Submit your comments on this article | |||||||
Iraq | |||||||
Burning Car Dancers Explode | |||||||
2005-10-17 | |||||||
U.S. warplanes and helicopters bombed two villages near the restive city of Ramadi, killing an estimated 70 militants, the military said Monday, though witnesses said at least 39 of the dead were civilians.
| |||||||
Posted by:Glenmore |
#27 We really need to try the microwave crowd control thingy just for the fun of it. |
Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-17 22:30 |
#26 Tiny clarification. Iraqi para-military can. |
Posted by: Pappy 2005-10-17 19:18 |
#25 Q: What's the last thing that goes through an Iraqi car-swarmer's mind? A: His teeth. lol! Good one. |
Posted by: 2b 2005-10-17 18:56 |
#24 cant we use tear gas if we're legitimately engaged in crowd control? I dont think it would be too hard to make that case. We can't. The Iraqis could. Get the distinction? |
Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-17 18:52 |
#23 Repeat after me, Liberalhawk: "They were planting another bomb." "They were planting another bomb." "They were planting another bomb." Feel better? I do! |
Posted by: Parabellum 2005-10-17 18:01 |
#22 If by "crowd control", you mean delivering the maximum number of Iraqi terrorists into the "control" of worms and maggots, I'm with you all of the way. Think of this as a way to edumahcate Iraqis about the danger of remaining in an area where petrol tanks or live ammunition might cook off. |
Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-17 17:27 |
#21 cant we use tear gas if we're legitimately engaged in crowd control? I dont think it would be too hard to make that case. |
Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-17 17:14 |
#20 CS is for inernal use only. |
Posted by: Janet 2005-10-17 17:05 |
#19 LH - believe it or not, use of tear gas on the enemy is banned by the GC. Killing 'em with bombs isn't. |
Posted by: PBMcL 2005-10-17 17:01 |
#18 *ahem* The Islamic Sw'army We Tried We Vied We lied We Died NO ISLAM |
Posted by: Dawg 2005-10-17 16:15 |
#17 The Islamic Sw'army WE Tried We Vied We Lied We Died NO ISLAM |
Posted by: Dawg 2005-10-17 16:11 |
#16 I predict you'll get over it, someday, and move up to espresso. :) |
Posted by: .com 2005-10-17 15:54 |
#15 As the local latte liberal, id say im of two minds about booming car dancers - well purely for car dancing (in this instance the Centcom says the dancers were planting another bomb, and I will take Centcoms word for it - which means we were attacking fighters engaged in an act of violence, not just gawkers) I certainly think the point about not letting gawkers dance, etc is well made - its a propaganda thing. But OTOH in cases where we dont have reason to think they are planting another bomb, theres a potential backlash. I wonder if we could drop some kind of crowd control thingie, tear gas, or the lack - that serve to deter, without leaving us as open to charges related to deaths. |
Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-17 15:50 |
#14 I don't call killing swarmers anything but practical. If they are partying it up, stop the party. They can't be on the side of Iraq if they are swarming. Send them to hell. |
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-17 15:23 |
#13 Red Dog: You're right. It is a stretch and what I had in mind were the hyper-sensitive, super-caring, liberals who would be aghast at the suggestion that we make Jihadi dancers go KABOOM. You see, you goota be gentle with these emotional types or they'll hit you with their latte cups. |
Posted by: The Happy Fliergerabwehrkannon 2005-10-17 14:45 |
#12 "SS like" is also a Stretch. |
Posted by: Red Dog 2005-10-17 13:55 |
#11 Burning Car Dancers Explode Glenmore..kool headline. This admittedly SS-style harsh policyâs payoff comes in the form of fear and respect, and yes, scores, perhaps hundreds of dead insurgents. A few clear messages get etched in stone: "SS like" is a streach. If Coalition soldiers were to round up civilians in a town, and kill them as a reprisal for actions by terrorists near by, then it would pass for "SS like". |
Posted by: Red Dog 2005-10-17 13:44 |
#10 Q: What's the last thing that goes through an Iraqi car-swarmer's mind? A: His teeth. I agree, car swarms should be a priority target. You dance, you die. |
Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-17 11:59 |
#9 About time. I wonder if they read this passage from this essay? A Tale of Two Vases May 31, 2004 While we are on the topic of roadside attacks, there is another issue that usually goes without comment, save for a few remarks by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (U.S. ARMY retired) on FOXâs âThe OâReilly Factorâ last month: The ghoulish celebrants that gather at the site of practically every wrecked Coalition (re: U.S.) vehicle must be punished. In the Middle East, perception is everything. And scenes of heavily-armed Iraqis hamming it up for the cameras while American vehicles (and on some occasions, bodies) burn only serve to goad would-be Jihadis and insurgents alike. These images convey American weakness and embolden the enemy. From the outset we should have made it clear in Arabic-worded leaflets, radio and televised broadcasts, and posted-signs that any persons seen celebrating at the scene of any damaged or destroyed Coalition vehicle would be considered hostile and dealt with in a most pitiless and ruthless manner. Whether its Hellfire missiles, .50 caliber rounds, time-on-target mortar or artillery fire, M1A1 tank fire, Bradley 25 mm cannon fire, or 5.56 small-arms fire, these miscreants should be mowed down without mercy. If you are going to gloat over American deaths, do it in the privacy of your miserable hovel. It is particularly galling to watch Iraqi barbarians brandishing AK-47s and R.P.G.s dancing, singing, and shouting Islamist victory slogans with complete impunity. War is Hell, so why not make it so for your enemies? I have yet to read or hear a single compelling argument against this proposal. Spare me the nonsense about it âgenerating more enemiesâ or âinciting more hatredâ; I saw plenty of hatred on September 11, 2001 when not a single American soldier was inside Iraq. This admittedly SS-style harsh policyâs payoff comes in the form of fear and respect, and yes, scores, perhaps hundreds of dead insurgents. A few clear messages get etched in stone: âYou dance, you dieâ and âyou mess with us, you die.â Think these are the ravings of an armchair general? Think again. No less than Walter Russell Mead and John Lewis Gaddis expressed similar sentiments. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Adam Wolfson noted justifications for the Iraq War in his review of several post-9-11 books: âAnd still yet another rationale was that of ending a brutal and sadistic tyranny and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. These were all acceptable reasons for war, but largely left out was the vital argument that, as Mead writes, âthe United States needed to make a powerful statement to its enemies in the Middle East. . . . This was a war, and the enemy had to learn who was the strongest and, if it came to that, the most ruthless.â In partial agreement with Mead, Gaddis comments that a deeper purpose served by the Iraq war (like the earlier Afghanistan campaign) was, possibly, âthe psychological value of victory--of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them.ââ Right now, with each and every unpunished post-IED attack celebration, the insurgents, Jihadis, and Al-Sadr-inspired scum roll over themselves in laughter. |
Posted by: The Happy Fliergerabwehrkannon 2005-10-17 11:25 |
#8 See, we blew up the car swarm. Now somebody tell Isreal to do the same. |
Posted by: Charles 2005-10-17 10:59 |
#7 I could care less whether they were planting a bomb or just gawking. This lesson should have been taught a long time ago. I hope this is a new policy. |
Posted by: JAB 2005-10-17 09:45 |
#6 a nice FAE drop would send the eyepiece of the videocam through the back of the "filmmaker's" head |
Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-17 08:51 |
#5 MKK: Same difference. So they dispatch a few gore hound gawkers or ruin an AQ video production. I would say they have enough for a video production. They'll just leave out the bit at the end, when the jihadi dancers go kaboom. |
Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-10-17 08:41 |
#4 Same difference. So they dispatch a few gore hound gawkers or ruin an AQ video production. |
Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-10-17 08:37 |
#3 Guilt by association. Let'er rip. |
Posted by: Ominesh Snolugum6259 2005-10-17 08:26 |
#2 how amusing :) |
Posted by: Shep UK 2005-10-17 08:24 |
#1 Been wondering why we haven't done this more often. |
Posted by: plainslow 2005-10-17 08:07 |