Nice to see some good news. After all, everyone knows that nothing positive or good ever happens there, and that the terrorists win every encounter, right? That's what the MSM tells us, and they're totally unbiased and fair, right?

Thanks, Shadow. Keep it up.

It's Bush's fault ya know.

What were the five unarmed people doing?

What were the five unarmed people doing?

What 5 unarmed people? I see nothing of the sort mentioned here or elsewhere.

It's arithmetic, drmiler. 11 people killed or captured and only six weapons. That means five were unarmed. I'm guessing the police would have searched for any weapons the five might have dropped, so that means they weren't carrying any. Why weren't they armed?

Maybe they got a few leaders or maybe they were civilians. It's never easy to know.

That's ok, Cacto, I know this isn't positive news for you, after all, it wasn't US troops that were killed.

"A Positive" News ShadowWar? I prefer O positive news myself... I guess it's just my type ;~D

That's ok, Cacto, I know this isn't positive news for you, after all, it wasn't US troops that were killed.

What, am I supposed to switch off to the fact that there were 5 unarmed people there? Doesn't that have any significance to you whatsoever?

For example it may suggest that the resistance is becoming less dangerous because they can't afford to arm all the members. Or that a meeting of possible leaders was broken up.

No, but I notice that you can't seem to stomach ANY positive news from Iraq without countering it with negative.

You remind me of the parent who, when his kid comes home with As you look at him and say, "you didn't wipe your feet".

Yes, there were apparently 5 people killed there who weren't carrying guns, but guess what, they were there with them. If either of those 5 people saw the US Troops first, do you think they would have sat there quiet, wishing they had a gun? Or do you think they would point the troops out to the guys with the guns?

Cacto, it's not the fact that you are anti Iraq war that bothers me... I respect your right to be that. It is that you constantly show your allegiences to the bacteria. You never seem to have anything good to say about the coalition troops, but you are sure quick to defend anything negative news about the bacteria.

That's ok, Cacto, I know this isn't positive news for you, after all, it wasn't US troops that were killed. What, am I supposed to switch off to the fact that there were 5 unarmed people there? Doesn't that have any significance to you whatsoever?

And here is something that "none" of you have thought of! Especially cacto! Just because they weren't carrying a gun does "NOT" mean they were unarmed. Ever hear of, oh I dunno.....hand grenades, RPG's (this is a must for ALL terrorists), IED's and the like? I would consider "anyone" caught with any of these items to be "armed". Remember...."do not assume"!

It's arithmetic, drmiler. 11 people killed or captured and only six weapons. That means five were unarmed. I'm guessing the police would have searched for any weapons the five might have dropped, so that means they weren't carrying any. Why weren't they armed?

Only FOUR were killed. Use some logic will ya? They killed 4 and detained 7. Even if by some slight chance they had "no" weapons whatsoever, "what" were they doing in the middle of a fire fight with those that "did" have weapons? It very akin to you being in a bank robbers get away car. You may not have been in the bank....but you better believe that the police "are" going to arrest you as a possible accomplice.

Yes, there were apparently 5 people killed there who weren't carrying guns, but guess what, they were there with them. If either of those 5 people saw the US Troops first, do you think they would have sat there quiet, wishing they had a gun? Or do you think they would point the troops out to the guys with the guns?

There's nothing in the article that suggests they were killed. My guess is they were the ones captured. I honestly have no problems with them being captured by police and US forces. I do however wish the journalist had found out what they were doing there. I reckon it could have provided an interesting insight into how the insurrection is fought, or even an insight into whether or not they were criminals or terrorists (and there is a distinction there).

Cacto, it's not the fact that you are anti Iraq war that bothers me... I respect your right to be that. It is that you constantly show your allegiences to the bacteria. You never seem to have anything good to say about the coalition troops, but you are sure quick to defend anything negative news about the bacteria.

I don't think I was defending them. I'd challenge you to find anything I've said here in defence of those captured or killed. I just think it's interesting that there were unarmed men there and I wonder as to their purpose.

If in your world that makes me a supporter of terrorism, well, I've been accused of worse and for far less spurious reasons. As for me never saying anything good about Coalition troops well I'll cop to that - it's been quite some time since I have. But I haven't heard any good news from Iraq which doesn't involve killing other people, and frankly that doesn't sound like good news to me. The need for firefights at all is hardly something to celebrate.

And here is something that "none" of you have thought of! Especially cacto! Just because they weren't carrying a gun does "NOT" mean they were unarmed. Ever hear of, oh I dunno.....hand grenades, RPG's (this is a must for ALL terrorists), IED's and the like? I would consider "anyone" caught with any of these items to be "armed". Remember...."do not assume"!

Those weapons are usually listed, especially IEDs and RPGs. I suppose it's possible that shadow war left them out for some reason, but I don't see why. I also would have thought that the terrorists would have used an RPG if they had one available. Sure, it's not designed for use against infantry, but I can't see why they wouldn't use it if they were attacking a building.

Only FOUR were killed. Use some logic will ya? They killed 4 and detained 7. Even if by some slight chance they had "no" weapons whatsoever, "what" were they doing in the middle of a fire fight with those that "did" have weapons? It very akin to you being in a bank robbers get away car. You may not have been in the bank....but you better believe that the police "are" going to arrest you as a possible accomplice.

It's not incorrect to say 11 killed or captured when there are 7 captured and 4 killed, because 7+4=11. I'm not criticising the arrest of those on the scene. I think that was vastly preferable to executing all of them on the spot. Rule of law is an essential for the rebuilding of Iraq and I'm not about to suggest that attacks on public facilities and police go uninvestigated or the perpetrators go unpunished.

I do think it's odd though that they were unarmed and I'm very curious to know why.

do think it's odd though that they were unarmed and I'm very curious to know why.

Like I said before....."you" do not know if they were unarmed or not. Do you? And just an FYI...."hand grenades" are not usually listed.

But I haven't heard any good news from Iraq which doesn't involve killing other people[\quote]

That's because you're not paying attention.

Link

Learn the facts the incompetent MSM doesn't consider "news".