Interesting Video

[Andrew116]

I thought that doing this stuff was against reg's.

http://www.break.com/index/military_attempts_to_find_insurgents_in_tower.html

[BMF_EOD]

not when a sniper is shooting at you.

[CG51]

Man, they aired that tower out.

[winchester_down]

You mean shooting at a mosque? Yes that is a rule but if i remember correctly Dronetek posted this a while ago and it was said that there were people in the tower shooting machine guns so when that happens , rules are null, you gotta survive.

I'll post the vid dronetek posted when i find it...

[winchester_down]

here it is....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9de84469d2

[22.5degrees]

So our troops are supposed to ignore threats from religious grounds as a show of respect to radical Muslim insrugents who have twisted the Islamic faith into their own sick agenda? F*$k that..... The whole situation has a sick comedic ring to it. The coalition forces who are KILLING people are supposed to do it in some sort of "morally higher" method as those used by the enemy. Apparently not firing on religious sites is one of these. What exactly is moral about killing other humans? War is war. The only ones who care about these silly rules are those who implement them. Unfortunately these rules are only aiding the enemy and hindering our forces.

22.5

[shortyirish12]

G-damn well put sir
:) :) :)

[BLC_Nationalist]

Yeah it's against Geneva Convention "regulations" to use a religious building as cover to attack enemy troops. I suppose you just stand there and let the enemy shoot you because they are hiding in a minaret, what the hell are you supposed to do?

[boone]

here it is....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9de84469d2

Wow.
I've never seen anyone re-post a Vid in the very same thread before.
Cheers

[USMC Poolee]

I've heard many vets say that, if you use a religious building for military purposes (as a garrison, outpost or whatever) its not a place of worship anymore.

I have no opinion on this. I would follow orders or return fire without a second tought.

[mas-36]

Yeah it's against Geneva Convention "regulations" to use a religious building as cover to attack enemy troops. I suppose you just stand there and let the enemy shoot you because they are hiding in a minaret, what the hell are you supposed to do?


But it's not against the Geneva Conventions to fire back. I believe it's quite clear on this issue. Whether it's a religious place, or a hospital, or whatever, if you're recieving enemy fire from that building, you have every right to fire back.

General Schwarzkopf made an interesting reference to this matter in his analysis of Gulf War 1.

[gsm]

another short and sweet clip of a sniper/minaret being taken out;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzd9U2w381M

[AKS]

I am not a supporter of this war BUT it is stupid to blaim the coalition soldiers since in matters like this the insurgent already violated the rules of his religion by bringing a weapon to a mosque and shooting at people while in it.

The fault is with the insurgent. Heck infact if I had to fight a occupying force I would never use something that is holly to me as a protection, knowing very well that it is going to be destroyed.