1
   

American soldiers kill at least 10 civilians

 
 
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:01 am
Have you seen this story yet? I looked a little but couldn't find it anywhere else.

Quote:
American soldiers killed at least 10 Iraqis and wounded dozens of others yesterday when they reportedly fired on a political rally in Mosul. "There are perhaps 100 wounded and 10 or 12 dead," said Ayad al-Ramadhani, director of the Republican Hospital in Mosul.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=397631
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,945 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 05:25 am
I was not present during the event, but it seems to me that the Americans shooted when some onset of violence occurred during the rally (maybe, the opponents of the governor attempted to lynch him, I do not know). Unlike police, Army has no instructions how to curb mass disorders without using lethal weapons (IDF may be the only exception, soldiers never shoot bullets when there is just a protest demonstartion not accompanied by shooting from behind the human shield).
0 Replies
 
urs53
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:02 am
Welcome to A2K, Violet Lake!

The German news are reporting about this also. It still seems to be unclear what really happened. They say that 20 people were killed.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:14 am
steissd wrote:
I was not present during the event, but it seems to me that the Americans shooted when some onset of violence occurred during the rally (maybe, the opponents of the governor attempted to lynch him, I do not know). Unlike police, Army has no instructions how to curb mass disorders without using lethal weapons (IDF may be the only exception, soldiers never shoot bullets when there is just a protest demonstartion not accompanied by shooting from behind the human shield).


The IDF shoots rubber bullets with a metal core. Deadly at close range. Especially when the soldiers aim at the upper part of the body, which the IDF usualy does.

This massacre in Mosul. We will hear this news often from now. The Iraqi people start realising this invasion wasn't for their liberation. Why would liberators allow the schools, hospitals, power plants,.... to be destroyed? Why would liberators shoot at ambulances? Why would liberators shoot at people demonstrating against them.

Yesterday 20.000 marched trough the city of Nasariya shouting "No Saddam, No America". I think the message is clear.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:38 am
I cannot post here the full text of the IDF instruction on usage of the rubber bullets (it is merely classified), but it permits usage of such ordnance only for distances that exceed 50 meters (165 feet). Sometimes soldiers erred in assessment of distance, and this caused casualties. Since there are no more civilian mass disorders in the territories in the recent 2 years, such an ordnance is not being used any more.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:53 am
Initial reports on this event state that American forces were hit, spit on etc, and didn't retaliate. Gunmen in the crowd were firing in the air and the crowd was growing increasingly hostile and threatening. No US retaliation. The guns were then turned on our troops, and they retaliated.

We all know by now to wait on the final report. What I don't understand is why anyone would be so quick to make such glaring negative assumptions about US troops before getting the facts.

If the US troops were fired upon, how could any sensible person suggest it was wrong for them to defend their lives?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:55 am
Absolutely agree: the soldier that does not return fire when being shot at is not a soldier.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:57 am
Frolic wrote:
Yesterday 20.000 marched trough the city of Nasariya shouting "No Saddam, No America". I think the message is clear.

More than clear: special services of the Islamic Republic of Iran make their first attempts to turn the results of the Allied Forces' victory in their favor.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 08:52 am
Thanks, urs53 Smile

Sofia, who is making glaring negative assumptions? Let me at em Wink
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:04 am
Violet--Please get him!

This massacre in Mosul. We will hear this news often from now. The Iraqi people start realising this invasion wasn't for their liberation. Why would liberators allow the schools, hospitals, power plants,.... to be destroyed? Why would liberators shoot at ambulances? Why would liberators shoot at people demonstrating against them.
______________________

I may be overreacting to massacre, but I see a picture of helpless people being mowed down when I hear massacre.

They will start 'realising the invasion wasn't for their liberation'? Because our men returned fire to save their lives? Not a fair assertion, IMO. Liberators shot at ambulances? Did they? Unprovoked? Sounds like our armed servicemen and women are trying to murder wounded people or paramedics.... Unfair. Why would they shoot at demonstrators? Maybe because the demonstrators were shooting at them....

I think these characterizations are an example of someone, who prefers to insinuate that coalition forces are murderous barbarians.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:09 am
You can't find the story anywhere else?????

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/16/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:41 am
fishin', the CNN story was posted at 10:48 AM EDT. I posted this topic at 7:01 AM EDT. I read the story on the Independent's site last night before I went to sleep (@ 1:00 AM).
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 09:47 am
frolic, Sofia is ticked that you seem to be insinuating that coalition forces are murderous barbarians. I prefer to assume that coalition forces are just undereducated 19 year olds, armed to the teeth, nervous, confused, and **** happens.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 10:00 am
Quote from fishin's CNN link "Fire was directed at the Marines and Special Operations forces in this complex," Brooks said at a briefing Wednesday. "It was aimed fire, and aimed fire was returned against some of the demonstrators, against some of the agitated persons who were now climbing over the wall of the compound."

My assumption here, Violet, would be that when you shoot at Marines (age irrelevant), the shoot back.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 10:07 am
I've learned some more details on Dutch teletext and BBC

The Iraqi people stormed a building where the US GI's had raised the American flag. The US soldiers shot at the crowd from the rooftop and everybody trying to climb over the fence/wall was shot dead. When people tried to retrieve the corpses they were shot at.

There was a similar event in Northern Ireland. The soldiers shooted at random in the crowd. 13 civilians were shot dead. We call it "Bloody Sunday" now. Right after the incident the army also claimed they were shot at by people in the crowd. This was never proven.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 10:08 am
It's amazing that this "fire" almost never seems to hit marines. Our enemies must be awful shots (and stupid). Remember those inept Iraqi snipers that were using the room at the Palestine where Reuters reporters were staying?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 01:51 pm
Violet,

ALL militaries claim their opponents are woeful shots.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 01:59 pm
Frolic wrote:
There was a similar event in Northern Ireland. The soldiers shooted at random in the crowd. 13 civilians were shot dead. We call it "Bloody Sunday" now. Right after the incident the army also claimed they were shot at by people in the crowd. This was never proven.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:04 pm
Frolic wrote:
There was a similar event in Northern Ireland. The soldiers shooted at random in the crowd. 13 civilians were shot dead. We call it "Bloody Sunday" now. Right after the incident the army also claimed they were shot at by people in the crowd. This was never proven.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:10 pm
I read a thing in the NYT about this... can find it for details. The Iraqi account is that the Iraqis were throwing rocks at an Iraqi who was standing up and proclaiming some sort of pro-American stuff. I can see how there could be fudging on both sides -- some Iraqis actually shot at this guy, not just threw rocks, but they also meant to be shooting at him, not the Americans, but the Americans thought (reasonably enough) that they were being shot at... etc.

Fog of war and all that.

OK, found it:

Quote:
Wounded Iraqis in the city's general hospital on Tuesday gave a different version of events. They said an Iraqi opposition leader, Mishaan al-Jabouri, started speaking to the crowd and hailing the arrival of American forces in Mosul.

It was unclear how Mr. Jabouri, who has been in exile in Syria and whose record includes charges of corruption and theft, got into Mosul. On Monday he told French journalists that he had been appointed the new governor of Mosul, a claim denied by American officials. But his message angered the crowd, Iraqis said. "They began throwing stones," said Fateh Tata Abed, a 32-year-old man shot in the chest and upper arm. "And the American forces started shooting at us."

Sadullah Ghanal, 39, who was also shot, gave roughly the same version of events. "After we threw stones at Mishaan Jabouri," he said, "the Americans started to fire on us."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/international/worldspecial/16CND-NORT.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » American soldiers kill at least 10 civilians
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 04:02:58