US kills 46 insurgents

[eric]

Chalk up one for the good guys :


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fighting

 

[janeeng]

Good to see that it's not our Soldiers that were killed. You know your going to get torn with this post eric! hehe!

 

[jon_forward]

by wearing there white pjs, if caught they are not terrorist but pow's. dead is dead and glad they all were saddams buddies. maybe they will hold the gates of hell open for their boss?

 

[green lantern]

46 of saddams buddies, sounds like a good days work by our military. just a damn shame that saddam wasnt with them. though i am sure his time is coming.

 

[eric]

Boy I'm starting to like you guys.

Don't get me wrong, I don't delight in the killing of anyone, but there are people who deserve their fate. Hey "you live by the sword, you die by the sword". These are not freedom fighters defending their land that was invaded by some Imperialist nation, although some on this board would like you to believe that, they are thugs and murders looking for more trouble, and trouble they found. Jon, that was great with holding open the gates to hell, I'm sure they will be in good company with old friends like Mohammed Atta and the seven hijackers, Hitler and the band, and a host of other lovely fellows. I think they will be most disappointed when they realize the 70 virgins they were expecting to spend eternity with turn out to look like their mothers, although over there maybe that turns them on, I put nothing past them.

By the way, love those uniforms, I guess they try and look scary in their oversized diapers, but hey they double as a great body bag, saving our taxpayers money.:

 

[janeeng]

oh are you guys bad!

I am surprised that Jim hasn't commented on this yet - where are you Jim, this is a hot topic for you!!!!!

 

[Psychoblues]

I dunno? What are insurgents? I've seen dead children described as enemy killed and old unarmed men and women described as hostiles. What does "insurgent" mean?

 

[janeeng]

Open a dictionary:

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

 

[eric]

I dunno? What are insurgents? I've seen dead children described as enemy killed and old unarmed men and women described as hostiles. What does "insurgent" mean?

Dolt !!!

 

[Psychoblues]

Sorry, eric and janeeng

I've got a good grasp on the word meanings and I'm a 4 WAR veteran from and for the United States Of America. Maybe we'll get to know each other better in future threads. By the way, neither of you answered my question as I intended it. What is the meaning of the writer of the article for the word "insurgent"? Personally, I am offended that the article didn't give many other details as I've been offended in the past when other National Information was so blatantly misrepresented. But maybe that's just my liberal voice crying in the wilderness.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Dolt !!!

Hey, weren't you the guy who said no name calling?
I read the article, 4 in one ambush,

another convoy of U.S. military engineers was attacked by four men with automatic rifles. The soldiers returned fire, wounding all four men, MacDonald said.

42 in the other ?

He said U.S. soldiers returned fire from several locations at each ambush, using small arms, 120mm tank rounds and 25mm canon fire from Bradley fighting vehicles. The U.S. fire destroyed three buildings the attackers were using

42 people died in those buildings, how many were actually resistance and how many uninvolved residents is not reported.

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for covering my back, dijetlo!!!!!!!!!

"Dolt" is not what I expected from a veteran USMB member.

 

[jimnyc]

The number is now 54 dead Iraqi's.

And I really don't care if they were 'civilians' or not, when they picked up guns and used them against the US military they became enemy combatants.

I suppose they shouldn't open fire on those shooting at them. They should try to capture all the combatants that are trying to kill them and ascertain why they have guns first.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The number is now 54 dead Iraqi's.

And I really don't care if they were 'civilians' or not, when they picked up guns and used them against the US military they became enemy combatants.

I suppose they shouldn't open fire on those shooting at them. They should try to capture all the combatants that are trying to kill them and ascertain why they have guns first.

Attacked by insurgents---killed 54 iraqis. The article never claimed they were all insurgents, or even that they all had guns. It does mention they knocked down three buildings with 120mm cannon fire. I wonder who lived there (and what happened to them).

Thanks for covering my back, dijetlo!!!!!!!!!

No worries psycho, Eric is actually a very nice guy.

 

[jimnyc]

Attacked by insurgents---killed 54 iraqis. The article never claimed they were all insurgents, or even that they all had guns. It does mention they knocked down three buildings with 120mm cannon fire. I wonder who lived there (and what happened to them).

Maybe not in those words.

"Many of the dead attackers were found wearing uniforms of the Fedayeen, a militia loyal to Saddam Hussein"

When every day citizens take up arms with the insurgents or assist them, they become enemy combatants themselves.

Good riddance to all 54 of them.

 

[Psychoblues]

Right now there are many people in many countries that consider GWB to be as much or more of a threat to his own people and to world peace that Saddam Hussein was. If they were to attack the US in order to preserve their own self interests and restore freedom (they would call it that) and I were to take up arms against them, which I would definitely do, would "insurgent" be a proper description of me?

I'm not attempting in any way to defend terrorists but I am saying that the Iraqis are not terrorists. Saddam, maybe, but not the Iraqi people in general. We are as Americans now, in many peoples minds including mine, trespassers on anothers sovereign soil and that isn't likely to be taken lightly by those that believe it.

This is indeed a political quagmire but it is only, after all, political. It could have been settled politically and considering that we have yet to find WMD's or solid connections between the al queda and Saddam Hussein I think it was. This war in Iraq is an unnecessary ad hoc in my opinion and American lives are being lost because of it.

 

[jimnyc]

If they were to attack the US in order to preserve their own self interests and restore freedom (they would call it that) and I were to take up arms against them, which I would definitely do, would "insurgent" be a proper description of me?

No, because you would be siding with your government and fighting for your country. The Iraqi insurgents are going against what their government is calling for. The insurgents attacking the USA in Iraq are fighting in the name of Allah and terrorism, not their government.

 

[Psychoblues]

No, I would not be siding with my government as I think this government is illegitamate and incompetent. But I would be protecting my property as an American and the rights of every red-blooded American to have a voice in the way this country operates. Because I have issues with the presiding CiC makes me no less patriotic or willing to protect the life and property that I and my countrymen have. It is there where many Americans are getting confused about the motives and aspirations of the Iraqi peoples. But maybe that's a bit much for you to digest so early on a Monday morning.

Cheers and a snappy salute

 

[jimnyc]

You'll just have to deal with the fact that Bush IS our current Commander in Chief, Iraqi insurgents ARE being killed and the war IS NOT on American soil.

Apparently that's what is hard to swallow on a monday morning.

Speak out all you like, but the truck rolls on regardless!

 

[Psychoblues]

I do deal with it, jimnyc, but you imply that I might not. I think it was in 1994 or 1995 that two professional politicians set me free. A certain Trent Lott and a Tom Delay spoke very publicly about their destain for a sitting prez. Until that time I had never considered making such remarks about any CiC but coming from the mouths of professional politicians I accepted that it is certainly OK to verbalize openly about disagreements and even hatred for the Prez. But I guess that shoe just doesn't fit on the other foot.

You're right, the truck is gonna roll on regardless and you can bet your bippy that this ol' hide won't be letting that truck get out of sight as long as I'm able to focus and keep up.

Again, cheers and a salute