Armored Security Vehicle Attacked With IED Placed in Dog

[Joey2ness]

You gotta scroll all the way down to see the video
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/armor...g_14_2006.html

The Jihad Factions of Iraq released a video tape showing an attack on an XM1117 Armored Security Vehicle near Baghdad. The video released on an Islamic militant site frequented by terrorists said the improvised explosive device (IED) was placed on a dog sitting on the side of a road. It is not clear whether the dog was alive or dead when the explosives were placed on the dog. Explosives placed inside dead animals such as dogs and goats have been known to take place in Iraq and has prooved to be effective in several attacks on US forces.

[Triple X]

What get me is that we are at war....why the fuk are there rules????? I say we just go in shooting everything in sight. Kell 'em all

[collar]

their blurry pictures theres no video.

[Beefyman]

stupid ****ing peps i tell you... why would they do that shit?

[IronFreakX]

stupid ****ing peps i tell you... why would they do that shit?

To kill us ofcourse.....

Theyre smart, I like their techniques to be honest, but the problem is, WE have an eye on us (the media and the public) while THEY have NO1 monitoring them, theyre militants with no gov and no laws affecting them so they play the dirtiest ways and we cant.

Thats why I say we keep civilians and media the FVCK OUT, ban reporters if we see some, KILL EM.

and then we go in there, killing everyone we suspect, if theyre acting as cold blooded killers, we acting like caring people will not work.

too much to explain using words anyway, and it wont change nething neway so fvck it

[IronFreakX]

The dog was dead before that, makes no diff neway.

The way it was done, the way the video was made, their propaganda....very good, surprised that they can pull stuff like that off.

We're lacking, our soldiers our lacking, and we are too leniant, too nice, and too restricted.....I hope some serious action is taken so we can finish that job and bring our soldiers back.

[BajanBastard]

U.S forces would not last a day in Iraq if they did what you suggest. Start thinking like a military man if you want to be one.

[zodiac666]

U.S forces would not last a day in Iraq if they did what you suggest. Start thinking like a military man if you want to be one.

the US has always been too politically correct, we should be able to torture motherfvckers to get information.

i dont think winning the hearts and minds is working.

[IronFreakX]

U.S forces would not last a day in Iraq if they did what you suggest. Start thinking like a military man if you want to be one.

I gotta ask this 1st are you or were you in the military? if yes, that doesnt make me automatically agree with you, but Ill take ur opinion into consideration a lil bit more.

50-70% of our troops dont even kill the enemy, they posture or pretend to etc...., just remember, we're using lighter armor because we dont want to look like were doing a full blown war to satisfy the media, we are influenced too much by the media, civilians who have no idea how its like.

I would also like to know your approach and views on this issue/war and how it should be dealt with, this should be interesting.

sometimes brutal force is needed to teach some people a lesson.

[BajanBastard]

the US has always been too politically correct, we should be able to torture motherfvckers to get information.

i dont think winning the hearts and minds is working.

Hearts and minds my ass, that shit never worked and it would work now. However will running around killing anyone who you suspect is an insurgent get you anywhere? Nope i really don't think so. On the issue of torture, if it's a captured hardcore fighter yeah why not, but not someone who was just rounded up for questioning.

[BajanBastard]

I gotta ask this 1st are you or were you in the military? if yes, that doesnt make me automatically agree with you, but Ill take ur opinion into consideration a lil bit more.

50-70% of our troops dont even kill the enemy, they posture or pretend to etc...., just remember, we're using lighter armor because we dont want to look like were doing a full blown war to satisfy the media, we are influenced too much by the media, civilians who have no idea how its like.

I would also like to know your approach and views on this issue/war and how it should be dealt with, this should be interesting.

sometimes brutal force is needed to teach some people a lesson.

You mind showing me the source of this info? 50-70% of U.S combat troops are NOT kicking insurgent backside? I've got family in the 82nd Airborne and that is not the impression i was given.

Oh and what is the source of the 'lighter armor' comment? You're saying the U.S armed forces are letting soldiers die just to 'please' the media?

Oh my solution to Iraq IMHO is much better than the one you put forward. More troops should have been on the ground from the get go get that is a dead horse.

Anyway what they are doing with the troops they have now seems to be working.

Maybe Baghdad needs more active snipers or sharp shooters, you are sighted digging a hole or moving a dead animal.........you get shot.

Oh and I’m not in the military.

[zodiac666]

Hearts and minds my ass, that shit never worked and it would work now. However will running around killing anyone who you suspect is an insurgent get you anywhere? Nope i really don't think so. On the issue of torture, if it's a captured hardcore fighter yeah why not, but not someone who was just rounded up for questioning.

we should either be really agressive or not agressive at all and get the fvck out. in iraq we should get the fvck out

its difficult though, if you think someone might be a threat you have to be super fvckin carefull about your actions or you'll get in trouble and be made an example of

my CO wouldnt even let us pat down a female with a dress and her face covered up, for all i know it was a male with a weapon under the dress

alot of the "innocent's" know and support the terrorists, if they have valuable information i say get it from them any means necessary

[zodiac666]

I've got family in the 82nd Airborne and that is not the impression i was given.

hell yea, what unit?

[BajanBastard]

hell yea, what unit?

Hmmm I never asked when they were here. It's my cuz and her husband. I'll have to ask.

[IronFreakX]

You mind showing me the source of this info? 50-70% of U.S combat troops are NOT kicking insurgent backside? I've got family in the 82nd Airborne and that is not the impression i was given.

Ofcourse they wont give you that impression Ya think they would tell ya "oh no we didnt shoot, or we acted like we shot em" ??? lol

A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.
In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons.
If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear.




The rest : http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

If you dont believe the info, get the book from a library "ON killing" I have and they have sources, reliable ones, not just theories.

Oh and what is the source of the 'lighter armor' comment? You're saying the U.S armed forces are letting soldiers die just to 'please' the media?

quoted from 3Vandoo, or something of the likes, looking at some info, I do believe he's right not 100% sure but pretty sure.

Oh my solution to Iraq IMHO is much better than the one you put forward. More troops should have been on the ground from the get go get that is a dead horse.

Anyway what they are doing with the troops they have now seems to be working.

yeah, very much......

and No I like Mine better

Maybe Baghdad needs more active snipers or sharp shooters, you are sighted digging a hole or moving a dead animal.........you get shot.

Maybe, if spotted digging a hole be cautios and keep observing, if suspicious object is identified(I didnt say bomb cause what the fvck would someone in a war zone be doing hiding a "bone for his dog maybe?? )..then...BLOW THEIR FVCKING BRAINS OUT same with a dead animal if obsereved stuffing it with explosives, stuff that person with bullets....

[IronFreakX]

we should either be really agressive or not agressive at all and get the fvck out. in iraq we should get the fvck out

its difficult though, if you think someone might be a threat you have to be super fvckin carefull about your actions or you'll get in trouble and be made an example of

my CO wouldnt even let us pat down a female with a dress and her face covered up, for all i know it was a male with a weapon under the dress

alot of the "innocent's" know and support the terrorists, if they have valuable information i say get it from them any means necessary

Ok I want to ask you something, I know women arent allowed in combat, but are they allowed in war zone?? Im pretty sure they are...... they should be allowed to search the females, WTF KIND OF BULLSHIT IS THIS??? NOT SEARCH FEMALES WTH

We shouldnt forget, women and kids in palestine who tried to cross the Israeli border to blow up themselves, hide it under the clothes and blow up our soldiers....

id love the DOUCHEBAG who said dont search to tell the parents of dead soldiers and in this tone :

"Oh you're son died because I didnt let him pat down a female because we all know females dont kill....but yeah he's dead.....take care now...bye bye...."

Thats BS,

[zodiac666]

Ok I want to ask you something, I know women arent allowed in combat, but are they allowed in war zone?? Im pretty sure they are...... they should be allowed to search the females, WTF KIND OF BULLSHIT IS THIS??? NOT SEARCH FEMALES WTH

We shouldnt forget, women and kids in palestine who tried to cross the Israeli border to blow up themselves, hide it under the clothes and blow up our soldiers....

id love the DOUCHEBAG who said dont search to tell the parents of dead soldiers and in this tone :

"Oh you're son died because I didnt let him pat down a female because we all know females dont kill....but yeah he's dead.....take care now...bye bye...."

Thats BS,

that only happened one time (shitty commander at the time, didnt last long), but there are plenty of other incidents similar to that. it shows how afraid alot of people are about getting courtmartialed.

one of my buddies was a SSG, been in for 15yrs, got his 1st DUI and was chaptered out of the army. it doesnt take much to ruin an army career.

yes women are allowed in a combat zone.

[BajanBastard]

Ofcourse they wont give you that impression Ya think they would tell ya "oh no we didnt shoot, or we acted like we shot em" ??? lol

A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.
In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons.
If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear.




The rest : http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

If you dont believe the info, get the book from a library "ON killing" I have and they have sources, reliable ones, not just theories.







quoted from 3Vandoo, or something of the likes, looking at some info, I do believe he's right not 100% sure but pretty sure.





yeah, very much......

and No I like Mine better



Maybe, if spotted digging a hole be cautios and keep observing, if suspicious object is identified(I didnt say bomb cause what the fvck would someone in a war zone be doing hiding a "bone for his dog maybe?? )..then...BLOW THEIR FVCKING BRAINS OUT same with a dead animal if obsereved stuffing it with explosives, stuff that person with bullets....

I still would like to see the source for the info for using light armor. Unless the M1 and Bradly are considered 'light'. U.S combat troops are much better trained now than WW2 and the Korean War. Changing targets to human shape 'pop ups' from standing bulls eyes significantly improved the kill ratio. I find it hard to believe a trained solider would not want to kill someone who is shooting at him.

[eliteforce]

"Kill em all" huh..I guess it's not enough that 2-3 hundred thousand Iraqis have died because of a war that America illegally started..and of cource Iran can start pounding US bases in Iraq with their thousands of ballistic missiles if too many all are killed, or nuclear weapons detonating American cities, forget about taking off the gloves the only option out of this mess is unconditional withdrawel.