You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Civilians die in gunfights on border
2004-04-25
American troops fighting insurgents killed scores of civilians in protracted battles in a remote town on Iraq's Syrian border last week. The deaths, not previously reported due to the remoteness of the area, will raise tensions still further in the country and make the increasingly frantic attempts by the US-led coalition to ensure security and stability even harder.
My sympathy meter hasn't stirred. Sorry, al-Guardian...
The battles on the western frontier - seen as critical to cutting off the flow of logistic support and volunteer fighters from Syria - are going unnoticed. Last Saturday in al-Qaim, a city of around 100,000, US marines were surprised by a contingent of 'anti-coalition fighters' - a loose alliance of former Baath party cadres and foreign militants behind the recent upsurge in violence. Five marines were killed and nine wounded. Medical sources in al-Qaim said the main hospital in the city had recorded 31 deaths, including the city's police chief, two women, a seven-year-old boy and a five-month-old baby, and 47 wounded. Locals claim the dead were civilians shot by snipers or caught in crossfire. US official sources say most of those killed were armed fighters. The news will further inflame public opinion in Iraq where many have been angered by heavy-handed US military tactics.
I wonder why nobody's fired up over the heavy-handed Bad Guy tactics? No one on our side shoots babies intentionally. Seems like everyone on the Bad Guy side's happy to blow up buses full of little kids.
Locals say the number of civilian casualties in al-Qaim could be much higher as street fighting prevented many dead and injured being taken to hospital. Islamic custom is to bury bodies as soon as possible and many casualties are said to have been interred in makeshift graves. Medical sources in al-Qaim say doctors treated people by telephone because fighting made it impossible to bring the wounded to hospital. 'They just gave instructions on the telephone,' said a source. 'That means we don't know how many were injured or might have subsequently died of their injuries.'
My heart bleeds. Maybe the local gunnies and the imported snuffies will help with the burials.
Posted by:Fred

#7  ...And why hasn't anyone pointed out that even if we never killed a single Iraqi - military, civilian, or otherwise - the Islamofascists would still be swearing unto Allah (with much rolling of eyes and seething) that we have killed so many civilians that there aren't any left?...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-04-25 11:46:57 AM  

#6  Erasing any doubts about the propoganda value of the UK Guardian:

Why is it necessary for the writer(s) of the story to point out a gunfight will increase tensions in the area, all without attribution. Isn't that a little like saying a firefight will increase the chances of combat?

Is the writer a sociology expert? Unlikely.

Is the writer a political expert? Unlikely.

Is the writer bound by ethics to identify him/herself as being an expert trained in any of these fileds? Apparently not at the UK Guardian.

Should the writer have at least tried to get some attribution to the argument that a gunfight will raise tensions in the area? Absolutley.

In an area now known for gunfights and being a cachement area for enemy troops and supplies, why does the writer insist the gunfight will increase tensions in an area that is already a combat zone. Is the writer some Rambo type that sees gunfights as a mere annoyance? First part: the writer wouldn't make a boil on the balls on a Rambo type, and the second part, absolutely not.

The writer does, however, have an agenda, and that is to downplay the ingress of hostile troops and supplies and to overplay our troops' response to such military actions. I.E. The writer is merely being a good Marxist, making sure as many American soldiers get killed as possible justifying their deaths by pointing out 'civilians' have been dropped by hostile fire, and by making certain the world understands, that Islamists and Baathist socialists are the good guys and the US are the evil ones.

I know I am evil for even suggestion this, but sometimes battlefield interdiction also means to remove the enemy's means of propoganda in the area. To me this is a critical matter. The writer is engaging in war propoganda by suggesting atrocities without any formal means of showing such. The writer is actively engaged in combat for the enemy IMO.

The writer is endangering our military oeprations.
Posted by: badanov   2004-04-25 10:24:57 AM  

#5  Hey Al-Guardian - doesn't it bother you that nobody believes you anymore? That you've lost ALL credibility except for those who frantically want to believe?
Posted by: B   2004-04-25 9:17:54 AM  

#4  
US marines were surprised by a contingent of 'anti-coalition fighters'

The US Marines didn't start this battle, but they sure will end it.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-04-25 9:00:43 AM  

#3  So the hospitals are treating wounded civilian "babies" over the telephone and not even Al Jizz has pictures of the ambush.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-04-25 2:58:42 AM  

#2  Those battles haven't gone unnoticed here at Rantburg or other serious attempts at news reporting. Hey ABC, whats going on?

Posted by: Lucky   2004-04-25 1:52:22 AM  

#1  For them, civilian = muja who got offed and they then took the weapons/ammo off him before turning around to the press and claiming him as a "civilian" casualty. They ought to do poweder residue tests on the hands of these "civilian" casualties. 10 to 1 says they'll find enough to indicate they had been firing. That cheap AK ammo is pretty dirty.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-04-25 1:28:05 AM  

00:00