Italians rescue hostage,get fired on by US on way to airport.

[TRD2000]

i feel so terribly put in place! my gosh i think i'll go have and cry... then i might try and find my ass!

so is it true that the US actually lost more people to friendly fire and "accidents" in vietnam than they did enemy action? perhaps when you're busy teaching "rifle squad tactics" you might include point gun at ENEMY, don't shoot buddies, perhaps tips like "make sure you know what you're shooting at and what you'll hit if you miss" you never know... tactics like that might even have helped you WIN that war.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

so is it true that the US actually lost more people to friendly fire and "accidents" in vietnam than they did enemy action? perhaps when you're busy teaching "rifle squad tactics" you might include point gun at ENEMY, don't shoot buddies, perhaps tips like "make sure you know what you're shooting at and what you'll hit if you miss" you never know... tactics like that might even have helped you WIN that war.

1. Where did you get the information that more men were killed by friendly fire than by the VC?

2. Have you ever done military service? If you know so much about rifle tactics why don't you tell us how it's done.

3. Vietnam couldn't of been won no matter what training our troops had. It's impossible to win a war when your own government ties your arms behind your back and expects you to fight an enemy when they give you a set of "rules" to go by.

[Flatrater]

The question still remains "Why didn't they stop"?

[TRD2000]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

1. Where did you get the information that more men were killed by friendly fire than by the VC?

It was a question, but it's something i heard years ago, anyway i thought i'd look for some stats, aparently its more like 39% but thats a LOT of people, and it was up to 49% for gulf war 1.

http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm

Originally Posted by Muscletang

2. Have you ever done military service? If you know so much about rifle tactics why don't you tell us how it's done.

Yep. but fortunately didn't have to see combat. The information concerning the Gaza strip was given in a briefing on tactics we recieved and was given as an example of poor tactics, and a lack of thought. It was as i said given by a recently (at the time) returned Australian UN advisor and the road block was being enforced by Fijian troops i THINK. I wasn't trying to give a lesson, but since you seem to know so much why don't YOU give the lesson. perhaps you can start by telling me why thinking about where you shoot is such a bad idea...

Originally Posted by Muscletang

3. Vietnam couldn't of been won no matter what training our troops had. It's impossible to win a war when your own government ties your arms behind your back and expects you to fight an enemy when they give you a set of "rules" to go by.

you might be right... but 39% less losses might have made for a happier government and a lot of happier mothers.

[TRD2000]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

The question still remains "Why didn't they stop"?

well the US military say they were "speeding" the italian driver says they were doing 40-50kph (25-30mph) How far away were they engaged? perhaps they were planning on stopping when they got to the checkpoint, just an idea... i know that at 50 i don't stop for police breath test points until i get pretty close...

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

well the US military say they were "speeding" the italian driver says they were doing 40-50kph (25-30mph) How far away were they engaged? perhaps they were planning on stopping when they got to the checkpoint, just an idea... i know that at 50 i don't stop for police breath test points until i get pretty close...

If a cop told me to stop then I would stop. Going 25 mph according to her it shouldn't take more than 5 seconds to stop. After several attempts on stopping them they failed to stop.

Something doesn't sound right about the italian. The kidnapping sounded fake and set up. I find it hard to believe anything out of her communist mouth.

[TRD2000]

i don't know if you guys do breath testing over there but i usually drive all the way up to where the cop is before i stop.

she wasn't driving another agent was driving.

i find it more difficult to believe the U.S. military at this point after all the stuff like that Jessica Lynch crap.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

It was a question, but it's something i heard years ago, anyway i thought i'd look for some stats, aparently its more like 39% but thats a LOT of people, and it was up to 49% for gulf war 1.

http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm.

The following are The American War Library's best estimates on friendly fire casualties (both fatal and non-fatal) based on historic War Dept, Dept of the Navy and Dept of Defense casualty reports detailing various battle reports.

I wish it put things a little more clearly. If non-fatal is thrown into the percentages then we have no idea of how many people were K.I.A.

If you watch movies like Platoon or Full Metal you'll see why several servicemen were killed by friendly fire. I've also read a couple of biographies like "100 Miles of Bad Road" which the author tells of hearing and seeing men "accidentally" killing another soldier of theirs.

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Yep. but fortunately didn't have to see combat. The information concerning the Gaza strip was given in a briefing on tactics we recieved and was given as an example of poor tactics, and a lack of thought. It was as i said given by a recently (at the time) returned Australian UN advisor and the road block was being enforced by Fijian troops i THINK. I wasn't trying to give a lesson, but since you seem to know so much why don't YOU give the lesson. perhaps you can start by telling me why thinking about where you shoot is such a bad idea...

I personally don't know anything about rifle tactics. If I were one of those soldiers the only thing I can think of to stop the car would be to shoot the person or aim for the tires. It seemed though you were criticizing Twitch1 for what he knew about rifle tactics and I was wondering if you had a better idea about it.

Originally Posted by TRD2000

you might be right... but 39% less losses might have made for a happier government and a lot of happier mothers.

The government wouldn't of been happy no matter what. Their little "war rules" weren't working and were causing problems over there and back home. Their only solution was to throw more men over there to maybe solve things when it only made it worse.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

The question still remains "Why didn't they stop"?

Who knows why they didn't. I bet you they'll stop next time if they come to another check point. If they don't have them up then they should put up signs in English, Arabic, and other languages used in the area that say "STOP OR WE'LL SHOOT!" There have been to many disguises of children and pregnant women who have blown themselves up to get U.S. soldiers. If the person got shot so what? They should of stopped.

[Raz_Kaz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7089948/





Maybe it was deliberate. I mean they did go against the American's way of how to handle kidnapping.
If you're not with us, you're against us

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

If a cop told me to stop then I would stop. Going 25 mph according to her it shouldn't take more than 5 seconds to stop. After several attempts on stopping them they failed to stop.

Something doesn't sound right about the italian. The kidnapping sounded fake and set up. I find it hard to believe anything out of her communist mouth.

Therein lies your problem.You refuse to accrept facts on the basis of where they came from.I'd say the military have far more reason to lie to cover their ass than the victims.

[SnoopisTDI]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

If they don't have them up then they should put up signs in English, Arabic, and other languages used in the area that say "STOP OR WE'LL SHOOT!" There have been to many disguises of children and pregnant women who have blown themselves up to get U.S. soldiers. If the person got shot so what? They should of stopped.

The following is from a member on another forum I visit:

I hate to say this but, that happens several times a day in Iraq. Most drivers hear gunshots and start to look around and try to speed away. In the mean time the US soldiers in front of the car thinks its a VBIED (Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device) speeding his way and tries to disable the vehicle, usaually injuring several of the passengers. I wish I knew a better way to stop this, but it usually happens around dusk and at night or limited visablity situations. All TCP's (Traffic Control Points) are required to have cones, reflective signs in Arabic and signal wands (Flashlights). Our Brigade in Iraq had one of these incidents about every two weeks. Car occupants are usually killed or wounded by MG fire aimed at disabling the vehicle.

The driver of this vehicle was probably focused on something other than the TCP in front of him.

Another member: "warning signs at the checkpoints around BIAP are in both English and Arabic and are very prominent"

I don't know if this was mentioned in the earlier versions, but it appears this was not a hostage release but a Hostage Buyout!, probably in the range of $10million given to the terrorists.

If this is the case, the Italians just bought the terrorists a year's worth of IED's for every street corner in Bagdad. How many people can YOU kill with $10million? All for one stupid reporter.


Ok, so an anti-American reporter for a communist newspaper who is a known activist against the war, and an "Arabic-speaking feminist with a passionate interest in Islam" according to her colleagues, is kidnapped and a tape of her is released the day before the Italian government was to vote on whether or not they would remove troops from Iraq. She quickly negotiates a large sum of money for the terrorists and is released unharmed. You'd have to be a moron not to at least wonder about it.

[DGB454]

Good point Snoopis.

[Twitch1]

As usual anyone who can come up with out-of-the-air figures like 39%-half of the casualties in Vietnam were friendly fire is in a fantasy world. There was no precident for a continuing percentage of that magnitude. There was no huge massing of troops like WW2. There were no massive artillery barrages like WW2. There were few large scale confrontations where firepower was called in close like WW 2. I guess next you'll say half the Allied casualties in WW 2 were friendly fire too.

And what has Vietnam casualty rates got to do with urban traffic checkpoints in Badgag? Nothing. It's just more nonsense to attempt to hold an unholdable position on a topic that one knows nothing about.

If someone actually wore their country's uniform then they should know they might actually go to a hot zone somewhere where folks are shooting at them. This joining the military to 'get an education' is bull. Then these folks are dismayed when they're called to combat. Why?

I will tell you this with absolutely no embarrassment. In a life and death combat situation you WILL do whatever is necessary to come out of it alive. More importantly you WILL do whatever is necessary to protect your buddies. Cause that's what it is all about. Yeah it's a great rhetorical question for psuedo-intellectuals to ponder in their armchairs. But they haven't got the slightest concept of what it's like in the other world. To them it's all words and debate points. In reality it's kill or be killed. Protect at all costs, and quickly. There ain't no time to weigh the lofty ideals of humanity or think up glib witicisms. It just shows how ignorant a person without combat experience is to utter such a dumb thing.

If you've ever come across a battle area ripe with the dead, your guys and theirs. The smells are indescribable. The sights, well, the sight will be with you when you close your eyes and let your mind drift FOREVER.

Let me tell you. You WILL react the way you were trained. You will act swiftly to contain the situation no matter what it takes.

Being through what I've been through I don't like the idea of war where my brothers get killed for a bunch of politicians. But once the events unfold and they are in harm's way I want them to savagely destroy the enemy so they survive.

All this hand wringing about a 1000 odd combat deaths is warrantless. In any given minute of WW 2 1000 men died. In WW I 30000 died in one morning. The casualties we endure now due to technology weapons is relatively nothing.

I will say this. If a nation, any nation, can no longer accept casualties of combat they should no longer send their young men abroad.

[TRD2000]

i guess stupidity and unintelligent training more than made up for massing of troops.

[Twitch1]

1. You have no information besides your inaccurate opinion what training anyone received.
2. "Massing troops" isn't even a tactical definition. If you'd ever been in combat you'd know it is paramount to present as few priority targets as possible to the enemy.

3. You're afraid to ponder what you'd do if you were thrust into combat like these guy were aren't you?