Re: Is that they call discriminate fire? Yes, actually...

I'm glad our troops have better things to do than gather corpses.  But even
if they had, people like you wouldn't believe the numbers anyway.   I'm
wondering why American success bothers you so much.  Perhaps because it
conflicts so much with your reality?  It must be a terrible burden to be a
citizen of a declining nation.

Jarg

"Michael Petukhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "No Spam!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > > SAMARRA, Iraq (AFP) - Scenes of devastation dotted the Iraqi town of
> > > Samarra after fierce clashes between US forces and insurgents in which
> > > senior police and hospital officials said at least eight civilians
> > > were killed and dozens wounded
> >
> > Ummm, let's see.
>
> Let's...
>
> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=27886&lang=en
>
> US sticks by 54 insurgent kill claims despite not recovering one body,
> denies civilian casualties
> 02.12.2003 [00:15]
>
>
> BAGHDAD (AFP) The US military vowed to continue aggressive tactics
> after saying it killed 54 people following a "coordinated" ambush of
> its troops in the northern Iraqi town of Samarra where eight civilians
> were among the dead.
>
> A top US military commander acknowledged, however, that the Samarra
> death toll was based entirely on estimates gleaned from troop
> debriefings and that US forces had not recovered a single body from
> the scene of Sunday's clashes.
>
> In London meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman
> said the US-led coalition, which lost 14 people in the worst weekend
> of violence in seven months, would not be "bombed or intimidated" into
> a humiliating retreat.
>
> But another US soldier died of wounds received Monday when Iraqi
> gunmen attacked an army convoy west of Baghdad, the military said,
> taking the total of US deaths in combat to 187 since President George
> W. Bush declared major fighting over on May 1.
>
> The attack on the convoys of the US 4th Infantry Division, which
> patrols the Samarra region, 125 kilometres (75 miles) north of
> Baghdad, was described as the heaviest faced by the division in Iraq
> since the March-launched invasion to topple Saddam Hussein's regime,
> though it sustained no losses.
>
> It followed the deaths of seven Spaniards, two Koreans, two Japanese,
> a Colombian and two US soldiers in separate attacks around the country
> over the weekend in what US commanders called a deliberate attempt to
> intimidate Washington's allies.
>
> The ambush in Samarra "was a coordinated attack ... on a convoy that
> was delivering a significant amount of Iraqi currency," said Colonel
> Fredrick Rudesheim of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team Commando.
>
> "It was a concerted effort by the enemy to deal a significant blow to
> coalition forces," Rudesheim told reporters at a military base outside
> the town.
>
> "We are going to continue to take the fight to this enemy," Rudesheim
> said.
>
> Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt estimated the number of dead in Samarra
> at 54, along with 22 wounded, all of them insurgents, upping the death
> toll from the previous 46. He also said one person was detained.
>
> Challenged about what happened to the bodies of the 54 militants said
> to have been killed, Kimmitt said: "I would suspect that the enemy
> would have carried them away and brought them back to where their
> initial base was."
>
> Asked about reports from senior police and hospital officials in the
> town of eight civilians killed and dozens more wounded, the US general
> insisted: "We have no such reports whether from medical authorities or
> police.
>
> "We don't have any reports of collateral damage or killing or wounding
> of innocent civilians. If we get these reports, they will be included
> in the investigation."
>
> But a medic at Samarra hospital said the bodies of "eight civilians
> including a woman and a child," were received at the hospital.
>
> Hospital director Abed Tawfiq said "more than 60 people wounded by
> gunfire and shrapnel from US rounds are being treated at the
> hospital."
>
> It was not immediately clear whether the figure included two Iranian
> pilgrims said to have been killed in their bus. Iranian Foreign
> Minister Kamal Kharazi on Monday condemned what he called the "blind
> attacks" by US forces.
>
> Kimmitt acknowledged that the one insurgent now confirmed in custody
> was a sharp reduction on the 11 claimed captured by the commanding
> colonel in Samarra earlier in the day.
>
> "Some of those early reports might have been a bit off," he said.
>
> The bloodshed from Sunday's clashes prompted members of Samarra's
> tribal council to demand an immediate US pullout from the built-up
> area.
>
> But the US military officials denied their forces had fired
> indiscriminately, as charged by senior police, hospital and municipal
> officials in the town.
>
> US Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, visiting Brussels, was asked if the
> latest violence did not underline the increasing unrest in Iraq, in
> contrast to claims that the situation was becoming calmer.
>
> "Both things are taking place. There are a limited number of people
> who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children," he said,
> but stressed that at the same time "the vast majority of the country
> is not in conflict."
>
> Washington's strongest ally in Iraq meanwhile vowed the coalition
> would not be deterred.
>
> "The coalition -- be it UK, US, Spain or Japan -- is not going to be
> bombed or intimidated out of Iraq, and it is going to keep its eye
> very, very firmly on the prize of a democratic and prosperous country
> run by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people," Blair's spokesman told
> reporters.
>
> "There are bound to be setbacks, there are bound to be tragic deaths
> -- and there are bound to be individuals inside Iraq who wish to turn
> the clock back and who stand for nothing and simply want to visit
> murder and mayhem not only on the coalition but on the Iraqi people as
> well," the spokesman said.
>
> Blair's special representative for human rights in Iraq also said
> Monday there had been no large-scale abuses by the US-led coalition
> forces.
>
> Ann Clwyd told a Baghdad press conference she was aware of allegations
> that rights may have been trampled but "none that has been proved."
>
> In Seoul, Foreign Minister Yoon Young-Kwan insisted the surge in
> violence -- including the killings of two South Korean civilian
> contractors on Sunday -- would not thwart South Korea's plans to send
> troops to Iraq.
>
> "This case will not affect the issue of sending troops to Iraq. There
> has been no change in our policy on the troop dispatch," he said.
>
> In Tokyo, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi lashed out at
> "indiscriminate" attacks in Iraq that killed two of the country's
> diplomats as a poll showed little public backing for sending troops.
>
> Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa, meanwhile, voiced his
> "extreme concern" after the Samarra clashes.
>
> ADDED NOTE by DEATHTODUBYA: Take note of the claim by Kimmit: "I would
> suspect that the enemy would have carried them [their bodies] away and
> brought them back to where their initial base was." Now how do
> insurgents under heavy fire, manage to secret away 54 bodies? Assuming
> two rebels per body plus others providing covering fire, it would mean
> that there would be at least 150-200 insurgents in the battle!And yet
> 200 ambushing insurgents manage to slightly wound 5 US troops?
> Furthermore,what were the US troops doing when these vast numbers of
> troops were moving out, weighed down by their dead?Did no one follow
> them? If it was such a victory, then surely there would have been the
> means to pursue such a group, why were no gunships there to follow
> them to their 'base'? Totally ridiculous and yet no mainstream media
> questions any of this, taking such a statement as reasonable!
>
>
> Source: AFP
>
>
> >Perhaps a bit of perspective is in order here.
> >
> > ...start of sarcasm...
> > There was a small unit action involving over 50 enemy (I won't say
> > 'Iraqis' because they may or may not have been) who deliberately set up
> > an ambush of US forces in the middle of a town. I'm sure they set it up
> > in town to avoid putting any Iraqi civilians at risk.
> >
> > They fired on the US forces, who, oddly enough, fired back. In the
> > insuing firefight, only 8 Iraqi civilians were killed. Of course, it
> > isn't possible that any of the civilians were actually hit and
> > killed/injured by enemy fire... we know how much care the enemy takes to
> > avoid Iraqi civilian causalities... And to only have 8 civilians killed
> > in a good-sized firefight in the middle of a town is pretty amazingly
> > good. Someone restrained themselves and didn't use their superior
> > firepower to level the entire town. Must have been the attacking enemy,
> > of course. In fact, they restrained themselves enough that several of
> > the attackers survived to be captured. Must have been an accident that
> > happened while the US forces were trying to cause as many civilian
> > casualities as possible and so accidently missed the ambushers shooting
> > at them.
> >
> > Unfortunately, none of the Iraqi civilians did anything like notice
> > there was an ambush being set up and either (1) call and report it or
> > (2) leave the area or (3) both of the above.
> > ...end of sarcasm...
> >
> > Looks like the Saddamites are getting more desperate. Setting off a
> > remote bomb or an RPG is one thing; trying to take on US armed forces in
> > an actual face-to-face engagement is another. They should have learned
> > from last Spring.
>