0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:10 pm
Quote:
But, we leave and more 12 year old boys die than need to. The insurgents will start a civil war and untold thousands could end up in more mass graves. Our prescence there, no matter how grotesque the left finds it saves lives.


Or, so you believe. There's no real evidence that this would happen other than your own conjecture. There is a good possibility that things will calm down if we leave in a responsible fashion. There is also a good possibility that a civil war will occur, and the insurgents will win and set up a caliphate; that, more than anything else, is what the US is worried about; the higher-ups have showed pretty effectively that they don't give a damn about civilian casualties in Iraq these days. This war isn't about the Iraqi people, it's about US interests, and you damn well know it. We can't leave because of our interests, not because of their lives.

You can use conjecture all you want; but the fact is that people are dying, daily, because of our presence there. Things would have to get pretty bad to match the daily death counts that are being reported right now....

As I said earlier. If the freedom the US promises means that Iraqis have to die, in droves, then I'm not so sure they want our freedom.

Over 14k deaths in Iraq to date. We've been there for about 18 months; that's what, 900+ a month killed? Not to mentioned the injured, or the US troops killed. Those are facts, not your conjecture over what might have happened or will happen in the future.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:11 pm
cyclo wrote:
There is no reason to believe whatsoever that weapons were fired at the helicopters.


McGentrix wrote:
you mean other than the pilots reporting they were fired upon?

You were there now? ... You know that no one in the crowd fired at the helicopters?

You know nothing except what the propaganda machines tells you. ...but it will never change the fact that you know NOTHING about what really happened because you WEREN'T THERE!


i believe that this sums up what many of us were pointing out about the swiftboat accusations.

thanks for the help mcg!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:15 pm
http://acpcommunity.acp.edu/facultystaff/blume/mafp/resources/bombs.jpg
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:28 pm
DontTreadOnMe,

good point........ :-)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:33 pm
I have been digging around for it, but I had read a news post that gave more details on this. I have not posted what it said because I couldn't find the link.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:46 pm
Here's a site that has some pretty graphic photos of those civilians, yaknow, the ones who 'learned their lesson' about walking down a free street in US-controlled Iraq.

WARNING! Not for the faint of stomach.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/cfw/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesAdvancedSearchState|2|30||0||1|||||0|0|0||0|Ghaith+Abdul-Ahad|7|-1||0||0|0|0&p=7

It's tough to put a real face on the people we kill, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:58 pm
pat buchannon has actually been getting out there and, at least on the one subject, voicing the same frustration as moderates and the left regarding iraq. but he's made a statement that i believe really applies to the images i just looked at;

"the bush administration has outsourced foreign policy to ariel sharon".

sounds about right and looks about right. "my own private palestine". and why not, it works so well in israel. who would have thought that anyone would make netanyahu look moderate. sheeesh!

it is truly mindbending that i would ever agree with pat on anything, but he has called this one in great accuracy.

god forgive me...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:00 pm
The most comprehensive report I've been able to find so far:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/13/wirq113.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/13/ixnewstop.html

Quote:
Fatal error on Baghdad's front line
By Adrian Blomfield on Haifa Street, Baghdad
(Filed: 13/09/2004)

Haifa Street is one of the most violent places in Baghdad. Its abandoned high-rise buildings provide ideal cover for Iraqi insurgents.

Nobody knew this better than Mazen al-Tumeizi, who lived here and had witnessed countless street battles. Yesterday he was woken by gunfire. He watched American forces advancing down the street in the pre-dawn gloom, on a mission, apparently authorised by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, to root out insurgents.

At one point, a Bradley fighting vehicle was hit by a car bomb, injuring two American soldiers. Three others were wounded when insurgents lobbed hand grenades at other soldiers trying to evacuate them.

During a lull in the fighting, Tumeizi ventured out to join a crowd gathering round the burning Bradley. The Americans had pulled out but Tumeizi knew it was only a matter of time before they would come back.

"Let's get this over with," he said to Seif Fouad, a Reuters cameraman who had become a firm friend in the 14 months Tumeizi had worked as a reporter in Iraq and often filmed his dispatches for al-Arabiya, one of the two television stations he worked for.

As Fouad started rolling the camera, the crowd behind Tumeizi, many of them children, grew more restless.

Some jumped on top of the burning Bradley while others clapped and cheered. "He was nervous," recalled Rajih Khalil, Tumeizi's housemate who had grown up with him in the Palestinian town of Hebron.

"He finished his piece to camera very quickly." Sighing with relief, the three began to move away from the scene. But he had made a small mistake that cost him his life.

"Suddenly Mazen stopped," said Khalil. "He hit his head and said 'I'm so stupid. I've forgotten to do the sign-off'." Cursing good-naturedly, the three returned to the Bradley and Fouad got out his camera and began filming.

None of the three heard the helicopters until it was too late. As Tumeizi spoke into the camera, the first gunship opened fire. Within seconds, all three men had been hit.

The footage released by al-Arabiya shows him pointing to the smoke billowing out of the Bradley moments before the helicopters began firing.

"It gave no warning," Khalil said. "Everything happened so quickly. We fell to the ground. I heard Mazen shout 'I'm going to die! I'm going to die!'

"I crawled across to him. I could see it was bad. He was on his front and his back was open. He couldn't breathe properly. 'It's all right,' I said. 'Don't be afraid. Help is coming.' I don't know if he heard me. He couldn't speak. He was moaning quietly."

With a broken leg, shrapnel injuries to his stomach and head wounds, Khalil could do little to help his friend. Fouad too was badly hurt while, further away, Guardian and Getty Images reporter Ghaith Abdul Ahad was nursing a head wound. "Around us were others dead or injured. People ran away but then some came back to help."

As they did, the helicopters made another pass again opening fire, Khalil said. "People trying to help us were wounded or ran away. After a minute, the helicopters came back and fired again. They came three or four times."


Within 10 minutes of their arrival at hospital, Tumeizi was dead. An 11-year-old girl brought in at the same time also died, one of 13 killed in the incident, according to health ministry officials.

For much of the day yesterday, Baghdad echoed to explosions as the capital came under its most intense barrage of mortars and bombs in five weeks. At least nine died.

At the same time, insurgents launched a co-ordinated attack against the notorious Abu Ghraib prison at the western edge of the city.

Several mortar shells exploded outside the prison complex about 6am. About 20 minutes later, a vehicle packed with artillery shells crashed through the chain-link fence on the outer perimeter and exploded.

To the south, in the town of Hilla, three Polish soldiers and three Iraqi guardsmen were killed in separate attacks. West of the capital, US marines continued an offensive in the so-called "Sunni Triangle", killing 10 insurgents in Ramadi.

Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister, vowed: "We are adamant that we are going to defeat terrorism. We intend to bring them to justice."



Yeah, things are going great there. Can't wait for the elections in Jan, that should go over super well. My guess is they will get a brand-new shipment of diebold voting machines, to 'help' them along...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:21 pm
BBC link I was looking for.

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

Quote:
According to media reports, the fighting started at about 0440 (0040 GMT) in Haifa Street, a notorious snipers' alley on the west bank of the Tigris that is out of US military control.

The Bradley was hit by a roadside bomb after it had raced to the scene following mortar bombs being launched at the nearby Green Zone, seat of the Iraqi government and US forces.

Crowds gather around destroyed Bradley armoured vehicle in Haifa Street
Some people were celebrating the attack, others were curiously onlookers
Gun battles reportedly raged around the wreck for about an hour. The attackers fired on the American rescue crew as they evacuated the stricken vehicle.

The fighting had clearly died down by the time the journalists arrived before 0800.

Press photographers took pictures of the wreck and the Iraqis around it, including young men waving the flag of Abu Musab Zarqawi's al-Qaeda-linked group Tawhid and Jihad. One youth climbed onto the Bradley and thrust the flag pole down the narrow barrel of its 25mm gun.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:29 pm
Yeah, I read that one. But, you see, you left out the parts of the article that didn't support your case:

Quote:
Most of the onlookers did not appear to be celebrating the "kill", just standing around curiously staring at the burning wreck.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.



Note that the article says that the attacking had clearly died down by the time the media got there.

Now, you are claiming that the two-three young men who are waving a rebel flag is justification for killing 14 and wounding 61? By firing from helicopters into crowds of civilians? I just want to clear your position up here, McG.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:39 pm
McGentrix wrote:
You mean other than the pilots reporting they were fired upon? maybe next time they won't gather around a burning US military vehicle, or maybe next time they will stop the insurgents from even attempting to disable a US military vehicle.

You call it murder, I call it an unfortunate incident.



From McG's source - left out in his quotation as well:
Quote:
The official US military statement significantly shortens the timescale of events as reported by separate international news agencies.

Instead of three hours after the ambush, when the people on the scene were mainly curious locals and journalist, the US says the helicopter strike was at 0730, 40 minutes after the Bradley was attacked at 0650.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:41 pm
I didn't leave anything out, that's why I posted a link...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:42 pm
True enough. Care to answer my other question, and clarify your position?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:46 pm
there would be no americans killed in iraq if bush had focused on the islamic terrorist threat instead of destablizing the only secular country in the region.

rather fight them there than here? get a grip. terrorists don't show up on the beach in a landing craft.

they enter the country by using our own immigration policies against us.

or sneak across (as if they had to sneak..) our porus borders that still remain unguarded due to a greedy desire for cheap labor that requires no output of benefits or raises.

don't come to me as a president and tell me all about how you'd move heaven and earth to protect me when you put the almight dollar above national security.

if there's anything fake relating to bush, it's his rhetoric. all hat and no cows.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 01:49 pm
Is waving a flag justification? no, not in and of itself. but consider the days events. Coordinated attacks on numerous targets, a car bomb attack on a Bradley, then a crowd of Abu Musab Zarqawi supporters are seen dancing on top of it and allegedly shooting at the helicoters. That justifies it.

If and when Kerry becomes CiC and decides we should fight his more sesitive war, then maybe we can send a girl scout troop down and they can hook up a tow truck and bring teh Bradley back to base. ntil then, why risk a soldiers life to eneter a combat zone when we have helicopters able to complete teh job?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:14 pm
Quote:
then a crowd of Abu Musab Zarqawi supporters


Or, as we call them, Iraqis who happened to live nearby, watching a few people (who probably were very bad people, because if you don't support the US, you are a very bad person) dance on top of a burning tank like fools.

Is there any Iraqi who is innocent to you?

'they were shooting at the helicopters' is an easy-to-manufacture justification; there's no way to prove that they were shooting or not, so you say there was shooting and bingo! You're justified. Remember when we blew up a wedding party, and they said the same thing?

Quote:
If and when Kerry becomes CiC and decides we should fight his more sesitive war, then maybe we can send a girl scout troop down and they can hook up a tow truck and bring teh Bradley back to base.


Now, I know you can do better than appealing to extremes, McG. How about someone, maybe even Kerry, says 'hmm. Maybe we can do some things differently so they won't want to blow our troops up.' That's what Kerry means by a more sensitive war on terror.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How about someone, maybe even Kerry, says 'hmm. Maybe we can do some things differently so they won't want to blow our troops up.' That's what Kerry means by a more sensitive war on terror.


more liberal parsing and spin cyclo! every real patriotic american knows that kerry will do nothing but gather all the "tirrarusts" together in a circle and sing "kumbya". Laughing

jesus wept...
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 02:59 pm
Putting aside whether the US should or should not be in Iraq. The fact remains that we are, and it is a war zone. The Bradley vehicle had been blown up was on fire and the rescuers had been fired upon. The hue and cry is that the helicopters should not have fired because there were civilians in the mix. I should also point out that there were also insurgents there as well and in addition there is no way to distinguish between a civilian and an insurgent. I would also submit that good sense would dictate that civilians stay away from the area.
Regarding the casualties, I would ask why when they occur at the hands of our military are they any worse than those caused by the insurgents. Do the insurgents have a special dispensation to kill coalition troops, Iraqi police and civilians?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 03:13 pm
I wouls submit that the fact that the civilians had come out is indicative that the fighting was over. This was several hours after the fighting ended. If a battle were taking place, it isn't likely that reporters (more than one agency was there) would be reporting live. There's just no way to spin this into a success.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 03:31 pm
LEST WE FORGET

Our military would not be shooting back at homicidal psychos if homicidal psychos weren't shooting at our military.

It is the homicidal pyschos who are killing Iraqi innocents delberately, while in our own self-defense we sometimes accidentally kill Iraqi innocents.

The effective rebuilding of Iraqi society will commence when the homicidal psychos stop killing innocent Iraqi people as well as us.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 10:24:43