photos of insurgents in Iraq

y'know what never fails to hack me off? We can arrange dozens of interviews (quote from time) with insurgent leaders, but at the same time we can't root the :cen 's out. You'd think the two would go hand in hand.
 
If time were to divuldge their sources then their field reporters would be killed for sure. Plus i think the insurgent interviews take place in a secret location that is used for just that occasion and nothing else. They give interviews because they want to use the media to send their messages, so they're willing to negotiate a time and place for that, and they know who they're dealing with.

The military could disguise intelligence agents as reporters and try the same thing hoping to ambush the interviewees, but that would probably lead to a backlash against civilian reporters in iraq. I'm sure whatever methods are the most effective for finding the insurgents are being used, but i bet the biggest dilemma is manpower shortages in the area. You can only divert so many people to finding insurgents while trying to keep the country from going into anarchy.
 
Easy-8 said:
JRL11410021639.jpg
Click to expand...
is the guy in the black shirt front row holding an m-16?
and why does the guy with the white shirt have such a powerful scope on a short-barreled weapon?
 
You know what should be done to the insurgents that are captured?

It seems to me the general rule in World War Two Europe was that if you weren’t wearing a uniform you were considered a spy and shot on site.

Besides, I don’t see any uniforms on these insurgents…..
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
^^^You could argue that the red and green bandanas are a "uniform."
Click to expand...

I suppose, but they don’t happen to be fighting for as part of a military force of a recognized Nation State.

This makes them at best the same definition as Guerillas, who if wish to be treated according to the Geneva Convention must abide by it.

So far I don’t think the insurgents do follow the Geneva Convention, as evident by the way they treat those who are captured.
 
therise21 said:
is the guy in the black shirt front row holding an m-16?
and why does the guy with the white shirt have such a powerful scope on a short-barreled weapon?
Click to expand...

Some of them also hold western style weapons. My only two questions is what insurgent group are they from and how did they get hold of such weapons?
 
They don't look like an insurgents to me. For the guys with M-16 and Ak-47. I think they are militia to me. Or it is my mistake.
 
Not to worry, it didn't come off of a US Soldier or Marine; it has an A1 upper receiver and from the looks of it a 11.5" barrel, both of which have not been in use by us for over 20 years. Probably came from someone who we supplied, like Israel or Iraq in the 70s.
 
The weapons in the Zarqawi vid were all from dead US service members. The first time I saw it, I didn't notice how much of a bumbling fool he was, I noticed that he had US weapons, and that left a sick feeling in me. For once, the media's ignorance paid off and they didn't catch wind of this detail.
 
It seems to me the general rule in World War Two Europe was that if you weren’t wearing a uniform you were considered a spy and shot on site.

Besides, I don’t see any uniforms on these insurgents…..
Click to expand...

No thats not true. Laws of armed conflict are much more complex than that. They could be protected as guerillas (being an identifiable group under organised leadership), or more likely "levee en masse" as it is known, which is quite legal - an not being a spy or terrorist, it means that the civil population takes up arms against an invading force, without recognised leadership.

Despite how much we'd love them to be considered spys or terrorists, the rules of armed conflict tell us different a lot of the time (but not all the time thank god).
 
...or more likely "levee en masse" as it is known, which is quite legal - an not being a spy or terrorist, it means that the civil population takes up arms against an invading force, without recognised leadership.
Click to expand...

In the case of Iraqis, I can see your point. What about the rest of the rabble trickling across the borders? I don't think this law applies to foreign terrorists which is what the Syrians, Saudi Arabians, etc. who are blowing up Iraqi citizens are.
 
Ah so true. This is where it becomes murky. How do you identify the difference between Shmeget the local Iraqi who took a shot at the invaders with his dad's AK47, and the Al Qaeda operative from Libya.... they both look the same when they are firing at you.
 
therise21 said:
is the guy in the black shirt front row holding an m-16?
Click to expand...
It looks that way
therise21 said:
and why does the guy with the white shirt have such a powerful scope on a short-barreled weapon?
Click to expand...
I don't know but the weapon looks like an M4.
Fox said:
They don't look like an insurgents to me. For the guys with M-16 and Ak-47. I think they are militia to me. Or it is my mistake.
Click to expand...
Good point. Some of them might just have bought their weapon from the local bazar the other day and want to show off. :D
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by therise21
and why does the guy with the white shirt have such a powerful scope on a short-barreled weapon?

I don't know but the weapon looks like an M4.
Click to expand...

Nope, it is either a CAR-15 or an XM177, however the muzzle brake may rule out the CAR, unless it is a version we did not use. For the scope, they didn't have the Picatinny rail system 20+ years ago, so all they had were these big rifle scopes that screwed on the carry handle. Like I said before, these are old rifles, so they could be from a LOT of places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top