Iraqi troops used "ruses" to kill U.S. troops -U.S.

Reuters | 3/23/03

[kattracks]

Iraqi troops used "ruses" to kill U.S. troops -U.S.

AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar, March 23 (Reuters) - The United States said on Sunday that Iraqi troops were using "ruses" to kill U.S. troops invading their country, on one occasion dressing as civilians to ambush them.

"There were several incidents reported today in which there were types of behaviour that I can only describe as ruses that were perpetrated by the enemy," Lt.Gen. John Abizaid told a news briefing at Central Command headquarters outside Qatar.

He said that in one incident an apparent surrender was followed by artillery fire.

"In another incident there were troops dressed in civilian clothes that appeared to welcome the forces and then ambush them," he said. "So there are a number of incidents occurring to the rear of the main combat forces."

[Cboldt]

Astute observation. Our approach serves to drive a wedge between the enemy soldier and his leadership.

[riri]

I think we question the fact as to why so many of our brave soldiers must die just to prove we don't want to kill Iraqis

Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.

[Wthrman13]

Thanks for the tip, and for the welcome.

[Wthrman13]

Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind. Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.

[cold_vicious_logic]

It would be a war crime because the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted. War crimes on the part of the Iraqis don't justify them on our part. We won't sink to their level.

I'm sorry chief, but that is just stupid.

This whole "war crimes" thing has always blown my mind. War is a crime. It may be necessary at times, but let's face it: two groups going out and killing as many of the other as possible is not a very nice thing to do.

Be that as it may, war is won by he who does the most damage to his opponent. In other words, he who is able and willing to stoop to thew lowest level and do the most horrible things.

Case in point, WWII. We won it by dropping two nukes on Japanese civilians and killing nearly half a million of them in a matter of seconds. It was a horrible and deplorable thing to do, but it did win the war for us. The Japs knew that they could not keep up with the attrocities we were capable of.

Personally, I'd wipe my ass with the Geneva Convention "laws". Just like all our enemies do.

[Wthrman13]

Ok, let me try that again...(disregard the last post)

Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.

Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.

[Wthrman13]

One more time... Bear with me here

Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.

Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Those are not legitimate "ruses de guerre".

those out of uniform should be hung. those who claim false surrender should be shot down like the dogs they are.

Regards,

[Robert_Paulson2]

the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted

---

not if they are used as military tactics. foolishness... and you are of course, WRONG to advocate we intend to continue such a dangerous course of action, in the clear evidence indicates they are using this to kill American soldiers.

you support the iraqis at your own discretion.

I say they should be killed, rather than sacrificing our own boys.... you disagree? Then I say you are one of them.

[laz17]

My soul will not be at rest until I see Jacques Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder, and all of our so-called friends who have been arming Saddam for years in order to wage war against the US by proxy, in the same condition as our boys in these images. God bless our troops, and God utterly curse every depraved creature who supports Saddam, from the Eurotrash to the Hollywood liberals to the protesters in our streets.

[jonascord]

So, what do you suggest? The last Gulf War, a Marine had 20 Iraqi POWs to take care of. Aware that they could overwhelm him he used the simple expedient of wrapping one long length of det cord around each of the POW's necks and promising the group that one wrong move would result in a loud noise and 20 headless POWs. He then walked them 5 miles to a POW collection center, with a hell box in one hand. He got in trouble for violating Geneva Convention protocols.

[laz17]

it will be far messier because we chose the "nice guy" route.

The biggest mistake anyone can make is being nice to the bad guy. The bad guy simply doesn't give a f*ck if you're nice, because HE'S not nice. The bad guy will exploit your goodness and use it to kill you. Mercy and compassion are utterly wasted on the evil. Evil needs to be destroyed, without mercy, without compromise. Did God ask Joshua to show mercy to the Canaanites?

Dealing with these evil bastards is like dealing with rattlesnakes. Do you try to be nice to a rattlesnake when you encounter one and it tries to strike? No. You either run away, or you kill it, simple as that.

[Cboldt]

So, what do you suggest?

I suggest not summarily executing people who are surrendering. Use defensing measures as prudent. Your Marine story didn't include klilling the prisoners, as the previous poster advocated.

[Hugin]

you support the iraqis at your own discretion.

If I don't want our soldiers to behave like Hitler's SS, I support the Iraqis? That's a twisted mind you have.

I say they should be killed, rather than sacrificing our own boys.... you disagree? Then I say you are one of them.

And I say you are a stupid @ssh*le. Our troops are perfectly capable of taking prisoners. I never suggested they take unreasonable chances to do so.

[Kevin Curry]

Well, they're fighting back and show no signs of looking for liberation.

Oh, BS. Your entire post is uninformed BS. The war planners planned for resistence, resistence has been encountered, and it has been sporadic.

For hell's sakes, four days into this thing and we've suffered a .0001 fatality rate. Tell me: if you're soldier, which side of this fight would YOU rather be on?

We're rolling on without a significant hiccup.