Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. says kills 70 militants in west Iraq clashes

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. fighter jets and attack helicopters killed around 70 suspected militants in a series of air strikes in and near the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on Sunday, a military statement said on Monday.



The military said 20 men were killed when a U.S. warplane dropped a precision-guided bomb on a group of militants who were attempting to place a roadside bomb east of Ramadi.

About 50 other suspected insurgents were killed in a series of other clashes around the city that involved U.S. helicopter gunships, F-18 fighters and ground troops.

The U.S. statement said there were no reports of any U.S. or civilian casualties in the operation, but a local doctor said on Sunday that more than two dozen local residents had died.

Source:
Reuters< br />

Again, the Excellent "Smart" bullets and bombs of the US Forces managed to kill 70 Insurgents - without any Civilan Casualties. What Accuracy!

Or was it another case of Dropping 2000 pound bombs on a house with 3 Insurgents inside? Or SUSPECTED Insurgents?

I wonder how many of the 70 SUSPECTED Insurgents were Really Insurgents and NOT civilan.

Here is Another report of this Event:



BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. helicopters and warplanes bombed two villages near the city of Ramadi, a hotbed of Sunni-Arab insurgents west of Baghdad, killing around 70 Iraqis, the military said Monday. The military said all the dead were militants, though witnesses said at least 39 were civilians.

The military said in a statement that the crowd was setting another roadside bomb in the location of the blast that killed the Americans. F-15 warplanes hit them with a precision-guided bomb, killing around 20 people, described by the statement as "terrorists."

Source:
Mercury News




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Sorry Souljah, they were all militants - apparently the US troops rolled in a few hours later and collected 70 'Insurgent' I.D. cards and the uniforms with their number on them, the number which identifies which one they are when the Pentagon says there's X amount of insurgents in Iraq this week.
That's how they know.

But wait! they 'don't do body counts' so in this case, the number must actually be derived from the Psychic Earth Battalion unit back at base camp who comes up with these numbers. They've had to use the psychics because Karl Rove is way to busy lately to do any creative writing.

Otherwise, i have no idea how they know how many people, let alone insurgents they kill when they drop a bomb on a house but apparently they seem to believe it takes 20 Iraqi's to place a roadside bomb and that's how they pick their targets - Osama has around 20 brothers and sisters - Christians & Greeks have nothing on muslim families!


Why would the Pentagon exagerate?




[edit on 17-10-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Again, the Excellent "Smart" bullets and bombs of the US Forces managed to kill 70 Insurgents - without any Civilan Casualties. What Accuracy!


What!?

No goats or camels this time?

I'm so dissapointed.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SouljahOr was it another case of Dropping 2000 pound bombs on a house with 3 Insurgents inside? Or SUSPECTED Insurgents?

It pretty clearly says that a smart bomb was used on a group that was planting a bomb, and that the rest were killed when they engaged in a fire fight with US troopers and copters.


I wonder how many of the 70 SUSPECTED Insurgents were Really Insurgents and NOT civilan

Since insurgents are civilians and not uniformed members of an organized military, there's no way to ever tell.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
It takes 20 people to set up a roadside bomb?
That sounds like a really high number.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Civilians die in war, been said about a billion times here too. But when will we start seeing posts about all the civilians killed by the terrorists and insurgents DELIBERATLY from people like Souljah? We won’t, because that doesn’t portray their agendas…



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Civilians die in war, been said about a billion times here too. But when will we start seeing posts about all the civilians killed by the terrorists and insurgents DELIBERATLY from people like Souljah? We won’t, because that doesn’t portray their agendas…

Well if you drop a 2000 pound bomb (probably with DU ammunition) and kill two dozens CIVIANS that were SUSPECTED Insurgents - then you are Also DELIBERATELY killing Civilans.

When US Forces kill Civilians - like in this Case - it's an "Accident" or "Collateral Damage".

As you said - Civilans Die in Wars.

Why is the Word "Terrorism" never used when US troops kill them?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The BBC has a much different take on the strike that killed more than twenty people who were supposedly planting a bomb:



BBC

One of the air strikes hit the same spot where five US soldiers had died on Saturday in a roadside bombing.

The US statement said a group of insurgents was about to place another bomb, although local people deny this.

An F-15 warplane fired a precision guided bomb at the group, killing about 20 militants, the US statement said.

Several witnesses quoted by Associated Press said they were civilians who had gathered near the wrecked US vehicle and 25 had died.

The victims were either standing around the wreck or scavenging bits of metal or equipment, witnesses said, as often happens after a successful insurgent attack.


That sounds much more likely as I can't see why they would need 20 people to plant a bomb.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Does anyone here not realize that usually when attack helicopters and fast movers (jets) are called in they are USUALLY called in by ground forces. In other words troops on the ground that are either in the crap or have credible intelligence as to who is in a house.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
If you're a civilian, and you hang around terrorist, then you shouldn't expect not to be hit when the terrorists are attacked. Plus, terrorists wear civilian clothes, so it is very hard to distinguish them from real civilians.


Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by skippytjc
Civilians die in war, been said about a billion times here too. But when will we start seeing posts about all the civilians killed by the terrorists and insurgents DELIBERATLY from people like Souljah? We won’t, because that doesn’t portray their agendas…

Well if you drop a 2000 pound bomb (probably with DU ammunition) and kill two dozens CIVIANS that were SUSPECTED Insurgents - then you are Also DELIBERATELY killing Civilans.

When US Forces kill Civilians - like in this Case - it's an "Accident" or "Collateral Damage".

As you said - Civilans Die in Wars.

Why is the Word "Terrorism" never used when US troops kill them?



Because they don't do it deliberately. And by deliberately I mean that they don't specifically target civilians, unlike the insurgents.

What makes you think the US wants to kill civilians? Don't you think if the US wanted to kill civilians then most of Iraqis would already be dead?

You sound to me like the typical muslims who gets all his info from al-Jazeera or some other radical islamic website.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Of course civilians will ALWAYS be killed when striking these terrorists, it’s pretty established they use them as shields. As far as I am concerned, every civilian who dies in this fashion was basically murdered by the terrorists who used them in an attempt to save themselves from being targeted.

The coalition kills civilians by accident or when they have no other choice, the terrorists/insurgents kill them as a prefered tactic. Savages.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
As far as I am concerned, every civilian who dies in this fashion was basically murdered by the terrorists who used them in an attempt to save themselves from being targeted.

When US Air Force drops a 2000 pound bomb on 24 SUSPECTED Insurgents and then think about if they really were - well, that's the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Method".

What if you were Wrong?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
so lets say that 70 were killed and of those 70, 25 of those are civilians. civilians should keep themselves away from possible attacks in battles. do people always run towards a battle or away from a battle?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
It takes 20 people to set up a roadside bomb?
That sounds like a really high number.


Easy really....

10 to do the brainwashing...
5 to teach the training...
2 to supply the device...
1 to do the 'its gunna be OK, ya will get the martyrdom you wanted' speech
1 to plant the IED...
1 to detonate it...
Simple arithmetics



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
What if you were Wrong?

What if your right?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by skippytjc
As far as I am concerned, every civilian who dies in this fashion was basically murdered by the terrorists who used them in an attempt to save themselves from being targeted.

When US Air Force drops a 2000 pound bomb on 24 SUSPECTED Insurgents and then think about if they really were - well, that's the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Method".

What if you were Wrong?


So are you suggesting we should risk the lives of our soldiers by sending them to check if the targets are in fact terrorists? Can't you understand the risks of that? If we were follow that policy, our casualties would more than double. That's why we have high resolution cameras and night vision.

Let me tell you, you'd make a terrible commander.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

What if you were Wrong?


There is no way to really tell 100%, do to the nature of the enemy.
What are you going to do? Go down and ask them, “excuse me, if you are an insurgent line up over here so we can bomb the hell out of you, and if you are a civilian, then please go home.” Since you can’t do that, there's always an uncertainty factor when bombing, but not bombing at all is not an option, so you take your chances.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

What if you were Wrong?


There is no way to really tell 100%, do to the nature of the enemy.
What are you going to do? Go down and ask them, “excuse me, if you are an insurgent line up over here so we can bomb the hell out of you, and if you are a civilian, then please go home.” Since you can’t do that, there's always an uncertainty factor when bombing, but not bombing at all is not an option, so you take your chances.



Lol, exactly. I couldn't have said it better.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The Iraqi people are not stupid. They know which people are insurgents and which ones aren't. By now surely they realize that if they associate with terrorists then they stand a much better chance of becoming collateral damage. I'm sorry that civilians and especially children are sometimes killed, but this has been and always will be a grim part of war. The insurgents who shot small arms at the Cobra helicopter were asking for it. I've seen those in action and believe me you don't want to mess with them. They would have been smarter to just try to run away from it rather than shooting at it. It's also very hard to tell how many civilians were actually killed considering that the insurgents use the media to try to portray the US as the bad guy. This has been a popular insurgent tactic for a long time.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
When US Air Force drops a 2000 pound bomb on 24 SUSPECTED Insurgents and then think about if they really were - well, that's the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Method".

What if you were Wrong?


Hmm, obviously you are an advocate of taking the first hit.

You act as though they put zero thought or effort into target selection. Might want to do some research into attack criteria before you jump the gun.






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join