I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Every army makes mistakes in warfare. However, it is completely unredeeming that you are incapable of aknowledging that any of the events in which British soldiers have killed civilians was a mistake made by not properly identifying the target. Why are you incapable of that? Why are you only able to aknowledge US errors but none made by the British? Doesn’t that say something about your attitude, your demeanor?
As for ambushed convoy, the shots fired were completely reasonable. They were made to let the enemy know that the mean business so get out of the way! Afterall, they even attempted to block the convoy and stop them from moving. Whoever wanted to kill them was on those very streets. So pack it up dudes. They did only what they had to, and it was completely justifiable. It was even restrained.
“washingtonpost.com - BAGHDAD, Nov. 14 – The fighting started in Mosul two days after U.S. tanks entered Fallujah. Armed men appeared in a sudden tide on a main street in Iraq’s third-largest city, a wide avenue where so many American convoys had been ambushed that locals nicknamed it “Death Street.”” http://www.newsreloaded.com/archive/article76575.htm
Obviously, the bad guys on the street where the convoy was attacked deserved to be shot. I suppose you think the US soldiers in the convoy should not shoot back or do anything, just ride through asn wave as they get shot at? :lol:
And finally, a news article from ABC News about that attack, which states that an attempt to block the convoy was made. Do you realize how many US soldiers have dies in such convoy ambushes? Really now, Brits aren’t implying that a British convoy would simply ride through an ambush like that one with men firing at them from both sides and shooting grenades at them would not shoot back? Because that is so flucking perposterous in makes even my socks laugh. Puleeeeeeze. Get a life already.
No, actually Ironman. You make everyone else’s point for them. You accuse people of hypocrisy. Of being packs of wolves. Of being incapable of acknowledging things. Yet it’s all here in this thread. YOU are the hypocrite. YOU dodge the issues or completely fail to make ANY attempt to understand them. YOU must be right and everyone else wrong. Lines like “Your indignation and hypcrocy are dishonorable at the least.”. Dishonorable? Indignation? Hypocracy? Remind me of your response to being told air resistance causes a reduction in elevation for optimum range again?
Your entire argument, as with seemingly all of your arguments, is disingenuous.
" Really now, Brits aren’t implying that a British convoy would simply ride through an ambush like that one with men firing at them from both sides and shooting grenades at them would not shoot back?"
The video in question the troops aren’t even shooting back by YOUR OWN ADMISSION! They are shooting into the air - not returning fire - with no regard for where those rounds come down. And there is a suggestion elsewhere in the thread from others that this is the NORM for US forces.
You, sir, are the hypocrite. You, sir, are incapable of acknowledging anything but your own rabid rantings. You, sir, are dishonourable and this has been PROVEN by YOURSELF in this thread. I still await your apology for your disgusting behaviour and until then, I’m in the mood for calling a spade a spade.
They are hypocrits when they nag about a US soldier returning fire when his convoy is under attack, while there are actual aggregious things to nag about. That’s hypocricy.
There is a pack mentality to them.
None has acknowledged any error on the behalf of the British military even though I’ve asked them if theyt do not agree repeateldy.
Yes, all of that is here.
negative.
Bullhockey. I dodge nothing. That’s bullshot. Name one thing that I dodge. Can’t? Right.
I certainly am in this matter. Certain am.
Hypocricy IS dishonorable. Indignation is inexcusable. My response? What response do you seek? You are expecting me to say that the soldier in the Humvee, which I have discovered by looking into it further, was not shooting into the air at all. He was firing back, He was firing at insurgents who were on the nth floor of a building firing at him. You expect me to find that reprehensible? Good Lord dudey. Wake the fluck up wolfboy! Hypocricy!
Quite the oposite Wolfy. Your inability to admit that british soldiers make mistakes while blathering about a USW soldier who fires back while under attack is repugnant. It is beyond hypocricy. it is ludicrous, indignant, repulsive, hatefulness, and shameful. Truly.
If that had been the case, It would have been acceptable uinder the circumstances. But I have discovered that they WERE firing back. You see, the original post, made by someone wishing to make US soldiers look bad, implied that the soldier was firing randomly into the streets. I proved that his gun barrel was pointing upwards, so it was not so that he was firing randoml;y into the streets. Having been shown to be a hatemonger and angered by that, they then began, you pack doggies, to claim that the soldiers were exhibiting bad tactics for even firing his flucking weapon while under attack.
Now you have the balls to try to chastise me for showing the hypocricy and hatefullness of such trash. Get a clue dude.
I can imagine there has been such a sissy remark. It only makes the one who made it a total looser. Not unlike other hogwashery that has come the muzzle of one of the pack dogs going after a US soldier for firing back when under attack. It is an example of the pack mentality. When dogs gather in packs, they become increasingly aggressive to the point that their aggression is completely disproportional to reason. That’s what that sissy chit is.
So, I guess I could likewise claim that it’s the norm for British soldiers to toss grenades down streets when a round or two might suffice. Does that make it so? Good Lord. You are more indescent that I even though. mentioning such a bullhockery thing as that puts you on thre low end of humanity boy.
Oh for goodness sake. Stiffle yourself. You’re loosing it.
“The armed convoy paused at an intersection, and suddenly the street was full of cheering Iraqis, waving signs “America No. 1,” Good for Bush” and “Marines equal Liberty.” No reporter could have missed the fact that the people were cheering – not jeering. They were throwing flowers – not stones or grenades. Suddenly, a little girl was at the sergeant major’s side. She reached up, handing him a hand-drawn American flag and said, in perfect English, "We love you.
As I watched, this hard old sergeant major brushed away a tear and explained – “a little dust in the eyes.” Later, after we had exited the city, he turned to me and volunteered, “This is proof,” he said holding up the child’s rendering of the stars and stripes, “that we’re doing the right thing here in Iraq.” The old warrior was on the mark – and every one of his colleagues serving in Iraq knows it. So do most of the Iraqi people – finally freed from a brutal dictatorship. But it’s probably too much to hope that the American media elite would come to the same conclusion.
Bill Mauldin, the late, great, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist of World War II, once wrote, “Peace is the absence of shooting.” Well, in Iraq today, young Americans are still being shot at. And it’s likely that the “Reconstruction Phase” of this conflict will produce more of the same – sharp, harsh gunfights in which young men in harm’s way are tested.
Unfortunately, now that the embedded correspondents have returned home, it also appears that we are also going to have “more of the same” when it comes to the reporting on the effort of America’s armed forces still in Iraq. Those who now have their quills in barrels of poison ink have the forum. Expect fewer interviews with heroes – and more criticism of their commander in chief."
A feather for your hat. America has won the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.
This is the exact figure in question, which was posted by you after removing the original whole-sheet scan (I had the foresight to save it):
Note how the numbers 8 and 9 have fallen off. And you’re creating a straw-man argument over not remembering which is which? Sheesh! If that’s the biggest stick you’ve got to beat me with… And you still can’t remember what my job title is (despite it having been repeatedly posted)so you have no cause for complaint over someone forgetting which bit was marked 8 & which 9. Big deal.
Shooting in the air is hardly bad drills? It’s objectively extremely bad drills.
Since you’ve not posted a source dealing with the British soldiers shooting an iraqi man walking home, it shall remain an unsubstantiated allegation. If however it is true, it is also extremely bad drills if they did not reasonably believe that they were threatened. And it will be / will have been investigated.
Looks like a straw man to me.
As for dodging things? Howsabout this short, incomplete list:
This thread: the not-45-degree-for-maximum-range thing, which you’ve suddenly gone silent about despite earlier being so adamant that you were correct, and despite you yourself posting evidence to the contrary :twisted:
Other threads: Brens & tracer (you claim that they can’t use it), semi-autos being less powerful than bolt-actions (so you claim).
And NOBODY has denied that the Brits have killed civilians by accident.
Look, Ironman, we’re not as stupid as you think you are.
"The U-S command in Baghad says four American soldiers were wounded today when their convoy came under fire near a town south of Baghdad. An Iraqi translator was killed.
Americans have also come under fire in the city of Ramadi, west of Bagdad. Ramadi has been a hotbed of anti-U-S activity. U-S soldiers were fired at in the center of town and fired back. It’s not clear if there were any casualties."
They are hypocrits when they nag about a US soldier returning fire when his convoy is under attack, while there are actual aggregious things to nag about. That’s hypocricy.[/quote]
Hmmm. Hypocricy. Where can I find good examples of that, looking back over this thread…
Yet what did you do when you were caught trying to lie to worm your way out of attacking someone’s entirely correct aside that the elevation for range from a rifle is actually less than 45 degrees? What did you do? Why yes! You tried to twist people’s word when you were caught. You accused me of making various claims about this firing from US soldiers that I NEVER MADE. You did this MORE than once and were told each time that I made no such claims and told to find where I did if you so believed that to be the case. You failed to do so each time. In other words: your habit of trying to twist people’s word when you get caught in a lie is all over this forum.
Hypocrite! Oh the sweet irony…
For example
Wow. That changes everything. That means the soldiers were shooting even farther eh? I’d say the bullets traveled more like 2 to 2 1/2 miles. At least 2. So your claim that they were shooting into the streets beside them is wack isn’t it. Get a clue already.[/quote]
and
But at that time I had never made such a claim, did I? And when challenged to show where I did, you… ignored it.
None has acknowledged any error on the behalf of the British military even though I’ve asked them if theyt do not agree repeateldy.
[/quote]
Liar. Out and out liar.
If the shooting was negligent then yes, if not then no.[/quote]
Now, people not acknowledging error… where have I seen that in this thread? Now perhaps you’ll tell me where you acknowledge YOUR error? Please don’t make me embarrass you further by posting back to you what you said when people politely told you you were wrong about something quite simple as elevation for maximum range… Your own “evidence” disagreed with you yet you still burked on for several posts pretending to the contrary, and then changing the subject back again to hide the fact. You even said, more than once, having been corrected each time, that I had made claims which I HAD NOT. In other words - you LIED as you keep on doing.
Bullhockey. I dodge nothing. That’s bullshot. Name one thing that I dodge. Can’t? Right.[/quote]
Oh?.. LIAR.
I had to pause for 5 minutes to stop laughing after this one.
I can imagine there has been such a sissy remark. It only makes the one who made it a total looser. Not unlike other hogwashery that has come the muzzle of one of the pack dogs going after a US soldier for firing back when under attack.[/quote]
Erm, you were the one who said he was firing in the air to make lots of noise until very recently… And you surely can’t believe those bullets don’t come back down again… So what are we to make of that? Your words. Not anyone elses. YOURS.
Aggression huh? Remind me of your first post when I politely pointed out that others, and your own sources, were indeed correct in saying that 45 degree is not the optimum elevation when drag is accounted for?
Sissy “chit” indeed.
You are more indescent that I even though. mentioning such a bullhockery thing as that puts you on thre low end of humanity boy.
What? Mentioning something that somebody said earlier in the thread makes me indecent?
And your repeated, sustained lying does not make you indecent? Or at the low end of humanity? You were the person who spent plenty of time in another thread slandering the Gurkha’s and their officers. Yet when others merely REMIND you of what is said by others on the subject of fire discipline… Hmmmm.
Yes. I’m losing it. All of us, except you, are losing it. We just imagined reading your last few days worth of posts.
Dudey, like I said, you like to draaaaag one thread around behind you in a stinky burlap sack, like a grunt in Quake dragging his chainsaw, and draaaag it into another. Good Lord Mr. Patent Office Clerk!
You examined all of the images I posted, and had a over week to do it. Including this one:
and this one:
and this one:
…and after having a week to examine these documents, you say:
And you conclude that 8 is a conductor, and that 9 is an insulator? And you say the contact is plugging the apeture in the primer casing at the top?
Dudey, you cannot understand a simple line drawing accompanied by textual explaination with a week to examine it.
Now stop trying to save face and mucking up this thread Mr. Patent Office Clerk. Please go to iwannabeapatentinspector.com and see if they will help you understand the utterly simple device. Just don’t drag your chit around with you from thread to thread trying to save face.
You spend so much effort trying to defend your reprehensible behavior. Why don’t you simply admit, instead of being a hypocrite, that US soldiers are just as entitled, nay, expected, as British soldiers to shoot back at their enemy without being called careless? Why don’t you admit also that British soldiers make mistakes in war that cost civilian lives?
Until you are able to do that, you will remain a hatemongering hypocrite, and unworthy of respect.
Jesus feck, Ironman, by the time of the post where I mixed up which was labelled 8 & 9, most of what you just re-posted there was not in the thread (the figures were boxes each with a little red “x” in the corner) - only what I re-posted was present, which did not have the numbers 8 or 9 on it. Thus, I was working from memory as to what was 8 & what was 9. And I got it the wrong way around. BIG FECKING DEAL. Do you want us to start listing occasions where you’ve remembered things wrong? They are there, and they are legion. You for instance “remembered” that I had said that I was in the military (http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7628#7628)and that I had kids (http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7628&highlight=children#7628). Neither of these are true. Nor did I at any point say that I am in the military, or have kids. If you want to complain about someone’s memory, start at your own doorstep. I’m sure others could cite more examples - you are rather infamous for saying that people said things that they didn’t.
But I suppose that this is more complicated for you to understand than reading a simple table (which you have demonstrated in this thread that you can’t do), so I wouldn’t expect you to get it.
And now you’re using this as a really tragic straw-man argument to detract from the issues currently at hand. Such as your ability to read a table, and the fact that you will not admit error in making a claim which you yourself provided evidence as to its falsehood, and which you are now avoiding the subject of - which is pertinent since you recently claimed that you do not avoid any issues!
Yes they had, in May 2003 when that article was penned.
The following was published just 5 months later and paints a rather less rosy picture.
Human Rights Watch report October 2003: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/4.htm#_Toc54183736
U.S. combat troops in Baghdad like the 82nd Airborne and 1st Armored Division are being asked to perform law enforcement and policing tasks for which they are not prepared. According to soldiers and commanders, there was inadequate training and equipment for what the military calls SASO (Stability and Support Operations) and an inadequate supply of Arabic interpreters.
The U.S. military with responsibility for security in Baghdad is not deliberately targeting civilians. Neither is it doing enough to minimize harm to civilians as required by international law. Iraq is clearly a hostile environment for U.S. troops, with daily attacks by Iraqis or others opposed to the U.S. and coalition occupation. But such an environment does not absolve the military from its obligations to use force in a restrained, proportionate and discriminate manner, and only when strictly necessary.
The U.S. military keeps no statistics on civilian casualties, telling Human Rights Watch that it was “impossible for us to maintain an accurate account.” Such an attitude suggests that civilian casualties are not a paramount concern.
The individual cases of civilian deaths documented in this report reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal force. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate to the threat or inadequately targeted, thereby harming civilians or putting them at risk.
(my emboldenment)
As for hypocrisy,
Ironman wrote on Page 5 of this thread
I wonder how you mean. I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them. Surely you’re not going to suggest that the US is using cluster bombs on civilian locations or something like that.
Well no, but he posted a link that said just that.
Strangely he selected for quoting only the reference to the British using them.
I’ve posted the complete URL above in a previous post, and the fuller quote stating that both the US and UK had done this.
There were some quite muted, civilised suggestions that the British and US troops did things in a different manner.
These were explained more fully at Ironman’s request.
He chose to disagree, as he has every right to do.
However, as always, he took this to indicate a generalised anti-American slant by the people with whom he disagreed.
He then chose to attempt to justify his position with a series of articles seemingly showing carelessness by British troops.
In amongst these articles were items posted from the war phase in Iraq ( the cluster bomb issue), from before the war in Iraq had started (joint US/UK air attacks over the no-fly zone) and for some bizzare reason, Bloody Sunday, an incident in Ireland almost three decades ago.
The only relevence of the latter is the fact that this incident has informed the British Army’s training ever since, leading to some of the differences mentioned above.
He has not only blown this matter out of all proprtion by reading into posts his own decidedly jaundiced views, but he has to date called two posters liars with regards to their jobs, and said that one was wrong about everything because of his haircut!
Now the original incident has changed and the US troops weren’t firing in the air at all it seems.
Well, maybe not on that particular day.
However : http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hrw251003.htm
Human Rights Watch documented cases where, after an improvised explosive device detonated near a U.S. convoy, soldiers fired high caliber weapons in multiple directions, injuring and killing civilians who were nearby.
As for the incidents involving British troops, no one on the forum is denying the incidents took place.
Whether or not they were all negligent is of course another matter, but with one notable exception, they all involved aimed fire, according to the Amnesty report itself.
That one exception is the case of the little girl tragically killed after being shot.
Now, if Ironman thinks that the Iraqi version of the incident is true, with a soldier, any soldier from a civilised country, just suddenly deciding to shoot at a group of harmless children then he really has lost the plot.
The version is much more likely to be aimed at a greater compensation claim.
But it’s the British version of the incident that makes a very strong point relevant to this discussion, so far overlooked.
The MoD stated in a letter that the troops had come under attack from a crowd throwing missiles (stones) and that a warning shot was fired over the crowd.
It was this warning shot that was believed to have hit the little girl.
Now, if one warning shot, fired over a crowd, can kill a little girl, what damage can burst fire from automatic weapons fired into the air do?
It was about 8 second after the initial attack and about 400m away. They had left the kill area, the Beatle was not in the way and it most certainly would not stop a 3 ton vehicle trailing at about 50mph. The mil expert is talking bullocks and knows noting he is spouting typical media “oh may god look at that “. It reminds me of that prate who narrates the police videos. The veh have run flats as standard on armoured veh.
Now look at the street they are travelling though the building are well off the road and are 8 to 10 stores tall. At 35º they would take out the top 3 floors. The problem is not that they are returning fire (which they are not) but the excessive fire they are using when they are well out of the kill area. What you cannot get through your head it that you do not fire into the air, you are wasting ammo and achieving nothing. Fire must be effective or you are wasting your time and will get yourself killed.
Very good it was at the end of the war, look at the date.
That’s one thing I have been wondering since two years ago: Why didn’t have the US Army a battalion of MP ready to patrol Baghdad and to provide security (prevent looting etc.) right after the capture?
Which reprehensible behaviour would that be? The claims you attribute to me that I did not make? Defending myself against the accusation that I made those claims? Backing up those who rightly said 45 degrees is not optimum for a bullet due to drag, and whom you insulted? Rebutting you when you unjustifiable insulted me? (remember? That little bit about getting a clue before blathering?)
instead of being a hypocrite, that US soldiers are just as entitled, nay, expected, as British soldiers to shoot back at their enemy without being called careless? Why don’t you admit also that British soldiers make mistakes in war that cost civilian lives?
Which would be even more effective if I’d even made the claims you attribute to me (that they were shooting in the air is YOUR claim and I made no claim to the contrary at any point).
Hatemongering hypocrite for … making claims which I didn’t make? Nice one!
Yet again you dodge every single point raised.
I have no reprehensible behaviour. I made a perfectly reasonable factual post on a technical fact. No claims about US troops.
You proceeded to slur, to lie, and to act like a complete prat saying your evidence showed something which it plainly did not. When caught doing that, you started continually attribute to me claims I did not make. And then you have the cheek to ask when you have ever dodged (and to immediately follow with stating that you never - which is a proven lie)???
You are demonstrably a liar. You are a hypocrite. And I’ve provided you near endless quotes to back this up. You provided nothing to show I made those claims you accused me of. Because I did not make them. You refused to apologised for your insulting reply to my original, perfectly reasonable and factual post. (to use your own words “they become increasingly aggressive to the point that their aggression is completely disproportional to reason.”) You refused to apologise for then proceeding to lie REPEATEDLY saying I had made claims which I had certainly not. And now you proceed to lie about your own conduct by accusing other people of that which you are guilty of.
You are a liar. Please find below in black and beige.
Thank you for that. The soldiers in the video were indeed firing back at the enemy in a building afterall, and that is not culpable in any way. The original post regarding that incident stated plainly that US soldiers were firing wrecklessly into the streets, and that was completely false. It was stated for the purpose of making US troops look bad. Now come one Sir, please do not say it was not, because we know that the poster had exactly that intention.
I am glad that you have posted the truth about that matter however, and I commend you for that. Thank you.
