4 ms·

I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. A 'free fire' zone is an area wherein there is no requirement for soldiers to coordinate he

I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. A 'free fire' zone is an area wherein there is no requirement for soldiers to coordinate heavy arms fire with other units via HQ etc.. This is a very reasonable policy in jungle fights where units can come under ambush at any time, i.e. "We're in an ambush and we're about to die, can you ring up HQ to see if we can shoot back?" But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Though there are some situations in which Army Units did actively and knowingly fire on citizens, these are known and well documented tragedies of soldiers acting with fury in the moment agains villagers who were supporting insurgent forces - this was not and never was any kind of US policy, and the perpetrators faced Court Martial. The Vietnam war is so completely misinterpreted in pop culture; even to this day, it's disturbing.

stcredzero 8y ago
I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. I'm sorry, but I will show you to be mistaken below. But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Then you should have an issue with the Ken Burns documentary. I think I got the terminology wrong; "free fire zone" means something else. However, the practice I am referring -- that of designating everyone in a certain place as an enemy, then killing everyone within -- did happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre From Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" Part 5 narration: (00:44:43,393 --> 00:44:47,428) In the summer of 1967, Tiger Force was sent to the fertile Song Ve Valley. The entire population had already been herded from their homes and crowded into a refugee camp. But some had come back to resume the farming they had always done. The valley had officially been declared a free-fire zone, and Tiger Force's officers took that literally. "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action."
- stcredzero 8y ago
  This is disgusting for HN. I debunk what the gp post says with citations and quotes. The result? I get downvoted more.
  - vntok 8y ago
    Complaining about it definitely won't improve the situation.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Empirically speaking, this turned out to be incorrect.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Quoting a highly biased source, Ken Burns, and then misinterpreting it is not beneficial to the argument.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, you have misinterpreted. The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target, which is perfectly reasonable policy while fighting an insurgency. In normal rules of engagement, the women and children running out of the village are obviously out of bounds. They are civilians. You can't fire at them for any reason. In a 'free fire' zone, anyone can be considered an enemy combatant if the situation indicates as such. The woman running out of the village with an AK-47 - is 'in bounds' as an enemy combatant in an area where villagers are considered on the side of the insurgents. Obviously, random civilians are not. The misinterpretation of 'free fire' or the 'loose application' of it are considered 'war crimes' by the US and it was absolutely never intended that the policy be used by soldiers to just shoot up people - your implication that it was used this way is completely false. The My Lai massacre was a war crime, not an intentional act sanctioned by US forces. Also: war is dirty. There are no wars without war crimes. Once the bad genie comes out ... it spills all around, the best we can do is contain it. FYI that's one of the hardest things to do, i.e. make those kinds of calls in the field - often it's not obvious. Go and watch one of the documentaries that delve into US forces wrangling over a decision to drop munitions, and consider how tricky those decisions are ... so many factors.

stcredzero 8y ago

I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. I'm sorry, but I will show you to be mistaken below. But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Then you should have an issue with the Ken Burns documentary. I think I got the terminology wrong; "free fire zone" means something else. However, the practice I am referring -- that of designating everyone in a certain place as an enemy, then killing everyone within -- did happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre From Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" Part 5 narration: (00:44:43,393 --> 00:44:47,428) In the summer of 1967, Tiger Force was sent to the fertile Song Ve Valley. The entire population had already been herded from their homes and crowded into a refugee camp. But some had come back to resume the farming they had always done. The valley had officially been declared a free-fire zone, and Tiger Force's officers took that literally. "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action."

stcredzero 8y ago
This is disgusting for HN. I debunk what the gp post says with citations and quotes. The result? I get downvoted more.
- vntok 8y ago
  Complaining about it definitely won't improve the situation.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Empirically speaking, this turned out to be incorrect.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Quoting a highly biased source, Ken Burns, and then misinterpreting it is not beneficial to the argument.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, you have misinterpreted. The US does not declare that US forces should just go and kill anyone, rather, 'anyone' can be considered a target, which is perfectly reasonable policy while fighting an insurgency. In normal rules of engagement, the women and children running out of the village are obviously out of bounds. They are civilians. You can't fire at them for any reason. In a 'free fire' zone, anyone can be considered an enemy combatant if the situation indicates as such. The woman running out of the village with an AK-47 - is 'in bounds' as an enemy combatant in an area where villagers are considered on the side of the insurgents. Obviously, random civilians are not. The misinterpretation of 'free fire' or the 'loose application' of it are considered 'war crimes' by the US and it was absolutely never intended that the policy be used by soldiers to just shoot up people - your implication that it was used this way is completely false. The My Lai massacre was a war crime, not an intentional act sanctioned by US forces. Also: war is dirty. There are no wars without war crimes. Once the bad genie comes out ... it spills all around, the best we can do is contain it. FYI that's one of the hardest things to do, i.e. make those kinds of calls in the field - often it's not obvious. Go and watch one of the documentaries that delve into US forces wrangling over a decision to drop munitions, and consider how tricky those decisions are ... so many factors.