...then laughed and told the trooper to finish the job as the dying man convulsed on the ground...

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2007/September/focusoniraq_September194.xml§ion=focusoniraq

Sergeant ordered to kill unarmed Iraqi: soldier
(AP)

28 September 2007

BAGHDAD - A US soldier cried as he told a court-martial that his staff sergeant ordered him to shoot an unarmed Iraqi. He said the sergeant then laughed and told the trooper to finish the job as the dying man convulsed on the ground.

The military reported, meanwhile, that it had opened an investigation into the deaths of five women and four children this week in a village where American forces had carried out ground and air assaults.

Both incidents took place in a region south of the capital known as the triangle of death, a Sunni-dominated area that has seen some of the war’s heaviest fighting and most gruesome deaths.

Prosecutors claim the first case involved the killing of an Iraqi man with a 9mm pistol, placing an AK-47 rifle by his body to make it seem as though he was armed, and failing to ensure humane treatment of a detainee _ the victim.



Quick, look over there at Myanmar.

but I have heard the exact same type of story. The real reason some soldiers are carrying AK's is to plant next to Iraqis that they kill unlawfully.

US Soldiers, except for possibly select members of USSOCOM, do not carry AK-47s.

The M-4/M-16 rifle is a very capable weapon, when properly maintained, and ammunition in theater is in plentiful supply.

Some soldiers prefer the AK-47, at least according to articles I've read. The AK-47 has much better stopping power as well (more lethal). Its range is shorter but in urban combat that really doesn't matter. It also is famous for its reliability in extreme conditions such as cold, dust, or mud, whereas the M-16 has a reputation as being tempermental and jam-prone, even after several revisions. The only disadvantage for the AK-47 is that the ammo is bigger and weighs more, so soldiers cannot carry as many rounds. And it has more muzzle climb and kickback. But in sporadic urban fighting that might not be an issue.

The SKS is actually much more common around the world, even though it is not a fully automatic weapon. I've actually fired one of these, my uncle owns several. The M-4 carbine is also a good gun, not as reliable as the AK-47 but far more suited to urban combat than the M-16.

However, it doesn't disprove that some units aren't dropping off an AK-47 when a situation "goes bad" and they killed somebody they shouldn't have.

Like I said, besides maybe a few SOCOM dudes, nobody in the US armed forces carries AKs. But then again, that's only been my own personal 1st-hand experience and probably doesn't have the spit and polish of a CNN report.

was that some units (in this case Marines) carry around an extra AK-47 to plant beside a body of somebody they kill, knowing that they should not have killed him because they were non-combatants or otherwise unlawfully killed. The AK-47 is suppossed to suggest they were a combatant.

The source I heard it from was appalled at this suggestion and told the guy "you better not be saying that in public" to that effect.

once there is a reason to shoot them twice'.

Sounds like you're really on to something there. '

:sarcasm:

It is indirect (somebody heard somebody say), meaning the person I heard it from was not directly involved. But it is a trustworthy source.

What?