Article

2004-04-25 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2004-04-25 12:53:23 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 1:28:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 1:52:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 2:58:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 9:00:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 9:17:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-04-25 10:24:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-04-25 11:46:57 AM|| Front Page Top

11:44 raptor
07:59 Igs
07:12 B
07:09 B
02:35 Lucky
02:21 SON OF TOLUI
00:23 Anonymous4555
23:55 Laurence of the Rats
23:44 Pappy
23:44 OldSpook
23:42 OldSpook
23:35 eLarson
23:34 ex-lib
23:31 eLarson
23:30 Pappy
23:28 eLarson
23:27 Pappy
23:26 mmurray821
23:26 eLarson
23:25 Steven Den Beste
23:24 eLarson
23:21 Super Hose
23:21 eLarson
23:20 Zhang Fei