Talk:Free-fire zone

message: A free fire zone (FFZ), which is now called a free fire area (FFA) is an FCM. (Why the name change? Well, it’s often said in the military, “Every time an acronym changes, a Colonel gets his wings.”)
Operational Terms and Graphics -- Army Field Manual 101-5-1/Marine Corps Reference Publication 5-2A 30 September 1997 -- defines a free fire area as follows:
free fire area (FFA) -- A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. Normally, it is established on identifiable terrain by division or higher headquarters. (See also fire support coordination and rules of engagement (ROE).) See FM 6-20 series.
=== Lanes ===
Here’s some background and a hypothetical to put it in layman’s terms. The Army and Marines divide the battlefield into lanes, and every unit from Corps down to Platoon has its own lane; its own slice of the battlefield. As a general rule, no one from Division A may fire into Division B’s lane without first coordinating with Division B. This is good because troops in Division A don’t usually know exactly where Division B is or what Division B is up to. Firing into Division B’s lane may cause fratricide or disrupt Division B’s plans in some way. This is also bad because if troops in Division A see the enemy in Division B’s lane, they can’t help Division B without time consuming coordination. So…
=== FCM ===
Let’s say Division A and Division B are fighting side by side. Let’s say there is a portion of Division B’s lane, in which Division B has no troops and which Division B can’t see (perhaps it’s behind a mountain). Let’s further imagine that Division A has good visibility of this area and has plenty of artillery or air support which could cover an enemy attack there. The commander of Division B will designate this area a “free fire area” meaning that Division A can fire into that portion of Division B’s lane without coordination. It does not mean that combatants are allowed to mow down anything and every thing that moves. The ROE, the LOAC, and the Geneva Conventions still apply in the FFA. It is an FCM not a war crime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 
:Note that "FCM" stands for fire control measure. Soldiers tend to use acronyms a lot to save time. Uncle Ed 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFZ and FFA 

message: Let’s say Division A and Division B are fighting side by side. Let’s say there is a portion of Division B’s lane, in which Division B has no troops and which Division B can’t see (perhaps it’s behind a mountain). Let’s further imagine that Division A has good visibility of this area and has plenty of artillery or air support which could cover an enemy attack there. The commander of Division B will designate this area a “free fire area” meaning that Division A can fire into that portion of Division B’s lane without coordination. It does not mean that combatants are allowed to mow down anything and every thing that moves. The ROE, the LOAC, and the Geneva Conventions still apply in the FFA. It is an FCM not a war crime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 
:Note that "FCM" stands for fire control measure. Soldiers tend to use acronyms a lot to save time. Uncle Ed 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FCM 

message: I just read the "Crimes of War Project" page cited in the article. It insinuates that the Department of Defense defined a free fire zone in terms of:
:declaring a suspect village a “free fire zone,” then destroying it and its residents.
The strange and disturbing thing about this, is that this comes from the opening paragraph of the page which specifically said that the Department of Defense wanted to prevent "jittery U.S. soldiers from mistakenly, or intentionally" doing this!!
I find this kind of double-talk, on the part of "anti-war" activists to be a typical smear tactic.
Later in the page, Simons refers to "Free fire zones as defined by Department of Defense doctrine and the rules of engagement" as:
: a severe violation of the laws of war for two reasons
and yet he has not only failed to quote the DoD definition, he has sneakily and falsely implied that DoD has a definition 180 degrees opposite to the definition I finally dug up and presented in the WP article's intro.
Almost every piece of communist propaganda I've seen engages in exactly the same kind of trickery and fallacious reasoning.
They dance around the facts, assume their initial point has been made, and then refer to their initial point in support of their next point. 
This is entirely illegitimate.
Wikipedia should expose this sort of thing - not support it, or worse, engage in it. Uncle Ed 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition dance

message: The real issue is whether the "free fire" designation was intended to give soldiers carte blanche to shoot and destroy anyone and anything in the zone. Regardless of whether the term in actual use with free-fire zone or free fire area - zone or area, what's the difference?
The "anti-war" folks are unanimous in asserting that free-fire meant "Kill them all". The pro-US folks pretty much say that free-fire did NOT mean this.
The anti-war crew say that killing unarmed, unresisting civilians was deliberate US policy. The pro-US folks consistently deny this and blame "isolated" atrocities on local commanders (as at My Lai). 
The anti-war folks say atrocties (by the US) were routine and frequent. The pro-US side says it happened far too often, but not anywhere as frequently as anti-US side claims. Rather, they say it was the Communists who routinely did this.
in fact this is the crux of the matter, by using the big lie technique the evel side here has covered up its own crimes by blaming the US for the things the evil side actually did! Uncle Ed 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free fire and indiscriminate fire

message: I would like to understand in greater detail the legitimacy of antiwar outrage at USA military conduct in Vietnam during the conflict period.
I see concern expressed at the actions of USA forces against those who are presumably civilian Vietnamese nationals; however, what is a soldier and what is a civilian?  The Geneva Convention tells us a soldier bears distinct kinds of identification, wears certain distinct uniforms, and is attached to a Power that has acceded to the Convention.  The American soldier meets all of these tests; the Viet Cong soldier fails at least one and likely all three of these tests; how therefore can any Vietnamese national be a civilian if none of them can be soldiers?  The just conclusion appears to be that Vietnam had an illegitimate government which hired unlawful combatants.
Jessemckay 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How is antiwar outrage legitimate in citing the Geneva Convention?

message: The section with testimony regarding FFZs is certainly one-sided.  Indeed, before I did a bit of editing, the article made the conclusion that such zones, in and of themselves, violated the law of war because civilians might be in the zone and thereby killed. The whole article, not just the testimony section, could use some NPOV work. --S. Rich (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  i have cleaned it up just to be able to tell where the quotes came from and who is speaking, but it is still kind of lacking in detail, the lack of detail is making it POV. Decora (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV -- one sided presentation re testimony 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free-fire zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924182430/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified