When is a civilian not a civilian - ask your wife!

[Jubilation T Cornpone]

Although I tend to hang around the edge of the forum, passing time catching up on what the ordinary (almost) man /woman thinks about the world today from their respective countries, I thought I would share with you a conversation I had with my wife back in September during the British armys spectacular jailbreak in Basra. We were watching the footage of the incident on television and had just reached the point where one of the Warriors was petrol bombed and the turret gunner/commander was bailing out with his uniform ablaze, dodging bricks. The conversation went thus:

Karen: Oh my God, why don't they fire back?
Me:What?
Karen: The soldiers, why don't they fire, aren't they armed? Doesn't the tank have guns?
Me: Its not a tank, its an APC. You're worse than GMTV.
Karen: Don't get smart, its got a turret and tracks, doesn't it have weapons?
Me: Yes, its got a 30mm which would ruin the crowds day if they let fly.
Karen: So why don't they fire?
Me: Its a crowd of civilians! You can't fire on civilians!
Karen:But they are using petrol bombs and bricks, they can't have it both ways.
Me: Some of them are, not all of them. Look, that crowd is at least two or three hundred strong. You can't just open up on them for the sake of a couple of dozen idiots.
Karen: But thy are not just protesting, they are trying to kill the soldiers.
Me Doesn't make a difference.
Karen: But thats stupid! What if it was a crowd of uniformed soldiers and only the front two or three were firing? Wouldn't you fire at them all?
Me: Yes, of course but they would all be legitimate targets because they are all part of the same group of soldiers!
Karen: You are telling me that no one else in the crowd has noticed that their group is using petrol bombs and bricks? Do they think they're being used in a nice way or something? Does the burning tank...
Me: Its not a TANK!!
Karen: Alright! The burning...er...
Me: APC.
Karen:I heard! Do the crowd think the burning APC is something that naturally occurs, some sort of spontaneous military combustion and that the flames wont kill anyone?
Me: No, I'm sure they all realise whats happening but you can't just fire on civilians!
Karen:But they are trying to kill the soldiers!
Me: Yes but you can't fire on them!
Karen: What? How stupid is that.Do they have some sort of dispensation from the authorities or something?!?
Me: Killing civilians doesn't look good....
Karen:And burning tan...APC's and soldiers do?
Me: No, but if you fire on the crowd with a 30mm Rarden you will hit more than just the ones throwing the missiles.
Karen: But you said if it was a group of soldiers in uniform you would fire on them all regardless of how few of them had fired on you.
Me: Yes but you assume they are all dangerous. They are all of the same unit, they are all soldiers so they are legitimate targets.
Karen: Because they are all classed as soldiers and all could theoretically fire at you?
Me: Thats it!
Karen: So if you have a group of civilians, some of which are using lethal force and the rest are happy to stay with it and go along with this course of action shouldn't you assume they are all capable of lethal force. I mean, if the civilians don't want to be associated with the actions of the ones at the front they should leave. They shouldn't assume they are above the law.
Me: er...well...er...
Karen: I wouldn't stay. I'd assume because my group is using force intended to kill the soldiers that the soldiers will fire back. You don't have to be Einstein to work that out.
Me: Er....
Karen: In fact, aren't they then classesd as Guerillas..er..insurgents?
Me: Its not allowed, its just not allowed, thats the way it is!
Karen: So when our soldiers fire back in defence they will get in trouble but when the civilians try and kill our soldiers its perfectly okay is it?
Me: Well...er...
Karen: This is a really stupid war. We'd have been better leaving the armed forces at home and sending in civilians!

I gave up at that point. The problem is, I can almost see where she is coming from but I just can't explain in words that she will accept!

Thought I'd share it with you.

Gerard.

[Adrian II]

Thought I'd share it with you.Thanks, Gerard! Quite hilarious, and quite true. In your place I suppose I would have answered 'We do not fire into crowds because we are not terrorists. If we gave upon that principle, we might as well nuke the entire country.'

It wouldn't work though, would it? Women and war, don't get me started. ~:rolleyes:

[Red Harvest]

Quite true.

When they are attacking and attempting to kill or maim, they are no longer civilians in my book. Mow 'em down and make the world a better place. Afterall, when you have concentrated the troublemakers in one spot, makes sense to wipe them out.

[QwertyMIDX]

It's always a bad idea to make martyrs.

Anyway, I doubt many people here have been to a protest that turned violent, but most people involded haven't figured out what happened until they go home, talk to other people who were there, and watch the news report (or read something on IndyMedia more likely).

[Adrian II]

Quite true.

When they are attacking and attempting to kill or maim, they are no longer civilians in my book. Mow 'em down and make the world a better place. Afterall, when you have concentrated the troublemakers in one spot, makes sense to wipe them out.
Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here
And fill me from the crown to the toe topfull
Of direst cruelty; make thick my blood,
Stop up th'access and passage to remorse
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose.

[Duke Malcolm]

It is an AFV, not an APC...

[Somebody Else]

Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here
And fill me from the crown to the toe topfull
Of direst cruelty; make thick my blood,
Stop up th'access and passage to remorse
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose.

Macbeth! Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

Trouble is, with a crowd, random irritants can merge in and start causing trouble, even if the majority of the crowd is peaceful. A whole bunch of people in uniform however serve a common purpose, and unless they lack any form of discipline whatsoever, act as one.

Plus, it's easier to identify someone in uniform as a combatant, whereas you take the gun/molotov cocktail/brick/kazoo away from a non-uniformed corpse, it looks just like an innocent bystander - mowed down by the evil empire.

[Jubilation T Cornpone]

It is an AFV, not an APC...

I see where you are coming from KM. I actually class it as an IFV but my wife understands the concept of an APC better than IFV or AFV! Its the same concept as GMTV reporting all armoured vehicles as tanks! Point taken though.

Gerard.

[ichi]

Tell her about the 'Boston Massacre'. Its probably been exaggerated, but kids in the US are still taught that the damn British troops opened fire on colonial civilains.

Most Americans love the British, but we all also subconsciously resent you for doing this, even though it happened over 200 years ago.

Point being, don't use massive military power to fire into crowds of civilians, unless you want to make martyrs of the dead and enemies of the population.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/massacre2a.jpg


When they are attacking and attempting to kill or maim, they are no longer civilians in my book. Mow 'em down and make the world a better place. Afterall, when you have concentrated the troublemakers in one spot, makes sense to wipe them out.

As the descendant and beneficiary of revolutionary terrorists, I have to say that there's more to it than mowing down troublemakers. As Reagan said, one's man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

ichi:bow:

[Watchman]

Collective retribution is chiefly a really good way to make yourself look like a total and utter tyrant. Mind you, if it becomes a habit, you actually turn into one too which is no doubt one reason it's met with such reflexive loathing...

[Tribesman]

I gave up at that point. The problem is, I can almost see where she is coming from but I just can't explain in words that she will accept!

Gerard . To make the conversation more interesting why not bring up the topic of the soldiers whose capture led to the incident being dressed as civilians or the people who are dressed in Police uniforms being terrorists .

the footage of the incident on television and had just reached the point where one of the Warriors was petrol bombed and the turret gunner/commander was bailing out with his uniform ablaze, dodging bricks.
Explain that its normal , the British Army have been doing it for over 30 years .

Red Harvest
Mow 'em down and make the world a better place. Afterall, when you have concentrated the troublemakers in one spot, makes sense to wipe them out.
Hmmm they tried that , it led to 30 years of dodging bricks and bombs~:rolleyes:

[Adrian II]

Hmmm they tried that , it led to 30 years of dodging bricks and bombs~:rolleyes:Not in Oradour it didn't.

[Red Harvest]

Ichi,

And why did the Brits lose? They failed to establish security and stomp out the rebellion early on. I'm glad for that, but it also points to the underlying failure to the approach the Brits had. Once the revolution built up steam, it was most likely too late.

It's a matter of security. If you can't figure out how to get it, then you will lose. If you have someone trying to kill and physically hurt you, you kill them first. When they have set a military vehicle on fire and are attempting to kill soldiers, kill the perpetrators (or apprehend them if you have the force available to do so.)

Peaceful protest should be left alone. If they turn violent, respond in kind and suppress them. "Mow 'em down" probably sent the wrong message, as my point is not to go after masses of on lookers but instead rioters. However, every person attempting to attack (rioters) should be treated as a deadly threat. If others looking on don't have the good sense to clear out, then they are likely to get hit by stray rounds. That's the way it goes. I do believe people have some responsibility for themselves, and there is danger in a mob behaving like that. It's a case of taking down the aggressor.

Illustrating both sides of this: there was a big stink in St. Louis at the start of the Civil War when the Federal commander captured the rebel state militia unit drilling near the armoury. This was while Missouri was still ostensibly neutral and on the bubble while the secessionist governor was maneouvering to leave the Union. The Federal commander blundered by marching the captured men in public, setting off a riot in the city. People pressed in on the soldiers with typical insults and finally some stones and the like and perhaps even a pistol. The soldiers responded by firing at them in vollies and killing quite a few. It galvanized Southern sentiment in the state and ended the facade...but it also secured Missouri for the Union. The Federal commander chased the secessionist governor from the state. He stole a march on the secessionist elements of the state.

[Tribesman]

Not in Oradour it didn't.
No after oradour they had been completely defeated in less than a year and the perpetrators were up for war crimes , and of course 60 years later the town is still a shrine to the brutality of the regime .

[Duke Malcolm]

The soldiers will have most likely faced a prosecution in the courts in Britain if they had opened fire on the people throwing things at them...

[miho]

Originaly said by mrs. Byram
This is a really stupid war. We'd have been better leaving the armed forces at home and sending in civilians!
She kinda has a point.

[littlelostboy]

She kinda has a point.

agreed. But the dialouge was damn funny tho.

[miho]

Then we wouldn't need military and the world would be a happier place.:hippie:

Well that's not gonna happen soon so don't get your hopes up.


But the dialouge was damn funny tho.

Especially the tank-APC part and the end.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I like your wife. ~:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I like your wife. ~:)

Kaiser, you weren't supposed to let him know th...~:eek:

Er...


Never mind.~:rolleyes: :hide:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Kaiser, you weren't supposed to let him know th...~:eek:

Er...


Never mind.~:rolleyes: :hide:
DAMN! Why don't you tell me this BEFORE I post it! :hide: ~:joker:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tell her about the 'Boston Massacre'. Its probably been exaggerated, but kids in the US are still taught that the damn British troops opened fire on colonial civilains.

Most Americans love the British, but we all also subconsciously resent you for doing this, even though it happened over 200 years ago.

Point being, don't use massive military power to fire into crowds of civilians, unless you want to make martyrs of the dead and enemies of the population.

As the descendant and beneficiary of revolutionary terrorists, I have to say that there's more to it than mowing down troublemakers. As Reagan said, one's man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

ichi:bow:

Note, however, that the soldiers involved in the incident were brought to trial and were defended by none other than John Adams (a cousin to the man who fomented all of the Boston riots, Sam Adams) - who secured the acquittal of all but the commanding officer due to the obvious provocation of elements of the crowd. Even the officer was punished primarily for failing to control his soldiers and not for the deaths of the Boston citizens per se.

If you provoke a man with a gun long enough, what do you expect him to do in response?

[yesdachi]

I like your wife. ~:)
Me too! Thanks for sharing Gerard. And stop hanging around the edges and jump in!~:)


I would have suggested warning shots and tear gas and a load speaker (most “tanks” have one don’t they?~;) ) telling the crowd to disperse or be mowed down. Good, law abiding citizens are not part of an angry mob.

[bmolsson]

An Iraqi civilian is a person that survives an American bomb attack. Conseqvently a insurgent is a person that doesn't...... ~;)

[Strike For The South]

finally someone understands~;)

[ichi]

The correct solution is not to put troops in a situation where they have to either accept the crowd's anger (in the form of bricks, Molotov's rocks, bullets, whatever) or resort to extreme deadly force (AKA 30mm). Flash bangs, tear gas, fire hoses, a dead skunk, mild electric shoc, hell I don't know, just give them options that let them fight back without making martyrs of the mob.

ichi:bow:

Thanks Seamus, I did not know that. Really cool data. Not sure how I'll use it real life, but quite an interesting morsel. :bow:

[Weebeast]

If we gave upon that principle, we might as well nuke the entire country.'

Nuking a country is a whole nother story. You got a group of people that may not know that their country is at war and vice versa.

We just have to be considerate to each other. Next time they hold a demonstration, they might wanna write down names and make sure they have more than one persons to control the crowd. If they don't wanna get shot then they should come clean; make sure there's no intruder/ suicide bomber standing next to them. :bow:

Well, if we always stick to that principle then next time someone purposedly gathers a crowd, sneaks inbetween them and open a can of whupass to the soldiers.

[GoreBag]

I'm okay with the idea of firing into the crowd. Hey, I'm on fire; I'll do as I please. Your wife's on the ball.

[English assassin]

Hi Gerald.

Your wife would be a big fan of the old riot act. IIRC, after the Riot Act had been read to a crowd, they had something like ten minutes to leave, and after that anyone still there was fair game for a sabre. (The cavalry sword rather than the 30mm Raden cannon armed CVR(T) variant, before she gets started again)

(Hence, "reading the riot act" as a saying, hence also the Peterloo massacre)

But seeing as what actually happened was no one was badly hurt and the troops still got busted out of jail courtesy of a couple of Warriors I think I like it better the way it actually happened.

[Jubilation T Cornpone]

I like your wife. ~:)

She has her moments Kaiser! She tends to see and say things in pure black and white though. Not a bad thing. Most of the time it leads to the kind of conversation I related but some of the time it also makes you think!

Gerard
CADRE Wargamers (Dont be fooled, there are only two of us!)

[QwertyMIDX]

We just have to be considerate to each other. Next time they hold a demonstration, they might wanna write down names and make sure they have more than one persons to control the crowd. If they don't wanna get shot then they should come clean; make sure there's no intruder/ suicide bomber standing next to them. :bow:

Have you ever been to a demonstration? They tend not to work like this for obvious reasons.

[Devastatin Dave]

Note, however, that the soldiers involved in the incident were brought to trial and were defended by none other than John Adams (a cousin to the man who fomented all of the Boston riots, Sam Adams) - who secured the acquittal of all but the commanding officer due to the obvious provocation of elements of the crowd. Even the officer was punished primarily for failing to control his soldiers and not for the deaths of the Boston citizens per se.

If you provoke a man with a gun long enough, what do you expect him to do in response?
Hey Seamus, isn't it almost true that Sam Adams was the one that made that picture? From what I understand, he made it as a propaganda tool. If you look at the picture you'll see the Brittish troops smiling and the officer in charge ordering the attack, which may not have ever happened. Sam Adams played both sides it appears and makes some damn good beer as well!!!~:joker:

[ichi]

IIRC the picture is attributed to Paul Revere

But it is interesting that the Brits seem to be enjoying themselves, while the crowd seems almost beaten down. My uess is that if the incident did in fact occur, the crowd was very much the in face of the Red Coats

ichi:bow:

[Devastatin Dave]

IIRC the picture is attributed to Paul Revere

But it is interesting that the Brits seem to be enjoying themselves, while the crowd seems almost beaten down. My uess is that if the incident did in fact occur, the crowd was very much the in face of the Red Coats

ichi:bow:

Thanks for the correction, I couldn't remember if it was Adams or not. :bow:

[yesdachi]

IIRC the picture is attributed to Paul Revere

But it is interesting that the Brits seem to be enjoying themselves, while the crowd seems almost beaten down. My uess is that if the incident did in fact occur, the crowd was very much the in face of the Red Coats

ichi:bow:
I believe it most definitely did happen but IIRC there were only 5 people killed and only another handful hurt.~:rolleyes:

The print is named Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street and was indeed made by Paul Revere (he was really fast at making engravings and had many published~:)). And not to call Paul Revere a racist but the guy that escalated a heated argument into the “massacre” by hitting a British soldier with a stick was a runaway slave named Crispus Atticus and he is not in the print. It just wasn’t proper to put a black guy on the cover of the Boston paper.:bow:

[QwertyMIDX]

Hey Seamus, isn't it almost true that Sam Adams was the one that made that picture? From what I understand, he made it as a propaganda tool. If you look at the picture you'll see the Brittish troops smiling and the officer in charge ordering the attack, which may not have ever happened. Sam Adams played both sides it appears and makes some damn good beer as well!!!~:joker:

It was also John Adams who defended the British Troops, not Sam. Sam does make the beer though. I find it interesting that John Adams was described by his relation to Sam though, he was the 2nd President of the US. I guess having your name on a beer is a more effective propaganda tool.

[Xiahou]

IIRC the picture is attributed to Paul Revere

But it is interesting that the Brits seem to be enjoying themselves, while the crowd seems almost beaten down. My uess is that if the incident did in fact occur, the crowd was very much the in face of the Red Coats

ichi:bow:
Nice to see that the press had an agenda even back then. ~D

[ichi]

As I understand it, everyone has always had an agenda, including government propogandists and political extremists

ichi:bow:

[Tribesman]

And not to call Paul Revere a racist but the guy that escalated a heated argument into the “massacre” by hitting a British soldier with a stick was a runaway slave named Crispus Atticus and he is not in the print. It just wasn’t proper to put a black guy on the cover of the Boston paper.
Well they could have balanced it with the earlier incident that night when a soldier of the 29th was rescued from a mad colonial axeman and a dog by two black fellows .

IIRC, after the Riot Act had been read to a crowd, they had something like ten minutes to leave, and after that anyone still there was fair game for a sabre. (The cavalry sword rather than the 30mm Raden cannon armed CVR(T) variant, before she gets started again)

Yep the cavalry Sabre , they used the Yeomanry swords and horses for riots instead of the Infantry(voluteers/militia) because there were less chance of unnecesary deaths using the flat of a sword instead of the sharp end of a bayonet , or a bullet .

[Watchman]

You know, I think the Russians found out the hard way why it tends to be a bad idea to fire down on mobs. You know, back before the Revolution...

[Husar]

The correct solution is not to put troops in a situation where they have to either accept the crowd's anger (in the form of bricks, Molotov's rocks, bullets, whatever) or resort to extreme deadly force (AKA 30mm). Flash bangs, tear gas, fire hoses, a dead skunk, mild electric shoc, hell I don't know, just give them options that let them fight back without making martyrs of the mob.

what about 30mm rubber-bullets?~;)

[Reverend Joe]

I think the rotten animal idea is the best. I don't care how determined you are; when a dead, bloated skunk explodes all over the person to your left in a mob, you aren't gonna want to stick around long. Burning hair would work as well.


Sam Adams played both sides it appears and makes some damn good beer as well!!!~:joker:

From what I understand, Samuel Adams became a patriot, in large part, because he was an atrocious brewer. :jester:

[QwertyMIDX]

what about 30mm rubber-bullets?~;)

Rubber bullets kill people pretty regularly, a shot to the throat with one is pretty leathal.

[Tribesman]

Rubber bullets kill people pretty regularly, a shot to the throat with one is pretty leathal.
Yep , which is why they should only be fired to hit adults in the abdomen , which unfortunately just happens to be head height for children .

:hide: Bring a well upholstered sofa when you go protesting~;)

[QwertyMIDX]

There's that and the fact that by the time police start using rubber bullets on protestors they tend to be angry and some seem not to really care what they hit. Also, to be fair, firing into a crowd isn't really an exercise in marksmanship, it's just firing into a crowd.

I really want to deploy a testudo formation at a demo in reaction to use of rubber bullets. The look on the face of the police would be priceless.

[miho]

They can use a hose with icy cold water to cool them down and to extinguish their Molotovs in the same time.