46 Iraqi's (of the bad type) dead in ambush

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-11-30 05:10pm

http://www.foxnews.com/

Five US soldiers injured but TV saying no deaths. We appearently caught and captured a bunch as well. Interesting note, alot of the Iraqi dead were appearently dressed in Fayadeen (sp?) uniforms.

Trying to dispeal the terrorist moniker?

Going for Geneve Convention rights?

Just getting bold?

Could mean any number of things but is interesting.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-30 05:53pm

Phew, Knife, you had my heart beating. Reading the thread title I thought these were normal Iraqis, not Fedayeen.

I hope this is good news.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-30 06:29pm

Looks like the US boys kicked some serious ass because of a failure of Iraqi intel. Nice to see the shoe on the other foot:

A coalition source told Fox News that one of the U.S. convoys that came under attack was transporting a significant amount of money.

An Iraqi Currency Exchange (ICE) party with "a very significant amount" of new, non-Saddam Iraqi dinar notes was being escorted by a U.S. military unit of 100, with M1A1 tanks and Bradley armored vehicles. Apache attack helicopters were also called.

"It was a well-organized and complex ambush, but they obviously picked the wrong convoy to attack. They could not have known," the source told Fox News.

Looks like they had people in buildings and rooftops along the convoy route, set up a barricade on the route, and then opened fire when the convoy ran into the barricade. Well-planned, but the Americans simply overwhelmed them. Good show.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-11-30 06:54pm

You can't get a better kill ratio in an engagement like that

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-11-30 07:09pm

They tried to rob that convoy while it was escorted by that much firepower,i think it deffinitly deserves a Darwin Awards.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-11-30 07:41pm

It's about time some of the Iraqi Soldiers got owned rather than just hearing about how many US soldiers were killed in ambushes, mortar attacks, etc each day!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-30 07:59pm

This isn't that spectacular, or rather it's not a lone spectacle. Earlier in the occupation a group of about 30 Iraqis tried to attack a convoy that was half Bradley's, 18 of them enjoyed death and almost all of the rest where wounded or captured.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-11-30 08:10pm

Army assisted suicide; it's not illegal just yet.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-11-30 08:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:Phew, Knife, you had my heart beating. Reading the thread title I thought these were normal Iraqis, not Fedayeen.

I hope this is good news.

Oooops. Any way good new? Yeah, imo, on a couple of fronts. Moral or lack of it depending on what side your looking at. The inclusion of the uniforms can mean any number of things that could be good or bad. Seeing the insurgents fail instead of succeed on TV instead on only their successes.

Besides, 46 dead is a pretty big number when your dealing with a cell like structured resistence. Pretty much an entire cell was probably wiped out, in my estimation. Reports that some were caught as well give an additional intell source, though if they were wearing their uniforms, they'd be POW's under the GC.

All in all, a good day for the US.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-11-30 08:28pm

Thread title corrected

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-30 08:59pm

Intel and kill ratios aside, its gotta be a morale booster.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-01 02:38am

These 46 Iraqis in Fedayeen uniforms were of the Fucking Stupid(TM) variety. I'm sure they will not be missed by the guerillas.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-01 03:03am

What Al jazeera has to say about it:

"Lieutenant Colonel Bill MacDonald told journalists on Sunday that all the 46 were killed when troops fought off multiple attacks on military convoys.

But local residents said US troops killed innocent bystanders when they opened fire on anything that moved around midday.

Workers at a nearby pharmaceutical plant said at least two colleagues were killed and many wounded as they walked out of the factory gates at the end of their shift, downed by a US tank shooting randomly in all directions."

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2003-12-01 03:24am

So wait they hear a tank firing and actually walk outside the building?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-01 04:51am

Vympel wrote: Workers at a nearby pharmaceutical plant said at least two colleagues were killed and many wounded as they walked out of the factory gates at the end of their shift, downed by a US tank shooting randomly in all directions."

And the spin by the enemy scum scucking bastards known as Al Jazeera
and Democratic Underground begins

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-12-01 07:32am

Listening to NPR this morning, a reporter in Iraq (For NPR) stated that the civilians are all saying that a huge convoy of american vehicles and armor simply rolled into town spraying crowds of civilians with machine gun fire and mortars. CROWDS of civilians. For no reason. Being mowed down by american troops. One doctor in an Iraqi hospital stated there were over 60 injured and many killed. Cars were flattened by tanks, and one was even crushed by an american tank with people still inside it.

I'm sorry, Iraqi Civilians, you'll forgive me if I call you liars. I know how Anal The Army is about maintaining a pretty public face. I am SO sure that american troops got a bug up their ass and decided collectively to roll on into town and pull a "Hunter-from-southpark" routine (IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!) and lay waste to the town square. Will this ceaseless garbage ever......[austin Powers] Cease? [/Austin Powers]

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-01 07:48am

Vympel wrote: But local residents said US troops killed innocent bystanders when they opened fire on anything that moved around midday.

I am rather skeptical towards this statement, as the USA IIRC announced that they in Iraq are aiming to keep civilian casualties at a minimum.

In case they broke such a promise, it would be even worse for the US Army's reputation.

It's also possible that they actually were attacked by off-duty hostile guerillas wearing civilian clothes, and this incident turned into an urban legend about US troops deliberately killing civilians. (I recall something like this once happening in Palestine)

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-01 08:36am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
I am rather skeptical towards this statement, as the USA IIRC announced that they in Iraq are aiming to keep civilian casualties at a minimum.

I can think of better reasons to be skeptical than rhetoric from the armed forces. Whatever they say means jack shit to me, really. I'm sure the same reasons were rolled out in the initial disbelief surrounding the My Lai massacre. There are good reasons to doubt the Iraqi account- this is not one of them.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-01 08:54am

The factory worker claim sounds solid, unfortunately, but I haven't heard the hospital claim printed elsewhere, plus it sounds like BS.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-12-01 11:54am

Durran Korr wrote:The factory worker claim sounds solid, unfortunately, but I haven't heard the hospital claim printed elsewhere, plus it sounds like BS.

The factory workers claims are suspect until coloborated by another source. He could be genuin or he could be a surviving member of the morons who attacked a heavily armed convoy.

I'm still curious as to some of you guy's opinions on why they insurgents started wearing the Feyadeen uniforms?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-01 12:00pm

The BBC corroborated them yesterday.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-01 12:08pm

Although they still use the workers as the primary source. So I guess they're still suspect.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-12-01 12:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:Although they still use the workers as the primary source. So I guess they're still suspect.

Gotta link so I can read it and reply? If its the workers of the same plant, mmmm, I don't know. I'd like to read it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-01 12:21pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253236.stm

Can't find the first story, but this is the most recent.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-12-01 12:40pm

Hmm. Figures. Big on implications, little on fact. The only numbers in the article are;

The number of Iraqis killed by US forces in Sunday's fighting had risen to 54 from 46, the US military says.

Residents of the central Iraqi city disputed those figures, saying at most eight or nine people died.

Earlier, eyewitnesses said eight of the dead were civilians - caught in the worst battle involving US troops since major combat operations were declared over on 1 May.

So if you believe the military, you believe that 46-54 people died with no numbers on the insurgent/civilian ratio's. If you believe the 'locals' then there are only 8-9 dead and all are civilians.

This supposing, of course, that the 8-9 dead are not insurgents in civilian clothes.

American forces destroyed three buildings being used by insurgents, he said.

He says there is an unmistakeable sense of anger among local people - who say the US response to the attacks was indiscriminate and unnecessary.

I don't know. I probably needs to be investigated but not blown out of proportion. If insurgents fired from a building and the US troops took out the building, can we believe an account of a 'worker' in the building as to the intent of the US troops?

But if some asshole misidentified a target and took out a building that wasn't a target and created massive collateral damage, then the fuckhead needs to be put on trial.