Matt Wiser
April 12th 04, 07:40 PM
"Jim Letchworth" > wrote:
>Let me get this straight. I think you said........
>
>1) "Collateral damage" is necessary and no
>self-respecting senior British
>officer would dare openly criticize it. I bet
>you don't think pictures of
>"collateral damage" should be shown to the "naive"
>American public either.
>2) Terrorists should wear uniforms so we can
>pick them out in a crowd.
>3) Terrorists should take their swords, AK-47s,
>and RPGs, and meet our
>tanks, helicopters, F-16s, and artillery outside
>the city... in the open?
>4) Un-armed shopkeepers should step outside
>and tell these bloodthirsty,
>un-caring terrorist "pussies" to "move on, or
>else...."
>
>H-m-m-m.......
>
Terrorists, by the nature of their tactics, are cowards. They know that if
they get in a stand-up fight with a superior enemy, they lose. Period. The
only way to deal with terrorists wherever they are found is to kill them
without mercy or quarter. Even those motivated by religion start losing faith
when they see their "colleagues" stacked up like cordwood, blown to pieces
by CBUs or JDAMs, and run over by tanks and APCs. The Baathists are trying
to bring back a dictatorship (when hell freezes over), Sadr is trying to
get political points (hard to do when you hack a rival to death, and outside
a mosque at that), and the jihadists, well, their motivation needs no explanation.
Dispose of them without too much collateral damage, pick up the pieces and
rebuild, and impress on the remaining insurgents that such misbehavior as
in Fallujah and Sadr's actions will not be tolerated.
>Jim
>
>
>
>"BadBender" > wrote in message
>news:qZeec.1377$0h6.1368@lakeread02...
>> Let me get this strait. Some mysterious "senior
>british officer" is saying
>> American tactics are too strong and not equal
>to the threat , right? First
>> off this is probably made up, a genuine work
>of fiction. Second, assuming
>> any truth to it, of course US troops would
>think every Iraqi is the enemy.
>> The terrorists that are killing US troops
>every day aren't wearing nice
>> uniforms that identify them as the enemy.
>They look like the adverage
>Iraqi.
>> About the US using artillery to take out a
>mortar target, what about the
>> mortar launching idiot to begin with. If your
>gonna be a pussy and fight
>> from a heavily occupied neighborhood then
>you deserve to die. I'm hoping
>> that when the adverage Iraqi sees these idiots
>setting up to attack from
>> outside their house they will show some testicular
>fortitude and tell to
>> bozos to move some where else lest their house
>gets hit. Make no mistake,
>if
>> you fire on US troops your going to get fired
>back at, and probably with
>> more then you got.
>>
>> --
>> One of the penalties for refusing to participate
>in politics is that you
>end
>> up being governed by your inferiors.
>> - Plato
>> "~ LITTLE HITLER ~" >
>wrote in message
>> ...
>> > US Tactics Condemned by British Officers
>> > By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
>> > 11/04/2004
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> >
>> > "Part of the problem was that American troops
>viewed Iraqis as
>> > untermenschen - the Nazi expression for
>"sub-humans".
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> >
>> > Senior British commanders have condemned
>American military tactics in
>> > Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
>> >
>> > One senior Army officer told The Telegraph
>that America's aggressive
>> > methods were causing friction among allied
>commanders and that there was
>> > a growing sense of "unease and frustration"
>among the British high
>> > command.
>> >
>> > The officer, who agreed to the interview
>on the condition of anonymity,
>> > said that part of the problem was that American
>troops viewed Iraqis as
>> > untermenschen - the Nazi expression for
>"sub-humans".
>> >
>> > Speaking from his base in southern Iraq,
>the officer said: "My view and
>> > the view of the British chain of command
>is that the Americans' use of
>> > violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive
>to the threat they
>> > are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people
>the way we see them. They
>> > view them as untermenschen. They are not
>concerned about the Iraqi loss
>> > of life in the way the British are. Their
>attitude towards the Iraqis is
>> > tragic, it's awful.
>> >
>> > "The US troops view things in very simplistic
>terms. It seems hard for
>> > them to reconcile subtleties between who
>supports what and who doesn't
>> > in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers
>to group all Iraqis as the bad
>> > guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq
>is bandit country and everybody
>> > is out to kill them."
>> >
>> > The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people"
>- was brought to
>> > prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein
>Kampf, published in 1925. He
>> > used the term to describe those he regarded
>as racially inferior: Jews,
>> > Slaves and gipsies.
>> >
>> > Although no formal complaints have as yet
>been made to their American
>> > counterparts, the officer said the British
>Government was aware of its
>> > commanders' "concerns and fears".
>> >
>> > The officer explained that, under British
>military rules of war, British
>> > troops would never be given clearance to
>carry out attacks similar to
>> > those being conducted by the US military,
>in which helicopter gunships
>> > have been used to fire on targets in urban
>areas.
>> >
>> > British rules of engagement only allow troops
>to open fire when
>> > attacked, using the minimum force necessary
>and only at identified
>> > targets.
>> >
>> > The American approach was markedly different:
>"When US troops are
>> > attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use
>mortar-locating radar to find
>> > the firing point and then attack the general
>area with artillery, even
>> > though the area they are attacking may be
>in the middle of a densely
>> > populated residential area.
>> >
>> > "They may well kill the terrorists in the
>barrage but they will also
>> > kill and maim innocent civilians. That has
>been their response on a
>> > number of occasions. It is trite, but American
>troops do shoot first and
>> > ask questions later. They are very concerned
>about taking casualties and
>> > have even trained their guns on British
>troops, which has led to some
>> > confrontations between soldiers.
>> >
>> > "The British response in Iraq has been much
>softer. During and after the
>> > war the British set about trying to win
>the confidence of the local
>> > population. There have been problems, it
>hasn't been easy but on the
>> > whole it was succeeding."
>> >
>> > The officer believed that America had now
>lost the military initiative
>> > in Iraq, and it could only be regained with
>carefully planned, precision
>> > attacks against the "terrorists".
>> >
>> > "The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut
>approach -
>> > it has failed," he said. "They need to stop
>viewing every Iraqi, every
>> > Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the
>hearts and minds of the people.
>> >
>> > "Our objective is to create a stable, democratic
>and safe Iraq. That's
>> > achievable but not in the short term. It
>is going to take up to 10
>> > years."
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wtact11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/11/
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
>Let me get this straight. I think you said........
>
>1) "Collateral damage" is necessary and no
>self-respecting senior British
>officer would dare openly criticize it. I bet
>you don't think pictures of
>"collateral damage" should be shown to the "naive"
>American public either.
>2) Terrorists should wear uniforms so we can
>pick them out in a crowd.
>3) Terrorists should take their swords, AK-47s,
>and RPGs, and meet our
>tanks, helicopters, F-16s, and artillery outside
>the city... in the open?
>4) Un-armed shopkeepers should step outside
>and tell these bloodthirsty,
>un-caring terrorist "pussies" to "move on, or
>else...."
>
>H-m-m-m.......
>
Terrorists, by the nature of their tactics, are cowards. They know that if
they get in a stand-up fight with a superior enemy, they lose. Period. The
only way to deal with terrorists wherever they are found is to kill them
without mercy or quarter. Even those motivated by religion start losing faith
when they see their "colleagues" stacked up like cordwood, blown to pieces
by CBUs or JDAMs, and run over by tanks and APCs. The Baathists are trying
to bring back a dictatorship (when hell freezes over), Sadr is trying to
get political points (hard to do when you hack a rival to death, and outside
a mosque at that), and the jihadists, well, their motivation needs no explanation.
Dispose of them without too much collateral damage, pick up the pieces and
rebuild, and impress on the remaining insurgents that such misbehavior as
in Fallujah and Sadr's actions will not be tolerated.
>Jim
>
>
>
>"BadBender" > wrote in message
>news:qZeec.1377$0h6.1368@lakeread02...
>> Let me get this strait. Some mysterious "senior
>british officer" is saying
>> American tactics are too strong and not equal
>to the threat , right? First
>> off this is probably made up, a genuine work
>of fiction. Second, assuming
>> any truth to it, of course US troops would
>think every Iraqi is the enemy.
>> The terrorists that are killing US troops
>every day aren't wearing nice
>> uniforms that identify them as the enemy.
>They look like the adverage
>Iraqi.
>> About the US using artillery to take out a
>mortar target, what about the
>> mortar launching idiot to begin with. If your
>gonna be a pussy and fight
>> from a heavily occupied neighborhood then
>you deserve to die. I'm hoping
>> that when the adverage Iraqi sees these idiots
>setting up to attack from
>> outside their house they will show some testicular
>fortitude and tell to
>> bozos to move some where else lest their house
>gets hit. Make no mistake,
>if
>> you fire on US troops your going to get fired
>back at, and probably with
>> more then you got.
>>
>> --
>> One of the penalties for refusing to participate
>in politics is that you
>end
>> up being governed by your inferiors.
>> - Plato
>> "~ LITTLE HITLER ~" >
>wrote in message
>> ...
>> > US Tactics Condemned by British Officers
>> > By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
>> > 11/04/2004
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> >
>> > "Part of the problem was that American troops
>viewed Iraqis as
>> > untermenschen - the Nazi expression for
>"sub-humans".
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> >
>> > Senior British commanders have condemned
>American military tactics in
>> > Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
>> >
>> > One senior Army officer told The Telegraph
>that America's aggressive
>> > methods were causing friction among allied
>commanders and that there was
>> > a growing sense of "unease and frustration"
>among the British high
>> > command.
>> >
>> > The officer, who agreed to the interview
>on the condition of anonymity,
>> > said that part of the problem was that American
>troops viewed Iraqis as
>> > untermenschen - the Nazi expression for
>"sub-humans".
>> >
>> > Speaking from his base in southern Iraq,
>the officer said: "My view and
>> > the view of the British chain of command
>is that the Americans' use of
>> > violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive
>to the threat they
>> > are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people
>the way we see them. They
>> > view them as untermenschen. They are not
>concerned about the Iraqi loss
>> > of life in the way the British are. Their
>attitude towards the Iraqis is
>> > tragic, it's awful.
>> >
>> > "The US troops view things in very simplistic
>terms. It seems hard for
>> > them to reconcile subtleties between who
>supports what and who doesn't
>> > in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers
>to group all Iraqis as the bad
>> > guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq
>is bandit country and everybody
>> > is out to kill them."
>> >
>> > The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people"
>- was brought to
>> > prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein
>Kampf, published in 1925. He
>> > used the term to describe those he regarded
>as racially inferior: Jews,
>> > Slaves and gipsies.
>> >
>> > Although no formal complaints have as yet
>been made to their American
>> > counterparts, the officer said the British
>Government was aware of its
>> > commanders' "concerns and fears".
>> >
>> > The officer explained that, under British
>military rules of war, British
>> > troops would never be given clearance to
>carry out attacks similar to
>> > those being conducted by the US military,
>in which helicopter gunships
>> > have been used to fire on targets in urban
>areas.
>> >
>> > British rules of engagement only allow troops
>to open fire when
>> > attacked, using the minimum force necessary
>and only at identified
>> > targets.
>> >
>> > The American approach was markedly different:
>"When US troops are
>> > attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use
>mortar-locating radar to find
>> > the firing point and then attack the general
>area with artillery, even
>> > though the area they are attacking may be
>in the middle of a densely
>> > populated residential area.
>> >
>> > "They may well kill the terrorists in the
>barrage but they will also
>> > kill and maim innocent civilians. That has
>been their response on a
>> > number of occasions. It is trite, but American
>troops do shoot first and
>> > ask questions later. They are very concerned
>about taking casualties and
>> > have even trained their guns on British
>troops, which has led to some
>> > confrontations between soldiers.
>> >
>> > "The British response in Iraq has been much
>softer. During and after the
>> > war the British set about trying to win
>the confidence of the local
>> > population. There have been problems, it
>hasn't been easy but on the
>> > whole it was succeeding."
>> >
>> > The officer believed that America had now
>lost the military initiative
>> > in Iraq, and it could only be regained with
>carefully planned, precision
>> > attacks against the "terrorists".
>> >
>> > "The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut
>approach -
>> > it has failed," he said. "They need to stop
>viewing every Iraqi, every
>> > Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the
>hearts and minds of the people.
>> >
>> > "Our objective is to create a stable, democratic
>and safe Iraq. That's
>> > achievable but not in the short term. It
>is going to take up to 10
>> > years."
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wtact11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/11/
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!