Too Soft?

[Andy_Copland 0]

http://www.break.com/index/kidgernade.html
OK heres a video, its described as kids throwing grenades. I dont know how accurate that is but its not the point.

Are Britian (especially) and America too soft on these people? If suddenly they were to open up with everything they had in the general direction of those bombers be enough to make people think twice about

A.) Deciding to do this kind of crap
B.) Stop hiding potential attackers

I guess put simply, do you think that brutal responses to these kind of attacks would be enough to save many more lives as it would put out a message?

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Gawain 0]

I can see one thing wrong with that video.

A civilian car was allowed to get in the middle of that patrol/convoy, they should have shot that car out of the way if it didn't yield.

If there were no casualties, the patrol should have double-backed and started to clear houses. Chances are, they will make contact on the way.

There was no shot to take in my opinion, unless there was another 1114 (aka Up armored HMMWV) behind the one that was targeted by the grenades. I hope the gunner on that truck wasn't hurt.

However, when fired upon, we responded with overwhelming firepower (at least that how we did it in Ramadi). A guy shot at me with an AK47, I was in a truck manning a 50 cal. I unloaded nearly 50 rounds at him after he started walking rounds in on my position.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[akarunway 1]

Maybe they want us out of THEIR country

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Michele 1]

Quote

I guess put simply, do you think that brutal responses to these kind of attacks would be enough to save many more lives as it would put out a message?

Well....no.

It would be called a massacre at that point. A massacre of children. And without video, it would be called a massacre of innocent children.

That's the issue; and that's likely why they got IED/grenades ('cause they look different than grenades, but who'm I to say...), put on the side of the road, and told "go throw/fight...". Because they didn't think they'd get fired on.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[CDRINF 1]

I just recently returned from Iraq. Nothing over there is exactly as it seems at first glance. Do you think the video man was there just by chance? You think maybe he is hoping that the patrol over-reacts and kills a bunch of kids on the street? This clip shows perfectly how this war is less about force, and more about ideas and images.

The insurgent's true target is the video audience, not the soldiers. The real US target should be the video man, not the kids. The video man is in a win/win situation unless you can grab him.

Check it out: he pays the kids to throw the grenade and then sets up to film. If the patrol returns fire on the kids he edits the film to show US troops killing innocent children. If the patrol does not return fire, he has a video of young freedom fighters scaring off the big bad US soldiers. The video gets hung on an insurgent web site, and eventually picked up by western media and internet. It is intended to evoke the response from us as follows: 1) "maybe we should just kill a bunch of them and they will think twice" (reinforcing our image as brutal occupiers) or 2) "My god, even the kids hate us and our troops are defenseless against them, we should just leave." (breaking our will to continue the fight).

CDR

[billvon 3,089]

>do you think that brutal responses to these kind of attacks would
>be enough to save many more lives as it would put out a message?

It's a no-win situation. You kill everyone, and you create a thousand more insurgents - then you have to kill _them_, and you create ten thousand. Or you retreat, and you give them more confidence. Given that the whole idea is to eventually retreat, that's probably the wiser course of action.