Loony Sunni's Attack Well Armed Convoy...Then Complain of Harsh Response.

[rikzilla]

I guess there's a really good reason that they mostly attack unarmed aid workers, the UN, and the Red Crescent....

It's because they suck at soldiering. :rolleyes:

54 Iraqis die of stupidity.... (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)

Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the night.



I guess the Fedayeen uniforms were just their casual clothes then?

-z

[richardm]

Turns out that they were protecting Iraqis from the pernicious Western invaders by trying to remove a large amount of the dread Capitalist Currency. No doubt in order to distribute it to the poor. Ahem.

Not quite the noble aim they might have claimed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3253236.stm)

In a way, it's a shame they didn't get away with it. Then we could just monitor plumbing supply shops until a large order for gold taps and marble baths was placed, and follow the delivery truck to Saddam's hiding place.

[Graham]

It's hard to tell from that article which way this went down.

The basic story is essentially - US troops attacked, fought back.

After that it gets a bit confused.

There's the US version - we were attacked by Fedayeen and killed 56 of them taking minimal casualties ourselves.

And the "local" version -

Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank shells. No children were hurt.

and

Residents of the central Iraqi city disputed those figures, saying at most eight or nine people died.

. . . which is an entirely different story.

So which is "true"? I don't know and neither do you but I know which story they'll be repeating on the streets of Bagdad.

The lack of concern for civilians apparently demonstrated by the troops in this incident and by people like you Rik, certainly won't help that either.

Graham

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I guess there's a really good reason that they mostly attack unarmed aid workers, the UN, and the Red Crescent....

It's because they suck at soldiering. :rolleyes:

54 Iraqis die of stupidity.... (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)

Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined the fight.

Hmm... soldiers were firing at random, but resisting them is wrong!

I guess the message here is that if an invading power is shooting at you, you should immediately give up. I hope you remember that, Rik, if your area is ever invaded. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Graham

The lack of concern for civilians apparently demonstrated by the troops in this incident and by people like you Rik, certainly won't help that either.

Graham
I must disagree with this. This was an ambush of a U.S. convoy. The "insurgents" chose the battlefield. If they attacked in an area populated by civilians, it is on their heads.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky


Hmm... soldiers were firing at random, but resisting them is wrong!

I guess the message here is that if an invading power is shooting at you, you should immediately give up. I hope you remember that, Rik, if your area is ever invaded. ;) [/QUOTE]

Tricky,

If you read the article, the "at random" comment was made by one of the disgruntled "locals"...who after the battle was done were said to be shouting pro-Saddam slogans.

I daresay that this source would be at odds with official US sources. Unless of course any of the insurgents were actually named "Random"...then of course, their comments would be accurate.

-z

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tricky


Hmm... soldiers were firing at random, but resisting them is wrong!

I guess the message here is that if an invading power is shooting at you, you should immediately give up. [/QUOTE]

Yes, you should. If you don't you are ipso facto a combatant. If they wish to be combatants that is a fair enough choice but complaints about getting killed are then somewhat disingenous.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rikzilla

If you read the article, the "at random" comment was made by one of the disgruntled "locals"...who after the battle was done were said to be shouting pro-Saddam slogans.


Damned natives!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I guess the message here is that if an invading power is shooting at you, you should immediately give up. I hope you remember that, Rik, if your area is ever invaded. ;)

That's basically your thesis when it comes to the police.

[Skeptic]

Anyone ELSE sees the rather interesting similarity to palestinian claims of "israeli massacres" here?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Anyone ELSE sees the rather interesting similarity to palestinian claims of "israeli massacres" here?

Does the Israeli Army normally declare more casualities/kills than the Palestinians do? (See Graham's quotes.)

Otherwise, yes, there are similarities. One similarity is that a visibly identifiable army is involved in a conflict with not so clearly identifiable enemy. The risk for civilian casualties increase.

One big difference was that the US convoy wasn't targetting Iraqis, the US convoy was attacked first, and the US returned fire.

Come to think of it, there's not a whole lot of similarity, and you're letting your biases show again, Skeptic.

[Skeptic]

Otherwise, yes, there are similarities. One similarity is that a visibly identifiable army is involved in a conflict with not so clearly identifiable enemy. The risk for civilian casualties increase.

Well, then! After all, the main complaint against the israeli army is that it "kills civlians" and "not respecting human rights".

We all know the drill, don't we? The arab nations will now call for a special session of the UN Security Council; the council obeys and passes a resolution condemning the USA for using "excessive force"; demands that it stop the "occupation of Iraq"; claims the US troops fighting back only "perpetuates the cycle of violence"; formally declares that "Americanism is racism", etc., etc., etc.

For some reason, that isn't happening.

Strange.

One big difference was that the US convoy wasn't targetting Iraqis, the US convoy was attacked first, and the US returned fire.

Which, of course, is very often the case with the israeli army, as well.

Of course, I don't recall much outrage when the American army DOES attack first or destroys terrorists' houses--as it did a week or two ago in reprisal for the bombings of its bases--either.

Remember the huge bruhahaha the last time israel did the same?

Of course, there IS one difference (so far): at least the Iraqis complaining are not inventing the casualties out of thin air, like the palestinian claims about a "massacre" in Jenin, for example, where (among other fairy tales) israeli tanks supposedly "destroyed" hospital buildings which never existed in the first place, or "ran over" an equally imaginary Palestinian baby...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Otherwise, yes, there are similarities. One similarity is that a visibly identifiable army is involved in a conflict with not so clearly identifiable enemy. The risk for civilian casualties increase.

Well, then! After all, the main complaint against the israeli army is that it "kills civlians" and "not respecting human rights".

We all know the drill, don't we? The arab nations will now call for a special session of the UN Security Council; the council obeys and passes a resolution condemning the USA for using "excessive force"; demands that it stop the "occupation of Iraq"; claims the US troops fighting back only "perpetuates the cycle of violence"; formally declares that "Americanism is racism", etc., etc., etc.

For some reason, that isn't happening.

Strange.

One big difference was that the US convoy wasn't targetting Iraqis, the US convoy was attacked first, and the US returned fire.

Which, of course, is very often the case with the israeli army, as well.

Of course, I don't recall much outrage when the American army DOES attack first or destroys terrorists' houses--as it did a week or two ago in reprisal for the bombings of its bases--either.

Remember the huge bruhahaha the last time israel did the same?

Of course, there IS one difference (so far): at least the Iraqis complaining are not inventing the casualties out of thin air, like the palestinian claims about a "massacre" in Jenin, for example, where (among other fairy tales) israeli tanks supposedly "destroyed" hospital buildings which never existed in the first place, or "ran over" an equally imaginary Palestinian baby...


Skeptic, in all fairness there are few major differences between Israel and USA in this situation. The biggest one, as I see it, is that after US "clears" the area of suspected terrorists/insurgents it does not then settle the area with US citizens for "strategic reason." Second, the conflict has not even lasted a year and so even the critics still have hope of a reasonable resolution where in Israel most have lost all hope of there ever being peace.


Edited for spelling errors.

[American]

Originally posted by Graham

The lack of concern for civilians apparently demonstrated by the troops in this incident and by people like you Rik, certainly won't help that either.


"BABY MILK FACTORY"

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[specious_reasons]

I think I'll start a new thread, rather than hijack this thread. I actually think that comparison of US vs. Israeli occupation might be interesting...

Originally posted by Skeptic
(snip)
Well, then! After all, the main complaint against the israeli army is that it "kills civlians" and "not respecting human rights".

We all know the drill, don't we? The arab nations will now call for a special session of the UN Security Council; the council obeys and passes a resolution condemning the USA for using "excessive force"; demands that it stop the "occupation of Iraq"; claims the US troops fighting back only "perpetuates the cycle of violence"; formally declares that "Americanism is racism", etc., etc., etc.

For some reason, that isn't happening.

Strange.
(snip)

[TillEulenspiegel]

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of the whole non-ending Israeli-Palistinian thread crap from monomaniacs like Mycroft,Skeptic,AUP,Demon,Cleopatra? They could turn a question about a hangnail into an anti-Israeli diatribe or an anti-Arab rant. It's always the same people, always the same speeches...reading thier threads and hoping for a new understanding or synthesis is like re-reading a book hoping it turns out differently.

I stopped posting on thier threads because they all belong to the same club of the self-convinced, there is no interchange of ideas and less accommodation. I say we award them for thier perseverance in the face of truth and thier respective torture of logic by giving them thier own forum, where they and thier fellows of like ( and opposite) mind can cast invectives till the cows come home.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Bump
Hey Im serious about this, I am bone tired of thier BS, if noone else feels the same I'll shutup.

[Mr Manifesto]

What's your problem with Muslims?

Hangnails are caused by crescent-moon shaped nail cutting. So obviously you're trying to bring up how much you hate Muslims by bringing up hangnails. I'm sick and tired of the anti-Muslim bias brought up by you and yours. Frankly, unless Israel gets out of the occupied territories, there will be no end to the hangnail problem.

[Mr Manifesto]

Death is the great converter (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=31526)

So... erm... We can't find any of the bodies of the insurgents, they just disappeared. All we have is a bunch of civilians who insist they were the only ones killed. Either that or the guerillas, for some reason, stood their ground for the first time so they could all die.

Who dragged the bodies away, btw?

Well, looks like the US has earnt some more enemies.

[Jon_in_london]

Another thing all you mighty righty 'skeptics' arent questioning is why geurilla fighters would be wearing uniforms at all.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Another thing all you mighty righty 'skeptics' arent questioning is why geurilla fighters would be wearing uniforms at all.

Good Point! Perhaps they were dressed up for a Ramadan killing spree? Holiday cheers...

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said that in one of the ambushes, a dozen attackers dashed out of a mosque and opened fire on U.S. military vehicles. They also fired from alleyways and rooftops.
(from the link that started this thread)


What were they in the mosque for? Praying for more bullets? Why isn't anyone questioning why these (as some fantasize) "freedom fighters" would open fire so close to a kindergarten? If a foreign force trying to remove an evil dictator occupied your country, would you go so far as to use children as political pawns?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Good Point! Perhaps they were dressed up for a Ramadan killing spree? Holiday cheers...


Maybe there werent any uniforms at all.

[The Don]

I heard this morning from the BBC, that lefty pinko communist news source that isn't anywhere near as reliable as Fox News, that the figure of 54 was based on claims from infantrymen rather than a bodycount.

During WWII, victories in air battles were typically overinflated by a fator of between 2 and 5.

Maybe the same thing happened here.

BTW the fedayeen (sp ?) uniform is primarily black, maybe people were just wearing black becuase it's so slimming ?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Don
I heard this morning from the BBC, that lefty pinko communist news source that isn't anywhere near as reliable as Fox News, that the figure of 54 was based on claims from infantrymen rather than a bodycount.

During WWII, victories in air battles were typically overinflated by a fator of between 2 and 5.

Maybe the same thing happened here.

BTW the fedayeen (sp ?) uniform is primarily black, maybe people were just wearing black becuase it's so slimming ?

I'd believe that. I've seen some of the insurgents, and they really need to work on their traps and pecs. I mean, what's with that country- don't they have a Jim?

[Little Ms Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I'd believe that. I've seen some of the insurgents, and they really need to work on their traps and pecs. I mean, what's with that country- don't they have a Jim?

Don't you mean 'gym'?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Little Ms Manifesto


Don't you mean 'gym'?

No... I mean Jim, my training instructor! (boom! boom!)




Evening ladies and germs, I just flew in from Boston, and boy...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Don
During WWII, victories in air battles were typically overinflated by a fator of between 2 and 5.


Sometimes a lot more than that.

During the daytime bombing raids over Germany, dozens of gunners would all be aiming at one fighter. Thus, that one kill was claimed by dozens of different people.

Sometimes the claimed kills exceeded the grand total number of aircraft the Luftwaffe had at the time.

[/derailment]

[Mr Manifesto]

Can anyone debunk this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5329.htm)?

That is, is there anything that gives this away as being a load of *****? I hate being duped, but I can't tell from the way someone talks if they're really in the military or not.

[bangdazap]

Mystery shrouds whereabouts of bodies of 54 insurgents said killed by US (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20031201/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_unrest_samarra_031201203113&e=3)

Iraqis deny US accounts of fierce fight with 'guerrillas' (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=469253)

Ferocious gun battle that left no bodies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/02/wirq02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/02/ixnewstop.html)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by The Don
I heard this morning from the BBC, that lefty pinko communist news source that isn't anywhere near as reliable as Fox News, that the figure of 54 was based on claims from infantrymen rather than a bodycount.

Maybe it's because The U.S. is now releasing enemy body counts. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2263200)
This appears to indicate a change in propaganda tactics for the U.S. Previously, they wanted to downplay civilian casualties, so they claimed not to be able to tell how many were killed. Now that much of the resistance is coming from "civilians", it becomes important to show that we are killing insurgents in large numbers. Those previously uncountable casualties have become not only countable, but multiply-able.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I guess there's a really good reason that they mostly attack unarmed aid workers, the UN, and the Red Crescent....

It's because they suck at soldiering. :rolleyes:

54 Iraqis die of stupidity.... (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)



I guess the Fedayeen uniforms were just their casual clothes then?

-z

Excuse me Rik, but the people who did the attack are not the same people who are complaining about the US response.

It is the civilians who had nothing to do with attack but happened to be in the general area of the attack that are complaining about the US response.

[Frank Newgent]

The US will end up just pulling out of the area from Baghdad to Tikrit, leaving it to the Sunni. The Kurdish north and Shia south can decide what to do with them. The Sunni must negotiate for they have everything to lose in this.

Rove will opt out of this soon because it's a loser politically. Because what's the objective, anyhow? Setting up a nation-wide vote in which the majority Shia win?

For that would be ironic...

[Skeptic]

The US will end up just pulling out of the area from Baghdad to Tikrit, leaving it to the Sunni.

Says who?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Excuse me Rik, but the people who did the attack are not the same people who are complaining about the US response.

It is the civilians who had nothing to do with attack but happened to be in the general area of the attack that are complaining about the US response.

Smile...and use quotation marks when you speak of these "civilians" my friend.

Or do you not remember, that at every turn during the initial invasion, troops were finding empty uniforms.

Enemy troops were captured wearing bedouin robes over their uniforms,...insurgents conducted operations in civilian clothes,...operated from command posts located in schools, hospitals, mosques,..etc...

Originally posted by Crossbow
It is the civilians who had nothing to do with attack but happened to be in the general area of the attack that are complaining about the US response.

I've had plenty of dealings with you Crossbow,...stupid you are not. But if I didn't know better, had to judge you on that statement alone,..it would be easy to mistake you as such.

-z

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Smile...and use quotation marks when you speak of these "civilians" my friend.

Or do you not remember, that at every turn during the initial invasion, troops were finding empty uniforms.

Enemy troops were captured wearing bedouin robes over their uniforms,...insurgents conducted operations in civilian clothes,...operated from command posts located in schools, hospitals, mosques,..etc...

I've had plenty of dealings with you Crossbow,...stupid you are not. But if I didn't know better, had to judge you on that statement alone,..it would be easy to mistake you as such.

-z

OK, then let me try to spell it out.

IF there is extended, intense fighting between large, well armed groups in a heavily populated urban area,
THEN the chances of civilian causalities being inflicted are high.

If this sounds reasonable, then please read on.

THEREFORE, I submit that it is the civilians who had to contend with the fighting as opposed to the people who were actually engaged in the fighting who are the ones that are complaining about the US response during the Samarra attack.

OK now?

To prove the point, you may want to take a look at this account of the battle in question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26784-2003Dec1.html

Battle Reveals New Iraqi Tactics
Troops Startled by Fighters' Unprecedented Coordination and Resolve

SAMARRA, Iraq, Dec. 1 -- Sgt. 1st Class Robert Hollis knew there was trouble even before the shooting started. As he stood guard in his M1-A1 Abrams tank outside a bank in this Sunni Muslim town, the usually busy streets suddenly emptied Sunday. Men hurried down back alleys, some running. Women dragged their children away from the positions of U.S. troops.

...

The city's hospital reported only eight dead, all of them civilians, although officials there acknowledged that the bodies of fighters might not have been brought there.

...

Down the street, Bassem Feisal was too late. The Iraqi, who is mentally disabled, stayed in the street outside a cafe, even after the shooting started, according to his brother Saad. Bassem was shot twice in the left arm, but survived a fusillade of gunfire that riddled a seven-story building near the bank with dozens of holes.

Saad stood Monday near a sedan crushed under a tank's treads. "This is the gift of Mr. Bush?" he asked, his shirt smeared with his brother's blood.

...

Abid Toufiq, the director of the 150-bed hospital, said the wounded kept arriving in batches every 15 minutes or half-hour. In all, he said, the hospital treated 54 people, 10 of whom were in critical condition. It recorded eight dead, one of them a woman and two others under 18. The deluge was so severe inside the hospital that doctors inserted intravenous needles into patients as they lay on the floor.

...

[TillEulenspiegel]

Man this whole thing is reminiscent of nam in the late '60's early 70's...Hearts and minds morfed from a political slogan to areas to target with your weapon, You couldn't tell the friendlies from the cong. The dispirited grunts who had seen so much BS that flowed had a saying, kill em all let god sort em out.

I surely hope this fiasco doesn't go south after all the blood and treasure we've spent. ( and I'm sure the relatives our brethren who were killed feel the same )

Edit to add:
Sometimes living in this country feels like being in the back of a Lincoln streach limo driven by a lunitic.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Graham

The lack of concern for civilians apparently demonstrated by the troops in this incident and by people like you Rik, certainly won't help that either.

Graham

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I must disagree with this. This was an ambush of a U.S. convoy. The "insurgents" chose the battlefield. If they attacked in an area populated by civilians, it is on their heads.


Objectively, I agree with you entirely. Ultimate moral responsibility for the whole affair lies with the instigators.

In a situation like this, however, truth and justice are out the window and what matters is perception.

From the quotations in the linked article, it would appear that the local perception is that the US forces are to blame for the deaths of their people and destruction of their property.

Incidentally, if this was just an armoured car heist, that happens occasionally in the "civilised" world too. Imagine this was an armed robbery on a security truck delivering cash or bonds or something to a bank in a major US city.

Do you think the local police would have responded in the same manner?

Graham

[richardm]

Originally posted by Graham
[i]
Incidentally, if this was just an armoured car heist, that happens occasionally in the "civilised" world too. Imagine this was an armed robbery on a security truck delivering cash or bonds or something to a bank in a major US city.

Do you think the local police would have responded in the same manner?

Graham


It's Apples and Oranges, though, Graham. You can't compare the reaction to an armoured car heist in New York to an attack in a war zone (Which let's face it, is what parts of Iraq still are) which has almost daily lethal assaults on military personnel.

[Graham]

Originally posted by richardm



It's Apples and Oranges, though, Graham. You can't compare the reaction to an armoured car heist in New York to an attack in a war zone (Which let's face it, is what parts of Iraq still are) which has almost daily lethal assaults on military personnel.

Hey - I've seen movies, you can't tell me New Yorks not a war zone!

Seriously though, I would agree with you, richard, except that the war is supposedly over and these are police actions.

Police forces are limited in their options when it comes to armed crime. This restricts their ability to deal with crime to an extent but there is a reason for it.

Graham

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Little Ms Manifesto


Don't you mean 'gym'?

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>edited by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported as a possible sock puppet. It is not. This new account was coordinated with me, and is the friend of person involved. No problems here.
</font></td></tr></table>

[Mr Manifesto]

Ooohhh! :sings: Someone's got a gru-udge, someone's got a gru-udge!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Ooohhh! :sings: Someone's got a gru-udge, someone's got a gru-udge!
Not me, I can't wait til the Ms. gets 50 posts so I can see what her avatar looks like. I'm thinking it's Hillary. :p

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

Not me, I can't wait til the Ms. gets 50 posts so I can see what her avatar looks like. I'm thinking it's Hillary. :p

If I know her as well as I think I do, the sig line should be a big clue.

[WildCat]

SAVE THE TAPIR
So it is Hillary! :D