The Hunted Just Became The Hunters.

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Iraqi Police in Fallujah, in response to a murder and intimidation campaign against them by insurgents, formed a Special Missions Group to hunt down, capture or kill terrorists in this city. The platoon-sized team recently finished initial training with Marine police advisors here and will soon be on the hunt.

Iraqi cops once feared to patrol the streets of their own city. Not now. No longer will insurgents freely target Iraqi Police for assassination in their homes. Now, Iraqi Police Special Missions Group will target them.

The Special Missions Group was created by Iraqi Police in Fallujah after several attacks by terrorists against police in their homes. After one well-respected Iraqi Police captain was killed by an improvised explosive device, Iraqi Police approached their Marine advisors with the idea of forming the group. They just needed Marines to assist in the training.

The training was headed up by a Marine Reserve staff sergeant who serves in the FBI when he's not in a Marine uniform. He has an extensive law enforcement background, in particular with the sort of training the Iraqi Police were seeking. Due to the sensitive nature of his work with the FBI, his name is being withheld from this report.

"Their leadership asked for help to create a team to go on the offensive against the insurgents," said the staff sergeant who serves as a Fallujah police advisor. "The men they chose for this team were men through their leadership and trust demonstrated bravery in the past."

Some of the Iraqi Police in the unit are former Iraqi Army soldiers. Others are fresh, young police academy graduates. They all had a couple things in common. They volunteered to join the elite unit and did it to rid their city of terrorists.

"We're doing this because we want to save our city," said one Iraqi Policemen through an interpreter. "The terrorists have killed a lot of police. One policeman was killed, and then they went into his home and killed his mother. Why give them that chance? We want to face them and kill them."

Randy

john70t · 12-17-2006, 06:27 PM

Now the terrroists know all our plans.

Joeaksa · 12-17-2006, 06:53 PM

Good to see. The sooner this happens and everywhere, the better. Make the terrorists scared in their own lair and keep it coming.

fastpat · 12-17-2006, 07:05 PM

I think we saw a photo of this new "team" a few days ago.

I managed to find a copy of their new manual too, similar to the US Army's I'll wager.

Great going guys, another death squad is created.

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
I managed to find a copy of their new manual too, similar to the US Army's I'll wager.

Look closely at the uniform, paste! You can clearly see the gray color of the Confederacy.

Randy

Hugh R · 12-17-2006, 07:18 PM

I heard an interesting statement from one of the "talking heads" today on TV who said that one of the problems is that the Iraqi's love their tribe more than their country, which is probably the underlying problem.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

I guess we could always send the fastpaste homeland defense team

stuartj · 12-17-2006, 11:04 PM

What great news. Another death squad roving the streets.

Where did this piece of pap come from, rcecale? The Daily SWAT? MARINE LIFE? Army Review Weekly?

Joeaksa · 12-17-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartj
What great news. Another death squad roving the streets.

Where did this piece of pap come from, rcecale? The Daily SWAT? MARINE LIFE? Army Review Weekly?

Ahhh, Slopats Junior Lieutenant chimes in.

stuartj · 12-18-2006, 02:44 AM

You dont do detail at all, do you Joe, poor luv.

And this would make you Fintstone's b1tch, ofcourse.

Joeaksa · 12-18-2006, 02:51 AM

But its better than being a punk like you luv...

stuartj · 12-18-2006, 03:45 AM

Ya reckon? LOL.

hunter914 · 12-18-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
But its better than being a punk like you luv...

does he at atleast give you a reacharound?

sammyg2 · 12-18-2006, 08:27 AM

In 1778 the british army followed strict protocal about fighting a battle. They felt they had to be civilized and march in neat rows. the militia didn't do that. They hid behind trees, they shot from cover, they were considered barbaric. But they won the battles.

In vietnam the US followed strict protocol, rules of engagement. the VC didn't, they did what ever worked and it worked well.

In order to defeat an enemy you can't handcuff yourself and give them an obvious advanatage. You must fight fire with fire, no matter how distasteful it is to the spineless jellyfish libs back home.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by sammyg2
In order to defeat an enemy you can't handcuff yourself and give them an obvious advanatage. You must fight fire with fire, no matter how distasteful it is to the spineless jellyfish libs back home.

If that's the case, then why invade at all? If Iraq was truly the imminent thread that GWB would have us believe, and it wasn't about the oil, then we should have been perfecty justified in simply nuking them.

Go big or go home.

If you can't justify going into a fight with any resource at your disposal, then perhaps you should re-consider going in at all.

m21sniper · 09:01 AM

Quote:

Great going guys, another death squad is created. [/B]

LOL....i've always loved the Army version of that list.

If i may offer some advice to our brilliant 'leaders':

Kill Al Sadr and actually make a serious effort to close the borders with Iran and Syria- we might actually win that way.

From the info i get from the troops that post at my board, about half of the iraqi cops and troops are good folks, and the other half are detestable crooked cowards or insurgent plants.

I'm sure glad i don't live there.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by sammyg2
In 1778 the british army followed strict protocal about fighting a battle. They felt they had to be civilized and march in neat rows. the militia didn't do that. They hid behind trees, they shot from cover, they were considered barbaric. But they won the battles.

In vietnam the US followed strict protocol, rules of engagement. the VC didn't, they did what ever worked and it worked well.

In order to defeat an enemy you can't handcuff yourself and give them an obvious advanatage. You must fight fire with fire, no matter how distasteful it is to the spineless jellyfish libs back home.

Wow. Were you there, Sammy? Or did you just read about it on the internets? Because ever since you told us about "the media" burying the Long Beach racial beating case, (which has been front page news for weeks now in L.A.), I've noticed that you just seem to make schit up. And you're not very good at it.

The Viet Nam war was a guerilla war from the start, there were never any old school, American Civil war type battles w/ large battalions of troops advancing against opposing troops to capture land. You need to stick to shilling for big oil, at least you have the advantage that most of us are not in that industry and it's harder to tell when you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

m21sniper · 12-18-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sammyg2
In 1778 the british army followed strict protocal about fighting a battle. They felt they had to be civilized and march in neat rows. the militia didn't do that. They hid behind trees, they shot from cover, they were considered barbaric. But they won the battles.

In vietnam the US followed strict protocol, rules of engagement. the VC didn't, they did what ever worked and it worked well.

In order to defeat an enemy you can't handcuff yourself and give them an obvious advanatage. You must fight fire with fire, no matter how distasteful it is to the spineless jellyfish libs back home.

While i agree with the general spirit of your post, i would remind the board that sometimes barbaric tactics totally backfire in your face.

Just ask the Nazis...or the Japs.

m21sniper · 12-18-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Wow. Were you there, Sammy? Or did you just read about it on the internets? Because ever since you told us about "the media" burying the Long Beach racial beating case, (which has been front page news for weeks now in L.A.), I've noticed that you just seem to make schit up. And you're not very good at it.

The Viet Nam war was a guerilla war from the start, there were never any old school, American Civil war type battles w/ large battalions of troops advancing against opposing troops to capture land. You need to stick to shilling for big oil, at least you have the advantage that most of us are not in that industry and it's harder to tell when you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

I think you're mixing up what Sammy said a bit.

He specifically noted that the Brits used conventional 'rank and file' tactics in the Revolution, and that the US still used conventional battle doctrine and tactics when we got involved in Vietnam.

Both assertions are very much true.

And while you are correct that there were no 'civil war' type battles in vietnam, there were definitely several 'set piece' large scale conventional actions in that war, with the Ia Drang Valley and Hamburger Hill being two prime examples.

Not trying to start a pissin' match with ya, but in this case i think Sammy was pretty much on target with his comments.

fastpat · 12-18-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sammyg2
In vietnam the US followed strict protocol, rules of engagement. the VC didn't, they did what ever worked and it worked well.

Obviously, you have no idea about the Vietnam War. The largest expansion of Special Forces in US history took place during that war, that's why it's called the J.F.K. Special Warfare Center, L.R.R.P.'s were used to do "deep reconnaisance" patrols, which were little more than assasaination missions, and lots of other things.

So much so, that it appears you know less about the Vietnam War than you do about other things you've posted in this forum, and that's very bad, for you.