US Forces Fire On Civilians, Lie About It, As Usual

[nicky g]

It is amazing how little coverage Iraq is getting at the moment, given what an absolute mess it is. Here's the latest in the US military's glorious attempts to help the Iraqi people. An Arab journalist was killed for good measure, always a bonus.




"News footage shows a few dozen curious Iraqis standing around the Bradley Fighting Vehicle just before the missile strike.
...
Most of the onlookers did not appear to be celebrating the "kill", just standing around curiously staring at the burning wreck.

I went back to the scene to help the wounded people when the helicopter fired again and I was hit in the chest

Alaa Hassan
...
The first reports of the helicopter attack came at 0756. As well as two missiles, the aircraft directed machine-gun fire at the crowd, reports say

In the first explanation of events offered by the US military early on Sunday evening, the helicopter was said to have blown up the wrecked Bradley "to prevent looting and harm to the Iraqi people".

A second explanation came a few hours later suggesting that air support had been called in by the Bradley crew to prevent looting, but the helicopters were fired on from the ground.

"Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley," the US statement said.

In a phone call from Baghdad on Monday, the US military was unable to clarify why none of the TV footage or press pictures showed armed people at the scene or recorded any gunfire.


Media spotlight on Baghdad deaths (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3652174.stm)

Or try this fist hand accout for the charming way in which the helicopters repeatedly come back to attack people helping the wounded:

One morning in Baghdad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1303827,00.html)

Meanwhile:
US troops face new torture claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1304042,00.html)


While Donald Rusmfeld openly argues in favour of breaking the Geneva Convention:

Rumsfeld defends treatment of 'ghost detainees' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1302328,00.html)
Good job.

[ChristinaB]

US Forces Hold Iraqi Women As 'Bargaining Chips' (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-09/13/article04.shtml)

'BAGHDAD, September 13 (IslamOnline.net) – An Iraqi resistance group threatened Sunday, September 12, a volcano of attacks against the US occupation forces, who have taken Iraqi women hostage to exchange them with fighters.

A group calling itself the Saladin Al-Ayyubi Brigades, the military wing of the Sunni Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance, said the occupation troops kidnapped a mother and three girls on August 26 in Al-Latifia district, 70 kilometers south of Baghdad.

“The coward Americans demanded Iraqi resistance fighters in the area to lay down their arms and hand themselves in to release the four female hostages.

“We vow to teach the US troops a lesson for such a cowardly act unless they set the four free and unharmed,” read the statement, a copy of which was obtained by IslamOnline.net.'

Pitiful, troops, just pitiful. You must let the mother and her children go free. Your reputation is no longer salvageable- only your souls may be saved, now, at this late juncture. But, you must let these innocent civilians go. Now. And this is not the first report of US troops kidnapping innocents to use as hostages. Remember Basrah? Falluja?

[MMMMMM]

So...we have a claim by Iraqi resistance militants, which was publicized by Islamonline.net...and is that it?

[The once and future king]

Also a UK broadsheet journalist injured in the helicopter attack. A helicpoter attack upon a crowd of unarmed civilains.

We are obviously getting alot more coverage of this across all media than you are in the USA. But given that the whole thing is a monumantal cock up with the loss of several innocent civilians Im surprised it hasnt generated a bit more noise.

Also MMMMMMM have you made a conscious effort to ignore the credible links in Nicky Gs post and only concentrate on the islamic source?

Not very scienbtific as you would say.

[MMMMMM]

I was referring to corroboration of the claim made by the group of resistance fighters.

[The once and future king]

Anything to say about the original topic/post of this thread backed up credible sources or are you going to only reply to something you can easily refute so therefore you dont have to encounter any information that might challenge your world view in some way?

[cjromero]

This is not an excuse, because the killing of innocent civilians is clearly wrong, but it is just another example of the fact that war is tough business. Things happen. People make mistakes. It's pretty easy to bash members of the U.S. military who are actually facing threats every day from the comfort of your computer in the UK, isn't it?

Are you trying to argue that the vast majority of the Iraqi people actually wish we had not gotten rid of Saddam? Or that most of them won't live far better lives long-term for what the U.S. has done? There is no question that we are viewed as occupiers by many Iraquis (at least for the time being), but that doesn't mean that the war is a mistake. As with all things, history will be the judge. It will not be based on daily snapshots like this.

How about posting links to articles about all of the positive things that are being accomplished in Iraq on a daily basis? I am not sure if they still do it, but for some time throughout the spring and summer, Fox News would show at least one positive news story a day about the reconstruction efforts there (schools, hospitals, etc.). To my knowledge, it is the only one of the major network and cable news channels in the U.S. that did.

[ACPlayer]

\ Or that most of them won't live far better lives long-term for what the U.S. has done?

Sure, if living in a Islamist state (the most likely outcome in Iraq) will lead to them having better lives.

I am not sure if they still do it, but for some time throughout the spring and summer, Fox News would show at least one positive news story a day about the reconstruction efforts there (schools, hospitals, etc.)

Fortunately, I dont have access to Fox in Viet Nam where i presently am located. However, I suspect Fox will do a lot to not remind the voters that the war is on. Why remind them of the blunders of their pals in the WH just before election time????

[MMMMMM]

WTF?

I can't "eaily refute" what ChristinaB posted; I'm just asking for more information before taking the word of an insurgent group as gospel. I'll comment on the original topic as and when I see fit.

Did it ever occur to you that I might be somewhat busy at the moment and only have time for brief reading or reply right now? As you might observe, Nicky's original post contained FOUR links so it is not something to be whizzed right through.

Jeez, you certainly are on the attack this AM. Try relaxing a bit dude.

[The once and future king]

It just seems strange that you have nothing to say about Nicky G's original post. Which is about something completly different and has credible sources.

Also its 13:52 here which in my book is attack'o'clock /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

As I just edited my post to add, Nicky's post contained FOUR links. Considering that ChristinaB's post was rather brief, maybe you can see why it would be easier to read through, let alone respond to.

I suggest you should hesitate to attack a poster on his/her personal motivations unless you are sure.

[The once and future king]

That has to be one of the most pot meet kettle posts of the millenium.

Also my comment about your personal motivations was a question. I wasnt making a statement of fact.

[Utah]

Maybe. Maybe not.

However, every moron in the world is smart enough to know that you dont step into the line of fire between fighting parties.

Seems hard to plane the U.S. here without knowing more. Unfortunately, the U.S. cannot be ultra careful everytime its attacked. It does need to fight back when attacked. I think thats the nature of war isnt it?

[nicky g]

"However, every moron in the world is smart enough to know that you dont step into the line of fire between fighting parties."

According to witnesses and apparently the footage shot there, the insurgents who blew up the vehicle had long gone and there was no shooting when the helicopters opened fire.

[Utah]

I not know much about the incident so I cant comment on the specifics. If that is the case I would have a big problem with it.

However, I do believe that the U.S. follows very strict rules of engagement and does its best not to kill civilians. In fact, I cannot think of another country that goes to such lengths. Mistakes happen and when they do the U.S. trys to correct them.

However, I would expect the U.S. to lie about it if it was intentional or a mistake. They have no choice in the matter.

From the picture I saw the vehicle was fully engulfed in flames. Therefore, it couldnt have been too long since the attack happened.

[nicky g]

"However, I do believe that the U.S. follows very strict rules of engagement"

Like Israel, I believe the US has, formally at least, very strict rules of engagement. Like Israel, it doesn't seem to follow them and when things like this happen it lies about them rather than properly investigating or punishing the people responsible. It pays lip serve to such notions rather than ensuring they're carried out.

[vulturesrow]

Sorry Nicky but I have to take that personally. We (American servicemembers) who are going into combat zones get extensive briefing on Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict. It is made clear what you can and cannot do. I would be willing to put a major wager down that those helo crewmembers honestly felt the ROE had been satisfied.

I havent even had a chance to read the articles yet. If they did make a mistake it is definitely tragic. But for people to accuse them of deliberately accuse them of attacking civilians or only paying lip service to them is a slap in the face.

[Utah]

Like Israel, it doesn't seem to follow them and when things like this happen it lies about them rather than properly investigating or punishing the people responsible.

Respectfully, I would take issue with that statement. It does follows those rules. If it didnt, civilian deaths would be way way higher. The U.S. could probably end the insurgency problem in many cities if it simply decided not to bother with those pesky rules.

Do they get broken? Absolutely. Do those who break them get punished. Absolutely.

[nicky g]

"Are you trying to argue that the vast majority of the Iraqi people actually wish we had not gotten rid of Saddam? Or that most of them won't live far better lives long-term for what the U.S. has done? "

Maybe, maybe not. The death toll figures from the war and its aftermath are certainly rivalling an average Saddam year. They could improve or get worse. Either way, the "coalition" has completely ballsed up the post-war period, massively reducing whatever net benefits were supposed to come out of the war, and there were a dozen things that the effort and money spent on the Iraq war could have accompished that would have saved or improved more lives and at a fraction of the cost in terms of casualties, alienation and destabilisation. But the war is no longer the issue. The issue is that the US can;t stop doing these sorts of things and lying about them when it does (rather than trying to address teh relevant problems), it should get the hell out. Certainly an army under the control of a man who thinks it is perfectly legitimate to break the rules of the Geneva Convention because "we're not as bad of the terrorists" has no business there.

[nicky g]

"The U.S. could probably end the insurgency problem in many cities if it simply decided not to bother with those pesky rules."

Like they did in Vietnam?

[nicky g]

"It is made clear what you can and cannot do. I would be willing to put a major wager down that those helo crewmembers honestly felt the ROE had been satisfied. "

Ah, well that's OK then. "Sorry we killed you when there was no threat, but we honestly felt it was appropriate."

"I havent even had a chance to read the articles yet. If they did make a mistake it is definitely tragic. But for people to accuse them of deliberately accuse them of attacking civilians or only paying lip service to them is a slap in the face. "

The default reaction is always "we were being fired on, this is perfectly OK", even when the evidence is clearly against them; never "we're looking into it" or a proper investigation or apology. What ever happened to the investigations into the blowing up of the al-Jazeera office (twice) with a targeted missile for example? The only time anything ever happens is when the media gets hold of incontrovertible and marketable evidence, such as in the Abu Ghraib case. How many of these things do you think get filmed?

[Utah]

LOL. Different war. different situation. Different U.S. army.

The U.S. handed it to Sadr pretty good. My understanding that the U.S. killed 3000 insurgents in the last month. The U.S. is taking it to the insurgents and in reality the U.S. death toll is extremely low.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, well that's OK then. "Sorry we killed you when there was no threat, but we honestly felt it was appropriate."

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a serviceman honestly feels he is being fired upon, he shouldnt defend himself? Is that what you are saying? If they did make a mistake, like I said, it is a tragedy. And I am quite sure their will be an investigation. But the bottom line is that military members have the right defend themselves if threatened. And when I say if threatened, I dont mean some vague feeling of danger. I mean when all the guidelines of the ROE have been satisfied.

[ QUOTE ]
The default reaction is always "we were being fired on, this is perfectly OK", even when the evidence is clearly against them; never "we're looking into it" or a proper investigation or apology. What ever happened to the investigations into the blowing up of the al-Jazeera office (twice) with a targeted missile for example? The only time anything ever happens is when the media gets hold of incontrovertible and marketable evidence, such as in the Abu Ghraib case. How many of these things do you think get filmed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply not true. The best example of recent memory is the court martial of the 2 Air Force pilots who dropped bombs on the Canadian unit. As for the al-Jazeera, I'll have to look into. But just for your edification, there is no such thing as a targeted or untargeted missile.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
It is amazing how little coverage Iraq is getting at the moment,

[/ QUOTE ] ..... This was the main story on ABC nightly news on sunday, they even showed a video of it.

My question though is, why would anyone stand next to a burning U.S. APC? You would have to think the U.S. would either come back on the ground and destroy it, or else fly back and destroy it, especially since said APC has munitions, communication devices, and computer devices still on it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The only time anything ever happens is when the media gets hold of incontrovertible and marketable evidence, such as in the Abu Ghraib case. How many of these things do you think get filmed?

[/ QUOTE ] Why do you assume everything you hear outside of the U.S. is true, but everything coming from the U.S. is false?

[nicky g]

"So if a serviceman honestly feels he is being fired upon, he shouldnt defend himself? Is that what you are saying?"

Given that they clearly weren't being fired on, I doubt they felt this.

"The best example of recent memory is the court martial of the 2 Air Force pilots who dropped bombs on the Canadian unit."

After massive pressure from the Canadians, a close ally. Iraqi civilians have no such spokespeople. And the fact remains that army spokespeople instantly defended that attack, despite clear evidence there was no threat.

[nicky g]

"My question though is, why would anyone stand next to a burning U.S. APC?"

Ever hear of warning shots? They know damn well in a busy main throughfare people, including journalists, are going to come out to see something like this. And why the need to come back repeatedly to fire again when people were removing the injured? And which is more important once you see there are civilian in the area; destroying the equipment or safeguarding those people's lives (you know, the lives you claim to be "protecting"?)

[nicky g]

"Why do you assume everything you hear outside of the U.S. is true, but everything coming from the U.S. is false? "

I don't assume that. but if I did, I would answer "because of cases like this."

[ThaSaltCracka]

repeat, they should know and probably did know, that the U.S. would come back and destroy the APC, so why go anywhere near it. Plus, if they don't destroy it, it will be looted which includes all of its munition, which could be used against U.S. forces or Iraq security forces.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever hear of warning shots?

[/ QUOTE ] How about a loud ass helicopter?

[nicky g]

"How about a loud ass helicopter?"

If you read the report, you;d see that the people did start running away when they heard the helicopters approaching. It may surprise you to learn that helicopters, missiles and shrapnel move faster than people. And again, why keep firing on people helping the wounded?

[The once and future king]

"How about a loud ass helicopter? "

What about the helicopter pilots?

Maybe they could have been flexible enough to fire when their target wasnt surounded by civilians. Just a thought. Or did they think "Well they can hear us and they are still there so Hank let em rip, feck em, dont bother with no pussy assed warning shots yeeee haaaaa".

That is what your post implies. That the presnce of civilains near a target dosnt warrent a warning shot if said civilians have either seen or heard an American tank/chopper. If they have, they must take there chances.

Ridiculous.

[ThaSaltCracka]

from your BBC article:

Mr Khatib, who has asked for a more information from the US military, is particularly concerned that Mazen Tumeisi seemed to have been standing more than 50 metres from the wrecked Bradley.

"We can't call it a mistake, but we cannot say that Mazen Tumeisi was deliberately targeted," he said.


"There was no warning not to be there, and definitely civilians and journalists will go to a place like this to see what has happened."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40065000/jpg/_40065290_haifa203.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm.... so know they think the U.S. is deliberately targeting journalists, wow.... Not only is this guy crazy, but I think the BBC is crazy for printing that. You will remember that the BBC was found to be misleading its viewers with their Iraq coverage, right?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ] you are the one being ridiculous, there are dozens of civilians around a burning US APC, you hear a loud ass helicopter coming and you just stand around?

As Nicky G said, many people started running away(I would assume most of these people were innocent bystanders) however, it looks like several people didn't and its possible some of these people were either looting the APC or even firing upon the Helicopter.

[nicky g]

"Hmmmm.... so know they think the U.S. is deliberately targeting journalists, wow.... "

Having blown up the al-Jazeera offices both in the early stages of both the Kabul and Bghdad invasions, and having their puppets ban both stations from Iraq, one doesn;t ahve to be crazy to be suspicious of this.

"You will remember that the BBC was found to be misleading its viewers with their Iraq coverage, right? "

By a whitewasher judge personally chosen by Tony Blair, who decided that Andrew Filligan having said that the government probably knew something was "wrong" (and that something was wrong, by the way), and then promptly changed that to "unreliable" (which was true), which he then repeated 17 times in the same programme (that is, he said theyu knew it was "wrong" once, and "unreliable, which was correct, 17 time thereafter in the same programme) meant the BBC was at entirely fault, while the government, who went to war on highly dubious intelligence that proved to be a crock of [censored] had done nothing wrong at all.

[nicky g]

"or even firing upon the Helicopter. "

Um, except that the footage taken at the time shows noone was firing at the helicopter. And the people killed were the people running away.

[The once and future king]

Talk about selective reading.

The quotes you quote are asking how come some one standing 50m from the target still got injured.

To injure someone closs to the target is obvioulsy a mistake but to harm someone not close to the target in this age of precision weapons is even more of a mistake. They are just trying to point out the scale of the feck up. Not say that the person standing 50m away was selectively targeted. The BBC would never even begin to make such a claim these post Hutton days without cast iron proof.

The BBC has never been found to be misleading in its coverage of the IRAQ war. The Hutton report was about coverage of the domestic political scene vis a ve the iraq war and the reasons why we went to war. Nothing to do with reportage about how the war has been conducted.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Having blown up the al-Jazeera offices both in the early stages of both the Kabul and Bghdad invasions, and having their puppets ban both stations from Iraq, one doesn;t ahve to be crazy to be suspicious of this.

[/ QUOTE ] These people are reporting in a damn war zone, people die in war zones, if you seriously think the U.S. attacks journalists then I have little respect for your opinion, sorry.


[ QUOTE ]
By a whitewasher judge personally chosen by Tony Blair, who decided that Andrew Filligan having said that the government probably knew something was "wrong" (and that something was wrong, by the way), and then promptly changed that to "unreliable" (which was true), which he then repeated 17 times in the same programme (that is, he said theyu knew it was "wrong" once, and "unreliable, which was correct, 17 time thereafter in the same programme) meant the BBC was at entirely fault, while the government, who went to war on highly dubious intelligence that proved to be a crock of [censored] had done nothing wrong at all.

[/ QUOTE ] ahhh... so the BBC is not biased at all then....

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that they clearly weren't being fired on, I doubt they felt this

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh so now you know what the pilots in that helo felt. Your powers of perception are amazing Nicky. Why is it so clear to you that they knew they werent being fired upon?

[ QUOTE ]
After massive pressure from the Canadians, a close ally. Iraqi civilians have no such spokespeople. And the fact remains that army spokespeople instantly defended that attack, despite clear evidence there was no threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I was flying missions off of a carrier when this incident happen. It was a huge deal and the reaction was immediate.

As for the Army dfefending the pilots immediately, of course they are going to do that. Its a lot easier to go back and recant after a full investigation, rather than immediately after the incident sayin, "Yup, the helo pilots deliberately targeted civilians" or something equally as damning and then later finding evidence that refutes and trying to recant.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, except that the footage taken at the time shows noone was firing at the helicopter. And the people killed were the people running away.

[/ QUOTE ] the footage is pointed directly at the APC, someone could be out of frame shooting at halo.

[nicky g]

"These people are reporting in a damn war zone, people die in war zones, if you seriously think the U.S. attacks journalists then I have little respect for your opinion, sorry."

You don;t think it's just a little suspicious that the offices of AJ, which US officials have attacked, denounced and harrassed repeatedly (yo know one of the conditions for an end to the siege of Falluja was theat the AJ team there, the only camera team in the city, be ordered to leave?), suffered direct hits both times? (Incidentally, footage taken just before it got hit in Iraq shows there was no fire coming from nearby, as was claimed by the US then as well). I'm not in a position to know whether it or elements of it deliberately targets or have targeted journalists. It strikes me there is room for suspicion though, and your blanket dismissal of them is based entirely on faith rather than evidence.

[nicky g]

I assume the footage has sound. And if it doesn;t, were all the eyewitnesses lying?

[nicky g]

"a lot easier to go back and recant after a full investigation, rather than immediately after the incident sayin, "Yup, the helo pilots deliberately targeted civilians" or something equally as damning and then later finding evidence that refutes and trying to recant. "

I'm not suggesting they say that, but when presented with strong evidence that the attack was not justified they might say "we'll look into it" rather than insta-defending the actions, attacking the sources as they often do, and ignoring the evidence.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
To injure someone closs to the target is obvioulsy a mistake but to harm someone not close to the target in this age of precision weapons is even more of a mistake. They are just trying to point out the scale of the feck up.

[/ QUOTE ] indeed, FWIW I think it is a [censored] up, but I don't think it was malicious or intended as some of you seem to be insinuating.

[ QUOTE ]
Not say that the person standing 50m away was selectively targeted. The BBC would never even begin to make such a claim these post Hutton days without cast iron proof

[/ QUOTE ] why the hell would they even include that quote? Clearly they have no proof, clearly its a biased quote. I just love the fact that the BBC includes quotes like these and you guys still think they aren't biased(or atleast this reporter).

[nicky g]

"I don't think it was malicious or intended as some of you seem to be insinuating."

I doubt it was intended; it was clearly grossly negligent, as numerous other such attacks have been and as the response so far has been (and as such responses have consistently been previously).
"why the hell would they even include that quote?"

When a journalist is killed you don;t think they should inclde a quote from the organisation that employed them? Since when was quoting someone else evidence of bias?

[The once and future king]

NO.

You are mis reading the quote. The quote is fine. All it does is illustrate that the reporter injured was 50m from the target and was still injured and the USA military wont admit that injuring someone 50m from the target was/is a big mistake.

Please quote me were I seriously suggest that the attack was malicous.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
When a journalist is killed you don;t think they should inclde a quote from the organisation that employed them? Since when was quoting someone else evidence of bias?

[/ QUOTE ] you are absurd. The quote was, "we cannot say at this time that they weren't targeting him". C'mon, what else is the insinuating? Why would you include that in a story?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You are mis reading the quote. The quote is fine. All it does is illustrate that the reporter injured was 50m from the target and was still injured and the USA military wont admit that injuring someone 50m from the target was/is a big mistake.


[/ QUOTE ] Did you even read the quote I am talking about??? They said "we cannot say at this time if they were targeting him". You have to be kidding me. If someone was 50m away from a target, which is supposedly far enough away, how then can you even make a statement that they aren't sure yet if the reporter wasn't targeted.

[The once and future king]

Again.

They are not saying they were targeting him as a Journalist. They are just saying that if someone is shot on the ground 50m from the supposed target then then it is possible that the bradely was not the only target.

They are not saying that he was targeted because he was a BBC journalist. Just that becuase of the distnace form the given target you cannot rule out the possibility that civilians on the ground had been the actual (mitaken)target or that the weapon fired at the bradely had gone of course and therefore this was the reason innocent people were killed.

It is just a quote about how people 50m from the official target came to be injured.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
They are not saying they were targeting him as a Journalist.

[/ QUOTE ] no, they are saying they can't tell if he was targeted, which implies that they think the U.S. military would target journalists.

[ QUOTE ]
They are just saying that if someone is shot on the ground 50m from the supposed target then then it is possible that the bradely was not the only target.

[/ QUOTE ]So now you are saying that the U.S. military is targeting civilians?


[ QUOTE ]
Just that becuase of the distnace form the given target you cannot rule out the possibility that civilians on the ground had been the actual (mitaken)target

[/ QUOTE ] completely assanine.

[ QUOTE ]
that the weapon fired at the bradely had gone of course and therefore this was the reason innocent people were killed.


[/ QUOTE ] This is more likely, to bad the missle did hit the Bradely, so I guess it didn't go off course.

[ QUOTE ]
It is just a quote about how people 50m from the official target came to be injured.

[/ QUOTE ] no its not, its that mans theory that the U.S. military may be targeting civilians and journalists.

[ACPlayer]

Yeah and we won the vietnam war too.

We only had 50K dead and they had 10M.

So what that Viet Nam remains the "Socialist Republic of Viet Nam". Do you remember the original mission? Was it to kill the maximum numbers of VC or something else.

[ACPlayer]

These people are reporting in a damn war zone, people die in war zones, if you seriously think the U.S. attacks journalists then I have little respect for your opinion, sorry.

If you seriously think that US soldiers would sexually humiliate or torture prisoners in their custory, I have little respect for your opinion.

If you seriously think that US soldiers would massacre an entire village of women and kids, I have little respect for your opinion.

When you start questioning and examining our behaviours first then I will have more respect for your opinion.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
When you start questioning and examining our behaviours first then I will have more respect for your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]What do you think we have been doing during this entire thread? I am mearely pointing out that there is absolutely no proof that the U.S. military is attacking journalists, and any assertion that they are, are being used to enrage other people against the U.S. The quote in that article is obviously biased and competely unfounded.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

However, if you think that someone who suggests that the US may have attacked journalists should cannot be taken seriously, then I think you are incorrect.

I dont think the picture is clear from the articles, I do think it is possible and I definitely think that anyone who offers that opinion cannot be automatically dismissed.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Putting theory's out without any proof is dangerous and reckless IMO, and there is no proof that the U.S. is attacking journalists.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
When a journalist is killed you don;t think they should inclde a quote from the organisation that employed them? Since when was quoting someone else evidence of bias?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you are absurd. The quote was, "we cannot say at this time that they weren't targeting him". C'mon, what else is the insinuating?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absurd. I didn;t say anything otherwise. I said it was relevant because it was his employer's reaction. Whether it's right or wrong is a different matter.

[nicky g]

" I am mearely pointing out that there is absolutely no proof that the U.S. military is attacking journalists"

No, but there is evidence and it's worth looking into.

"The quote in that article is obviously biased and competely unfounded"

That isn;t a reason not to put it in. A journalist's job is to report what the relevant players are saying; the dead journalist's boss is certainly a relevant player and his charge is a newsworthy one, however absurd you may think it.

[NotReady]

Name one war where "atrocities" were not committed by all sides engaged in serious combat.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I said it was relevant because it was his employer's reaction.

[/ QUOTE ] Explain to me how it could possibly be relevant? How is one mans conspiracy theory relevant?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but there is evidence and it's worth looking into.


[/ QUOTE ] perhaps..

[ QUOTE ]
A journalist's job is to report what the relevant players are saying

[/ QUOTE ] A journalist job is to report the news without a particular slant.

[elwoodblues]

Victims and victims families/relatives reactions are routinely reported. After 9/11 many victims family members were interviewed. Many employers were interviewed. They were relevant because they were the incidental victims.

Do you want journalists filtering someone's reaction for truth, or do you just want to hear the reaction? Should everyone's theory following 9/11 that Osama was probably involved not have been aired --- it was a conspiracy theory (it very well might be true, but it was still a conspiracy theory.)

[elwoodblues]

Your position here is interesting. In one breath you want the journalist to report the news (i.e. a victims response), and then in the other you want a "truth filter" placed on that response (because one man's conspiracy theory isn't relevant.)

[Chris Alger]

.

[NotReady]

n/m

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
every moron in the world is smart enough to know that you dont step into the line of fire between fighting parties

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean, like those "morons" that should have known better than to work in the World Trade Center after it was clear that Islamic terrorists had targeted for destruction? Or do you mean the "morons" that should know that the U.S. eventually will be destroyed in retalliation for crimes like this one? Do you mean grown up morons or do you think the children are morons also?

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: "Or do you mean the "morons" that should know that the U.S. eventually will be destroyed in retalliation for crimes like this one?"


Ah...your true perspective, and hatred, is coming through at last.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Should everyone's theory following 9/11 that Osama was probably involved not have been aired --- it was a conspiracy theory (it very well might be true, but it was still a conspiracy theory.)

[/ QUOTE ] Your comparing one very rational theory to one that is completely irrational. In the days following 9/11 there were various theories, one of which was Israel was behind 9/11 because no Jews died in the WTC. Of course almost everyone knew this wasn't true, and no one in the media reported is as true because there was absolutely no evidence, not to mention that it was also completely absurd. Only a reporter with an agenda would report a theory like that, or even hint at a theory like that.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
"truth filter"

[/ QUOTE ] clever way of putting it, but what I would like is a reporter who gives the news, with credible facts and quotes.

[elwoodblues]

I guess we have a disagreement over what the "news" is in this instance. I think the victims reactions are, by themselves, news. You seem to think (don't want to put words in your mouth) that it is the content of their reaction that makes it newsworthy.

[nicky g]

"xplain to me how it could possibly be relevant? How is one mans conspiracy theory relevant"

Because of who he is; a senior editor at the organisation directly involved.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Listen, I don't have a problem that the guy said it, even though its ridiculous, but I have a problem with the way its presented. The journalist ends the article with it, and gives nothing to either support it or discredit it. Its just there, for people to read and think, well that makes sense because the U.S. is a jack ass and they like killing civilians. Essentially it reiterates the already fallacious view that many people, especially Europeans, have of the U.S. military.

[wacki]

I'm curious, why aren't the New York Times, Dan Rather, LA Times, or any other of those media outlets covering this. I can't help but think they would love a story like this. After all Dan Rather seems to love news that is obviously faked. If there is any credibility to this, why wouldn't they report it?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, but there is evidence and it's worth looking into.


[/ QUOTE ] perhaps..

[ QUOTE ]
A journalist's job is to report what the relevant players are saying

[/ QUOTE ] A journalist job is to report the news without a particular slant.

[/ QUOTE ]

ThaSaltCracka is good.

I always enjoy reading seeing your posts, keep it up.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of who he is; a senior editor at the organisation directly involved.

[/ QUOTE ] That organization must have the highest journalistic ethics if one of their senior editors thinks, without proof, that the U.S. military is killing journalists,. I wonder what else they "report" on.... He puts Dan Rather to shame.

[nicky g]

That's irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that printing it showed evidence of bias. Regardless, when, as an Arab journalist, one of your close colleagues has become the latest in a series of Arab journalist to be killed by US forces, you might get a little emotional and/or concerned, and there is reason to be concerned.

"if one of their senior editors thinks, without proof, that the U.S. military is killing journalists"

Um, the US military is killing Arab journalists and there is plenty of proof; I assume you mean intentionally.

[Utah]

-sigh-

No, I mean morons who witness a battle and walk up to it while it is still raging.

[Utah]

Huh!!!!....I disagree with you completely.

Alger's hatred for the U.S. and his fellow countryman has come through clearly ever since he started posting here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
That's irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that printing it showed evidence of bias.

[/ QUOTE ] As I said earlier I think it shows bias, but I was also just saying that I think this other guy is biased as well. Makes you wonder what kind of news he is reporting.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, when, as an Arab journalist, one of your close colleagues has become the latest in a series of Arab journalist to be killed by US forces, you might get a little emotional and/or concerned, and there is reason to be concerned.

[/ QUOTE ] Latest series? Please elaborate.

[ QUOTE ]
Um, the US military is killing Arab journalists and there is plenty of proof; I assume you mean intentionally.

[/ QUOTE ] of course I meant intentionally. BTW, there have been several European reporters dying or have been injured, as well as American reporters. Not to mention those Journalists that are routinely kidnapped. It's not exactly safe to be a journalist in Iraq, no matter who you are working for.

[Utah]

Your point?

[nicky g]

This happened in the middle of a central Baghdad street and there was no battle "raging" when the helicopters fired. I suppose the people who went to help the wounded and were fired upon were morons too.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
This happened in the middle of a central Baghdad street and there was no battle "raging" when the helicopters fired. I suppose the people who went to help the wounded and were fired upon were morons too.

[/ QUOTE ]He's right, but there are conflicting reports about whether the Halo was fired upon before he shot his rockets.

[Utah]

As I have said, I cant comment on the event and I have stated that if events happened a while after the attack then I would probably have a problem with it. Did I not?

[nicky g]

Then why are you implying that the victims were morons for being there?

[wacki]

Nicky G, if this incident is as bad as it sounds, why aren't all of the news outlets broadcasting the video? The article says it has sound, so there will be even more proof.

Honestly I am going to have to wait to see the video before I can take this seriously. The BBC was so bad during the invasion they turned it off on the Ark Royal, so who knows what really happened. Don't misunderstand me, this sounds like a very bad incident, and there probably is much more to this story. If somebody made a mistake, then they should pay.

Still, if this incident is as bad as you and the articles are making it out to be then I have no doubt it will end up on CBS, NYT, and yes, even FoxNews, and someone will have to answer. Until then I will have to wait. We are just arguing about something that we know nothing about.

I suggest you e-mail the article to CBS's Dan Rather or The New York Times Paul Krugman. Or e-mail the BBC for a copy of the video with sound. Otherwise this is just a waste of all of our time.

My thought, if Rather and Krugman ignore it, or the VIDEO is inconclusive, then there probably isn't anything really important talk about here.

[nicky g]

There has been plenty of coverage of it over here. Maybe it is not being covered in the US because all the "liberal media" conspiracy theories are just so much bull (hence the NYT and Washington Post, supposed bastions of that conspiracy having to apologise for being so credulous over the administration's WMD "evidence").

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There has been plenty of coverage of it over here. Maybe it is not being covered in the US because all the "liberal media" conspiracy theories are just so much bull (hence the NYT and Washington Post, supposed bastions of that conspiracy having to apologise for being so credulous over the administration's WMD "evidence").

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't your government supply the yellow cake evidence?

Are you saying we faked all the evidence, and almost every intel agency in the world saw the same evidence we faked and agreed with it?

You must really hate us, and your own government.

[Utah]

If there was an attack and a bunch of guys went up to the attack site to investigate during or immediately after it happened - then yes, they are complete and utter morons.

[Utah]

Can you post a link to the video?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was an attack and a bunch of guys went up to the attack site to investigate during or immediately after it happened - then yes, they are complete and utter morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The military destroys vehicles damaged/left behind anyway. It's standard OP by all modern militaries for a host of reasons.

[nicky g]

My government had nothing to do with any aspect of the war ther than stupidly allowing planes to refuel there.

The British government and the US government certainly exaggerated the evidence and used reports from extremely unreliable sources; the "45 minute claim" for instance, presented as from "reliable sources", came from, er... Ayad Allawi. The NYT admitted being duped by Chalabi and his cohorts, not the government; my mistake. The Post said it had taken the administration's case too unthinkingly.

[nicky g]

"The military destroys vehicles damaged/left behind anyway. It's standard OP by all modern militaries for a host of reasons. "

Not in Baghdad, according to this article:

"But rarely, if ever, have US forces called in an air strike to destroy the remains of a disabled vehicle in Baghdad. Indeed, Iraqis point out, nearby Sadr City, where combat between US personnel and Shiite resistance forces has become a nightly ritual, is regularly littered with the husks of abandoned armored vehicles and Humvees that are not later demolished in US air strikes."



Motive for Haifa Street Helicopter Massacre Remains (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=982)

[nicky g]

"Can you post a link to the video? "

Don't have one, not seen it. All the reports I've read by people who have seen it claim there was no firing, as do eyewitness accounts. If anyone has satellite, al Arabiya is reportedly playing it round the clock; perhpas they can confirm.

[adios]

Are you claiming it was deliberate or collateral damage? I realize that it doesn't matter to the civilians who are killed and their loved ones. But it does make a difference regarding the nature of U.S. policy. I called for Rumsfeld's removal 6 months ago, it wasn't just due to prison scandel. It's more like three strikes and you're out.

With that said, the terrorist savagery in Iraq isn't justified by any means either. A miscalculation by the U.S.? Certainly.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My government had nothing to do with any aspect of the war ther than stupidly allowing planes to refuel there.

The British government and the US government certainly exaggerated the evidence and used reports from extremely unreliable sources; the "45 minute claim" for instance, presented as from "reliable sources", came from, er... Ayad Allawi. The NYT admitted being duped by Chalabi and his cohorts, not the government; my mistake. The Post said it had taken the administration's case too unthinkingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and have repeatedly agreed the the administration sold the war incorrectly, but considering Saddam's history, and all the evidence that did hold up, I can't blame them for believing faulty intel. Intel isn't a precise buisiness. Saddam did try to buy yellow cake, and it would of only been a matter of time before he rebuilt his weapons and Saddam even told Putin he wanted revenge on the US. Thanks primarily to the French, UN sanctions had been countered for the last 10 years in a oily love affair and were fast becomming useless.

Uh, I can't believe I'm explaining this..... again.

[nicky g]

"Saddam did try to buy yellow cake"

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, he didn't. Regardless, Saddam was decades away from being able to turn yellowcake into a bomb; he would have needed enriched uranium, which noone has provided any evidence of him trying to acquire.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I saw the actual video on ABC news on sunday night. I can't find a link for it yet.

[nicky g]

And? Any evidence of firing?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I have to be honest with you, I wasn't paying all that much attention at the time. I didn't know that I should have been listening for them /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but I did indeed see the video. Its both awesome and terrifying at the same time.

[nicky g]

I found a link here:
Reuters TV (http://tv.reuters.co.uk/ifr_main.jsp?st=1095201363180&rf=bm&mp=WMP&wmp=1&r m=1&cpf=false&fr=091404_055814_17d5d2axfefe813df8x w4d55&rdm=814801.0212533281)
Go down to the "World Channel" bit, click next, and the last one should be "Journalist Killed During Report". It wouldn;t let me link to it directly and it may go in the next few hours, apologies if that;s the case.

My impressions: it's split into three parts: two long shots, and one shot of the journalist doing his report, during which the missle hits. In the first of the long shots of the vehicle, there's one bang, whic could conceivably be a gun firing, although there's no sound of a helicopter to be firing at and it sounds more like an explosion somewhere else than the crack of a gun to me; I'm unsre how it relates timewise to the section where the missile goes off. In that section, there's no sound or indication of firing. Admittedly it is short.

[nicky g]

My link isn;t working properly; there's no "next" button. Try this: go to www.reuters.co.uk (http://www.reuters.co.uk), click on "Television" in the "News" Column on the left, and go to World CHannel; at the moment it is story number 14 of 28.

[MMMMMM]

Well Utah, I believe you are right.

Perhaps I should have specified "coming through so clearly now that nobody can possibly miss it."

[Utah]

Unfortunately, it doesnt show much. Why is the clip edited?

They obviously was still danger. Otherwise, why did everyone run away in the first segment.

The only thing this clip advances is my moron theory.

[Gamblor]

I am no fan of death, especially accidental death of innocents, but you high and mighty judge-all types ought to spend one day in uniform.

[Utah]

Respectfully, what does that have to do with anything?

imho - I have never seen nicky g come across as high and mighty.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, it doesnt show much. Why is the clip edited?

They obviously was still danger. Otherwise, why did everyone run away in the first segment.

The only thing this clip advances is my moron theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

As of now, I'm going to have to agree with this. There is still more questions to be answered, but there obviously was something going on.

There was a crowd around that APC and I not sure that helicopter should of fired that missle. The crowd was running and acting a little eratic, so who knows what was going on there. This is a war we are talking about, and if you are stupid enough to get in the way I have no sympathy for you.

Nicky G you have sparked my curiousity, but I'm still leaning on the other side of the fence. And I don't buy your conspiracy theory charges against US news media for one second. If there is any valid reason to prosecute the soldier flying the helicopter CBS, NYT, LAT, CNN, and ABC will be drooling all over it.

[Cyrus]

"Name one war where "atrocities" were not committed by all sides engaged in serious combat."

Absolutely.

Would you mind testifying as a character witness in the defence of the Chechen terrorist who was captured during that particular phase in the war for Chechnyan independence where the Chechens executed some three hundred children?

You remember that. It was all over the news some days ago but the media got it all wrong!

Here's the address to contact:

Chechen Embassy
1 No-Point-Post Street
Irrelevant Generalisation City
LalaLand

Thanks in advance.

[nicky g]

"Unfortunately, it doesnt show much. Why is the clip edited?"

I don't know. Perhaps for easy downloading.

"The only thing this clip advances is my moron theory."

You can call them morons if you want. With all those people in the area, the pilots clearly shouldn't have opened fire. If the eyewitness reports about it firing again when people were helping the wounded, well that's even worse.

[nicky g]

"I am no fan of death, especially accidental death of innocents, but you high and mighty judge-all types ought to spend one day in uniform."

OK I will admit that I am lacking that perspective. But on the other hand, it can help to be disengaged from certain circumstances and you can take that argument too far: you can only judge the actions of the resistance if you've gone through what they've gone through, you can only judge the Germans who joined the Nazis if you;d lived under the Versailles Treaty etc, leading to eventually to the idea that you are the only person that can pass judgement on your own actions. From my non-military perspective, there is something wrong when a helicopter fires a missile into a large crowd of civilians and the army instantly defends it (with two contradictory accounts) even when presented with evidence that suggests otherwise.

[The once and future king]

Channel 5 news (The morst right leaning station in the UK) had an interview with a staff photogropher of the Gaurdian newspaper.

After the intial attack on the crowd. He went to take photographs of the devestation and people helping the wounded. As he was doing this the helicopters came around for another attack run. Firing on both him and those helping the wounded. He also reported that US forces were using indirect fire weapons on the crowd such as Mortors.
(Why use antipersonal weapons to deystroy a Bradely.)

According to his eye witness report it was beyond doubt that the crowd had been targeted intialy and then those helping the wounded.

He gave a harrowing acount of how after the second attack everyone took cover and as the helicpoters were still loitering no one could go out and help the wounded.

The photogropher took a series of pictures that in the UK may become the iconic images of the war.

A man sits up covered in blood, his face registering nothing buy intense shock. There are 2 other bodys lying dead beside him. Slowly he slumps to the ground but as he does so he outstrethces him arm as though he were reaching for something. He comes to rest lying down with his arm outstretched over a curb, palm open reaching.

By the time it was safe to go back out on the street he was dead.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
ou can call them morons if you want. With all those people in the area, the pilots clearly shouldn't have opened fire. If the eyewitness reports about it firing again when people were helping the wounded, well that's even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the guy smiling in the video was really there to help the wounded?

It was a hostile zone and it was pure stupidity for those people to be there. This says ZERO about what the U.S. should or shouldnt have done. Dont read into my comment. I am simply saying that anyone who goes into the line of fire or into a hostile area just to look around like this is simply a moron. I am not saying its okay to shoot morons.

I think this tendency has something to do with basic human nature. I was in downtown Minneapolis in the 90s and there was a big gang war shooting where many people got shot. We heard the shooting as we rounded the corner and many people were lying in the street dying. The shooters were obviously still around, but a huge number of people went into the area to see what was going on. I remember thinking the same thing at the time - morons all of them. I wonder if its the same impulse people have when they slow down to see the horror of a traffic accident.

[nicky g]

"Are you saying that the guy smiling in the video was really there to help the wounded?"

That was before the first helicopter attack. I was referring to the people who were fired on while helping the victims of the first helicopter attack.

"I am simply saying that anyone who goes into the line of fire or into a hostile area just to look around like this is simply a moron."

They weren't in the line of fire; the tank crew and the insurgents had left and there wasn;t any fire just prior to the helicopter attack. I don't know what your definition of a "hostile zone" is. Such a term could encompass all of Iraq.

[Utah]

We dont know what happened and the video doesnt show much, so we cant draw any conclusions about the events taking place.

All I saw was a bunch of people milling about a hostile area. I base that on the fact that something hostile is still happening because of the people scattering.

[ QUOTE ]
They weren't in the line of fire; the tank crew and the insurgents had left and there wasn;t any fire just prior to the helicopter attack

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant say that. How do you know? What were those popping sounds and why did the people scatter? Did someone just have bad gas? Something was going on. However, with the video edited you cant really tell anything.

[nicky g]

There's only one popping sound; it's impossible to say what it is or if it's even nearby. I'm basing some of my comments on eyewitness reports as well as the video; by and large I think the video is supportive of them although I agree it's short and inconclusive.

Anyway I think that's enough from me on arguing about the circumstances of what happened here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
He also reported that US forces were using indirect fire weapons on the crowd such as Mortors.
(Why use antipersonal weapons to deystroy a Bradely.)

[/ QUOTE ] Did the photographer actually see U.S. soldiers firing mortars? Because mortars would only come from ground troops and not helicopters.

[Gamblor]

"You can not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"

But I digress:

It is one thing to be brutally negligent and then lie about it. It is another entirely to be caught in the heat of battle and find the balance between

1) Direct orders from a superior officer
2) Moral implications
3) The situation "on the ground" and thus the number of variables in the situation you can capture and analyze and come to a conclusion about your actions.

And of course, the worst is those who rush to judge and assume they've got it all figured out when all you really have to go on is the news article, as told by a journalist, who got his information second hand, from a local "witness" who will happily manipulate the story to suit a dramatic and political agenda - as is often the case with reports concerning Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as this one.

The point:

The events in question happened over there, not here. And those events will be interpreted in whatever way is necessary to support a pre-existing bias, which should be obvious.

[The once and future king]

He saw mortor rounds falling amongst the civilian crowd.

Obviously these cannot be fired from a helicpoter.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah, and how does he know those mortars came from U.S. troops? The American bases in Iraq are constantly attacked with mortar rounds.

[nicky g]

"And of course, the worst is those who rush to judge and assume they've got it all figured out when all you really have to go on is the news article, as told by a journalist, who got his information second hand, from a local "witness" who will happily manipulate the story to suit a dramatic and political agenda "

Wrong. the journalist was there and witneswed the attacks. As I've said before, you should read things before commenting on them.