PDA

View Full Version : The Roadblock Incident


Chris Alger
04-01-2003, 02:34 PM
I suspect another example of the disconnect between TV news and what's in print (and the net). Last night on Lehrer, a Marine general went into great detail about how the Toyota truck was first ordered to stop, then warning shots were fired, then they tried to shoot the radiator, and only after that fired into the passenger compartment, accidentally killing 7. The occupants were all unarmed civilians.

There was nothing in the discussion about there being reporters on the scene, or that they used a 25mm cannon.

Here's the description from today's Washington Post:

As an unidentified four-wheel-drive vehicle came barreling toward an intersection held by troops of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Capt. Ronny Johnson grew increasingly alarmed. From his position at the intersection, he was heard radioing to one of his forward platoons of M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to alert it to what he described as a potential threat.

"Fire a warning shot," he ordered as the vehicle kept coming. Then, with increasing urgency, he told the platoon to shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into its radiator. "Stop [messing] around!" Johnson yelled into the company radio network when he still saw no action being taken. Finally, he shouted at the top of his voice, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!"

That order was immediately followed by the loud reports of 25mm cannon fire from one or more of the platoon's Bradleys. About half a dozen shots were heard in all.

"Cease fire!" Johnson yelled over the radio. Then, as he peered into his binoculars from the intersection on Highway 9, he roared at the platoon leader, "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"

So it was that on a warm, hazy day in central Iraq, the fog of war descended on Bravo Company.

Fifteen Iraqi civilians were packed inside the Toyota, officers said, along with as many of their possessions as the jammed vehicle could hold. Ten of them, including five children who appeared to be under 5 years old, were killed on the spot when the high-explosive rounds slammed into their target, Johnson's company reported. Of the five others, one man was so severely injured that medics said he was not expected to live.

"It was the most horrible thing I've ever seen, and I hope I never see it again," Sgt. Mario Manzano, 26, an Army medic with Bravo Company of the division's 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, said later in an interview. He said one of the wounded women sat in the vehicle holding the mangled bodies of two of her children. "She didn't want to get out of the car," he said.

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W3RH0528EA023D5B4B663EFADD4D

dogsballs
04-01-2003, 03:29 PM
How have the networks reported this incident since the reports of the platoon captains radio conversations and the failure to fire warning shots became widely reported?
It's not surprising for military spokespeople to put the appropriate spin on what is a very unfortunate incident.

Fortunately, as you point out, the net has many sources.
I tend to check the web site of the UK Guardian regularly.
A thread below (started by nickyg, I think, has links to - among others - an article describing concern over overly trigger-happy troops. I notice the Washington Post site has an article titled "U.S. Troops Told to Use Tougher Tactics".
A lot of this seems to fly in the face of an avowed aim of gaining the trust and support of the Iraqi people.


An update just now from the Guardian:

"US backs checkpoint killings soldiers

A spokesman for US central command today backed soldiers who shot seven women and children at a checkpoint and blamed the Iraqi regime for the killings.

Navy Captain Frank Thorp said initial reports indicated the soldiers from the US 3rd Infantry Division had acted properly in firing on a car that failed to stop at a checkpoint in the southern Iraqi desert near Najaf last night.

According to the US military, the soldiers motioned for the car to stop and fired warning shot when their commands were ignored. When those shots were ignored the soldiers fired shots into the car engine but it continued to drive towards the checkpoint.

The soldiers then fired into the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

Today, the 13th day of the conflict, US marines shot dead another unarmed driver and badly wounded his passenger at a roadblock in the southern town of Shatra, south of Baghdad. He was shot at after his pickup truck was driven at speed towards a checkpoint. "I thought it was a suicide bomb," one of the soldiers who fired on the vehicle told Reuters.

Troops have been nervous, and have been ordered to be more cautious, after the suicide car bomb attack on Saturday which killed four US soldiers at a checkpoint, near Najaf which is close to the scene of last night's killings.

Capt Throp said the blood of from the incident was "on the regime of Saddam Hussein" because of guerrilla tactics and the strategy of challenging coalition troops at checkpoints.

However a different picture was provided by the Washington Post which quoted the US captain at the intersection as saying his forward platoon had failed to give the van ample notice that it would be shelled. "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" it quoted Captain Ronny Johnson telling his platoon leader.

The newspaper also claimed ten people were killed by the US gunfire.

British army spokesman Colonel Chris Vernon said that the killings undermined attempts to win over the local population, but told the BBC: "We must allow our junior commanders who are doing the business on the ground to make these split-second decisions as they think best.""

dogsballs
04-01-2003, 04:36 PM
In case you're interested, I found the guardian has a section devoted entirely to looking at how the war is being portrayed by various media sections.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/0,12823,883261,00.html

B-Man
04-01-2003, 04:47 PM
It's a terrible tragedy that should not have happened, period.

While the military is ultimately responsible, don't you think Saddam and his minions also have to take some responsibilty, since the tactics they have been using (i.e. taxi cab suicide bombing a few days ago) led to the state of confusion/heightened alert that allowed this tragedy to happen? This is yet another reason terrorism/hiding among civilians/using human shields is such a terrible thing. If Saddam wasn't disguising suicide bombers as taxi drivers and using other similar tactics to mask soldiers and terrorists as civilians, this tragedy probably would have been avoided.

IrishHand
04-01-2003, 04:59 PM
Good God. Now you want to blame the Iraqis for us shooting families in cars?? Please...this is another mindless variant on the "why aren't they playing by our rules?" wailing.

Stuff like this is the inevitable consequence of our policies. Of course there is going to be intense resistance, and of course this will take the form of urban resistance far more than military resistance since they simply can't compete in the field. The whole world knws this - why the American people didn't realize this would get really ugly, really fast is a testament to public stupidity. Incidents like the exploding car will continue, just as we will continue mistreating and killing the local populace. They're doing the right thing resisting the invader with every means at their disposal, and we're doing the right thing in order to reduce the risk to US soldiers - at least in the immediate sense. In the long-term sense, of course, we're doing nothing but ensuring that the average Iraqi will despise us with a passion that can only be found in an oppressed and occupied people.

No matter how bad you think life must have been there under the present regime, it's a hell of a lot better than it is now and will be for the forseeable future. There's only one nation to blame for that, and it's certainly not Iraq.

Jimbo
04-01-2003, 05:03 PM
"No matter how bad you think life must have been there under the present regime, it's a hell of a lot better than it is now and will be for the forseeable future. There's only one nation to blame for that, and it's certainly not Iraq."

France?

B-Man
04-01-2003, 05:20 PM
You need to read a little more carefully.

I clearly said that the military is ultimately responsible for what happened; I also said Saddam and his minions have to take some of the responsibility because of the tactics they are employing. I stand by both of those statements. The fact is, if he hadn't sent a suicide bomber disguised as a taxi driver three days earlier, the chances this tragedy would have happened would have been very different.

Whether Saddam is justified in using such tactics against us, and whether the U.S. is justified in the way we are responding, are different issues (which were not addressed in my post, but which you for some reason are ascribing to me). Don't confuse the issues.

brad
04-01-2003, 05:38 PM
i agree. vietnam for example US soldiers couldnt identify the enemy. so basically they had to assume everyone was the enemy. thats just the way it is. when youve got little kids running up with bombs, then the next day a little kid is running up on you, what are you gonna do?

p.s. thats why normal people said, hey, lets not go to war with iraq unless its really a last resort and necessity.

Chris Alger
04-01-2003, 06:29 PM
When I checked tehe networks, I got a mixed bag. Most of them buried the Washington Post version about 10 or so paragraphs down, and led with claims that portray the war favorably.

My point was that Gen. Pace lied in his teeth on TV, and that should be a story too. Watching it, before I heard of the other account, I was struck by the number of times he qualified his version of the facts with "according to first reports" and other third-party information. I seriously doubt that the Captain on the scene tried to cover it up. People have a right to decent information about the war, and the right to judge the credibility of the sources.

The coverage in the (loft-wing) Guardian is uniformly excellent, even though it doesn't have as much access to US officials as the other media (maybe that's why it's better). Every story is archived and free, and they have excellent chronologies and backgrounders.

nicky g
04-01-2003, 07:50 PM
I think you have to say that disguising bombers as civilians is bound to lead to civilian casualties, and the people responsible should be tried for war crimes - r at least they should have been, if the US had signed up to the ICC and was subject to the same rules. In this case however, clearly not everything was done to avoid killing the family and the army should not be lying to cover a trigger-happy lunatic's back. Especially if they want the civilian population to come onside, to avoid further unnecessary deaths.

Chris Alger
04-01-2003, 08:43 PM
I didn't mean to highlight the tragedy as much as the apparent government whitewash and the lack of media emphasis on it.
(There are too many accidental horrors to keep track of -- the same day 11 members of a family were killed by an errant bomb, the 53 that died in the marketplace last week, the Syrain bus, etc., etc. I understand the Marines shot another guy to death at a roadblock an hour later. These things happen every day, and will probably continue to happen every day for the next several years, until Iraq is "pacified" or the US withdraws).

But as long as you mention the blame that should be assigned to "tactics," I don't think Iraqi tactics are as much to blame as US ones. Iraqis have the same right as any people to defend themselves from invasion. But conventional means render them virtually defenseless, Iraq having spent less than 1% annually of what the US spends on its military. So we should expect Iraq, by virtue of necessity, to use unconventional methods and weapons in self defense.

The US war plan, however, is designed for political expediency to risk and sacrifice Iraqi civilians in order to protect US troops. It's why we're bombing civilian centers instead of entering them to fight the enemy head-on in the traditional, heroic way. It's not that the US wants to kill civilians, its that too many dead Americans make the price of the war too high. The prevalence of racism makes dead US troops fundamentally more tragic and noteworthy, more demanding of media attention, than dead Iraqi civilians.

You might find the incident appalling, but the message from the US commanders is that the Marines on the scene acted appropriately. They signalled the truck to stop but the driver didn't follow orders. To remain on the safe side, the Marines raked a bunch of kids point blank with cannon fire. This is part of the new empahsis on protecting US troops from the indigenous population it ostensibly intends to liberate. Another new rule: if civilians don't take their hands out of their pockets when ordered, you can kill them.

Jimbo
04-01-2003, 08:56 PM
"But as long as you mention the blame that should be assigned to "tactics," I don't think Iraqi tactics are as much to blame as US ones."

Looks like you were wrong here Chris (dare I say as usual?). An Iraqi Mullah interviewed this evening stated that the innocent civillians were commanded/coerced to run the roadblock and not stop therby committing suicide. No warning shots could have stopped, no wooded roadblock slowed them, nothing short of weapon fire could end their torturous journey. May their souls rest in peace as well as the conscious of the poor soldier forced to stop their vehicle.

MMMMMM
04-01-2003, 10:04 PM
I saw the same interview.

I also read somewhere on the web (too lazy to search it out now) that the marketplace explosion has no crater such as a US bomb of that magnitude would create. Conclusion: the Iraqis did it themselves, sacrificing their own civilians, for the express purpose of turning world opinion against the USA. Would anyone really be surprised at this? (well I can think of a few posters on this board who might be;))But if this is true, it's just another example of the Saddam Hussein Axiom! Well, we'll see how these stories pan out over the next few days or so.


"[i]The less benefit of the doubt one gives to Saddam Hussein, the more likely one is to be right" ("M")

Corollary: [i]"The more benefit of the doubt one gives to Saddam Hussein, the more likely one is to be wrong" ("M")

General Axiom of Despots: [i]The less trust we repose in despots, the better and saner our decision-making will be" ("M")

adios
04-01-2003, 10:18 PM
"Conclusion: the Iraqis did it themselves, sacrificing their own civilians, for the express purpose of turning world opinion against the USA."

This will be something that we need to know the extent of. I wouldn't call it unconventional either. My guess is that Chris will state that there is no credible evidence supporting this. It seems unlikely that we'll really know the truth about the extent of these activities. I hope I'm wrong and that we will know.

Chris Alger
04-01-2003, 10:54 PM
At the risk of appearing foolish for assuming you might not be lying or confused -- recalling your "Geneva Convention" fiasco -- do you suppose you could offer a source? This is the second time you've failed to support a media claim that no medium I could find even mentions.

Jimbo
04-01-2003, 11:04 PM
Chris see my post entitled " A depressing evening for the Pessimists". My Geneva convention contentions were clear, concise and correct.

MMMMMM
04-01-2003, 11:28 PM
(excerpt)
A Shiite Muslim cleric in Iraq claims the driver of the van at a U.S. checkpoint in which at least seven women and children were killed was forced to disobey the soldiers' orders to stop, thereby causing the civilian deaths, reports Fox News Channel.

Mohammed Barkir Al-Mohari said in a translated videotape that the incident outside Najaf in southern Iraq on Monday was purposely set up to give Saddam's regime grist for criticizing the United States.

After delivering repeated warnings to stop, U.S. soldiers fired on the van, which carried 13 people, according to the Pentagon, when the driver failed to stop as ordered. The military is investigating the incident.

Yesterday, another Iraqi was killed in a similar incident at a checkpoint near the south-central town of Shatra...

...''They tried to warn the vehicle to stop; it did not stop,'' Marine Gen. Peter Pace said on PBS. ''And it was unusual that that vehicle would be full of only women and that the driver was a woman. So we need to find out why it was that they were acting the way they did.''...

...Al-Mohari also claims the suicide bomber that struck over the weekend was told if he didn't carry out his mission his family would be killed, and that Saddam's regime gave the man's family hush money.

Fox says Al-Mohari, whom the network describes as an "influential cleric," says families have been threatened with mass killings and even chemical attacks in recent years if they didn't follow through with orders from the Iraqi regime to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks.

"Those people, children and women, were put in the [van] by Saddam Hussein's forces," Al-Mohari said, "and their husbands and fathers were taken as hostages. And the driver was ordered to speed up at the checkpoint and not stop so that they would be shot."(end excerpt)



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31829

Cyrus
04-02-2003, 02:36 AM
So we have come to the point where the cutting down to shreds of women and children is excused. An expression of flat-out admittance of wrong-doing and a promise to tighten orders (and also to finally take heed of the Northern Ireland-savvy British comnanders' recommendations) would maybe aleviate some of the tremendous media repercussions the incident had. But, as has been noted, the Pentagon, led by the inimitable Rummy, doesn't even care for the spin any more. It's "Love Us or ....Die".

"An Iraqi Mullah interviewed this evening stated that the innocent civillians were commanded/coerced to run the roadblock and not stop therby committing suicide."

Yeah , right.

Cyrus
04-02-2003, 02:46 AM
Better try this exclusive link :

ELVIS IN IRAQ (http://www.dxpnet.com/features/4-15-1642-1.asp)

ACPlayer
04-02-2003, 02:46 AM
There is another interesting subtext here which is how the incident is being reported.

ACPlayer
04-02-2003, 02:50 AM
The guardian has what appears to be the best reporting. The other interesting site I follow is www.atimes.com (http://www.atimes.com) for some unusually deep perspectives and viewpoints. It is interesting too, to check out the various middleeastern papers.

brad
04-02-2003, 03:12 AM
'
"Conclusion: the Iraqis did it themselves, sacrificing their own civilians, for the express purpose of turning world opinion against the USA."

This will be something that we need to know the extent of. I wouldn't call it unconventional either. My guess is that Chris will state that there is no credible evidence supporting this. It seems unlikely that we'll really know the truth about the extent of these activities. I hope I'm wrong and that we will know.
'

well we know US had such a plan, approved by jcs and ike, to rally support aginst cuba, operation northwoods.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 03:25 AM
What's the latin equivalent of Ad Hominem for this? Refute the artivle if you care to try but leave the source out of it.

nicky g
04-02-2003, 05:38 AM
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=392161

According to this, the missile was identifiably American through its serial numbers, which were discovered later. The follwing is from an email that has been doing the rounds in the uK - I've not investigated it at all, but it claims to show the identity of the missile. I am of course wary of such emails, having never been given my 20% by Miriam Abacha.

"the missile was guided by computers and that vital shard of fuselage was
> computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans -
if
> they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is
> scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number.
It
> is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as
> the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09."
>
> An analysis has been sent to me that points out to me that "MFR" is code
in
> defence contracts for "manufacturer".
>
> 96214 is a manufacturer identification number, a so-called "Cage Code".
>
> Cage codes can be checked on the site:
> http://www.gidm.dlis.dla.mil/bincs/begin_search.asp
>
> 96214 is the cage code for Raytheon Company, a Texas-based military
> supplier that manufactures parts for Tomahawk missiles.
>
> See for example their press release of 27 March 2003, "Raytheon Tactical
> Tomahawk Penetrator Variant Successfully Completes Inaugural Test Flight":
>
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STOR
Y=/www/story/03-27-2003/0001915413&EDATE=Mar+27,+2003
>
> There seem to be 4 possibilities:
>
> - that the shard did not come from the missile that hit Shu'ala
marketplace.
>
> - that Robert Fisk is having us on.
>
> - that the Iraqis successfully smuggled a missile in from Texas which they
> then fired at the Baghdad market.
>
> - that the missile that hit Shu'ala market place was made in Texas and
> fired by US forces.
>
> I hope this helps clarify the relevant likelihoods.
>

nicky g
04-02-2003, 05:57 AM
How exactly did they "coerce" people into getting themselves and their family killed? By threatening to kill them and their family? I also note that Fox hasn't seen fit to reprint the piece on its own website and that google has never heard of a Mohammed Barkir Al-Mohari or any variants.

adios
04-02-2003, 05:58 AM
To be honest the most plausible explanation to me is that it's an errant USA Tommahawk. There certainly were other errant missles as I believe several countries asked the USA to quit deploying them from a certain location. I posted as to what I concluded was the difficulty with them in another post based on what I read about various smart weapons along with my experience and knowledge of military aircraft and their navigation systems.

Chris Alger
04-02-2003, 07:24 AM
Yes, even you.

Can't you recognize a crackpot site when you see one? The TWA 800 investigation was fabricated? Rachel Corrie's alma mater needs investigating for brainwashing her into being a peace activist? Jerry Falwell is a columnist and the site is ownded by a self-described Rush Limbaugh collaborator?

My favorite, from the owner, right out of the John Birch Society Manual for Preaching to Open-Mouthed Paranoids:

"Many dangerous, violent and profoundly anti-American organizations are using the current war as cover to try to bring America to its knees. They hate this country and openly advocate destroying it. Their cause has nothing to do with opposing war, but everything to do with opposing America. In some cases, both their tactics and their goals are not far from those of the very terrorists we are fighting. Indeed, some of the major "anti-war" groups are intimately connected with terrorist states like North Korea, as well as terrorist organizations in the Middle East."

nicky g
04-02-2003, 07:45 AM
Funny, at the time of the TWA 800 crash there was a lot of speculation that it had been accidentally downed by a US missile from a nearby missile base. I don't remember the details.

adios
04-02-2003, 11:15 AM
Just to point out something. If the Iraqi's staged this incident, they certainly could and probably would plant evidence as well. There seems to be a correlation between the cessation of the USA missles causing problems and the mitigation of these incidents. So that is why errant missles are my first suspicion.

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 11:41 AM
"I also note that Fox hasn't seen fit to reprint the piece on its own website and that google has never heard of a Mohammed Barkir Al-Mohari or any variants.

You are the one who referred to the Fox news network as having no credibility yet now you are disappointed when you search it's website. I doubt the Iraqi cleric posts very much on Google.


Here is a link MMMMMM provided last night:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31829

dogsballs
04-02-2003, 11:43 AM
"I also read somewhere on the web (too lazy to search it out now) that the marketplace explosion has no crater such as a US bomb of that magnitude would create. Conclusion: the Iraqis did it themselves".

Well, that's giving our side the benefit of the doubt.
I read a report yesterday (ditto, re too lazy) that a reporter picked up a fragment of the bomb/missile which had the 'carriage' number or whatever is the identifying number (it's called something like that) these things carry. Identified it as made by the Raytheon corporation. Conclusion: US military sent it in.

Maybe I'll try and find it again to double-check.
(EDIT: No need - nicky g's post has a link)

However, there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraqi aim is to have civilians sacrificed a la the roadblock incident, in order to sway both Iraqi and international opinion, particularly other arab countries/peoples. And it's working.

dogs

nicky g
04-02-2003, 11:54 AM
"You are the one who referred to the Fox news network as having no credibility yet now you are disappointed when you search it's website."

I don't follow this. I would have thought if the story was credible FOx would be splashing it all over their website.

"I doubt the Iraqi cleric posts very much on Google."

No. But if he was a senior Shi'ite cleric, I'd have thought his name would come up at least once on another web article. Noone seems to know who he is, and noone has picked up the story other than two out-and-out pro-war networks and a bunch of wacky right-wingers. Given that this story hasbeen at the top of world news, you think this amazing discovery would have made it at least onto the website of the network that came up with it. They don;t bother to explain who this guy is, where they found him or how he knows what happened, and the idea that you could coerce an entire family into committing suicide, and a mother into killing her children, is so absurd without a detailed explanation that you'll forgive me if I don't take his word for it.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 12:29 PM
nicky I don't take the cleric's word for it 100% either. But the interview was on Fox TV, and Chris Alger wanted a link so I found one.

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 12:29 PM
"...you'll forgive me if I don't take his word for it."

Sure nicky g I forgive you, heck I would not expect you to believe it if you had seen his credentials and interviewed him in person.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 12:33 PM
Jimbo and I both saw the intereview with the cleric on Fox TV. You wanted a link so I found one;-)

The site does have a definite slant to it, but that doesn't mean all the articles can simply be dismissed wholesale.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 12:38 PM
My first suspicion is actually the same as yours. However it is still highly likely, IMO, that Iraq will at some point butcher its own civilians and blame it on the U.S.

nicky g
04-02-2003, 12:50 PM
Sure MMMMMM, I'm grateful for you posting the link, not criticising at all. I was just making the point in response to Jimbo that the evidence is far from conclusive, and that in a war with propaganda flying from all sides I personally would not take the uncorroborated, unsubstantiated word of someone, broadcast on an openly pro-war channel, whom I'd never heard of and whose credentials weren't available for inspection, as a given. The thing that makes me suspicious in the first place is that I just can't believe anyone would sacrifice their family like that, which is why I'd like further evidence for the guy's claim.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 01:13 PM
It is hard to imagine, but here's a scenario: Perhaps the chances of everyone in the vehicle being shot running the roadblock were less than 100% (not everyone was killed, right?), but the chances of everyone in the vehicle being shot for not running the roadblock were 100%--plus the husbands and brothers in town would have a 100% chance of being shot if the roadblock wasn't run. So it could have been the choice of the lesser of two evils.

adios
04-02-2003, 01:59 PM
Family Slain at Checkpoint Sought Safety (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=62&u=/ap/20030402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_civilians_killed_26)

This seems to contradict report that they were coerced.

Cyrus
04-02-2003, 02:09 PM
I begin to realize that you (and perhaps Jimbo) are serious ! You are actually ready to believe some cockamany excuse about a whole family, including a mother and her tots, intentionally throwing themselves to the fire in order to smear the good name of the American army! And, to support this, you are willing to invoke the testimony of some jack-in-the-box "Muslim cleric" who "knows" and to cite WorldNetF*ckingNews - but, oh no, not some weird newspaper like ...The Washington Post. No, the simple and reasonable explanation that nervous, inexperienced and frightened soldiers miscommunicated with each other and over-reacted with horrible, lethal consequences is less probable to you. Right. Okay.

..You know, MMM, maybe you should use a little more of Occam's razor.

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 03:23 PM
Funny you mention Occam's razor Cyrus. That is exactly what led me to believe the Cleric's story the more probable.
Either:
1) The soldiers chose to intentionally kill innocent civillians.
2) The driver was coerced to drive through the checkpoint with strangers to save the rest of his own family.

I agree it was close but with thevideo testimony of the Cleric it made #2 seem more likely.

This Cleric may be full of baloney however until this has more time to be investigated I do not see a problem with believing either possibility. I simply chose the one I deem more probable, ie: simpler.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 03:23 PM
Given that Saddam's Fedayeen have been employing terror tactics against Iraq civilians--in order to force them to fight, or for use as human shields--I don't find it impossibly farfetched at all. It would simply be another example of the inhumanity of the Baathist rulers and their depraved minions.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 03:28 PM
It could well be. At any rate, past and future reports of Iraqi atrocities will continue to com,e to light. Some will be discredited will be proven true. The disproven reports do not lessen the validity of incidents which are found to be true--and there will be a great many of these.

This is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today, with the Sudanese and North Korean governments in contention for that honor as well.

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 03:48 PM
After posting I felt I should elaborate using myself in a hypothetical situation.

WARNING: If you are easily offended please read no further!!!!!!

If I was placed in a position to either be summarily executed or save MMMMMM, Tom Haley, HDPM and Billy LTL by being forced to drive through a roadblock at the risk of being shot while having IrishHand, Chris Alger, Cyrus and nicky g as my passengers I would reluctantly be forced to take my chances dodging bullets in order to save the more rational posters!!!

adios
04-02-2003, 03:55 PM
The problem is there are many conflicting reports. The AP report could be erroneous as well. One thing I've learned about news coverage of this was is that believing anything that's reported as accurate is a mistake.

Cyrus
04-02-2003, 05:41 PM
"Either
1) The soldiers chose to intentionally kill innocent civillians. [or]
2) The driver was coerced to drive through the checkpoint with strangers to save the rest of his own family."

Nope. It's

3) The soldiers kill innocent civillians believing they were under attack from suicide bombers.

The Either/Or con doesn't always work.

Cyrus
04-02-2003, 05:57 PM
"..past and future reports of Iraqi atrocities will continue to come to light..."

"Iraq will at some point butcher its own civilians and blame it on the U.S."

"This is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today."

"The Iraqis did it themselves, sacrificing their own civilians, for the express purpose of turning world opinion against the USA."

Howler Of The Week:

"The disproven reports do not lessen the validity of incidents,
which are found to be true."



Come on. You can do better than that.

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 06:21 PM
Cyrus you aren't much of a challenge lately.

"3) The soldiers kill innocent civillians believing they were under attack from suicide bombers.

The Either/Or con doesn't always work."

Ahhh, but it did work. Option three correlates to the same as option one which is why I chose to believe such.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 07:44 PM
"..past and future reports of Iraqi atrocities will continue to come to light..."

Of course this is true. Some past reports are fairly well buried or ignored at present but will come to light, and many new reports will emerge. There will be a great outpouring of testimonials regarding Saddam's sadistic brutalities and iron rule, and eventually an organized and catalogued compilation of offenses by the Ba'ath party against Iraqis will be forthcoming. The world will then take heed and realize at last the enormous barbarity of the regime, beyond even that which had been supposed.

"Iraq will at some point butcher its own civilians and blame it on the U.S."

Quite likely.

"This is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today."

Surprised?

"The Iraqis did it themselves, sacrificing their own civilians, for the express purpose of turning world opinion against the USA."

Quite possibly, but not necessarily.

Howler Of The Week:

"The disproven reports do not lessen the validity of incidents,
which are found to be true."

Obviously--and I don't see why I even bothered to mention it except someone in a previous thread said that because the "baby incubator" story might later have been found to be false, he doubted all other horror stories regarding the Iraqi regime. Hundreds of testimonials from Iraqi escapees and exiles thrown into doubt because of a story by a Kuwaiti princess? Can anyone say "unrelated?"

andyfox
04-02-2003, 08:30 PM
"The disproven reports do not lessen the validity of incidents which are found to be true"

Depends what you mean by "validity." You say the Iraqi regime is the most depraved on the planet. It might well be. But I assume you are basing this on the number of reports of incidences of depravity. If 90 out of 100 prove to be false (and I am not saying this is the case), then this would certainly reduce the "validity" of the depravity of the regime. One disproven report and ninety-nine proven reports would be one thing. But if there are disproven reports, that would be another story.

brad
04-02-2003, 08:35 PM
'1) The soldiers chose to intentionally kill innocent civillians.
2) The driver was coerced to drive through the checkpoint with strangers to save the rest of his own family.
'

of course the simplest explanation is that the checkpoint was an ad hoc thing and things got f***** up.

brad
04-02-2003, 08:35 PM
'If I was placed in a position to either be summarily executed or save MMMMMM, Tom Haley, HDPM and Billy LTL by being forced to drive through a roadblock at the risk of being shot while having IrishHand, Chris Alger, Cyrus and nicky g as my passengers I would reluctantly be forced to take my chances dodging bullets in order to save the more rational posters!!!
'

i guess that leaves me as the shooter! heh. im not a great shot but im persistent. good luck.

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 08:47 PM
First, I'm assuming a reasonable ratio. Second, if you have, say, 1,000 reports and 500 are proven true and 500 are proven false, you still have 500 proven reports. In that case it is magnitude not percentage that matters in determining the brutailty of the regime. The percentage of false reports matters chiefly in determining the percentage of propaganda content employed by either side, but has little to do with the degree of brutality of the regime (as long as some highly damning reports can indisputably be proven true).

brad
04-02-2003, 08:58 PM
well post a demonstrably true one.

(btw, im 100% there is at least one demonstrably true one)

MMMMMM
04-02-2003, 09:18 PM
That isn't my job;-)--but I'll keep it in mind;-)

BTW I just read the Stanley Hilton interview on Alex Jones' Prison Planet. Lots of outlandish claims it seems (which would be shocking indeed if they are all true). Jones says he has proof, so I ask you: has the proof been consolidated and published somewhere so that it is reasonably easy to look up and wade through? And if so, where?

Jimbo
04-02-2003, 09:46 PM
Brad I apologize for leaving you out but I just couldn't bear the thought of dying to save you and I fear you are one of those horrific back-seat drivers who might cause me to have an accident prior to reaching the roadblock! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

brad
04-02-2003, 10:52 PM
well hes suing in court. theres a lot of stuff though.

ask away i listen everyday.

also infowars.com has a lot of stuff.

for example, did u know that cia was running a test on morning 911 to test what would happen if airliners were crashed into public buildings?

its crap like that but its like a bunch of stuff like that as well as some more concrete things such as direct links between al kida and cia.

also hilton was on bob doles staff as legal guy or something so hes not a crazy guy.

also guy who successfully impeached clinton, cant remember his name, was on radio and said that US gov. complicit in 911. supposedly hes (hes a lawyer) is representing a bunch of guys who are under national security gags but he wants to get them in court where they can testify under supoena or something. basically a bunch of agents were hot on trail of supposed hijackers but bush had executive order or whatever stopping them.

also i think archives are free at www.m2ktalk.com (http://www.m2ktalk.com) for alex jones show he did a bunch of shows about 911.

but in a nutshell

1) took an hour for jets to be scrambled

2) al kida known cia front group/cia associations

3) islamic hijackers may be a cover story since some of them found alive. ('singed' passport found outside wrecked towers, hijackers trained at some naval station i cant remember but in ap)

4) bin laden blamed immediately for it but he didnt take credit. many bin laden videos proven fakes, others 'undetermined'.

5) northwoods plan , which btw was approved by eisenhower and jcs but his presidental term ended before implementation, calls for such a false flag operation to mobilize public support for war

6) geez i dont know its so complictated its hard to say

7) money all that airline shorted stock stuff

8) mohammed atta or somebody i dont know who was having lunch with senate intelligence on 911 or something like that. in ap, just i cant recall off top of my head.

9) foreign governments had foreknowledge, including israel who supposedly had mossad shadowing alleged hijackers, which suggests that US would have had knowledge too, this is hard to describe

10) ********ok listen to this. it was in the new york times. first wtc bombing in 91 or whatever was an fbi sting operation where the fbi gave informer real bomb making material. basically fbi let first wtc bombing go forward. this was in nyt.

11) ok the 911 investigation hasnt even started yet suggesting coverup

12) radio dispatches between ny firefighters were classified under national security. (this came out after initially the claim was no records existed or something)

13) it was pretty good flying to hit towers if the people who did it were so bad the flight trainers were calling fbi because these guys were so bad.

gee also alex has a self published book (10 bucks or something) mostly news articles and he has a video which you can buy or download for free off internet.

***

but let me ask you this. 2 things.

1) US flew/let fly taliban/al kida out of that one place to safety in pakistan.

2) operation northwoods which is verified which calls for exactly such a self attack to blame an enemy to start a war. (a la remember the maine in spanish war)

what do u think of that? i mean really. those 2 things are things government admits to.

also bin ladens are totally in carlyle group big defense deal with bushes.

also you know that john hinkckley jr. guy who shot reagan was good friends with bushes, right? like his dad or brother they had dinner with neal bush or whatever night before i just mean they were close. prescott bush arrested in 1942 for his banking ties to nazis. im sure you know about s and l fiasco and neal bush's part in it.

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

look i did a horrible job dont go by what i wrote.

as for smoking gun there is a smoking gun that bush called off fbi of bin laden family.
------------------------------

also it just came out, declassified stuff, that in ww2 roosevelt left civilians in philipines to be captured by japanese because he thought it would help mobilize war effort. i mean people are suing over that.

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

i mean look, in new jersey its in the freakin newspaper that if we go on red alert (we're on orange right now, one step away) , you must stay inside your house because everyone outside will 'be considered the enemy'. i mean come on.

thats why i say you would really like to listen to alex jones for a while cause you get to get the gist of it. (dl from net with no commercials, etc.)

i mean he had on that raul g. guy congressman from southern arizona who said, hey, we need to legalize reality that theres no border between US and mexico.

alex jones had on some former jcs 4 star general and the guy totally agreed with everything alex said.

i mean you might think hes a nut but if you listen to his show especially when he has high profile guests on he really comes across very well.

anyway enough rambling who cares i played like crap today geeze i cant believe im not broke yet the way i play.

Cyrus
04-03-2003, 01:38 AM
Dear M,

You are caught in your own spin, I'm sorry to say. You oblige me to explain the obvious -- which unfortunately spoils the joke but might assist you in future write-ups. Watch:

"..past and future reports of Iraqi atrocities will continue to come to light..."

Who are you -- Yogi Berra? Of course, future reports will come to light in the future! What else would you expect?

"This is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today."

By what measure? And since when? Or compared to whom? No one on this message board has ever supported, to my knowledge, Saddam's regime nor has anyone denied that the world is a better place without him and his clique. But this is rich coming from the same faction that once were his cheerleaders.
(--Psssst, I have dirty pictures of Rummie and Saddam in bed, doing the old arms-deal position!)

"The disproven reports do not lessen the validity of incidents,
which are found to be true."

You're chanelling Yogi again. When a "report" is found to be "true", this means its "validity" is proven. It is in no danger of having it at the same time "disproven". This is incompatible with how you defined the "report".

DIAGNOSIS : Advanced case of foxitis extemporanis with complications resulting from chronic addiction to pentagonius zieglerismus.

PRESCRIPTION : Watch BBC on sat TV for week; avoid all Rupert Murdoch-owned channels like the plague they are; read Chris Alger posts twice every time you access them; jog regularly.

Sincerely,

Cyrus

Cyrus
04-03-2003, 01:40 AM
"Cyrus you aren't much of a challenge lately"

Maybe. Could be that time of the month. But let's see. You claimed that it was either of the following two scenarios behind the Roadblock Incident, and I quote:

"1) The soldiers chose to intentionally kill innocent civillians.
2) The driver was coerced to drive through the checkpoint with strangers to save the rest of his own family."

This is the classic Either/Or con, which omits the correct answer intentionally. I pointed out that there's a third possibility, the most plausible one by the way, which is

"3) The soldiers kill innocent civillians believing they were under attack from suicide bombers."

You follow so far, everyone? Good. Then I would be grateful if someone could explain to me how on Earth scenario #3 "correlates" (Jimbos' wonderful word) with scenario #1. The soldiers in #1 know they are kiling "innocent civilians", while in #3 they think they are shooting at "suicide bombers". Suicide bombers are not innocent civilians in any dictionary.

<ul type="square">...(Loud holler from the cheap seats :

--- Hey, Cyrus, you stoopid jerk? That's Humpty Dumpty you're messing with. Get outta the ring NOW!..)[/list]

andyfox
04-03-2003, 02:07 AM
"5) northwoods plan , which btw was approved by eisenhower and jcs but his presidental term ended before implementation, calls for such a false flag operation to mobilize public support for war"

A plan approved in the Eisenhower administration supplies evidence that 9/11 was a flase flag operation?

MMMMMM
04-03-2003, 02:51 AM
Cyrus I believe you are getting a bit sidetracked here. Let's try again:

I wrote "..past and future reports of Iraqi atrocities will continue to come to light..."


The apparent redundancy is not a needless redundancy when taken in context and considering the overall meaning--it's just an economical way of phrasing things. Here, try this: "Some old reports will emerge--they will move from relative obscurity into the limelight--while new reports will find audience as well"--that took quite a few more words, didn't it?

Also, try looking at "past and future reports" as an integrated unit instead of as two separate objects: now, saying: "they" (as a unit) "will come to light" makes more sense, doesn't it? It isn't redundant that way. You are assuming I meant A+B*C when I meant (A+B)*C.

I wrote: "This is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today."--with which you also took exception, calling this statement "rich." Fine...name a half-dozen or so current regimes more depraved than Saddam's and I'll concede it may well be a "rich" statement.

As for the last item, I neither said nor implied there was any danger of true reports being found invalid. However, since a poster cast doubt on many reports due to one supposedly false report (even though the supposed false report had no relation to the myriad true reports), I though the point bore emphasizing. I'll paraphrase it now: Given a large group of disparate reports (some false some true), the false reports do not impact the validity of the true reports. Obvious? Yes, but I felt there might be at least one poster who could possibly benefit from reading this. And I didn't expect to be compared to Yogi--I'm not even a sports fan.

Mark Heide
04-03-2003, 04:15 AM
Tom,

It's a sad story. I believe that the basis of conflicting reports is due to the amount of time it took for this incident to happen. The US Military was acting in it's own defense. From reporters you will probably get a different story from everyone and you should be able to see the bias on both sides, but I believe it was truly a mistake. Lastly, I think you can believe the facts that both sides agree upon in their reports.

Mark

Cyrus
04-03-2003, 05:37 AM
Dear M,

I have nothing to add on the matter of your treatment of language. But I will say this : being compared to Yogi Berra is nothing to be ashamed of! In fact, you should have aspirations to reach his level of accidental profundity.

Now... You posted this:

I wrote: "[Saddam's] is possibly the most depraved regime on the face of the earth today."--with which you also took exception, calling this statement "rich." Fine...name a half-dozen or so current regimes more depraved than Saddam's and I'll concede it may well be a "rich" statement."

A. You will have to concede that this is rich in any case! I called the characterization "rich" not because it is an exaggeration but (as I explicitly wrote) because the faction in America now calling Saddam bad names used to be his bigest cheerleaders in the past! Maybe you are included I that faction. If you go back to how you were feeling during the Iran-Iraq war you might discover you were...

B. I will give you my clues about any administration being characterized as dangerous to world peace, or, as you put it, "depraved":

- Continuous violation of UN Resolutions
- Engaging in destabilisation of other countries' regimes
- Violation of Human Rights
- Possession of WMDs
- Military invasion of neighboring countries
- Racist discimination and heavy oppression against its habitants
- Espionage and related hostile acts against the West, and particularly the U.S.

---Do not proceed any further until you agree that the above are valid measurements.---

Now, you want "half-dozen" countries that are at least as bad as Saddam's regime by the above list of measurements?

<ul type="square"> Saudi Arabia
Israel
Iran
Turkey
China
North Korea[/list]

Enough?

brad
04-03-2003, 06:44 AM
it proves our government is not above such things.

ask 3 people theyll say US incapable of such criminality. see what i mean?

btw some in admin go back almost that far, heh

John Cole
04-03-2003, 06:57 AM
Cyrus,

Since when do soldiers get paid to think?

Move, Red Queen.

adios
04-03-2003, 07:25 AM
That's why impartial tribunals are needed to carry out investiagtions and trials to determine what the facts are.

IrishHand
04-03-2003, 10:25 AM
- Continuous violation of UN Resolutions
- Engaging in destabilisation of other countries' regimes
- Violation of Human Rights
- Possession of WMDs
- Military invasion of neighboring countries
- Racist discimination and heavy oppression against its habitants
- Espionage and related hostile acts against the West, and particularly the U.S.

Your definitions are ok, but far too Amerocentric. Change "neighboring" to "other", and change "the West, and particularly the U.S." to "other countries" and you might have a winner!

MMMMMM
04-03-2003, 10:47 AM
OK I concede it is rich in any case--but not inaccurate.

I didn't intend "depraved" to mean "dangerous to world peace." Rather I intended a meaning more like that in Webster's Unabridged: crooked, distorted, perverse, wicked-and especially the latter two. I'm talking primarily about the regime's incredibly widespread use of torture, rape and murder as political tools--such is actually pretty standard fare in Iraq--and the heavy emphasis on the widespread use of torture is especially warped. By the way I read once (somewhere;-)) that Saddam, in his days as head of the security apparatus in Iraq before the coup that gave him total power, was himself the chief torturer. I gravely suspect that torture has become so commonplace in Iraq not only because it is an effective instrument of state repression, but because Saddam and his sons enjoy it. Some of the reports I have read, of Saddam teaching his sons the art of torture, of the sons practicing first on sheep and later on prisoners, of Uday's kidnappings/rapes of young women, and more...this leads me to suspect and say "depraved" in a very rich sense indeed. These guys don't just use torture for political reasons; they also encourage it because they enjoy it. As one Iraqi exile put it, "You have to understand: Uday is not normal"--and she meant it in the scariest sense. As these reports (and more;-)) come to light, perhaps the rest of the world will say "depraved" as well.

brad
04-03-2003, 11:04 AM
maybe thats why they have a total gun ban for civilians in iraq.

nicky g
04-03-2003, 12:43 PM
"If I was placed in a position to either be summarily executed or save MMMMMM, Tom Haley, HDPM and Billy LTL by being forced to drive through a roadblock at the risk of being shot while having IrishHand, Chris Alger, Cyrus and nicky g as my passengers I would reluctantly be forced to take my chances dodging bullets in order to save the more rational posters!!! "

I don't think we need to worry about this - HPDM and MMMMMM would both be armed to the teeth and save the day. I'd have to ask them politely not to lend you any weapons though, or Isuspect Irish and the rest of us might meet the same fate anyway /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif .

Cyrus
04-04-2003, 03:35 AM
Man, gun ban or no gun ban (hey, say that quickly!), all I know is that Iraqi people are so enamored of guns that practically every family, especially out of the cities, is packing. Their guns may be old, and you see them on TV taking laughable pot shots at Abrahams tanks, but the culture cannot change by government decree. This should give us pause as to the local political attitudes and how politics are viewed there ---- only it won't, because the West is blindly keen on imposing western-style democracy without thinking too much.

Cyrus
04-04-2003, 04:14 AM
"I'm talking primarily about the regime's incredibly widespread use of torture, rape and murder as political tools--such is actually pretty standard fare in Iraq--and the heavy emphasis on the widespread use of torture is especially warped."

CHECK on

Israel
Turkey
N. Korea

..on those aspects from my list! Depraved as hell. What else you got?

Reading only what went down in the year 2002, in "Israeli Holocaust Against The Palestinians" is enough to sicken one in the stomach.

Did you know that the Sharon wing in the Israeli establishment has been prominently silent whenever the time came to support UN-led or US-led actions against sovereign countries, such as Yugoslavia, for crimes against humanity? The reason is, as they have publicly stated, that they fear the time may come when the UN, or the US, decide that the only way to stop the bloodshed and impose peace is to send UN and/or American ground troops in Israel and the occupied territories. An action I would wholeheartedly applaud.

brad
04-04-2003, 06:57 AM
being sarcastic. iraqis under dictator can buy/own guns easily.

contrast with usa