U.S. Troops Kill Pregnant Woman in Iraq

I'm beginning to believe that fixing what was broken may actually be more harmful than withdrawing completely.

You have made a very valid and legit point here. It's not easy trying to impose parts of your culture onto someone else (U.S. democracy into Iraqi government). In my opinion, things will only get worse before they get better. However, in regards to this article, we have to understand that it is protocol to shoot at oncoming vehicles that fail to slow or stop at checkpoints. It is to protect our troops from those that could potentially drive a car loaded with explosives into their area.

you cant blow away hate.. blow it to peaces it just returns as more.
You can how ever buy friends.

However, in regards to this article, we have to understand that it is protocol to shoot at oncoming vehicles that fail to slow or stop at checkpoints.

its not we that need to understand that, but the iraqi people as well. however much, i agree with PuzzlesWithoutPictures, for we are doing more harm than good at the current moment.

even as such, common sense usually prevails in that the case that the driver should have stopped or even slowed to indicate his situation. yet the driver claims there were no attempted warnings ahead of time. evidence of such warnings (verbal, visual, and physical) are not mentioned in detail. neither is the time length in which the incident happened.

what i question is that these forces are taught marksmenship and instructed on how to disable a car with bullets. yet with their marksmenship, it appears that they fired at both the car and the passangers as if to disable them both. if they were trying to disable a car itself, shooting out tires and at the engine are the logical targets. but the driver was wounded by broken glass, which indicates the shooters were aiming high or are poor marksmen (not taking into account shooting angles, altitude, and distance).

so were they trying to disable the car mechanically, disable the car via incapaciation of the driver and passangers, and/or were the forces just terrible marksmen?

I'm beginning to believe that fixing what was broken may actually be more harmful than withdrawing completely.

If we were to leave Iraq, it is very possible it would become a primary operating center for Al-Qeada, planning and carrying out terrorist operations when they want to. That is why they are very eager to win there and for the US to leave.

gleuch,

I don't think it is very fair to critique the marksmanship of a Soldier in Iraq when a car is speeding towards him and not stopping in response to their commands. If I think there is a bomb in the car slamming toward my checkpoint you better believe I am going to shoot the tires, the engine, the driver, the tailpipe, the groceries in the trunk, and the fuzzy dice in the mirror until it stops coming in my directon. While this is a terrible story and it would be great to think that like the movies the troops could "take out a tire" and everything would be ok but I am sure that is very far from the truth in a warzone.

it is very possible it would become a primary operating center for Al-Qeada, planning and carrying out terrorist operations when they want to.

Would become? It seems to be a pretty strong al qaeda op-center already.

lohman,

my aim (no pun intended) was not to proclaim the soldiers are terrible marksmen, but to identify and question a misleading statement to which i hope could be cleared up for my understanding. "'Shots were fired to disable the vehicle,' the military said..."

what do they constitute as disabling a vehicle—by incapacitating the driver of the vehicle, mechanically disabling the car, or both?

in an effort to not confine the answer into an narrow conclusion of the above possibilities, i ventured a third possibility (marksmanship) which may or may not be truthfully valid (and neither the others as well). it could very well be all three cases, some, or none of those are valid. as such i'm open to other possibilities.

in your reply, you said you would shoot at the car until it stops. i would too. if i felt threatened with my life, i would take a stand at self-defense. but it is also was the case that the car went past the checkpoint, leaving me to believe the driver did not aim his car directly at the soldiers. with that in mind, i would make the best attempt at mechanically disabling the car to stop it. but it could be the case that the soldiers have orders to incapacitate the driver/passangers of the cars as well. or it could be they have orders not to, which then questions whether the event was from bad marksmanship, negligence by the soldiers, or fulfillment of their duties under orders. it also depends on the guns used, the angle, altitude, distance, number of shooters, etc.

the statement above and the lack of details about the "action", especially since the article departs from the story to talk about other past events, leaving me curious as to the real situation and open to potential possibilities that may be true but not valid. (it also makes me wonder if this article was written and planted to stir up debate and public opinion on this issue)

Are you so sure about that:

I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped

Either way, as I said in my first post this is "tragic regardless who was at fault", I'm not placing blame on anyone because we don't have the full story since there seems to be conflicting testimony. What I am stating is that the Iraqi's statement embodies what I'm afraid many over there feel - resounding distaste and resentment of American forces. I can understand their viewpoint to an extent, countless have died from either our actions directly. It's easy for us to shrug our shoulders in disinterest because we aren't the ones who've had our families destroyed by a foreign presence.

You will note, I did say

Is it a shame and a tragedy that a woman died? yes, is it a shame and a tragedy that she was pregnant? Yes.

and yes, I am sure about my statement. This is not the first time someone has been shot at these observation posts, and I am not under the impression (sure I could be wrong here) are moved around much. the article even refers to it as clearly marked and that they were visually and audibly warned. I am sure that the stress of the situation had a lot to do with the issue as well. Either way, don't you think that for the safety of the Iraqi's perhaps the results of not listening to soldiers should perhaps be a big part of the story?

I totally agree with daweb, they should have stopped. Of-course I wasn't there, and either was PuzzlesWithoutPictures, so we don't have first hand knowledge as to what happened, just the normal liberal-get-out-of-iraq-at-any-cost media telling us what "actually" happened with victim quotes and everything...

Right. Sure. Same old, same old.

I'm SORRY the women didn't stop. I'm sorry a so-called "innocent" has perished. Maybe someday we'll know more about what "really" happened so we can make intelligent judgement of the troops fighting to defend our very freedoms.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

so-called "innocent"

So-called innocent? Another civilian shot dead, a harmless, pregnant woman at that. Failing to stop may be a crime, but the penalty of death certainly does not fit the crime, regardless of the circumstances.

I think people have completely lost sight of the fact that other people also have feelings, heartbeats and logic; and that if it happens in this country people would be screaming murder. What is "legal" may not (and in this case, certainly not) be right.

It is this exact disregard for other lives with the excuse of maintaining the "law" that is fueling the failure in Iraq. Whether you agree or disagree here doesn't matter, you don't need to dodge bullets and deal with these "checkpoints". It's easy to think the way you do.

Actually, there is a history of civilians being used by the insurgents under threat of harm to themselves or loved ones for them to run these 'checkpoints'. that does not mean the soldiers should let it happen.

Again, I think it was a shame, a tragedy, etc. but I don't think that they did anything wrong either.

they have to live with the results of their actions and I am sure that it is not easy for them either.

@lll I am not disregarding others lives. I am standing up for the well being and safety of the soldiers that are maintaining a level of peace in Iraq. You should as well.

Did everyone miss the point that this woman was being rushed to a maternity ward to give birth!? These observation points have military in cars - so why didn't they pull along side the car and try to get the driver to pull over - rather than open fire on it? And if they were simply "disarming" the vehicle - they would have shot the tires out - not hitting the people inside.

@Miss Dev. I did not miss that point. I would have thought they would have been even more careful not to be drawing fire in that instance. Also, the observation/check point was being approached. so I am not sure how the soldiers could have jumped into their vehicles raced to and moved next to the vehicle and then tried to 'run it off the road' instead. also, they did fire on the vehicle with the intention of disabling the vehicle. They were not trying to kill the passengers. My guess would be that they would prefer to capture bad guys trying to run the baricade so that they could be questioned instead. I do understand that there is an emotional part to this. I feel it too. It makes me sick that a child that could have been a part of the future of Iraq will not now get the chance, but I also do not feel that the soldiers did anythign wrong.

Tbone, I can see it now.

" Uhm, Hi. this is Muhomed Att... no I mean Mary. I am pregnant and need to be able to come right up close to the front of the line at the check point. I am driving a large blue truck with bad shocks. yeah, that is why it is riding so low. It is an emergency"

.....

Booom!

daweb: Far from being fixed installations, checkpoints in Iraq are often ad hoc according to this article. And I assume that the reason that we are 'maintaining a level of peace' is so that innocent civilians are safe. I imagine that it matters little to the families of the dead whether their loved ones are killed by an insurgent's roadside bomb or by American bullets.

vannevar. I am taking my info from the story. I even noted that i could be wrong on that point. It doesn't change that much tho. I mean, are you going to tell me that the people in Iraq are not aware that there are checkpoints? Not aware that running one could result in death? Don't have any idea what to look for?

I do not know exactly how this one was announced, displayed, etc. These could Certainly play into my interpretation of the events. No problem at all admitting that.

Please see my post #6 below.

And if they were simply "disarming" the vehicle - they would have shot the tires out - not hitting the people inside.

Have you ever fired a gun at a moving vehicle when your life may depend on it? Tires are extremely small targets, especially if you are firing from the front or rear. But even firing from the side is near impossible since that is when the relative velocity of the target is the greatest. Real life is not a Hollywood movie.

"that if it happens in this country people would be screaming murder"

Actually if a car is bearing down on an officer here in the USA and the officer is at fear for his life it is perfectly legal for him to open fire on the vehicle. So no need for the "if this was an American" BS because the same thing would have happened, it just would not have made the news as this incident did. If you want to feel sorry for someone feel sorry for the troops who were doing their job, acted correctly, and are now being condemned by the people they protect (both here and there).

james-phelps wrote:
so we can make intelligent judgement of the troops fighting to defend our very freedoms

i thought we went to war because (of the main reasons) 1) iraq had wmds that could be used on other countries, and 2) to liberate the iraqi people from saddam's tyrranical power.

where do those two come into "our freedoms"? it seems then that we have occupied a country in a police state for "our freedoms".

@Adam - I have seen police fire at a speeding vehicle - probably moving much faster than this car (50 MPH) and managing not to kill 2 people inside it. Okay - so maybe they would miss the tires, I can give you that. But does it not seem odd that they managing to kill the two passengers and not the driver? Wouldn't they aim for tires, then for the driver? The women were killed - but the brother wasn't even hit? He was only injured by breaking glass? Also, what kinds of warnings were offered? As T.BONE points out, they could have fired warning shots into the dirt, or had something to come down in front of the car to warn the driver to stop. As I've said before - if they were truly worried about a bomb, then shooting at the car surely would set that bomb off - so why not have spike strips or a gate?

Miss Dev. First, it has been stated already by others in this thread that know better then I do, that shooting a bomb would NOT ensure that it would go off. Even if it would, I would prefer to have the bomb going off at a distance I am shooting at then right next to me. Second, they were shooting to disable the car. The fact that the two passengers were killed was an accident. Unless you have some specific knowlege or reason to think otherwise. It has also been stated that spike strips will not stop a car, merely blow out the tires. I have driven a car blown out tires. it doesn't handle well, but it can certainly continue to drive. A gate is not a bad idea, but may not have been practical either.

@lll I am not disregarding others lives. I am standing up for the well being and safety of the soldiers that are maintaining a level of peace in Iraq. You should as well.

Don't assume anything, since you don't know that some of my friends and students are over there, right now, dodging bullets. That's just simple-minded arrogance.

Standing up for the safety of the soldiers and taking into account others' lives are not mutually exclusive as the way you have made it.

There are plenty of non-lethal ways to disable a vehicle, spikes bar being a very good and effective one (ask any traffic police). Using the "standing up for the well-being of the soldiers" excuse is really getting old; because any people who think about the situation would notice that it really did not need to happen the way it did; there are better, faster, easier alternative, rather than using bullets.

Now both the objectives of "keeping civilians safe" and "winning the minds" of the Iraqis have both failed in this situation. All because of using the wrong tool for the wrong situations.

The checkpoints make sense, in theory, they should help everyone stay safer.

As to whether it was clearly marked and there was plenty of warning, or nothing at all and they just fired and made up a story later, I have serious doubts we'll ever know for certain.

i suppose you would prefer to just let all the suicide car bombers in to do their business?
that is why the checkpoints are there, to protect the people. You run a checkpoint, and you risk them firing and asking questions later to keep those people safe from the suicide bombers.

i suppose you would prefer to just let all the suicide car bombers in to do their business?

Why no, I'd rather stop giving them reasons to blow people up.

that is why the checkpoints are there, to protect the people.

Sure, in theory.

You run a checkpoint, and you risk them firing and asking questions later to keep those people safe from the suicide bombers.

So, the killings of pregnant women will continue until all suicide bombings have ceased. Again, I thought it was their country, and we were just there to "spread freedom".

So, the killings of pregnant women will continue until all suicide bombings have ceased. Again, I thought it was their country, and we were just there to "spread freedom".

or until those same women learn that they may have to stop at the checkpoints (or their drivers). Simple concept really. Hey, see those guys with the tanks and the guns waving for us to stop? Yeah, those guys at the check point. I think we should stop for them.

Next time you or your partner is giving birth and you are panicking about getting her to the hospital safely, see how logical you are. In the States if you are driving someone giving birth and are speeding, running red lights, etc and get pulled over, the cop will be your escort to the hospital - they won't write you a ticket.

Also, this barrier had been in place for less than 2 weeks, and this family was not aware of it before encountering it. Since they had received no official notice, maybe they were leery of stopping since it could have been insurgents or anyone trying to stop them - not necessarily the US military.

Hey, see those guys with the tanks and the guns waving for us to stop?

And if you didn't see them, BOOM! You're nothing but a splatter of blood and sinew on the car seat.

Your whole family grieves.

Radical clerics use this as a story to recruit insurgents.

Your brother becomes a suicide bomber to avenge you, killing dozens.

Your husband, who might have otherwise sided with the American occupation, now takes up arms against them, and leaves 100 IEDs along the roadways.

Your children, who otherwise would have lived quiet lives in the Iraqi countryside, instead join Al Qaeda and plan terrorist attacks against America.

All in a war based on lies.

Miss Dev. I am not discounting your comments at all. I understand that they might not have been aware of the roadblock. May not have been thinking clearly. I have not argued that at all.

I also do not think the troops did anything wrong. that is what I have been saying.

@helpMe... Nice of you to bring up unrelated information.

Now look at the other side.

the story gets out, others are more aware of the roadblock and stop and therefore are not shot at.
the soldiers capture more insurgents at the roadblock and the area becomes safer
Iraq becomes safer

In the States if you are driving someone giving birth and are speeding, running red lights, etc and get pulled over, the cop will be your escort to the hospital - they won't write you a ticket.

Yes, but that is assuming that you actually pull over. I am sure all would have been fine if the car had stopped. Try running red lights and speeding in the states and not pulling over when a cop tries to stop you.

the story gets out, others are more aware of the roadblock and stop and therefore are not shot at.
the soldiers capture more insurgents at the roadblock and the area becomes safer
Iraq becomes safer

daweb: Please tell us that you did not just argue that shooting these innocent women to death has helped make Iraq safer. It's one thing to argue that the soldiers were just doing their job (even if it brings to mind the Nuremberg defense), but quite another to argue that it was good for the Iraqis.

From Miss Dev

In the States if you are driving someone giving birth and are speeding, running red lights, etc and get pulled over, the cop will be your escort to the hospital - they won't write you a ticket.

In your example, you stopped. That's the problem, they apparently didn't stop. What if in the US, while driving to the hospital you are driving at police officers very fast without stopping. I would think it may be likely they would shoot you in the US as well.

No, I merely argued the other side and gave an example. There is nothing wrong with identifying potential positives that could come out of this situation. I in no way have recommended or commended the fact that a pregnant woman died. I do commend the soldiers for doing what they did as I think they did the right thing. unfortuneately the outcome was a tragedy.

@...Tbone and all,
I have personally worked at checkpoints in both Iraq and Kuwait. It is not a very easy job. The pucker factor is incredibly high for however long you man said point. We all must remember these soldiers only have a split second before they have to decide whether or not to fire on a vehicle not stopping at the checkpoint. This could mean life or death for the soldiers buddies, civilians, or anyone within small arms range or the kill radius of any type of bomb set up in the vehicle. These checkpoints are set up to help with the overall security of both troops and civilians. It is a very horrible tragedy and one that could only be avoided by better communication by both parties. I am sure these soldiers who accidentally killed this poor women are grieving for this horrible loss of life.

daweb: Please tell us that you did not just argue that shooting these innocent women to death has helped make Iraq safer

@vannevar
come on, take it in the context daweb said it in. I dont agree with it at all, but to take responses out of context like that just totally ruins the credibility of your (our) argument.

kurt111: I don't see how the remark was in any way taken out of context. HMIB presented an argument as to why this incident could be damaging to Iraq, and daweb responded with an argument as to why it could instead be helpful. I found it difficult to believe that someone could seriously offer such an argument and said as much. What 'context' did I omit?

Very interesting point. It's possible he didn't stop because he didn't know to. Good post

I would think the guys with guns and the actual road block would be a good clue as to maybe you should stop here.

In the United States there are often checkpoints where they perform random breathalyzer tests. They do not give you two week warnings there, they expect you to see one, maybe two signs, and pull over for the test. Trying blowing right by one of these speeding.

But the brother of the pregnant woman said that they did not see any clear markings that it was an observation post - the US military says it was clearly marked. Obviously this is a huge discrepancy that needs to be reconciled - but in the case of rushing this woman to the hospital, they had probably planned out their route months before (as many families do) and it didn't even occur to them to alter their route or prepare to be stopped.

It's the same idea as if you are expecting to see (or not see) something, then you are more likely to see (or not see) that thing. If something unexpected jumps up, then it can be so off-putting that you don't know how to react. Also, depending on the markings of the post, the brother might have believed the markings to be bits of war debris or something else. Until we know the details we cannot honestly say that these Iraqi citizens were in the wrong or that the US military was in the wrong.

Miss Dev. Did you really expect him to say that he saw the warnings and chose to ignore them? really?

Emotional casualties are just as real as physical one.. if anyone thinks that soldiers like killing pregnant women need some help.. I am sure after the war when these guys can let their guard down to feel something, they will need proffessional help to get through the night. I @!$%#ing hate the war. I dont like bush. But i thank god that we have people that would volunter their lives when this country has a crisis while i sit and watch tv. It would suck to be over there.
How many people here have seen a friend or family memebr killed?How often do you hear explosions? How many times have you had someone acting friendly ony to pull out a gun?
I bet putting most of you in this situation you would pull the trigger faster than the marines did. People like to live even soldiers.

@daweb - I don't think he is lying - there are many other things he could have said - like he saw the warnings, but was worried they were insurgents, since he hadn't heard of a roadblock by the US military. Or that he saw the warnings, but didn't know what they meant. Or that the warnings didn't look like other warnings he'd seen at roadblocks. There are many, many things he could have said that would have been a "I didn't stop because I didn't know I had to" but he said he didn't see the warnings. I have no reason not to believe what he said - especially since the military admits that communications to rural parts of Iraq can be difficult. And, if you'll notice, in my posts above I have never said that the military or this family is to be blamed - just that the events are confusing and that there are many, many questions as to why these women died.

I'm really hoping James-Phelps is just some kid in middle school wasting time in the computer lab, and not of a demographic most representative of this country.

"I'm really hoping James-Phelps is just some kid in middle school wasting time in the computer lab, and not of a demographic most representative of this country."

Puzzles, I'm NOT sorry to disappoint you.

@ James Phelps: Personal attacks aside, I find it hard to respect anyone who turns "A pregnant woman was shot on her way to delivering a baby" into "That d--- liberal media. This doesn't glorify the US military so it must be just another lie."

I think what really gets me is that you don't even want to admit that you're being cavalier about this. You still try to justify your statements by saying "I'm sorry a so-called 'innocent' perished," which is incredible in its insinuations.

P.S. - A pregnant woman getting shot is "Same old. Same old."? Wow. Just, wow.

@ James Phelps - why the quotation marks around "innocent"? The woman wasn't driving, no bombs or contraband were found in the vehicle. She died with her unborn child and cousin. Why the quotation marks? How was this woman not innocent?

I think a lot of people here are more interested in empathizing with the woman and forgetting about how the soldier in this case felt in his situation.

And wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it.

Yikes. Sounds like the military does an excellent job of stripping people of their emotions. Probably why the massacre at Haditha took place.

Puzzles. Why exactly should he feel guilty for keeping himself safe?

If it was determined that the car contained explosives, a suicide bomber, a terrorist, insurgent, etc. then in my opinion he probably should feel no guilt, other than that attributed with killing a human being. On the flip side, it was determined post facto that the car contained innocent civilians. Personally, I'd feel a little guilty.

Stripping yourself of emotion is important in some situations.

ER doctors can't let themselves get caught up emotionally in what's happening, they simply need to make the correct, logical choices most likely to save lives.

A soldier, in this particular case, needs to make the same decision, and quickly. If indeed the barriers were new, and no one knew about them, that's a bad thing, and obviously should be addressed.

But when manning a post like that, where it's far from unusual to have insurgents attempt to kill you or others with bombs or guns, I can imagine the thought process doesn't include "Hey, could this be a normal person in a hurry who didn't notice the barrier, and just missed the obvious US military vehicles, signs, etc, and maybe I should err on the side of their life, instead of my own and my units"

It sucks, sure, but I imagine most well-trained soldiers in that situation would fire, and in theory, they didn't shoot to kill (although, I imagine shooting out the tires on a speeding vehicle is fairly challenging)

It's a @!$%#ty situation, and I'd blame either the ones setting up the barriers (and presumably letting the locals know about them) or the driver (if they ignored obvious signs/warnings)...the soldiers though, I don't feel like should be blamed for doing their job.

The media and those anti-war spend a lot of time citing the 3,000+ dead American soldiers in Iraq. Well how exactly did some of them die? In situations just like this, where a car rushes a roadblock. These soldiers had no interest in adding their bodies to that count.

what if you found out later that they didn't see you waving at them because one of them was pregnant and they were rushing to the hospital? Would that make you feel a little guilty, or at least question your actions of LIGHTING THEM UP.?

Sure, you can feel guilty later, there's plenty of time for guilt when you're not potentially in danger.

Right on!

Feeling sad does not equate with feeling guilty.

I'm sad that this happened. I do not feel guilty that it happened (yet I'm sure there are plenty of people that think I should, since I am after all a dirty American).

If the American story is true- they were shooting to stop an unidentified vehicle rushing a checkpoint- then they aren't guilty of any crime other than trying to prevent a potential car-bombing.

If the American story isn't true (I've read a couple conspiracy theories about shooting at random vehicles for no reason and then trying to cover it up), then the soldiers are guilty as sin and should do time in a military prison for such heinous crimes.

As someone else pointed out, we don't know the full story, so we should probably assume the most likely. Considering how many car-bombing stories we read, I would dare say that the soldiers probably feared for their lives and treated the situation as a car-bomb. It is *extremely* tragic that it turned out this way, but they should probably do the same thing the next time a random car charges their position.

I can fully imagine the soldiers' reactions at seeing an unidentified vehicle speeding towards their checkpoint.

There is no place for self-doubt. I would have shot the vehicle as well. I would have shot it enough times to make sure it stopped or at least veered away.

But, if I found out that I'd shot a pregnant woman on her way to delivering her baby, you're d--- right I'd feel guilty. The very fact that I killed an innocent (as far as we know) pregnant woman -- you know, the kind with an unborn child -- will probably keep me awake at night for a few weeks to come.

As a soldier, emotions cannot cloud your judgment in combat, but after the fact, I think saying "Huh. I killed a pregnant woman. Meh." isn't something that even many soldiers would respect.

I'd light the car up....And wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it.

That sickens me. Your entire attitude sickens me. I don't care if it's a 5 year old boy, a pregnant mother, or jihaist suicide bomber so packed full of C-4 he's unable to stand -- killing a human being should be hard. You should feel guilt, doubt, and shame for the rest of your life - even if firing that shot saved the lives of you and your fellow soldiers.

It is that sense of guilt, shame, and doubt that makes us human -- that reminds us of the horrible gravity of taking another human life. War is awful and once committed to should be fought with the utmost diligence and veracity -- but we ought never forget that the lives we take are those of other sons and brothers and fathers with wives, children, and families of their own.

You wouldn't feel guilty about it? What then makes you different from those that you would seek to fight?

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it" -- Robert E. Lee

@Killfire

I don't care ... if it's jihaist suicide bomber so packed full of C-4 he's unable to stand

You should feel guilt, doubt, and shame for the rest of your life - even if firing that shot saved the lives of you and your fellow soldiers

I don't agree. I value human life as much as anyone else. But to say that you must feel guilt and shame for the rest of your life ... no. I don't think it is a prerequisite of being human that you must be forever scarred because you protected those who are important to you, whether that is yourself, your family, iraqi innocents, or fellow soldiers.

You have changed the issue from whether you should feel guilty for killing an innocent person, to whether killing someone in self-defense is justified. How do you expect a soldier to fight "diligently" or with "veracity" if he is in constant fear of having to kill the next man who points an AK47 at his head.

I am very anti-war. But to question the humanity of a soldiers based upon the long-term phsycological effects of fulfilling their basic function - protecting people - seems a bit extreme.

You have changed the issue from whether you should feel guilty for killing an innocent person, to whether killing someone in self-defense is justified

I never said it wasn't justified and I never raised that question -- I'm simply stating that taking a human life is something that should stay with you for the rest of your life. Some people deal with it better than others, and for some that means they suppress it and get on with their lives. Good for them.

But if you can "light up" a car full of people and not feel the slightest twinge of remorse I think you've sacrificed part of what makes you human.

@Killfile, I am very dissapointed that you would compare the coalition soldiers with the terrorists in this way. It does however expose your point of view.

Killfile, I see now why and where we are disagreeing.

It is not

But if you can "light up" a car full of people and not feel the slightest twinge of remorse I think you've sacrificed part of what makes you human.

You are making the assumption that lighting up a car is easy. If you go back and review the original statement it was lighting up a car in the specific situation we have in Iraq where the car is approaching a checkpoint and ignoring all warning signs to stop. That is a different matter entirely. I agree with the original author on that point. In that situation you SHOULD light the car up.

What the author did not make clear was how he would feel about it later after he learned more of the facts. For my part, I don't know if I would feel 'guilty' per se (probably would some tho) but I KNOW I would feel badly.

Daweb -- I think we're more on the same page than it seems. Yes -- in that "moment of truth" I can certainly understand the adrenaline kicking in and putting a few dozen rounds through the car. It's combat -- and the "kill or be killed" reality can't distinguish a car with a pregnant woman from a car packed with high explosives at 100 yards. I get that.

But after the fact - in the "legs shaking from adrenaline" aftermath - there really should be a "Oh my God I killed a man" moment. It should be hard. It should be something you have to work through -- even if the car was packed with high explosives.

In combat it is necessary to take the lives of those that would take yours -- and sometimes, unfortunately, there are civilian lives lost. If we distance ourselves from the fundamental humanity of our enemies, however, it becomes too easy to kill them -- and we loose some of our own humanity.

I can agree with that. One thing I would say tho. If I kill a man that is trying to kill me I am unlikely to feel that badly. In this case however, I would feel awful. but it would be after the fact.

Could this tragedy have been avoided if U.S. troops weren't occupying Iraq right now, or if we had never invaded their country in the first place?

Unknown. In fact the woman in question may not even have been pregnant. she might have been dead. Hard to say really.

I agree. Why do we even let people past checkpoints? Everyone who comes up to a checkpoint should be shot if they're not an American. Period. Now no more terrorists will get past that checkpoint. Then we can finally secure the country and go home. Mission accomplished.

James-Phelps

If you can show me where I said this I'll buy you lunch and a book on fact checking:

PuzzlesWithoutPictures said: "Right - can't they shoot the tires out"

My bad, it was ...T-BONE who said that... sorry.

No prob... just wanted to make sure I wasn't going crazy ;)

Stefan, I don't think anyone here has been saying they weren't innocent. I feel most people here seem to think it is a tragedy. That just doesn't make it the Soldiers fault either.

Not sure why you are trying to make it racial, I doubt the soldiers could even tell the race of the people in the car. Only that they were not stopping.

yes, war sucks. I just wish it wasn't necessary

I don't think it's racism so much as probability.

It is *far* more likely that a muslim woman in Iraq will be an insurgent and out to kill US military than a white woman in a similar situation (which is next to impossible to account for, as that situation doesn't exist in our current world).

It's tragic, certainly, but you cannot pretend that it's racist to worry that women in Iraq might be terrorists or suicide bombers, since many have been.

Oh, I wasn't refering to the newsviners. We all agree that it's a terrible tragedy.

I'm just curious how different the worldwide reaction would be if it was a pregnant white woman killed by an Arab soldier in the same situation... Remember when the Italian security person was killed in a similar event, while they tried to rescue a hostage? The media attention it received?

I still belive that racism plays a big role in the conflict. Many people in the west don't value the life of an Iraqi civilian the same as the life of a western soldier.

I don't want to know how many people outside the middle east refer to the Iraqisas 'ragheads' etc. in their minds, and I don't want to know how many Iraqis refer to the allied soldiers as white crusaders.

I think the worry over American soldiers versus Iraqi citizens could also be due to relevance to most people...

As bad as it may sound, I don't know any Iraqi citizens, but I do know a few American soliders (or former soldiers)...it just feels natural for me to be more worried about them than people from a country I'll never visit, whose faces I'll never see, whom I'll never engage in conversation, etc.

On a sidenote:

Vincent Grayson wrote:

It is *far* more likely that a muslim woman in Iraq will be an insurgent and out to kill US military than a white woman in a similar situation (which is next to impossible to account for, as that situation doesn't exist in our current world).

which reminded me of the woman "who was born in Belgium to a white, middle-class Christian family," [and] "blew herself to pieces last month in a suicide attack against American troops near Baghdad."

@Vincent, I think you may have mis-understood me in part. I don't believe that the soldiers knew what race the people in the car were. I think they saw the car, tried to get it to stop, and then fired.

I should have noted, I was replying to Stefan, not you. I believe we agree.

i dont think my opinion would change if they had shot american soldiers goofing off in that car.
Tragic, aweful even but not criminal. In a war even if she was in an ambulance she would have to stop.

check my comment record if you think i support the war, i just find this more inflamitory than news.. would it even been in the news and on the front page if it was just two innocent iraqi men? No it was a pregnant woman. It really shouldnt change your views.

I would think the incident that occured last year with the Italian agent who was shot after springing some Italian hostage would highlight the point that there is an actual problem with the roadblocks. They called ahead to the American forces, the trained security agent driving didn't see any sign to stop, and American troops opened fire. What are we doing wrong with signalling at the checkpoints? Why don't we just install a manually controlled stop light or something?

I couldn't agree more. I think both sides of this issue (the women and the familes and the Soldiers and their families) have and will suffer enough for this. Why is it being made such a political statement?

This statement is laughable: "Perhaps she could have paid attention to the roadblocks..." I mean, how long has this war been going on?

My guess is, and this is just a guess, that the pregnant lady knew what a road block was, and knew what it meant with signs everywhere to stop, guns pointed at her, barriers on the ground... good grief, she should have stopped. She made a BIG mistake, and it cost her life.

Our soldiers did NOT make a mistake, they did what they had been trained to do, stop vehicles and the drivers driving them who refused to stop.

We don't know who is at fault here. Maybe I spoke too soon, and it looks like I was just trying to use the death of a poor innocent woman to slam Bush's misbegotten war. If anyone thinks that, let me apologize.

One of the victims says there was no warning. Some here suggest that the mere presence of armed soldiers might be a warning. Perhaps they didn't see those soldiers, or perhaps their presence is common enough to where it wouldn't even raise eyebrows anymore. Or maybe they were too busy worrying about the pregnant woman. I've never raced a pregnant woman to the hospital, so I don't know what it's like.

I want to say here that my first instinct, as some have claimed here, was not to "Blame Bush". My first thought was "Those poor women". Then I began to wonder why she had to die? Why did her baby have to die?

Then I remembered that the war was based on lies and scaremongering, and if those lies weren't told, the war mightn't have happened, and those women and that child would still be alive.

Then I remember who told those lies.

The chain of thought is perfectly reasonable and undeniable. Please don't assume that everyone is just out to slam their political enemies - we're not that shallow.

As much as I dislike Bush, and the war itself, there's a point where the chain of "whose fault is this?" gets ridiculous.

Yes, if it weren't for Bush, those troops wouldn't be there. If it weren't for a Supreme Court decision, Bush wouldn't have won the first election. If it weren't for the choice of justices made by prior presidents, they might've made a different decision, etc, etc.

It's obvious by reading HelpMe's name what his comment is going to be about. Just ignore him, don't feed the trolls.

Steve Watts:
Forgive me for being blunt, but those of you using this woman's death as a soap box against Bush should be ashamed for being exploitive in this way.

Uh, Steve, one minor point. I just did a quick search on the page for the string "bush" and the first instance I found was in your comment. Do you pretty much relate every comment which expresses a point of view that you don't agree with as being "against Bush," or did you make a mistake?

It's obvious by reading HelpMe's name what his comment is going to be about. Just ignore him, don't feed the trolls.

If you'd have looked at my posting history, you'd know that you're wrong.

But if it's easier for you to just make up stuff and insult people without cause than do a quick search or click a few links, go right ahead. You'll see that no one wants to listen to what you have to say.

Great post Steve.

It took me a while to read through all of the comments and the entire time I was thinking about how this incident was a terrible tragedy but that there was no need to place blame. Sometimes things just happen the way that they happen. There is no need to place blame or use these deaths to support your political views.

HelpMe-

I am trying to raise enough money to quit my job for the next couple of years, so I can dedicate all my time and energy to impeaching George W. Bush.

I counted the number of times that the word "lie" was used on this page, and four of the five come from you. You were also the first one to turn the conversation about a tragic event into a direct attack on Bush. Furthermore, you were the first person in the conversation to use any bold lettering. Can you deny that you will look for any fuel you can possibly find to paint Bush in a negative light?

I said:

It's obvious by reading HelpMe's name what his comment is going to be about.

Your motive to attack Bush was obvious from your name. I don't see any evidence in your other commentary to suggest that you have any other goal in commenting on politically volatile news than to blame Bush. Perhaps my use of the word "troll" was overly negative, and I apologize for that, but the phrase "don't feed the trolls" is much more common than "don't feed the anti-Bush zealots." In the future, I promise to always use the latter phrase. Either way, debating the issue with you is not going to be effective so anybody offended by your comments should just ignore you. Of course, by making that comment I was implicitly ignoring my own advice, but that starts to get too meta for my tastes and a short "don't feed the trolls" seemed better at the time than watching further debate on whether Bush lied or was lied to.

Whoa.

First, I never posted that note from my bio in this article, nor anywhere else on Newsvine OTHER than my bio. Shall I research everything you've ever written and post it out of context on articles in which YOU comment?

I counted the number of times that the word "lie" was used on this page, and four of the five come from you.

I'm not surprised - a lot of people like to dance around the issue. I won't - Bush lied to America. That is an objective fact.

You were also the first one to turn the conversation about a tragic event into a direct attack on Bush.

My first comment on this thread was: "I was under the impression that it was their country, and we were only there to "spread freedom"."

If you think the justification that we were given to attack Iraq equate to "attacks on Bush", you're welcome to that. Then I said the war was based upon lies, which is documented to be true.

Furthermore, you were the first person in the conversation to use any bold lettering.

It's called "adding emphasis". I wasn't aware using boldface was an anti-Bush tactic. I'll have to remember that!

Can you deny that you will look for any fuel you can possibly find to paint Bush in a negative light?

Yes, I can categorically deny that. Check my posting history and you shall see that I've posted many articles having absolutely nothing to do with Bush at all.

Your motive to attack Bush was obvious from your name.

If you can think of anything I've said that wasn't accurate, by all means point it out to me.

I don't see any evidence in your other commentary to suggest that you have any other goal in commenting on politically volatile news than to blame Bush.

That's because you haven't looked. Check my posting history.

And I only blame Bush for things he's actually done. For example, there was a story today about an alleged affair between Bush and Condoleeza Rice. I didn't post it, because I have no proof to back it up, and it's silly. I do have proof that Bush lied us into war, I do have proof that good people have died because of this, and I provide it for anyone who asks.

don't feed the anti-Bush zealots

I am anti-Bush, but I'm not a "zealot". I believe presidents shouldn't lie, shouldn't start wars unnecessarily, etc. Is that enough to make one a zealot? I haven't called you an "anti-truth" zealot, though you have attacked me for merely reporting the truth. Please keep things civil, if you can. Thanks.

Either way, debating the issue with you is not going to be effective

That's true. When one has the facts on their side, as I do, it's quite hard to debate them.

anybody offended by your comments should just ignore you.

Yes, by all means do so. But out of the 6 comments I've made on this thread so far, 2/3 have been rated as "highly rated comments", and the others may soon achieve that status, so obviously some people are interested in what I have to say.

a short "don't feed the trolls" seemed better at the time than watching further debate on whether Bush lied or was lied to.

It's not up for debate. We can now objectively prove that Bush and his administration have told us on multiple occasions information that they knew then to be either outright false, or highly suspect. It's not a debatable topic. YOUR problem is you don't want to admit this to yourself, and you find it easier to smear me as a "troll" or a "zealot" rather than confront those facts.

Now if you can find something I've written that is untrue, please let me know, because I want to correct it. Otherwise kindly refrain from your attacks on me.

Thanks a lot HelpMeImpeachBush.

"an alleged affair between Bush and Condoleeza Rice"

I think that put me off sex for quite a while.

I think that put me off sex for quite a while.

That's another reason I didn't post it - in case some Newsviners were reading while they were eating or something.

But just for you, here it is.

KSoze said: "so-called "innocent" WTF, how more innocent can you get? You need to re-evaluate your life."

>My point was, and I believe most everybody got my point except for you, was that the liberal media will stop of nothing to paint insurgents as "innocent" and our freedom-fighting-soldiers as "guilty" every time.

I don't "know" if the pregnant lady is innocent 100% for sure. Let the investigation determine that, not CNN.

Purposely avoiding the 'liberal media' straw-man that keeps being thrown out, I will say this:

Highly trained American Soldiers are simply more responsible. That training they undergo? The vow to protect and serve their country? It all leads to a higher level of accountability than a normal civilian answers to. Since these brave men and women have answered the call of duty, they have accepted along with it the rightful scrutiny and examination of every action they do in the name of our country.

Your statement implies that they should be held innocent until proven guilty, and I agree; however, before attacking the other position, remember that the two dead women didn't have a chance to prove their innocence at all.

Excellent idea charlie-b.

So car hits spike strips, tires go float, but car continues due to momentum then blows up and still does quite a bit of damage. All spikes do is cause tires to blow, and considering the car may contain a bomb, the well-being the tires is not really a high-priority of terrorists.

@Adam - so shooting at a car isn't going to blow it up if there is a bomb inside?

I think spike strips are a fantastic idea. If you need an extra line of defense after that, then resort to shooting. But since the soldiers involved in this case claim they were shooting to disarm the car - then spike strips would have done the job just as well.

For most bombs, shooting at it, even hitting it, will not blow it up, especially if you kill the terrorist before he/she detonates it. Also unlike in the movies, shooting at a car will most likely not blow it up either.

Adam - won't this do more to slow the car than is currently done? Yes the car can continue to drive on flat tires, but not as fast, allowing more time for the soldiers to shoot the engine block or the driver.

And since these soldiers did not shoot the driver - just the two passengers - how was that supposed to stop the car? The car must have already gone thru the guard post when the soldiers shot at the car... which means that either the brother was lying or (as my marine friend just told me) the post was just two soldiers standing on the side of the road, and the brother really didn't see them.

I think this boils down to a breakdown in communication between the US forces and the Iraqi people. The soldiers nor the family are likely to be blamed - I just hope we can prevent further incidents like this one from happening with better notification and communication.

Indeed, even if the French destroyed much of America's infrastructure in the process, they would still be able to find some die-hard anti-Bush fanatics who would greet them as liberators. Michael Moore, perhaps. He would appear on French television, weeping in gratitude. Later, when a provisional government was formed, Moore would be named Prime Minister. A few extreme conservatives, Ann Coulter perhaps, would begin bombing French installations, and killing American collaborators.

Most would go about their daily lives, glowering but accepting, maybe joining in a protest march or two. Until one day, when they finally had enough, when yet another innocent person was mistakenly killed by French soldiers. Then they too would join the bomb throwers to help drive the French out.

And many of those who feared to join would still be secretly proud of them...

So, the French decide that the USA needs to be liberated from our oppressive regime. They put up checkpoints and carry guns in the streets. They shoot at people. Troops are being investigated for murder. People are being tortured and held without stated cause in prisons.

There is more than just one problem with this hypothetical, but I will point out just the most obvious.

that is a funny link but what about Napolean?
In any case, i think in his story 'France' is just symbolic of a much stronger nation that invades and occupies another nation in the name of 'liberating' them.

There is more than just one problem with this hypothetical...

Well, don't leave us in suspense Adam, what are the others? I think it's an interesting line of thought...

Powerpoint eh? I always knew those terrorists were evil.

Oh yeah, because the people of Iraq are too uncivilized to have hospitals or anything like that. Which is why the United States has to liberate them and make their lives better.