Jenin: an excellant read.

[Clashman]

If you read the hospital report, it says that there were 8 dead, not 2, and 55 wounded, (perhaps many serious enough that they could have been mistaken for dead. It does in fact seem that the U.S. troops simply shot their way out of town, and I doubt you could tell an unconscious wounded person from a dead one). The difference, Legion, which you still can't seem to grasp, is that most of them were civilians and not guerrillas. It has been positively determined that of the dead, at least one was an 80 year old Iranian Pilgrim, one was a factory girl waiting for a bus home, and one was a middle aged man killed while running over to protect his child, who was also wounded. That's at least 3/8 identified as civilians, and I wouldn't be suprised if most of the rest were as well.

 

[Legion]

If you read the hospital report, it says that there were 8 dead, not 2, and 55 wounded, (perhaps many serious enough that they could have been mistaken for dead.

That makes perfect sense. It would have been ridiculous to believe that there were only 12 terrorists there.

I could easily see how those men could have been mistaken as dead. The more than likely stopped moving out of shock/pain and their wounds may have been serious.

It does in fact seem that the U.S. troops simply shot their way out of town, and I doubt you could tell an unconscious wounded person from a dead one).

Or its quite possible the civilians were caught in the cross or shot deliberately or unintentionally by the terrorists. Why are you assuming the US troops were 100% responsible for the injuries? What exactly do you have to prove neglegance on their behalf? How were the soldiers, civilians and terrorists organized? Should the US troops not have returned fire? It should be rather obvious there would have been no deaths at all if the terrorist hadn't sought to murder innocents in the first place.

The difference, Legion, which you still can't seem to grasp, is that most of them were civilians and not guerrillas.

I don't believe i discussed the possibility of them being civilians. This addition irrelevant inlight of my original argument.

Most of them were civilians? Can you provide me with figures so that i may know what "most" describes? Who shot them? Did the hospital staff positively ID rounds taken from the bodies to be that of US troops? What were the circumstances? If the terrorists nationalists hadn't engaged in combat would there be any dead?

It has been positively determined that of the dead, at least one was an 80 year old Iranian Pilgrim, one was a factory girl waiting for a bus home, and one was a middle aged man killed while running over to protect his child, who was also wounded. That's at least 3/8 identified as civilians, and I wouldn't be suprised if most of the rest were as well.

3/8 isn't "most" Clashman. Can you please provide documentation proving these civilians had no involvement in the shooting or that enemy dead haven't been taken eslewhere? Exactly how were these people possitively IDed as civilians?

http://washtimes.com/world/20031206-120933-1854r.htm

I will be very interested in seeing this march against the iraqi terrorist tomorrow. Its certainly a good thing these people's voices will be heard, to the chagrin of islamo propagandists like Muqtada Al-Sadr i am certain.

 

[Legion]

I am begining to wonder how this conversation got so for off topic from the euro media's bias against israel and clear UN military blunders in Jenin...

 

[Clashman]

That makes perfect sense. It would have been ridiculous to believe that there were only 12 terrorists there.

The hospital report said that most of them were civillians. If you had 60 civilians shot, there could well have been only 12 guerrillas. If you have people firing on rooftops and running in and out of alleyways, it could be very easy to think you were being attacked by a much larger force than in reality.

Or its quite possible the civilians were caught in the cross or shot deliberately or unintentionally by the terrorists. Why are you assuming the US troops were 100% responsible for the injuries? What exactly do you have to prove neglegance on their behalf? How were the soldiers, civilians and terrorists organized? Should the US troops not have returned fire? It should be rather obvious there would have been no deaths at all if the terrorist hadn't sought to murder innocents in the first place.

I'm assuming they're mostly, not 100% responsible for the civilian deaths and wounded. The primary reasons for this are 1). The U.S. military contingent were in American Vehicles and American military uniforms. The guerrillas were mostly wearing streetclothes. Who is more likely to mistake civilians for fighters? As far as negligence goes, last I checked there were very few 80 year old grandmothers that pass as guerrilla fighters. There's also plenty of eyewitness accounts stating that the U.S. was firing randomly. This is collaborated by both physical evidence at the scene, as well as historical precedent. What more do you want?

I'm assuming also that the guerrillas weren't deliberately attacking civilians because it would be stupid to do so in the middle of a firefight with a heavily armed force. If they wanted to terrorize the civilian population, they could do so very easily when the U.S. troops weren't there. And because this target was deliberatly pointed at U.S. troops, the term "terrorist" is erroneous in this situation. U.S. soldiers are valid military targets in times of war. They are not civilians, and "terrorism" by defenition is defined as an attack on a civilian population.

3/8 isn't "most" Clashman. Can you please provide documentation proving these civilians had no involvement in the shooting or that enemy dead haven't been taken eslewhere? Exactly how were these people possitively IDed as civilians?

3/8ths is the bare fucking minimum, Legion, and you know that. The only reason we have these people identified is because individual stories were done on them. As far as taking enemy dead elsewhere, there are only 100,000 people in Samarra. It's pretty difficult for 45 people to disappear and another 10-20 come up with bulletwounds one day and nobody notice it. Samarra city officials and hospital officials have already confirmed that the vast majority, (their term, not mine), were civilians. What the hell does it matter if that means 51% or 95%. How much does it have to be to constitute negligence? What burden of proof do you demand? I doubt you would believe it if Donald Rumsfeld himself came out and said it was so.

 

[Legion]

The hospital report said that most of them were civillians. If you had 60 civilians shot, there could well have been only 12 guerrillas. If you have people firing on rooftops and running in and out of alleyways, it could be very easy to think you were being attacked by a much larger force than in reality.

That sounds like a pretty big "If." If you are willing to admit the possibility that gunners on roof tops could have taken pot shots and retreated or were killed and their bodies removed then there easily could have been more people involved then what was suggested. The same would also apply to any number of other terrorist possibly dressed as civilians. This discussion leads me back to a previous questions: how did the hospital positively ID these people as citizens? Does being a "citizen" mean you can't be involved in a terrorist group or for that matter that you aren't involved in a terrorist group?

I'm assuming they're mostly, not 100% responsible for the civilian deaths and wounded.

Oh? Do you know who shot the civilians? Were the bullets positively IDed as US munitions fired from US weapons?

What was the layout of the conflict? Where were people positioned and how were they situated when they were hit?

Were some of these civilians involved in such a manner that would indicate cooperation with the terrorist forces?

The primary reasons for this are 1). The U.S. military contingent were in American Vehicles and American military uniforms. The guerrillas were mostly wearing streetclothes.

You place more blame on the US troops do to the fact that these terrorists disquised them selves as civilians so that they can open fire on US troops and use other civilians as body shields? It seems to me you should be considering these terrorists are exploiting the weak among their people for their own muderous intentions. A behavior we see all too well in the ranks of tyranny.

The possibility that the terrorists were wearing civilian clothing makes me all the more suspicious of the hospital's capacity to identify them as terrorists. Can you tell me what methods they were using to identify these men as noncombatants? Were they simply comparing their faces to a list of known terrorists (as if they had such a list present at every Iraqi hospital)? Even if a match wasn't made that still doesn't rule out the possibility they were new to the terrorist scene or simply a cooperating combatant.

Who is more likely to mistake civilians for fighters?

Who is likely to shoot through civilians even with the prior knowledge they were noncombatants? The terrorists. Who would have been more like to use people as body shields? The terrorists.

As far as negligence goes, last I checked there were very few 80 year old grandmothers that pass as guerrilla fighters.

Again do we know who shot them? If so, how?

There's also plenty of eyewitness accounts stating that the U.S. was firing randomly.

Plenty of witnesses to the contrary too i imagine. Are any of these witnesses credible? Perhaps their perception was skewed by the onset of violence and death they associated with the US soldiers as they were far easier to blame.

This is collaborated by both physical evidence at the scene, as well as historical precedent. What more do you want?

Physical evidence at the scene? This is the first time i am hearing this from you. Will you please share with me exactly what this physical evidence is?

Historical precedent? Are you suggesting since some where in US history a troop of soldiers fired randomly this happens in all similiar conflicts?

I'm assuming also that the guerrillas weren't deliberately attacking civilians because it would be stupid to do so in the middle of a firefight with a heavily armed force.

No, not at all. They could have just as easily shot the civilians as the US soldiers could have depending on how all the people were situated. They could have easily been shooting through the civilians or using them as body shields by hiding behind them. Do you really expect the terrorists to stop firing because a civilian moves into their LOS? Do they happen to have rifles with perfect accuracy? Could there possibly have been civilians that were standing behind the US troops? Could the terrorists possibly shot civilians who were assiting US soldiers or were trying to prevent the terrorists from attacking?

If they wanted to terrorize the civilian population, they could do so very easily when the U.S. troops weren't there.

Why shouldn't you assume their direct intent was causing the mayhem that insued? They attacked US troops in a civilian area knowing good and well there would be civilian casualties. That appears to me to be a calculated meassure crafted to turn public opinion against US troops. It also shows absolute disregard for the lives of their fellow iraqis completely disassociating them from guerillas. Why else would they involve civilians? Why else would they dress in civilian clothes if not for their desire to involve innocent people in the shooting?

Do you honestly expect the US troops not to have returned fire? Do you expect them to run, duck and cover until the terrorist decided to stop shooting, run out of ammunition? If not for the terrorist's cowardly action of involving innocent civilians into a fire fight none of this would have happened.

And because this target was deliberatly pointed at U.S. troops, the term "terrorist" is erroneous in this situation.

Actually terrorist fits quite well as their purpose was to involve civilians in the conflict to cause confusion and disarray ultimately causing their wounds or death.

U.S. soldiers are valid military targets in times of war.

Hiding behind civilians and dressing and civilians is in complete violation of codes within the Geneva Convention. They are demonstrating the complete disregard for human life while causing terror and confusion amongst the populace while they wage their war on democracy and progress.

They are not civilians, and "terrorism" by defenition is defined as an attack on a civilian population.

Which is exactly what they were instigating.

3/8ths is the bare fucking minimum, Legion, and you know that.

And you should know the US soldiers didn't shoot all those people. If you believe so please provide physical evidence those civilians were injured by US munitions.

The only reason we have these people identified is because individual stories were done on them.

Meaning all of those whom are not known terrorists couldn't be identified. This tells us nothing about whether they had some cooperative involvement or that they weren't infact terrorists. This also speaks nothing of whom shot them.

As far as taking enemy dead elsewhere, there are only 100,000 people in Samarra. It's pretty difficult for 45 people to disappear and another 10-20 come up with bulletwounds one day and nobody notice it.

How are you so sure of this? Why wouldn't other civilians not involved in the conflict assume terrorists wearing civilians clothes are anything but civilians leaving the scene of the fire fight? Can you provide me with a layout of the grounds showing all paths they could have taken to leaving the area of the conflict? Should we assume that since these 45 people left the area they all left as one collective group? Don't you think they'd disperse even if there were twelve of them? How badly were these people injured? could many of them have conceled their wounds? Is it possible they could have had minor wounds treated somewhere else or not at all? Do we really have any reason to believe all terrorist who fled the scene were even injured?

Samarra city officials and hospital officials have already confirmed that the vast majority, (their term, not mine), were civilians.

I have asked what these terms are. Can you provide me with a link discussing just how they came to these determinations? Also can you provide me with a link to the ballistics report they have proving the US soldiers shot these people?

What the hell does it matter if that means 51% or 95%. How much does it have to be to constitute negligence? What burden of proof do you demand? I doubt you would believe it if Donald Rumsfeld himself came out and said it was so.

Why is it so pressing of me to ask of you very basic questions you ought to have answers to before making such assumptions?

You haven't provided me with a layout of where civilians, soldiers and terrorists could have been standing based on eye witness testimony. You haven't shown me ballistics reports on the rounds removed from the bodies of the dead and living. You haven't explained exactly what physical proof indicates the US soldiers were firing recklessly. There was never an explanation given as to how the hospital ID's terrorists (not combatants). On top of all of this you haven't explained why the the US soldiers are some how more to blame for this incident then the terrorists who instigated it. Objectively i'd say you'd at least place equal blame on both sides through realistically i'd assume you'd put more on the side of the terrorists who were using the civilians as body shields.