Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do'

Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do'
Thread Tools
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2003, 11:51 PM
 
Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do'

April 8 2003, 12:49 PM


When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade off the body of a dead paramilitary, US Army Private Nick Boggs made his decision.

He unloaded machinegun fire and the boy, whom he puts at about 10 years old, fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of waste land at Karbala.

Boggs, a softly spoken 21-year-old former hunting guide from Alaska, says he knew when he joined the army 18 months ago he might someday have to make a decision like that.

He hoped it would never come and, although he has no regrets about opening fire, it is clear he'd rather it wasn't a child he killed.

"I did what I had to do. I don't have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something," he said after fierce weekend fighting in this Shi'ite Muslim holy city that left dozens of Iraqis and one American soldier dead.

As US troops take the Iraq war out of the desert and into the main cities, they are increasingly seeing children in their line of fire.

Many are innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time and military officers concede that some may have been killed in artillery or mortar fire, or shot down by soldiers whose judgment is impaired in the "fog of war".

But others are apparently being used as fighters or more often as scouts and weapons collectors. US officers and soldiers say that turns them into legitimate targets.

"I think they're cowards," Boggs said of the parents or Fedayeen paramilitaries who send out children to the battlefield.

"I think they thought we wouldn't shoot kids. But we showed them we don't care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe."

The boy he killed was with another child of around the same age when they reached for the RPG and came under fire. Boggs thinks the second boy was also hit but other soldiers think he escaped and that he dragged his friend's dead body away.

Boggs' platoon leader, Lieutenant Jason Davis, said the young soldier struggles with what happened even if he had no choice but to shoot.

"Does it haunt him? Absolutely. It haunts me and I didn't even pull the trigger," he said. "It blows my mind that they can put their children into that kind of situation."

Although Boggs plays down suggestions he was upset by the incident, he also says his view of combat has changed since Saturday, when his platoon came under intense RPG and rifle fire from the moment they entered Karbala until way after nightfall.

Before - like many young soldiers - he says he was anxious to get his first "kill" in a war. Now, he seems more mature.

"It's not about killing people. It's about accomplishing a mission ... When we talk, we don't say how scared we were. But we found out how you feel when an RPG hits the wall just up from you and you think 'Damn, I could have been right there'," he said.

Reuters


Discuss.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 12:00 AM
 
Yes, war is f*ucked up.
     
L'enfanTerrible
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 12:05 AM
 
This is terribly sad. I think it's more evidence that war is barbaric, and we need to perfect the art of diplomacy, or at the very least attempt it with some sort of true motivation.

This quote scares me:
"I think they thought we wouldn't shoot kids. But we showed them we don't care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe."
- emphasis added
     
mixin visuals
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 12:11 AM
 
sucks
Technology, Computing & Creativity - www.clubmedia.com

Overflowing with Design Links - www.mixinvisuals.com

VW Sites.com - Links to the Volkswagen World - www.vwsites.com
     
Kitschy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oklahoma City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
This is terribly sad. I think it's more evidence that war is barbaric...
Indeed.

"It blows my mind that they can put their children into that kind of situation."
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:19 AM
 
Of course, brave US superheroes are not afraid of children..
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:29 AM
 
If bushists can launch preemptive strikes on whole countries, why a single US soldier can't launch his own preemptive strike on children? Of course, he can and he must. After all, the 10 year old will grow up, and someday in future may even think about revenge for his killed family and parents. PFFFF! WTF!! Ungrateful for democracy and oil privatization! How they, little stupid brown men speaking incomprehensible strange languages, dare to sell their own oil without US permission, and even resist his majesty Bush?

Absolutely unbearable! Uncle Sam knows better than the little brown men, whats best for them. First, oil will go to Uncle Sam - he needs it, after all; no, he is not going to pay for oil - Uncle Sam will privatize it and own it, so little brown men will be freed from difficult decisions such as receiving true value of their natural resources. Are they still ungrateful? OK, Uncle Sam will put his own little brown men to rule others, so it will resemble democracy. What? NO one elected the provisional pro-US government?? WTF? Who cares? Lastly, little brown men will have to pay for everything Uncle Sam destroyed during Shock and Awe by their own little dinars in accounts, which Uncle Sam freezed at his own will - dont be so stupid to keep your own little brown dinars in US banks anymore, haha. Are they still ungrateful? Oh, what an ungrateful nation, what an ungrateful world!
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:31 AM
 
"I think they thought we wouldn't shoot kids. But we showed them we don't care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe."
Why does that quote scare you? Isn't that complete and total common sense? I mean, wouldn't you do what you had to do to stay alive and kill anything or anyone that was trying to kill you?

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
L'enfanTerrible
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Kitschy:
Indeed.
"It blows my mind that they can put their children into that kind of situation."
Yes, it blows my mind too that there are children in Iraq. I mean, how dare the adults in Iraq let their kids live in a warzone?

I'm insinuating something from the tone of your post, Kitschy, but you don't really mean to tell me that you believe every child who has been a casuality of "operation Iraqi freedom" is because they took up arms against the US at the behest of their elders.. Sure, there are some barbaric, cowardly people in Iraq, but I don't think more than a miniscule percent of the population would put their children at risk...

I mean, even the "great" George W Bush himself has stated that they are liberating a deserving people who just want to live in peace and not under oppression. This sentiment is backed up by the American people to justify the occupation of Iraq. The killing of innocents is justified in your minds, to save a people who "put their children into that kind of situation".. Backwards fuking nation of hypocrits...
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
How they, little stupid brown men speaking incomprehensible strange languages, dare to sell their own oil without US permission, and even resist his majesty Bush?
Is that how YOU see people in the middle east? It must be since you are the only one saying "little stupid brown men." Are you claiming this to be a racist war you? If it were, the war would already be over and there would be NO dead British and American soldiers. How dare you accuse the US, a country with citizens living in it from every country in the world, to have a high brow racist view of the middle east.

Absolutely unbearable! Uncle Sam knows better than the little brown men, whats best for them. First, oil will go to Uncle Sam - he needs it, after all; no, he is not going to pay for oil - Uncle Sam will privatize it and own it, so little brown men will be freed from difficult decisions such as receiving true value of their natural resources. Are they still ungrateful? OK, Uncle Sam will put his own little brown men to rule others, so it will resemble democracy. What? NO one elected the provisional pro-US government?? WTF? Who cares? Lastly, little brown men will have to pay for everything Uncle Sam destroyed during Shock and Awe by their own little dinars in accounts, which Uncle Sam freezed at his own will - dont be so stupid to keep your own little brown dinars in US banks anymore, haha. Are they still ungrateful? Oh, what an ungrateful nation, what an ungrateful world!
Your opinion of the US, the people who live there and the government that they've elected, is pathetic and misguided. Sure, it's an opinion and you're entitled to it for sure, but your ranting hatred is unbelievable. You paint the US to be such a monster, when in fact the US is going out of its way to SPARE the non-combatant civilians of Iraq. As far as the rest of your rant...you've been smokin' too much of your name.

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
idjeff
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Torrance by day, Pasadena by night
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:04 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Yes, it blows my mind too that there are children in Iraq. I mean, how dare the adults in Iraq let their kids live in a warzone?

I'm insinuating something from the tone of your post, Kitschy, but you don't really mean to tell me that you believe every child who has been a casuality of "operation Iraqi freedom" is because they took up arms against the US at the behest of their elders.. Sure, there are some barbaric, cowardly people in Iraq, but I don't think more than a miniscule percent of the population would put their children at risk...

I mean, even the "great" George W Bush himself has stated that they are liberating a deserving people who just want to live in peace and not under oppression. This sentiment is backed up by the American people to justify the occupation of Iraq. The killing of innocents is justified in your minds, to save a people who "put their children into that kind of situation".. Backwards fuking nation of hypocrits...
Why are you trying to "Spin" that quote? Did it ever occur to you that the soldier meant that the children of militants who were encouraged to fight? I don't believe he's talking about neighborhood kids who are playing kickball. Just a thought.

You gotta tame the beast before you let it out of its cage.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:07 AM
 
Before passing judgement, what would any of us do in such a situation?

A ten year old has a weapon pointed at you that will blow a good sized hole in a tank, and in a few seconds, may well turn you into oozing red pulp on the wall behind you.

The weapon doesn't discriminate; a 10 year old or a 110 year old could aim it and pull the trigger.

So what do you do?

No bullcrap, you're really there. The kid is real, the RPG is real, the gun in your hand is real.

What would you do?

Anyone?

Nope, not an easy question, if you're honest about it. One I'd never judge anyone else for having the misfortune of having to answer for real, unless I'd been there myself. But I haven't.

May none of us ever have to.
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:22 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Before passing judgement, what would any of us do in such a situation?

A ten year old has a weapon pointed at you that will blow a good sized hole in a tank, and in a few seconds, may well turn you into oozing red pulp on the wall behind you.

The weapon doesn't discriminate; a 10 year old or a 110 year old could aim it and pull the trigger.

So what do you do?

No bullcrap, you're really there. The kid is real, the RPG is real, the gun in your hand is real.

What would you do?

Anyone?




Nope, not an easy question, if you're honest about it. One I'd never judge anyone else for having the misfortune of having to answer for real, unless I'd been there myself. But I haven't.

May none of us ever have to.

Stop the aggression, leave the country, lets iraqi people decide fate of Saddam. As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
Stop the aggression, leave the country, lets iraqi people decide fate of Saddam. As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
Yes, the Iraqi people could have took out Saddam and his armies by themselves.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
Stop the aggression, leave the country, lets iraqi people decide fate of Saddam. As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
Ahh yes, the first person who missed the 'no bullcrap' part.

Save the speech for the kid with the RPG. I'm sure he'll care.

Anyone else?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
Stop the aggression, leave the country, lets iraqi people decide fate of Saddam. As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
Look up for a second.

What color is the sky there?
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:30 AM
 
Zim, nations in Eastern Europe, Russia and Mongolia have destroyed such monster totalitarian regimes, that Saddam compared to them is just old kind grandfather. They did it on own, without military intervention from outside. Stalin example shows that military intervention from outside on the contrary strengthens totalitar regimes, since they are able to show aggressors as a factor, justifiying their existence.
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Look up for a second.

What color is the sky there?
I guess yours is filled by stars and stripes and smiling giant face of God hand, a.k.a George W. Bush.
     
clod
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
Stop the aggression, leave the country, lets iraqi people decide fate of Saddam. As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
"Saddam is only killing his own people. It's none of our buisiness!"
     
Hash
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:38 AM
 
Originally posted by clod:
"Saddam is only killing his own people. It's none of our buisiness!"
When Pol Pot killed 50% of 7 million population, Pinochet fascists were shooting thousands in stadiums, Stressner in Paraguay killing ten of thousands during 30 years, Franco fascists taking country over and Somosa killing Nicaragua, it of course wasnt Uncle Sam business. Mind you, some of them were best friends of US. Even in such places as Rwanda millions were killed, its wasnt US business
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:41 AM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:26 PM. )
.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
When Pol Pot killed 50% of 7 million population, Pinochet fascists were shooting thousands in stadiums, Stressner in Paraguay killing ten of thousands during 30 years, Franco fascists taking country over and Somosa killing Nicaragua, it of course wasnt Uncle Sam business. Mind you, some of them were best friends of US. Even in such places as Rwanda millions were killed, its wasnt US business
And none of these places are Iraq, or the Iraqi people. Bad comparison.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
And none of these places are Iraq, or the Iraqi people. Bad comparison.
Explain to me, if you will, how this is a bad comparison please.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:53 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Before passing judgement, what would any of us do in such a situation?

A ten year old has a weapon pointed at you that will blow a good sized hole in a tank, and in a few seconds, may well turn you into oozing red pulp on the wall behind you.

The weapon doesn't discriminate; a 10 year old or a 110 year old could aim it and pull the trigger.

So what do you do?
The kid didn't have a weapon pointed at anybody. He "stooped to pick it up".

As a father of two I'm pretty sure I would rather take my chances than kill a ten year old.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 03:54 AM
 
I will as soon as you can explain just how Iraq was supposed to overthrow Saddam. I mean they were afraid of him till the end, some still are.

Iraq could not have done this on their own.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I will as soon as you can explain just how Iraq was supposed to overthrow Saddam. I mean they were afraid of him till the end, some still are.

Iraq could not have done this on their own.
I asked you a perfectly legitimate question. What does your question above have to do with my initial one?

If you don't want to answer, cannot answer just say so. No need to be evasive.
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:08 AM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:26 PM. )
.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:08 AM
 
Originally posted by clod:
"Saddam is only killing his own people. It's none of our buisiness!"
Let us remember that this war isn't about genocide or freeing the Iraqi people. It's about "preemptively stopping weapons of mass destruction from getting into terrorists hands". That was what the US presented to the UN. Nothing about genocide - if anything freeing the Iraqi people is (or may be) a side-effect. GWB doesn't give a flying fuck about freeing the Iraqis. Stop moving the goal posts.
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:11 AM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:27 PM. )
.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:29 AM
 
Originally posted by daimoni:
Sure. But not if it meant I (or one of my comrades) wouldn't be able to come home to our own children again. This is a live battlefield we're talking here, not a grocery aisle.

It would be one thing if the kid was attempting to surrender. But I don't know about you... but those RPG's really sting.
Gee thanks for the condescension. "Not a grocery aisle".

You disappoint me. I figured you were the type of guy I would want in my platoon but I've changed my mind now. I don't want anyone that would kill a kid to save his own arse. That's gutless.

And if I died as a result at least my kids wouldn't remember me as a child killer.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E26277,00.html

Read that. Let's drop the delusion that these soldiers are well trained elite forces. For the most part they're just ****-scared trigger-happy 19 year olds.
     
L'enfanTerrible
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:30 AM
 
Originally posted by idjeff:
Why are you trying to "Spin" that quote? Did it ever occur to you that the soldier meant that the children of militants who were encouraged to fight? I don't believe he's talking about neighborhood kids who are playing kickball. Just a thought.
Yet, the neighborhood kids are getting killed. If the ball goes into the street, don't chase after it right away before looking both ways, and looking up.

idjeff, your utter lack of sympathy for the peope of Iraq tells me you either a) are a cruel person or b) don't know what the fuk you are talking about.
     
L'enfanTerrible
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, the Iraqi people could have took out Saddam and his armies by themselves.
No, America allowed Saddam to get the power he holds, they should be obligated to take him out of power, and the costs of doing that is on their hands.

Don't you think it's kind of fuked up that twenty years ago, Drumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein??
     
yakkiebah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:41 AM
 


"I wanted to become an army officer when I grow up, but not anymore."

i think the pre-emptive strikes are working! he won't be fighting for sure...
and look at the smile on his face, if he had arms he would be waving the stars and stripes.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2517852
( Last edited by yakkiebah; Apr 8, 2003 at 04:55 AM. )
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:48 AM
 
Originally posted by daimoni:
Read the UN resolutions... you know, the ones that only the coalition troops have bothered to enforce. Just read the resolutions.

It's all there.
I lost track. Are we supporting the UN this week or ignoring them?

I must have missed the part where the US went to the UN and said "Look, Saddam committed genocide a few years ago so we want to invade Iraq and free the Iraqi people". Or perhaps it didn't happen. Perhaps the US went to the UN with incredibly flimsy (and partially fabricated) information on WMD and were politely told to shove it.

And perhaps now that the US isn't finding warehouses full of WMD marked "To Osama love Saddam", the US government is starting to pretend this is actually about freeing an oppressed people.

It isn't.

If we had invaded under that pretense we would be in all kinds of trouble right now.
     
clod
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
I don't want anyone that would kill a kid to save his own arse. That's gutless.

And if I died as a result at least my kids wouldn't remember me as a child killer.
Killing children is not good, and this incident is very unfortunate, but when ANYBODY points an RPG at you, you have no choice but to kill them. The people to blame here are the ones that put the child there in the first place.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 05:05 AM
 
Don't forget: This is all about "preemptively" saving the US from "potential" attacks.

80% of Americans "now accept the Bush administration's contention... that Hussein has 'close ties' to al-Qaeda. And 60% say they believe he bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"More than three-fourths of Americans � including two-thirds of liberals and 70% of Democrats � now say they support the decision to go to war. And more than four-fifths of these war supporters say they still will back the military action even if allied forces don't find evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

"...many might endorse action against Iran or Syria."

     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 06:00 AM
 
Originally posted by clod:
but when ANYBODY points an RPG at you, you have no choice but to kill them.
This is the second time in this thread that someone has implied that the kid posed a direct threat to Boggs i.e. he was pointing an RPG launcher at Boggs. The article says:
When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade off the body of a dead paramilitary, US Army Private Nick Boggs ... unloaded machinegun fire and the boy."
Later on the article says:
"But others are apparently being used as fighters or more often as scouts and weapons collectors. US officers and soldiers say that turns them into legitimate targets.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "rocket propelled grenade" is a little thing that looks like a mini bomb. It needs to go into an RPG launcher to be of any use. The article says the kid was picking up a "rocket propelled grenade" (not a launcher) which suggests he was one of the majority who are weapons collectors (in this case collecting ammo). In any event, he hadn't picked up whatever it is he was going for and certainly hadn't aimed it at anyone, so he wasn't a direct threat to Boggs at the time of his death. The US Army considers weapons collectors legitimate targets. In all likelihood he was killed because he was recovering weapons not because he was a direct threat to Boggs.
( Last edited by Troll; Apr 8, 2003 at 06:07 AM. )
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 06:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
This is the second time in this thread that someone has implied that the kid posed a direct threat to Boggs i.e. he was pointing an RPG launcher at Boggs. The article says:Later on the article says: Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "rocket propelled grenade" is a little thing that looks like a mini bomb. It needs to go into an RPG launcher to be of any use. The article says the kid was picking up a "rocket propelled grenade" (not a launcher) which suggests he was one of the majority who are weapons collectors (in this case collecting ammo). In any event, he hadn't picked up whatever it is he was going for and certainly hadn't aimed it at anyone, so he wasn't a direct threat to Boggs. The US Army considers weapons collectors legitimate targets. In all likelihood he was killed because he was recovering weapons not because he was a direct threat to Boggs.

I really, really want to agree with you. But don't forget that after picking up the grenade he'd be handing them to somebody with the hardware needed to use use it. So in a way that does make ammunitions collectors legitimate targets. Although I daresay that the boy had very little idea of what he was doing and why he was doing it. Or why he got killed.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 06:10 AM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
But don't forget that after picking up the grenade he'd be handing them to somebody with the hardware needed to use use it. So in a way that does make ammunitions collectors legitimate targets.
I'm not suggesting he wasn't a legimitate target; I just think people should stick to the facts and not say that he was killed because he was aiming an RPG at Boggs.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 08:09 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
.

Don't you think it's kind of fuked up that twenty years ago, Drumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein??
Actually, I think it's more f*cked up that they both have the same hair styles two decades later.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 08:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
As former post communist countries show, nations and people can change their governments themselves.
Both the north and the south tried. They were massacred. In the Shia south alone, it is estimated that Saddam's troops killed between 30,000-80,000 people to put down the updrising. I've heard similiar numbers for the north...and I've heard larger numbes for the north.

They tried to rise up and change thier government in '92, and it didn't work.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 08:35 AM
 
I wonder....

If an armed child approached you in the mall, and you had a chance to kill him, and prevent him from most likely killing you and others (he says he hates everyone there).....

Would you take the shot?

Or would you let him shoot you?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 08:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Later on the article says: Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "rocket propelled grenade" is a little thing that looks like a mini bomb. It needs to go into an RPG launcher to be of any use. The article says the kid was picking up a "rocket propelled grenade" (not a launcher
US Troops generally refer to the entire weapon as an RPG. Nobody that I know distinguishes between an RPG and an RPG launcher in ordinary conversation. In fact, I'm not even sure if the launchers are reusable. Most hand-held anti-tank weapons are fire and throw away. At least, the American equivalents to the Soviet RPG are. I had the same training as these troops and I have zero familiarity with the operation of an RPG. I just know roughly what they are.

It should also go without saying that it is even less likely that a journalist would be precise in his use of military terminology. They have even less familiarity with the weapons. In this war I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Bradleys and Warriors called "tanks," British troops referred to as Americans. SKS and AKMS referred to as "AK-47s," Al-Samouds referred to as "Scuds" and so on.

Anyway, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion you make. The article refers to an RPG, which could easily have been a ready-to-go weapon for all we know.


Note: this post responds only to the quoted portion above. I am not commenting on the entire thread.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 8, 2003 at 08:57 AM. )
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:01 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
US Troops generally refer to the entire weapon as an RPG. Nobody that I know distinguishes between an RPG and an RPG launcher in ordinary conversation. In fact, I'm not even sure if the launchers are reusable. Most hand-held anti-tank weapons are fire and throw away. At least, the American equivalents to the Soviet RPG are. Like most other American troops, I have zero familiarity with the operation of an RPG. I just know roughly what they are.

It should also go without saying that it is even less likely that a journalist would be precise in his use of military terminology. They have even less familiarity with the weapons. In this war I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Bradleys and Warriors called "tanks," British troops referred to as Americans. SKS and AKMS referred to as "AK-47s," Al-Samouds referred to as "Scuds" and so on.

Anyway, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion you make. The article refers to an RPG, which could easily have been a ready-to-go weapon for all we know.


Note: this post responds only to the quoted portion above. I am not commenting on the entire thread.
Like you said If the article refers to the RPG as "ready to go" then I think he is in his right to defend himself if he felt there might be a threat. It's like a cop in the city, if a kid pulls a gun even if it is a toy how do you know it's not real or loaded or not? A cop probably wouldn't kill the kid but it is the same type of thing. Maybe I'm a cruel person, but to me it doesn't matter who pick up the RPG if it's loaded and ready to go it's a threat to me, therefore its going to be either them or me.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:13 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Anyway, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion you make. The article refers to an RPG, which could easily have been a ready-to-go weapon for all we know.
No, actually, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion others made namely that the kid was aiming an RPG at them. That was my "conclusion". I merely pointed out that on a balance, the information that we do have suggests that the kid was a weapons collector and that was the reason why he was killed.

I specifically dealt with the point that it may have been an RPG he was going for OR an RPG plus launcher.
Originally posted by Troll:
In any event, he hadn't picked up whatever it is he was going for and certainly hadn't aimed it at anyone, so he wasn't a direct threat to Boggs at the time of his death.
The journalist mentions specifically that the majority of the kids out there are weapons collectors and that this kid was shot while stooping to pick up. Both of those facts suggest to me that he was shot because he was a potential rather than a direct threat to their security. Now, if you disagree I'd be keen to hear what conclusion you draw from the facts as we know them.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
No, actually, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion others made namely that the kid was aiming an RPG at them. That was my "conclusion". I merely pointed out that on a balance, the information that we do have suggests that the kid was a weapons collector and that was the reason why he was killed.

I specifically dealt with the point that it may have been an RPG he was going for OR an RPG plus launcher.
OK, if that is your point, then I agree. There is no evidence here that conclusively shows what happened. We don't know what the status of the weapon was, and we certainly don't know whether the kid pointed it at anyone. Neither do we know that he didn't.

Basically, I don't trust a single journalist's description enough on these things to draw any solid conclusion. Most of the journalist's reports I have seen thus far are more or less sloppy and inaccurate. That's not necessarily their fault, it is just that very few journalists have any military training. I therefore wouldn't make anything of his use of the term RPG, and nor the soldier's since that just conforms to normal lingo.

More importantly, like eyewitnesses reports to the police after a cime, what he thinks he saw, and what he actually saw may not be quite the same thing. One report therefore doesn't tell us enough to dissect what really happened.

On prior practice (e.g. Somalia), if the situation is in any way doubtful, there will be an investigation at some later point when things have calmed down. I do not presume to prejudge that investigation (if there is one) in any way. However, if that investigation concludes that this was an armed civilian (even a child), it will conclude that the civilian was in fact a combatant and a threat to the troops in the area. If so, he was a legitimate target and the soldier was right to shoot. If that is the case, then the legal and moral culpability for this child's death lies with those who pressed a child into military service, not with the soldier confronted with a horrible dilemma.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:39 AM
 
apparently tis isnt too big a deal...might be cause the kid isnt an American.

killing children (as long as they arent American) is alright in the name of 'peace' or 'stability' or 'freedom' or 'anti-terrorism' or 'liberation'....
     
Kitschy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oklahoma City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Hash:
...[W]hy a single US soldier can't launch his own preemptive strike on children?
OK, seems there's two points that should be addressed. The first is the issue of pre-emptiveness. In this particular instance, are you saying that this kid (or whoever) MUST shoot you first in order for you to justify a response? If we did that, we would have lost hundreds or thousands of more troops. Or, as General Patton said so eloquently, "You don't win a war by dying for your country; You win a war by making the other SOB die for his country."

Second is the point of this kid being a child. Now, I would have probably hesitated, but obviously, even if this kid was just picking it up, he would have probably given it to somebody who WOULD have used it. Hey, it's a tough call. Different soldiers probably would have done different things.

As for the rest of your post about "Brown men" I'm not sure what you were trying to get across there.

     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 10:03 AM
 
Originally posted by typoon:
Like you said If the article refers to the RPG as "ready to go" then I think he is in his right to defend himself if he felt there might be a threat.
I agree with you partially. If someone is endangering my life; if it's a me or him situation, I pop him first. For me, the real point of this article is that American troops consider 10 year olds that AREN'T aiming at them, but are scouting or collecting weapons to be legimitimate targets and they feel that they are entitled to kill those targets BEFORE they pose a direct threat.

Okay, I'll give my take on this and open myself to the inevitable assault. If it was me, I'd keep my sights trained on the kids, but I'd wait. If one of them starts lifting that RPG onto his shoulder, I'd open fire (short burst, I don't "unload" on the kid and I go for legs and arms). If the kid starts running away with the RPG, I leave him alone. Given the difference in relative power of the two forces, 500 RPG's extra in their hands isn't going to make a difference and that's much more than this kid is going to be able to collect. With our attrition rate sitting at below 0.05%, and them having a supply of RPG's already, the chances of THAT particular RPG doing any damage to our side are remote to say the least. On a balance, killing a child versus the potential harm that may be caused by an Iraqi soldier getting hold of another RPG, for me comes out in favour of preserving the life. Besides, there is a remote (note, I say remote) possibility that this kid has entirely different intentions. Maybe this kid thinks he's picking up a toy, maybe he thinks he needs to take a weapon home to protect his family, maybe someone will kill his Mom if he doesn't bring them the RPG.

This site explains what an RPG is and how it works. You'll see that the Soviet version of the launcher is reusable and it's a rather bulky, heavy (10kg is a big weight for a 10 year old) shoulder launched thing, that I doubt a 10 year COULD even operate.
     
Kitschy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oklahoma City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 10:04 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I'm insinuating something from the tone of your post, Kitschy, but you don't really mean to tell me that you believe every child who has been a casuality of "operation Iraqi freedom" is because they took up arms against the US at the behest of their elders.
No, I don't mean to really tell you that at all.

I'm saying, if a kid is going to shoot me, then I will shoot him.

I do think it's horrible that the military even considers using children on the battelfield for whatever reason. It's horribly sad.

I don't think more than a miniscule percent of the population would put their children at risk...
I just hope you're right.

The killing of innocents is justified in your minds, to save a people who "put their children into that kind of situation".. Backwards fuking nation of hypocrits...
Who are you referring to as innocents? The miniscule percent of the population who force their kids to the battlefield? As difficult as that is, if the kid has the intent of killing me, is it not logical that I should try to preserve my own life? What do you suggest?

I don't think killing innocents IS justified like you said.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,