

You say alot about the iraqi resistance but you never have any evidence. Just look at this case, you claimed they used their children as human shields, when it looks as though the man used his body to shield the baby, since the bullet went through his back first.

No where did the post adress WHY the soldeirs where attacked where there was an obvios civilian presance.
Nor was there anymention that the civilians where used as shields, yet again very well put together.

Danie's story didn't have any thing about civilians as human shields, if you think otherwise, your imagining things. As for soldiers being attacked when civilians are around, In alot of incidents the resistance asks the people to stay home if they have something planned.

But sometimes unplanned clashes do occur, both your soldiers andthe resistance patroll the streets, where civilians will always be, but unlike the Us soldiers (by your own admition) the resistance doesn't have the mentality that their lives are worth more than that off civilians, they go to all lengths to keep civilians safe. But unfortunatly it's very hard to protect them from the wild indiscriminant fire of some gungho cowboy troops. Isn't that where the words "caught in the cross fire" came from?

As for how well put together my message is, why thankyou.

LordGoofus.

I understand that you made clear that they where your assumptions.

And i hope you understand that i had to make clear why i thought those assumptions where illogical, ofcource, only in my opinion.

You don't have to belive my claims at all, i fully understand and respect you if you don't, but you atleast have to agree, i have shown more evidence that US are using children as human shields than the other side has shown evidence to support their claims.


btw, i like your signature "We're all living in Amerika! Amerika! It's vunderbar! All hail Bushler!"

Putting myself into the shoes of a resistance fighter, assuming it is just that one single soldier sitting on the roof of the vehicle, and just those two boys lying on the bonnet, if I had a firearm, I would sneak up from the direction the soldier is not looking and take him out. Indeed, the way he is sitting and positioning of the kids, I'd easily be able to go beserk with an automatic weapon "spray-n-pray" style from the rear of the vehicle and have almost no chance of hitting the kids, but quite a good chance of hitting the soldier.

I think you have watched a great deal to many action films if you don't mind me saying you. If you have ever tried to "sneak silently" behind someone, you'll realise it's not that easy. It's made even more difficult if you are out in the open for all too see with no cover between you and that person, and it's made EVEN more difficult (in the case of fallujah) when there are US snipers posted on the roofs of most of the buildings.

You seem to believe an RPG is the only weapon the resistance have. As I said, grab an AK, as long as you had a steady hand and a decent eye, you'd be able to pick that soldier off without hitting the kids at the front of the vehicle. Use a sniper rifle and it would be like taking candy from a baby

Using an Ak would be alot more dificult, they are not accurate,especially at long distance. YOu miss, and those two kids are dead.

As for why the US soldier isn't affraid of the snipers, well nothing is going to save him from sniper fire, whether he mans anything or not. Well maybe if hides under the car seats inside the humvee, but i don't think his commander would appretiate that much. There is nothing he can do about snipers anyway, so it makes sense he is out in the open.

Yes, I would imagine trying to do a sweep of a few blocks of houses would take quite a while to do. In the meantime you need to secure any suspicious people, and keep any non-combatants in clear view and out of danger. As I explained, the photo may not show soldiers also guarding the kids.

So let me get this straight. If they where securing suspicous people, then would they keep them there without hand cuffing them? If they where keeping "non-combatants in clear view and out of danger" then you would call lying face down on top of a humvee in the middle of a war zone safe? They look very uncomfortable, if they are being guarded, why aren't they sitting atleast comfortably.

your false assumptions

How do you know my assumptions are false. How do I know your assumptions are accurate?

False assumptions arise when you make assumptions out of FALSE FACTS. For example :

" To most of the world, the iraqii "rebels" are the terrorists"

How can you state that as a fact? it's a false assumption, it's not necceserally true. A third of the world is muslims, and more than likey the majority of muslims see the resistance as heros. Then you have the arabian population who definetly see the resistance as heros. Then you have europe , france, germany, alot of people there are awake and realise the plight of the resistance. Then you have to think about venezualla, chille, and alot of south america, who definetly can identify with the Resistance. The chinese the north koreans, who's side do you think they will take.

So you see, "most of the world" doesn't belive the iraqi resistance are terrorists, It's only your world that does so, the US and britain aren't the only countries in this world.

I'm not calling you a lier (before you get a chance to have a go at me for that ) but can you prove this is a pic from fallujah? What was your original source?

heh i wouldn't have had a go at you at all. The origin of the source is from the resistance reports, i quoted them on page 2, the image was released during the second seige of fallujah, the resistance reports originate from islammemmo the website. I can't find the link and i can't prove that, so you can try to do your own research, or take me for my word or as a liar. The choice is yours and i repsect your decision either way.


You stated two ways human shields can be used.

Btw, human shields can be used in two ways:

1) To PREVENT being shot (because the enemy won't kill civilians) or
2) To ABSORB bullets/shrapnel etc ie: they are used as armour.

But infact the second way is no longer the viable, it may have been possible 50 years ago, but these days almost all rounds are armor piercing, and they can go through multiple bodies. A human body won't protect you from much.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
And just so you know in future, being a martyr has nothing to do with killing yourself. It's if you get Killed by another force, when fighting for something.

So why do all these suicide bombers blow themselves up in the hope of martyrdom? Why are they recruited to do this? That is what we seem to hear all the time when a bomb goes off among civillians.

Aint gunna get no answer to this question becasue SS has got me on ignore

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
The resistance never murdered raped or pillage any people. They did kill occupation troops or as you so aptly call them "foreign troops" without remorse though. That because they are fighting a war against the invaders. As far as i know, that's no problem under teh geneva conventions.

Oh no?
news.bbc.co.uk...
Lets see what the Geneva convention has to say about kidnapping, shall we?

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples

That depends on wether you and your best friend are in his home and country, when you haven't the right.

Are you saying I have the right to kill illegal immigrants?

LoL they adheared to the geneva conventions by breaking it constantly, by your own admition you place the lives of your brave marines in higher regard than innocent civilians, and they have killed oh they have, and you admit what many of them did in abu gharib.

The soldiers try and place the iraqi civilians above their own safety and above there friends, but your far more likely to care about your friends than a stranger, yes no?
Also, the few in Abu Ghraib who committed those acts where charged, you and I both know this, or are you denying it?
The soldiers there where a disgrace and do not represent what the total army thinks.

You say alot about the iraqi resistance but you never have any evidence. Just look at this case, you claimed they used their children as human shields, when it looks as though the man used his body to shield the baby, since the bullet went through his back first.

You've never asked.
Maybe you didn't notice the first case.
The second case is questionable BUT we don't know all the facts.

Danie's story didn't have any thing about civilians as human shields, if you think otherwise, your imagining things. As for soldiers being attacked when civilians are around, In a lot of incidents the resistance asks the people to stay home if they have something planned.

Iraqi insurgents fired with civilians in between them and the soldiers, I classify that as using them as shield since the US soldiers couldn't return fire with out hitting the civilians.
I am not imagining things.
Whoop tee do, they ask them to stay at home, yeah thats real good. hey maybe next time you put an add in the paper huh?

But sometimes unplanned clashes do occur, both your soldiers andthe resistance patroll the streets, where civilians will always be, but unlike the Us soldiers (by your own admition) the resistance doesn't have the mentality that their lives are worth more than that off civilians, they go to all lengths to keep civilians safe. But unfortunatly it's very hard to protect them from the wild indiscriminant fire of some gungho cowboy troops. Isn't that where the words "caught in the cross fire" came from?

The resistance does have that mentality but the US do not, they may look after their own first but they look after the Iraqis just as well.
2 points in that story debunk your theory.
1)US soldiers didn't return fire for fear of hitting the civilains.
2)Iraqi insurgents fired first and continued to fire with civilians in the road.

Oh and another thing, gun ho?
You mean gun ho like the Iraqi insurgents firing their guns in the air in celebration which breaks every marksmanship principle. If they are firing their guns off in the air they are not being safe, that round or rounds could land anywhere or on anything.
Also “wild and in discriminant” you might notice that the SA-80A2 is the most accurate assault rifle in the world and that British troops are expert shots, believe me I've seen my sergeant shoot and he wasn't even a full time infantry man.

As for how well put together my message is, why thank you.

Yes it was well put together, very guerrilla like.
Ever thought of going professional?
I hear Al jazeera is recruiting.

by devilwasp:
Yes it was well put together, very guerrilla like.
Ever thought of going professional?
I hear Al jazeera is recruiting.

Yeah devilwasp from what I've seen Syria is always looking for a few good men, women, children as well.