• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Marines Killed Four Wounded Iraqi Prisoners: US Reporter

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well these guys can all come back and begin protesting the war, consort with the enemy in Paris, and then run in a failed bid for President under the Democratic party ticket and they'd have so much in common with Kerry that the liberals would love them. After all, Kerry admittedly shot and killed a wounded VC himself.

Sometimes i wonder if stupidity is really limited at all, it seems it isn't.
A quick glance at most of the threads on the first page in P&N should demonstrate clearly that stupidity is boundless.

Is that he best you can do? How about the swell guy who was CIC at the time?
At which time?

Reporting your experiences truthfully is wrong while lying through your teeth is right?
What I find stupid and ignorant is the tedious repetition of the claim that "Bush lied." The best anyone can prove is that Bush was wrong. Claiming that Bush lied is itself a lie because nobody levying that accusation can prove malice aforethought.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
No Conjur, that's not why Falluja was like that. Iraq was like that under Saddam, you just never heard about it. When someone disappeared back then, no one was allowed to tell you about it.
Sure it's why Falluja is like this now. It was nowhere near like this before. 1,200 dead in a week's time? Show me proof that 1,200 residents of Falluja were killed weekly under Saddam.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well these guys can all come back and begin protesting the war, consort with the enemy in Paris, and then run in a failed bid for President under the Democratic party ticket and they'd have so much in common with Kerry that the liberals would love them. After all, Kerry admittedly shot and killed a wounded VC himself.

Sometimes i wonder if stupidity is really limited at all, it seems it isn't.
A quick glance at most of the threads on the first page in P&N should demonstrate clearly that stupidity is boundless.

Is that he best you can do? How about the swell guy who was CIC at the time?
At which time?

Reporting your experiences truthfully is wrong while lying through your teeth is right?
What I find stupid and ignorant is the tedious repetition of the claim that "Bush lied." The best anyone can prove is that Bush was wrong. Claiming that Bush lied is itself a lie because nobody levying that accusation can prove malice aforethought.

I am truly amazed at anyone who claims that the "immediate threat" speech was not a complete and utter lie.

Powell got laughed out of the room when he tried to report findings he probably knew were fake.

The US adminstration painted a picture so weak it broke before they could present it.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.

As more than 50% of the US STILL thinks SH was responsible for 9/11 i'd say two things, 1. Bush did a good job lying his guts out and 2. people are so stupid it is tragic.
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Hopefully this report will get to outlets such as Al-Jazzeer and promote uproar in the Muslim world that will make current insurrgents in Iraq look like toy figurines. Let the uproar dazzle Bush's Junta in horrid ways.

Die. In a fire.

- M4H

Slowly, with a cherry on top.

And whipped cream? :heart:

- M4H

You just had to bring out the whipped cream, didn't you, now i need a wench too. ngrhrrr...
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well these guys can all come back and begin protesting the war, consort with the enemy in Paris, and then run in a failed bid for President under the Democratic party ticket and they'd have so much in common with Kerry that the liberals would love them. After all, Kerry admittedly shot and killed a wounded VC himself.

Sometimes i wonder if stupidity is really limited at all, it seems it isn't.
A quick glance at most of the threads on the first page in P&N should demonstrate clearly that stupidity is boundless.

Is that he best you can do? How about the swell guy who was CIC at the time?
At which time?

Reporting your experiences truthfully is wrong while lying through your teeth is right?
What I find stupid and ignorant is the tedious repetition of the claim that "Bush lied." The best anyone can prove is that Bush was wrong. Claiming that Bush lied is itself a lie because nobody levying that accusation can prove malice aforethought.

I am truly amazed at anyone who claims that the "immediate threat" speech was not a complete and utter lie.
I'm truly amazed that after it's been debunked on numerous occasions, the "imminent"or "immediate" threat crap is still regurgitated by people.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/1218.asp

Powell got laughed out of the room when he tried to report findings he probably knew were fake.
Nice revisionist history. Actually, he did not get laughed out of the room and it sure is strange how the opposition t the war wouldn't even touch the phone conversations that were intercepted and plyed back by Powell. You'd have thought they never existed in the first place with the cricket type sounds that are elicited by bringing them up to certain people.

The US adminstration painted a picture so weak it broke before they could present it.
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.

As more than 50% of the US STILL thinks SH was responsible for 9/11 i'd say two things, 1. Bush did a good job lying his guts out and 2. people are so stupid it is tragic.
Many still believe that. So what? People are entitled to their opinions and many believe Saddam was a skunk and wouldn't put it past him to somehow have been involved. It's kind of like the complete denial by many on the left that Saddam was involved in terrorism, which he was. People believe only what they want.
 
"Shut up you guys. You weren't there and you probably have never been in combat. Face it, these prisoners were probably special Al-queada commandos trained to come back from the dead and explode their entire body and that of anyone within a hundred mile radius at the time they were executed. Poor war planning means the troops have been fighting for too long so they are crazed bezerkers, don't blame them. This is war. Horrible things like torture, execution, and rape happen all the time and you shouldn't complain about it if it does. In fact, if you do, you don't support our troops." ---Arguments of the P&N Chickenhawk, 2nd Edition
 
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
 
Originally posted by: Czar
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
And now we have Marines put into combat on extended tours and they're killing wounded and unarmed prisoners.


Sure is doing wonders for helping freedom march.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
Actually, they didn't deny the camps. They denied the assertion by Powell that chemicals/biologicals were being produced there. Powell also discussed Salman Pak which is not in Kurd controlled territory.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Czar
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
Actually, they didn't deny the camps. They denied the assertion by Powell that chemicals/biologicals were being produced there. Powell also discussed Salman Pak which is not in Kurd controlled territory.
And Salman Pak was all overblown and exaggerated claims. Nothing came out of there that matched even the most minute of claims.
 
That reporter better get his ass out Iraq. He just pissed off a lot of Marines, and bet some of whom have saved his ass a couple of times. His story gathering is done. no unit will want him anywhere near them.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Czar
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
Actually, they didn't deny the camps. They denied the assertion by Powell that chemicals/biologicals were being produced there. Powell also discussed Salman Pak which is not in Kurd controlled territory.
And Salman Pak was all overblown and exaggerated claims. Nothing came out of there that matched even the most minute of claims.
Oh. You mean because of claims from people like Mohammed Aldouri, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, who claimed there was no terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, despite the US having captured foriegn fighters in Iraq claiming they were trained there?

This same ambassador also claims Saddam never gassed the Kurds. :roll:
 
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?

The fact that if a body moves, they are not dead. What would prevent a person from playing dead long enough for people to move carelessly within explosive range. Remember, these people feel they are on a mission where their death does not bring remorse but joy in taking as many opponents with them a possible.

The Marines buddy was just killed by a trap intended to accomplish the fact.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Czar
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.
that picture Powell presented at the UN broke a day later when Kurdish leaders in favor of an invasion said that terorrist training camps were actually their own camps, most of the proof went the same way shortly after
Actually, they didn't deny the camps. They denied the assertion by Powell that chemicals/biologicals were being produced there. Powell also discussed Salman Pak which is not in Kurd controlled territory.
And Salman Pak was all overblown and exaggerated claims. Nothing came out of there that matched even the most minute of claims.
Oh. You mean because of claims from people like Mohammed Aldouri, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, who claimed there was no terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, despite the US having captured foriegn fighters in Iraq claiming they were trained there?

This same ambassador also claims Saddam never gassed the Kurds. :roll:

Ask CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere and put down the talking points. nobody positively knows how and by who the Halabja townfolk were killed.




"A War Crime or an Act of War?
By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. "A War Crime or an Act of War?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
And Salman Pak was all overblown and exaggerated claims. Nothing came out of there that matched even the most minute of claims.
Oh. You mean because of claims from people like Mohammed Aldouri, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, who claimed there was no terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, despite the US having captured foriegn fighters in Iraq claiming they were trained there?

This same ambassador also claims Saddam never gassed the Kurds. :roll:
No.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboa...discussion.cgi.56.html
SEYMOUR M. HERSH
SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE (Cont'd)
Wed Jun 18 16:45:28 2003
208.152.73.27

[...]

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.



http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02445.html
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and "Frontline," the public television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation "was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam," and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain's MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. "We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison," the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. "That' s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff," the former agent said. "They train in basements. You don't need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing."
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?

The fact that if a body moves, they are not dead. What would prevent a person from playing dead long enough for people to move carelessly within explosive range. Remember, these people feel they are on a mission where their death does not bring remorse but joy in taking as many opponents with them a possible.

The Marines buddy was just killed by a trap intended to accomplish the fact.


Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well these guys can all come back and begin protesting the war, consort with the enemy in Paris, and then run in a failed bid for President under the Democratic party ticket and they'd have so much in common with Kerry that the liberals would love them. After all, Kerry admittedly shot and killed a wounded VC himself.

Sometimes i wonder if stupidity is really limited at all, it seems it isn't.
A quick glance at most of the threads on the first page in P&N should demonstrate clearly that stupidity is boundless.

Is that he best you can do? How about the swell guy who was CIC at the time?
At which time?

Reporting your experiences truthfully is wrong while lying through your teeth is right?
What I find stupid and ignorant is the tedious repetition of the claim that "Bush lied." The best anyone can prove is that Bush was wrong. Claiming that Bush lied is itself a lie because nobody levying that accusation can prove malice aforethought.

I am truly amazed at anyone who claims that the "immediate threat" speech was not a complete and utter lie.
I'm truly amazed that after it's been debunked on numerous occasions, the "imminent"or "immediate" threat crap is still regurgitated by people.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/1218.asp

Powell got laughed out of the room when he tried to report findings he probably knew were fake.
Nice revisionist history. Actually, he did not get laughed out of the room and it sure is strange how the opposition t the war wouldn't even touch the phone conversations that were intercepted and plyed back by Powell. You'd have thought they never existed in the first place with the cricket type sounds that are elicited by bringing them up to certain people.

The US adminstration painted a picture so weak it broke before they could present it.
The US admin painted the same picture that every other country did for years and years, until the US wanted to step in and ruin their little oil-for-bribery scam. All of the sudden their tune changed overnight. It was quite astonishing to watch.

I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false.

As more than 50% of the US STILL thinks SH was responsible for 9/11 i'd say two things, 1. Bush did a good job lying his guts out and 2. people are so stupid it is tragic.
Many still believe that. So what? People are entitled to their opinions and many believe Saddam was a skunk and wouldn't put it past him to somehow have been involved. It's kind of like the complete denial by many on the left that Saddam was involved in terrorism, which he was. People believe only what they want.

You are fighting two sides at the same time, on one hand you say that the Admin was lying through their teeth (I am saying that the Admin knew better but continued to bleat the references they knew were false), on the other you find it tedious that this very claim is being made.(What I find stupid and ignorant is the tedious repetition of the claim that "Bush lied.")

I don't get it, it makes no sense unless you are saying thet you are stupid and ignorant.

 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?

The fact that if a body moves, they are not dead. What would prevent a person from playing dead long enough for people to move carelessly within explosive range. Remember, these people feel they are on a mission where their death does not bring remorse but joy in taking as many opponents with them a possible.

The Marines buddy was just killed by a trap intended to accomplish the fact.


Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?

His worry is that the "dead" body (read - wounded insurgent) is holding an explosive device and is waiting until enough Infidels get within range to ensure Allah's satisfaction and 5742 virgins in the Great Beyond.

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?

The fact that if a body moves, they are not dead. What would prevent a person from playing dead long enough for people to move carelessly within explosive range. Remember, these people feel they are on a mission where their death does not bring remorse but joy in taking as many opponents with them a possible.

The Marines buddy was just killed by a trap intended to accomplish the fact.


Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?

His worry is that the "dead" body (read - wounded insurgent) is holding an explosive device and is waiting until enough Infidels get within range to ensure Allah's satisfaction and 5742 virgins in the Great Beyond.

- M4H

In that case why bring up the dead-body booby traps? Those are two totally different threats...
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?
His worry is that the "dead" body (read - wounded insurgent) is holding an explosive device and is waiting until enough Infidels get within range to ensure Allah's satisfaction and 5742 virgins in the Great Beyond.

- M4H
A guy bleeding to death is going to wait 24 hours to detonate himself?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?

In previous conflicts the opponent has been willing to die in order to kill a few more.
Some do it by trickery, others by bravery. Many times a comrade was left behind when he would slow up the unit. Weapons were left to allow him to take down as many of the opponents as possible.
when trickery is used, then one has to plan for it and respond instinctively

The live person could have easily been concealing a weapon. They were apparently face-down. The Marines could have been expected to relax their alertness due to the fact the place had already been "secured".

If they expected dead people, and one was not, then that one could have been faking it from the first sweep.

 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Interesting comment regarding the situation
Another Marine in the man's unit was killed the previous day by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent

May be a case of better safe than sorry. Did the reporter happened to mentioned that. No - not news worthy

How would shooting at a booby-trapped body make you safer?

The fact that if a body moves, they are not dead. What would prevent a person from playing dead long enough for people to move carelessly within explosive range. Remember, these people feel they are on a mission where their death does not bring remorse but joy in taking as many opponents with them a possible.

The Marines buddy was just killed by a trap intended to accomplish the fact.


Okay, if your worry is that a dead body is booby-trapped, how exactly is shooting a live body going to prevent you from being the victim of a booby trap? It sounds like the worry was alive Iraqis killing the marines. If that is the worry, why are you bringing up the dead-body booby traps?

His worry is that the "dead" body (read - wounded insurgent) is holding an explosive device and is waiting until enough Infidels get within range to ensure Allah's satisfaction and 5742 virgins in the Great Beyond.

- M4H

In that case why bring up the dead-body booby traps? Those are two totally different threats...

Personally, I think a booby-trapped dead body and a booby-trapped "dead" body are pretty damned closely related issues. Both are risks to the life of a soldier.

- M4H
 
Back
Top