It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

109 Insurgents Killed in Samarra Assault

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
This thread doesn't have anything to do with the war on terror, as Iraq has nothing to do with it, but there isn't another more appropriate place.

All I want to say is that this is the way the war should have been conducted since the initial invasion. Constant pressure, constant force and violence of action. Had we continued to hit Falluja the way we just hit Samarra, Falluja would have never fallen into the hands of the insurgents. In fact, had we continued to hit hard, fast, and repeatedly for a full year, we would probably no longer have a reason to be there.

The insurgents, I believe, are too undisciplined and untrained for sustained defense. Constant pressure on them could have broken their will much earlier.

I wish Bush would have listened to his Generals instead of being hasty and rushing in unprepared, and with a goal other than decisive action.

Anyway, the count stands at 109 insurgents, one American soldier down. Which is all I need to know. I haven't seen yet a collateral damage report, and I don't care to. Unfortunately, success in this circumstance can only incur inadvertent loss. But it could have all been over by now, dammit.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The Insurgents/Terrorist if you kidnap reporters and aide workers you are a terrorist not a Insurgent. But anyway they cant fight head to head with our military they get slaughtered 109-1 that seems about right. But this is why they use roadside bombs and car bombs and the such thats really all they can do. If your only attacking military targets your are insurgents but when you start chopping off civilians heads your using terror and are a terrorist.

When you think about it being in Iraq is fighting the terrorist. But instead of hunting them down in their respective countries they are all comming to us in Iraq.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I suppose that this action was prepared for a long time so they have big advantage and really good inteligence.After attacks on iraqi childern by so-called "insurgents" iraqi soldiers will be determined to fight with these terrorists and iraqi people would help in these fighting.So this action was possible now - we still don't know if it was possible some time ago...

afterall during recent days there was some info about new weapons deployed in Iraq-like microwave weapons etc so these new weapons could help US in this battle.I think it could also help in next battle in Fallujah



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

This thread doesn't have anything to do with the war on terror, as Iraq has nothing to do with it, but there isn't another more appropriate place.

Well, it dind't at first, but with all the terrorists and insurgents pouring into the place, it's become a major WoT battleground.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
That just means 109 new reasons for those idiots to be more desperate
you will see that 109 more bodies will net atleast 25% more suicide bombings or other actions .....dont stop killing them but I tell you be ready and get them before they get us and dont come back shocked when they do either I mean really people that story on the worst attack in the green zone since the handover you know the attack a week and a half ago that shouldnt have shocked anyone these anal retentive idiotic people are going to attack us and others anywhere they can green zone or not

[edit on 1/10/04 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

All I want to say is that this is the way the war should have been conducted since the initial invasion. Constant pressure, constant force and violence of action. Had we continued to hit Falluja the way we just hit Samarra, Falluja would have never fallen into the hands of the insurgents.


You did hit Fallujah hard back in April.
You killed 600 in two weeks.
The US death toll at the end of that month was 135, the bloodiest month of the war.

If the marines had kept up, I guess it's possible they could have defeated Fallujah but they would had to have killed thousands.

Incidentally, wasn't April the month that the kidnappings started?
That's how Iraq reacted to that assault.
How will they react to the latest assault?

[edit on 1-10-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Well, it dind't at first, but with all the terrorists and insurgents pouring into the place, it's become a major WoT battleground.


Yeah, that's what I mean, since we went there it has become a WoT battleground, but it sure as hell didn't have to be. And, we could have waited a couple of years and at least come up with a plan to at least mitigate this inevitability.

Stupid Bush...



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
You did hit Fallujah hard back in April.
You killed 600 in two weeks.
The US death toll at the end of that month was 135, the bloodiest month of the war.

If the marines had kept up, I guess it's possible they could have defeated Fallujah but they would had to have killed thousands.

Incidentally, wasn't April the month that the kidnappings started?
That's how Iraq reacted to that assault.
How will they react to the latest assault?
These are some good questions, all related to aspects of the invasion and occupation which I think were poorly executed.

One of which was not properly securing the borders. It could have been done simply with combat air support and drones patrolling and observing the borders. We killed 600 in April, but at least a thousand more have probably come in from other places since then. We got Falluja once (actually I think it was the British that really did it), but we let it go because this occupation half-assed. I'm sorry, but maintaining control and security means maintaining control and security. We had every means by which to do so, but I think Bush wanted to try to show the world that he wasn't the war-monger he is by looking compassionate. Compassion has no place in war, lest it be for the injured and innocent, for whom I assure you Bush has no place in his heart.

And he's a moron...



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Anyway, the count stands at 109 insurgents, one American soldier down. Which is all I need to know. I haven't seen yet a collateral damage report, and I don't care to. Unfortunately, success in this circumstance can only incur inadvertent loss. But it could have all been over by now, dammit.


Do you have a source for the news?

Keep in mind that news is always a bit squeued for or against depending on who does the reporting.

Body counts are not really a sign of winning or losing an insurgency. They are a means of reporting progress in a war without a front that ultimately serves nothing except make people think "Oh, kill ration is X to X, so we must be winning."

Better way of winning is seeing what areas are safe, and who's negotiating with who. Notice when Marines were allowed to attack Fallujah openly that resistance collapsed and they asked for cease-fire. That's a sign that US is winning, not body counts.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

If the marines had kept up, I guess it's possible they could have defeated Fallujah but they would had to have killed thousands.



Not really. Freaking White House got scared by all the stuff on TV, pulled Marines out (again, after several cease fires and stupid ROEs) and Fallujah Brigade fags took over.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
We got Falluja once (actually I think it was the British that really did it), but we let it go because this occupation half-assed. I'm sorry, but maintaining control and security means maintaining control and security.


I think it was the US not the British but it's possible I'm wrong.
You're right about needing to maintain control and security once they had taken the city.
I remember one of the commanders on the ground criticizing the decision to go into Fallujah at that time because he knew what the consequences would be. He then criticized the decision imposed upon him to pull the troops back out of there weeks later because he knew that once they were in there, they had to stay until it was under control. He knew that pulling out of that area before gaining full control would have disastrous results.

If only the administration would listen to the people who actually have military experience.

(I'm trying to find the article quoting the commander who talked about Operation Vigilant Resolve in Fallujah)


[edit on 1-10-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Exactly, thank you, Ace...

The first thing Powell, who is the most qualified person in the cabinet, said to Bush about Iraq was that it was a bad idea. Since Bush started with that to blow off the advice of his Generals who know what they were talking about, he continued to ingnore them.

Bush was told all along by his military leaders that he was going about things wrongly, so I don't believe that military leaders have all that much confidence in his decision making ability.

Bush needs a punch in the mouth or two.

And yes, I do intend to continue with my blatantly obtuse and juvenile verbal assault on the president, so long as he remains so.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
OK, found the quote:


General criticises Fallujah strategy
"We felt that we probably ought to let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he told reporters. "I think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed."

The ending of the offensive after three days, on the orders of the White House according to military sources, and the deaths of six marines, were also disastrous, he said.

"When you order elements of a marine division to attack a city, you need to understand what the consequences will be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that. Once you commit you have to stay committed"


I'm not sure about that figure of three days.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Do you have a source for the news?

Keep in mind that news is always a bit squeued for or against depending on who does the reporting.
Yeah, it was CNN Headline News. And yeah, I know that CNN is a piss-poor source for information, but I can at least trust them to summarize some headlines so that I can later peruse the internet for the real deal.

I don't doubt that the enemy casualty count is at least somewhat accurate, but do I believe that only one American soldier had died by the time the story crossed the news desk? Absolutely not. I think it's probably closer to 6 or 7. With that, I also believe that the total friendly KIA count is probably closer to 1500 than 1000, as reported.




top topics



 
0

log in

join