Jenin: an excellant read.

Clashman said:
I don't know how you can say that. It outright states that he doubts that most of the people killed were resistance fighters, or even that the army really has any clue of how many people they killed.

Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals as being reported.
He's guessing. He doesn't know.

The ROE under "Iron Fist" is such that the US soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if enemy fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside. It seems too [sic] many of us this is more an act of desperation, rather than a well thought out tactic. We really don't know if we kill anyone, because we don't stick around to find out.
Thats right. The casualty/killed numbers are almost always estimates based on battlefield reports.
 
Clashman said:
As far as civilians hauling off the bodies, I find that hard to believe. In the heat of a major battle like that, most civillians are more likely preoccupied with their own survival, and running like hell to get away from it, not with ferrying dead guerrillas to some unseen, unknown burial spot.

We have already established that no one checked on things until the next day, so please do not further misinform people by stating that no one would carry off bodies in a battle. I could carry 20 bodies off overnight without to much trouble.

I don't think there was 45-54 rebels killed but anyone who beleives what the spolesmen say and disbeleives what the americans say is silly, the truth lies somewhere in between.
 
The ROE under "Iron Fist" is such that the US soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if enemy fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside. It seems too [sic] many of us this is more an act of desperation, rather than a well thought out tactic. We really don't know if we kill anyone, because we don't stick around to find out.
Thats right. The casualty/killed numbers are almost always estimates based on battlefield reports.


NUh UH!!!! In WW2 they actually had people count the dead!!! :LOL:
 
Ty said:
Legion said:
Why would anyone in a non Spec Ops mission use a Brass Catcher?

TO misrepresent the number of combatants.

I believe in the black helicopters too!

Really, do you read indymedia and believe in mind control satellites as well :rolleyes: ?

You make it seem as though its particularly odd they'd have a case catcher. Do we even know the type of rifles they are using? My bet are AKs
 
Legion said:
Really, do you read indymedia and believe in mind control satellites as well :rolleyes: ?

I'm not the one so quick to come up with a pretty far fetched scenario. That these "insurgents" would have brass catchers. Have you ever tried to make one for an AK47? Many times you'll end up having the casing being shot up through the ejection port causing a jam. Do you have ANY pictures of an AK47 in that territory with a brass catcher (home made or otherwise)? There are literally zillions of pictures of ak47s being carried in that area of the world. PLEASE show me a few pictures of them with brass catchers. I don't believe 74's would be very different in this regard. I am more than willing to be wrong here.

Legion said:
You make it seem as though its particularly odd they'd have a case catcher. Do we even know the type of rifles they are using? My bet are AKs

In my opinion it would be. Until I see a good amount of pictures of them with brass catchers I'm going to believe that you also believe in UFOs because that would explain cattle mutilations and crop circles.

Btw you might want to try adding an extra layer of aluminum foil to your hat. I found it to really help block the mind control rays.
 
I'm not the one so quick to come up with a pretty far fetched scenario.

Its far fetched to believe that bullet casing could either be kicked around in the public commotion or caught in a case catcher?

That these "insurgents" would have brass catchers. Have you ever tried to make one for an AK47?

No, why would i make them? I understand the AKs are decent rifles but i'd never buy one. Right now i am trying to find as many German WW2 machine guns (ie MG42).

Many times you'll end up having the casing being shot up through the ejection port causing a jam. Do you have ANY pictures of an AK47 in that territory with a brass catcher (home made or otherwise)?

I don't have any pictures at all of them using AK-47s. I just assumed that since their weapons are mainly russia 80s (or french) military grade they'd have AKs.

There are literally zillions of pictures of ak47s being carried in that area of the world. PLEASE show me a few pictures of them with brass catchers. I don't believe 74's would be very different in this regard. I am more than willing to be wrong here.

The few links i have found selling brass catcher accessories (bags and what not) have been for the 74s. Are the 74s all 5.56 NATO complient? Weren't the 47s 7.62?

In my opinion it would be. Until I see a good amount of pictures of them with brass catchers I'm going to believe that you also believe in UFOs because that would explain cattle mutilations and crop circles.

Why are you jumping on me for making this suggestion? Many thing could cause dispersions in spent cases. I don't think looking for cases on the ground several days after the incident will tell us how many combatants there were.


Btw you might want to try adding an extra layer of aluminum foil to your hat. I found it to really help block the mind control rays.


No, thats ok. I am sure Clashman will appreciate the offer though.
 
Legion said:
You make it seem as though its particularly odd they'd have a case catcher. Do we even know the type of rifles they are using? My bet are AKs

If there really were 60 to 70 guerrillas, why would they want to pretend that there were far fewer of them? Last I checked, guerrilla movements liked to inflate their numbers, so as not to appear to be just a small fringe group of fanatics, even if they were.

Do you actually think they knew in advance that they were going to be nearly wiped out, and so they wen't through a huge, elaborate ritual to hide all the case shells to make their numbers seem smaller? And then to bury 46 to 54 bodies, (with the exception of 8 civillians), in a secret, unknown location? Even acknowledging that there was some exaggeration, (we'll say for the sake of argument that only 20 to 30 rebels were killed), there has been ZERO evidence to back it up. Nothing, not even blood trails, not to even begin discussing mass graves. You would think that given the amount of flack the military has been taking regarding this story, they would at least make SOME effort to validate their claims.

Coincidentally, 46 dead and 20 wounded seems to correspond pretty nicely to 8 dead and 55 wounded, don't you think? Could it be that anyone they shot they counted as dead, and that they didnt' stick around to determine whether they were dead or alive, civilian or guerrilla?

This isn't the first time something like this has happened in recent memory. I have a buddy serving with the 82nd Airborne who just got back from Afghanistan. He was involved in this battle. He told me that the claims of 18 dead were completely made up, and said that there were in fact only 2 people killed.

But whatever, Legion. Keep looking for "the Truth" in your Ann Coulter and http://www.gun-rack.com articles. Facts and evidence be damned.
 
If there really were 60 to 70 guerrillas, why would they want to pretend that there were far fewer of them? Last I checked, guerrilla movements liked to inflate their numbers, so as not to appear to be just a small fringe group of fanatics, even if they were.

Because they are terrorist and the support of their group rest on those numbers. If a good number of those had been killed it would certainly look back for them. Especially when they lack public support.

Do you actually think they knew in advance that they were going to be nearly wiped out, and so they wen't through a huge, elaborate ritual to hide all the case shells to make their numbers seem smaller?

Is it really that hard to hide Shells? Do we know how many rounds were fired? How many were each soldier carrying? The articles tell us nothing. We must simply rest our opinions to the contrary on a "terrorist spokeman" who can't be viewed as reliable. As another in this forum has told you battlefield deaths are largely estimates.

And then to bury 46 to 54 bodies, (with the exception of 8 civillians), in a secret, unknown location?

Is this really that hard? They had a whole night to move the bodies. They may not have all been buried at once either.

Even acknowledging that there was some exaggeration, (we'll say for the sake of argument that only 20 to 30 rebels were killed), there has been ZERO evidence to back it up.

Again battlefield deaths have largely been estimates. Would you bother to dig up all the graves of WW2 soldiers and count them to find the real number give or take all those whom were vaporized, mangled, etc? We also have no evidence to the contrary.

Nothing, not even blood trails, not to even begin discussing mass graves. You would think that given the amount of flack the military has been taking regarding this story, they would at least make SOME effort to validate their claims.

What we do have is a spokeman who is willing to admit some of his men died. He just doesn't agree on the amount. There is certainly reason to believe he would misrepresent damage to his group.

Coincidentally, 46 dead and 20 wounded seems to correspond pretty nicely to 8 dead and 55 wounded, don't you think? Could it be that anyone they shot they counted as dead, and that they didnt' stick around to determine whether they were dead or alive, civilian or guerrilla?

Again battlefied deaths have largely been estimates. If they said they killed a good number of the terrorists nationalists i'd be inclined to believe them. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more deaths reported then there actually were. That shouldn't surprise you.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened in recent memory. I have a buddy serving with the 82nd Airborne who just got back from Afghanistan. He was involved in this battle. He told me that the claims of 18 dead were completely made up, and said that there were in fact only 2 people killed.

Thank you for the heresay. I once heard a german man deny the holocaust.

But whatever, Legion. Keep looking for "the Truth" in your Ann Coulter and http://www.gun-rack.com articles. Facts and evidence be damned.

And you can keep turning to your indymedia sources for evidence of mind control devices being distributed amongst the iraqi population.

I hope i am not left to assume you are antigun clashman.
 
Legion said:
Why are you jumping on me for making this suggestion? Many thing could cause dispersions in spent cases. I don't think looking for cases on the ground several days after the incident will tell us how many combatants there were.

Apologies as it probably came off harsher than I intended. A wordsmith I am not.

Anyhow my point is that during all my years of watching video or seeing pictures from that area I have not once, ever seen a brass catcher on a weapon from that area. Not even when you see them training at ranges (the most likely time to use one).
 
Apologies as it probably came off harsher than I intended. A wordsmith I am not.

No offense taken, i was just wondering how serious you intended your statements to be.

Anyhow my point is that during all my years of watching video or seeing pictures from that area I have not once, ever seen a brass catcher on a weapon from that area. Not even when you see them training at ranges (the most likely time to use one).

Thats probably true. My point in suggesting the use of a brass catcher was only to provide one valid reason why counting cases couldn't possibly tell you how many combatants were present (especially if you have no idea how many rounds were fired) a whole day after an incident.
 
AK-47 has no "brass catchers". At least I don't know of any such made in quantity. For AK-74 there are but their use is ... umm cumbersome - and with problems. Even when on shooting ground their use is unpractical (although after the shooting everyone had to show all cartridges)
And afaik usually the casualties are 1:5-10 dead/wounded. Killing 40 and wounding 10 will mean "shots from close distance in the back", nothing else.
 
chavvdarrr said:
AK-47 has no "brass catchers". At least I don't know of any such made in quantity. For AK-74 there are but their use is ... umm cumbersome - and with problems. Even when on shooting ground their use is unpractical (although after the shooting everyone had to show all cartridges)

I was able to confirm there was an Ak-74 brass catcher. If infact terrorists did use catchers (for whatever reason) we'd never get a realistic count of their numbers.

And afaik usually the casualties are 1:5-10 dead/wounded. Killing 40 and wounding 10 will mean "shots from close distance in the back", nothing else.

what is this in reference to?
 
in reference to http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=199345
I thought it was especially funny that they said they killed 46 bad guys, wounded 11, and captured 1, out of a group of 60 or so, leaving we'll say between 3 and at most 10 left.
As I said - there are such for AK-74 (these are 5.5mm mainly, but 7.7mm version exists also) - but when i was on my compulsory 6-month army service, noone used them -although after shooting we had to show all used cartridges (or at least same number ;) ). The idea that someone will risk jam or to be hit from AK cartridge ... when going to attack US soldiers ... well, he must be VERY stupid IMHO
 
chavvdarrr said:
in reference to http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=199345
I thought it was especially funny that they said they killed 46 bad guys, wounded 11, and captured 1, out of a group of 60 or so, leaving we'll say between 3 and at most 10 left.

I take it your agree that there more than likely a larger number of enemy dead.

As I said - there are such for AK-74 (these are 5.5mm mainly, but 7.7mm version exists also)

weren't the 47s 7.62?

- but when i was on my compulsory 6-month army service, noone used them -although after shooting we had to show all used cartridges (or at least same number ;) ). The idea that someone will risk jam or to be hit from AK cartridge ... when going to attack US soldiers ... well, he must be VERY stupid IMHO

I would imagine the 47/74 are rather out dated when compared to MP5s, M4A1, etc.
 
Legion said:
I take it your agree that there more than likely a larger number of enemy dead.
imho IF attackers were 50-60 , likely casualties should be 5-10 killed, 30-40 wounded, not the contrary.

weren't the 47s 7.62?
I would imagine the 47/74 are rather out dated when compared to MP5s, M4A1, etc.
yea, 7.62 , I rounded wrongly :(
I never "touched" or used MP5 ... but agree in some areas AK-47/74 ARE outdated... but as for abilities/price/performance its still a decent weapon IMHO. AFAIK not many weapons are capable of under-water shooting (if i remember "killing area" is 3-4 m ;) ), piercing through train-rail, or get ready for shooting 2 min after its barrel was full of sand&slime - and not many vests will stop 7.62 bullet from less than 100m ....
To sum - no i don't think that if atackers were 50-60, armed with AK, killing 40 of them and loosing 1-2 is possible. Even if taking in account that attackers were iraqi :)
 
That would still put the number of enemy dead above the number suggested by the "spokesman". I find it hard to believe anyone could mistake 12 men for 60 in any case. I believe the spokesman to be deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
 
chavvdarrr said:
the truth is always somewhere in the middle :)


I figured as much. I just can't believe any number of troops could mistake 2 dead for 30+ when the maximum number of terrorists were 12
 
Back
Top