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

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

Meanwhile:
US troops face new torture claims


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

Rumsfeld defends treatment of 'ghost detainees'
Good job.

[ChristinaB]

US Forces Hold Iraqi Women As 'Bargaining Chips'

'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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]