More civilian attacks, zero coalition casualties

[jimnyc]

** It's only a matter of time before the citizens realize who the true enemy is. They'll eventually grow tired of watching their brothers and sisters die at the hands of terrorists and realize the USA is fighting against those bringing their country down. Once (and I understand that's a big "if") the public stands behind the US the edge will clearly be in our favor **

Two Car Bombs Explode, Killing 14 in Iraq

KHAN BANI SAAD, Iraq - Suicide attackers detonated two vehicles Saturday at police stations in towns northeast of Baghdad, and at least 14 people were killed, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

In Baghdad, a cargo plane operated by the Belgium-based DHL landed Saturday at Baghdad International Airport with its wing ablaze. The U.S. military said it was unclear if it had been struck by ground fire but a military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plane was struck by a SAM-7 surface-to-air missile.

The attacks on the police stations in Khan Bani Saad and nearby Baqouba — which occurred within a half hour — came after U.S. intelligence reports warning of an upsurge in attacks near the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which comes to a close in a few days.

In Khan Bani Saad, a market town on the northeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 10 people were killed, including six policemen, three civilians and the vehicle's driver, according to Capt. Ryan McCormick of the 4th Infantry Division. Iraqi police said one of the dead was a 5-year-old girl. Ten people were wounded, McCormick said.

McCormick said a police guard fired on the approaching vehicle but could not stop the blast. He said there were no U.S. or other coalition casualties.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

 

[SLClemens]

Zero coalition casualties? Since when?

11/21: Pvt. Scott M. Tyrrell, 21, of Sterling, Ill., died on Nov. 20 at Brooke Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas, of wounds received on Nov. 14 in Tikrit, Iraq. Tyrrell was at an ammunition point when it caught on fire.

11/21: A Hungarian man has been shot dead by US troops west of Baghdad, the Hungarian foreign ministry has said.

11/20: One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed during a combat patrol when the soldier’s vehicle struck an improvised explosive device near Al Ghalibiyah, 15 km west of Baqubah, at approximately 10 p.m. Nov. 20.

11/20: BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 82nd Airborne Division soldier was killed and two wounded, when their convoy was attacked with two improvised explosive devices east of Ar Ramadi at approximately 2:40 p.m. Nov. 20.

11/19: A U.S. soldier was killed north of Baghdad by a booby-trap on Thursday, the American military said on Friday. A spokesman said the soldier was from the 4th Infantry Division.

And who knows how many wounded.

One thing seems clear, however. The army is succeeding quite well at sweeping casualties under the rug.

If attacks have deminished 70% this isn't exactly showing up in coalition deaths. If this figure is truthful it would be very scary. It would suggest that attacks are becoming much more leathal. I doubt it's much more than wishful thinking.

 

[jimnyc]

Zero coalition casualties? Since when?

Tsk, Tsk, did you even read the article? I was clearly referring to yesterdays events as related to the Iraqi insurgents. The 2 deaths you point out had nothing to do coming from the insurgents.

One thing seems clear, however. The army is succeeding quite well at sweeping casualties under the rug.

Can you point to me JUST ONE casualty that is not recorded and reported by the military?

If attacks have deminished 70% this isn't exactly showing up in coalition deaths. If this figure is truthful it would be very scary. It would suggest that attacks are becoming much more leathal. I doubt it's much more than wishful thinking.

It's not? Where do you get your data from? In the 10 days since the offensive started there have been 10 reported coalition fatalities attributed to the insurgents, compared to 24 the week prior to the operation. Seems to me that the attacks are down AND they are LESS lethal.

 

[SLClemens]

Not if you include the 17 killed in a duel helicopter crash. Why does the Pentagon not seem keen to report more details of it, I wonder, and instead just sweep it under the rug?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Not if you include the 17 killed in a duel helicopter crash. Why does the Pentagon not seem keen to report more details of it, I wonder, and instead just sweep it under the rug?

So they report the details of the more than 300 deaths, but they want to sweep just this one under the rug? Doesn't make sense. They report facts, not suspicions/rumors/innuendo.

Like I said, I'm reporting the facts, and they show both attacks and fatalities of he coalition severely decreasing.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
So they report the details of the more than 300 deaths, but they want to sweep just this one under the rug? Doesn't make sense. They report facts, not suspicions/rumors/innuendo.

Like I said, I'm reporting the facts, and they show both attacks and fatalities of he coalition severely decreasing.

So why, I wonder, has there been so little interest in these 17 deaths? Perhaps because it would spin your 'facts' in the wrong direction?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Not if you include the 17 killed in a duel helicopter crash. Why does the Pentagon not seem keen to report more details of it, I wonder, and instead just sweep it under the rug?

It would skew the rate of casualties back up to pre-iron hammer totals (arguably unfairly from the pentagons point of view). The resistance is still active, still attacking whatever it percieves to be collaboration with the occupation. We'll just have to wait and see what develops.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
So why, I wonder, has there been so little interest in these 17 deaths? Perhaps because it would spin your 'facts' in the wrong direction?

It's been reported. It's been recorded. What more do you want? How is the reporting been any different than those killed by insurgents? A soldier was killed last week by a roadside bomb, has it received any more or less attention? Can you tell me this specific soldiers name? No, you can't, not unless you look it up on the military page. Death is unfortunate, but they deal with it and move on.

No spinning done here by me! Unless you can come back with something even remotely substantial, the fact remains that attacks and fatalities have decreased by large numbers.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
It would skew the rate of casualties back up to pre-iron hammer totals (arguably unfairly from the pentagons point of view). The resistance is still active, still attacking whatever it percieves to be collaboration with the occupation. We'll just have to wait and see what develops.

And if you include the deaths of the civilians in Iraq and Turkey it would outnumber the casualties pre-iron hammer. (arguably fair from a liberal point of view).

Coaltion deaths, as of right now, are down since the inception of the new operation. Factually speaking, this cannot be debated. It may change, but the future doesn't change current facts.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And if you include the deaths of the civilians in Iraq and Turkey it would outnumber the casualties pre-iron hammer. (arguably fair from a liberal point of view).

Coaltion deaths, as of right now, are down since the inception of the new operation. Factually speaking, this cannot be debated. It may change, but the future doesn't change current facts.

If Eisenhammer started on Nov. 15 it commenced with the deaths of 17 in a helicopter crash related to the opperation. This was not, factually, an improvement.

However, it's kind of pointless to discuss success based upon insurgents' luck week by week. . We'll find out in a few montsh how well this opperation has worked.

 

[jimnyc]

If Eisenhammer started on Nov. 15 it commenced with the deaths of 17 in a helicopter crash related to the opperation. This was not, factually, an improvement.

Why must you continue to compare the operation to the nazi era? Your desire to do so will only lead to your arguments being less credible. It's a disservice to our men and women in uniform and highly disrespectful.

Furthermore, the operation started on the 11th, not the 15th. And non combat deaths certainly wouldn't be related to the particular operation anyhow. They didn't suddenly start using them because of this operation. Let the helicopter crash theory die, you have nothing.

 

[Creek]

The American occupation in Iraq is by no way related to a Nazi Invasion....two different things,and to even bring the word Nazi into the debate shows it's not a debate but more one sided with negative remarks....It would be a stab to every mother & father who had a child there to hear such a horrible relation to a Nazi type Occupation....Our soldiers there are American's with a heart...Not Nazi Storm Troopers marching down the street....All in all..compared to any other war,this one had more restraint..and good for human lives on both sides of the battle line....'

Talk against the war,and it might be a bad idea to have opened this doorway...I can relate to that....Not worth an Eisinhammer type remark......that's my two cents...

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks, Creek.

I just get angry sometimes when some will use any means available to ridicule and/or disrespect our men and women in uniform. Disagreeing with motives and policies are fine, but to disrespect those that are giving us those very freedoms is wrong. First they were suckers, now they are compared to nazis. It's just plain 'ol disrespectful to those that should be held in a higher regard.

 

[Creek]

Jim..that makes alot of sence...It's policies that should be argued...not the disrespectful..and slang remarks refered to our soldiers....They are having a tough enogh time...and odds are some disaggree with being there....and if that be the case..I can live with it,and understand it......We're all Americans here...and some should know that to label our soldiers...is labeling alot of American Soldiers..who all have their feelings on the subject.....I don't think one of them there feels like a Nazi...quite the opposite,and that should mean something.....

 

[SLClemens]

Thankfully there aren't that many parallels at the footsoldier level. But at the operational level I certainly see some. These include intimidating a civilian population, and above all, fabricating an exaggerated threat to invade another country in the first place. Another might be endless, unquestioned praise for our military without ever examining just what we're asking them to do in our names.

Finally, in terms of dead, according to the most reliable sites I can find I count coalition 32 dead since Nov. 11 (interesting day to start this), 57 from Nov. 1-10, and 45 for the whole month of October. Likely this has little to do with Eisenhammer, another shock-and-awe campaign, but instead we should be talking of "Operation Start of Ramadan."

 

[jimnyc]

The problem with the disrespect to soldiers has been resolved.

Care to share you reliable sources you speak of?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The problem with the disrespect to soldiers has been resolved.

Care to share you reliable sources you speak of?

http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


Again, I find it amazing how certain nationalists cannot distinguish between criticism of common soldiers and their high commanders, but must off-load commanders' inhumanity on the backs of ordinary citizens - good, bad, and everything in between - sent to do their dirty work, calling disrespect of the leaders and the way they govern their institution disrespect of the average soldier who has almost no say over what he does.

 

[jimnyc]

http://www.lunaville.com/warcasualties/summary.aspx

This is where I got a lot of data from too. You are adding in the 17 killed from the helicopter crash, which no proof whatsoever has been offered to show it was brought down by any type of insurgency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ofthefallen.htm

Shows 7 deaths from insurgents since the 11th. The rest are clearly listed as non hostile deaths.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ir...ces/casualties/

Lists fatalities by name as opposed to date. Lists the helicopters as colliding, no mention of insurgents or any combatants at all for that fact. There will be no difference in the results here compared to the lunaville site.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Again, I find it amazing how certain nationalists cannot distinguish between criticism of common soldiers and their high commanders, but must off-load commanders' inhumanity on the backs of ordinary citizens - good, bad, and everything in between - sent to do their dirty work, calling disrespect of the leaders and the way they govern their institution disrespect of the average soldier who has almost no say over what he does.

I can deal with criticism about the soldiers and commanders, referring to them in a 'nazi like' way I cannot. Surely you can see the difference.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I can deal with criticism about the soldiers and commanders, referring to them in a 'nazi like' way I cannot. Surely you can see the difference.

Our soldiers, and their commanders (for the most part, in the case of the latter) I consider on a different plane from the Nazis. But some of the tactics, the rhetoric, demonizing of a misconstrued enemy, and appeals for blind nationalistic support are unfortunately similar.

I think it's also useful to keep Nazi Germany in mind for the warnings it teaches us. Many German veterans resent being called Nazis because they felt they were serving Germany, not Hitler's party. Some of them, regardless of their ideological affiliations, did terrible things; but many of them were just ordinary citizens who felt they were answering the call of duty. Civilian atrocities by our then-allies, the Russians, were in some cases worse than those of German regular divisions, who fought in many respects professionally. So why did they soldier so fiercely for such a terrible cause? I think much of it had to do with seeing threats to their country's existence that were not there. Because German society gave their leaders a blank check to do as they liked waging war, believing this served the nation's greater good, they became a tool that could be used to accomplish almost anything, good or bad - in this case only bad. Could American troops be used likewise? I certainly hope not, and for this reason hope it's possible to subvert such blind allegiance when it surfaces in its American form.

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was anything like Hitler's invasions. But there are a few frightening parallels from which we should draw very valuable lessons.