[leadpenny]

The reason the locals want them to leave is because they were effective.

How do you know that?

[rightwingextremist1776]

First off, there is a reason the enemy was able to ambush them in the area they did...local support. I would not doubt the enemy combined the explosion with small arms fire in the cover of the local populace...it is a time honored tactic used by the enemy we face. The perfect excuse to ride the area of a force that was more then likely effectively putting considerable pressure on the enemy in that area. Our enemies know out weakness. One that has been created by ourselves....

Second...call it a gut feeling from a 21 year vet of the USMC...been there and done that.

[JudgemAll]

1. For one the term civilian is BS since terroists are a military in civilian garb. This is why negociating with the like of Arafat who take orders and who have a vow to not surrender nor compromise as any military of the stripe would stand for is a complete sham.

2. Using democracy as a tool of winning a war invariably will put civilians in between as a rule. In that aspect, anti-militia politicians and their PC is total hypocrisy.

3. This type of "incident" is quite routine in the war on terror in fact. Believe me, it is strange to note that the units that fire back at everything moving during car bomb attacks of the sort never get car bombed after.

5. If a civilian shield and hostages works better than armor or stealth to protect the enemy, then we have lost this war. It simply cannot be allowed.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Same reason the locals never shot at the Koreans in Vietnam. Koreans tend not to like being shot at. Americans never minded being shot and killed, but Koreans tended to react with massive force if attacked. The Viet Cong learned early to wait for the Americans.