PDA

View Full Version : Errant bomb kills civilians in Baghdad market


caveman_uk
Mar 26, 2003, 11:14 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2887555.stm

Curiously not mentioned at all on CNN online. Main Item on BBC

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
Curiously not mentioned at all on CNN online.

theories?

i found a site that's keeping track of the iraqi civilian casualties, with references.

currently (since jan 1): min 227, max 307

link (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm)

agreenster
Mar 26, 2003, 12:48 PM
Unfortunately, War claims innocent victims. Tragic.

Moxiemike
Mar 26, 2003, 01:10 PM
"our weapons are very accurate and don't do anything bad. honest they don't"

yea. right. whateva.

Kid Red
Mar 26, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2887555.stm

Curiously not mentioned at all on CNN online. Main Item on BBC

Well, maybe not online, but I've heard about this all day on CNN. They are interviewing a general right now and asked hima bout it. It is possible that 1 of their 4,500+ bombs went array but they can't comfirm it yet so relax with the conspiracies.

Rower_CPU
Mar 26, 2003, 01:16 PM
I've actually found CNN online to be very slow with updates.

Maybe they don't have enough people to handle the constant stream of info (sometimes contradictory) coming in...

Backtothemac
Mar 26, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
"our weapons are very accurate and don't do anything bad. honest they don't"

yea. right. whateva.

Moxie, you know I love ya brother, but hey, with over 5,000 bombs now dropped, and less than 10 have gone off course. Plus, could it be that Iraq still has some GPS jammers? Would they then not be libel for the deaths if that is what they used?

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 01:24 PM
In war, innocent people will die. Whether this was caused by a US bomb or by errant SAMS or something else isn't clear. However, I've seen plenty of coverage of this on CNN.

Moxiemike,
"our weapons are very accurate and don't do anything bad. honest they don't"

What has been said is that targeting is done with great care and weapons are carefully selected to minimize civilian casualties. It has always been said that war is dangerous and people will die in it. If the US was targeting civilians, there would be hundreds of thousands of dead civilians right now.

Moxiemike
Mar 26, 2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Moxie, you know I love ya brother, but hey, with over 5,000 bombs now dropped, and less than 10 have gone off course. Plus, could it be that Iraq still has some GPS jammers? Would they then not be libel for the deaths if that is what they used?

Regardless, if we weren't there in the first place, and you know how I feel about the fuzzy diplomacy we used, then there would be no deaths.

It really feels like we're gonna be entering another vietnam... been talking to some people who were around and really feel that way. And these guys supported vietnam at first...

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Regardless, if we weren't there in the first place, and you know how I feel about the fuzzy diplomacy we used, then there would be no deaths.

This is not true. There would have been more deaths over a longer period of time if we weren't there in the first place, and we would have saved tens of thousands if we have intervened back in 1991.

tcolling
Mar 26, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Regardless, if we weren't there in the first place, and you know how I feel about the fuzzy diplomacy we used, then there would be no deaths.


At least 207, not more than 307. I wonder how the number of innocent Iraqis accidently killed by the US compares to the number of innocent Iraqis intentionally killed by Saddam Hussein.

runningman
Mar 26, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This is not true. There would have been more deaths over a longer period of time if we weren't there in the first place, and we would have saved tens of thousands if we have intervened back in 1991.
At least could have saved the civilians they are using as shields during the fighting.
I agree the war scares the hell out of me that we are going to be bogged down in this thing trying to be the good guy and we are going to have another Somalia.

mymemory
Mar 26, 2003, 03:10 PM
Irakis are gonna kill their own people to blame the US, you can bet that.

I do not mean this last bomb was that kind of scenario but just think that is the publicity is very bad for the US, Husseing can take just one oh his bateries and target some sensitive place (a school) inside Bagdad and luch a bomb. That would be the worst for the US.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 26, 2003, 03:46 PM
Ok we have had a few bombs or missiles go off coarse and kill some civilians, this is regretful for the families. On the other hand Saddam has murdered and tortured thousands and you just want to pretend he hasnt done this? Wake up world we are dealing with a killer thug with no values on human life, not a saint. Why do you think he puts civilians next to military targets, or hides tanks and weapons in hospitals.

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Ok we have had a few bombs or missiles go off coarse and kill some civilians, this is regretful for the families. On the other hand Saddam has murdered and tortured thousands and you just want to pretend he hasnt done this? Wake up world we are dealing with a killer thug with no values on human life, not a saint. Why do you think he puts civilians next to military targets, or hides tanks and weapons in hospitals.

yes, that viewpoint has been expressed. it's tired.

boils down to: "hussein is bad" and "some collateral damage is acceptable"

agree w/ the first, question the second.

maybe it doesn't matter who is right if the thing the arab world believes is that civilians are being targeted. maybe all we're doing is making more terrorists.

in the PR campaign, bin laden is beating the pants off bush. and that's the part we'll end up regretting.

leo
Mar 26, 2003, 07:24 PM
@ zimv20: couldn't agree more.

So Bush wants democracy and free elections in this part of the world?

Maybe he should rethink this. There wouldn't be a single US-friendly government left.

topicolo
Mar 26, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Ok we have had a few bombs or missiles go off coarse and kill some civilians, this is regretful for the families. On the other hand Saddam has murdered and tortured thousands and you just want to pretend he hasnt done this? Wake up world we are dealing with a killer thug with no values on human life, not a saint. Why do you think he puts civilians next to military targets, or hides tanks and weapons in hospitals.

Here's a question: Would you shoot both of your parents in the head right now if it meant that you could possibly save thousands of Iraqi lives in the future?

Mr. Anderson
Mar 26, 2003, 08:34 PM
mememory's got a valid point. Sadam knows the bad publicity could cause problems. He's gassed his own people, so what's the deal with shooting a surface to air missle straight up and have it land somewhere in Baghdad?

Even the US command doesn't know if its one of theirs or an Iraqi missle. With all that's been dropped and the potential GPS jamming equipment it could happen. Killing a few Iraqis is to Sadam's benefit, so don't discount it.

Regardless, its terrible, but if I was in the same situation as the Iraqis in Baghdad, well, I'd be visiting relatives in a city not being bombed. Not that that is a solution for those people, but it is war.

D

alset
Mar 26, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This is not true. There would have been more deaths over a longer period of time if we weren't there in the first place, and we would have saved tens of thousands if we have intervened back in 1991.

More deaths? You say that as if we've stopped killing people. This war could last much longer than anticipated, with far more casualties than anyone would care to imagine. I'll be interested to see how this period in our lives appears in history books when I have children.

Dan

mymemory
Mar 26, 2003, 11:03 PM
3 months ago Hugo Chavez (our president) after a manifestation he shooted 3 guys from his own side to blame the oposition, one of the uncles of one of the guys said:

"I didn't see anybody from the oposition, everything was calm and my nefiu (sorry about the spelling) got shoot just like that! and no one from the military around me did anything"

I have to find the picture of Chavez with Hussein, I'm gonna get it for you.

Hussein is gonna start shooting his own people if that is necesary to blame the US, that trick is even cheese for those people.

G4scott
Mar 26, 2003, 11:03 PM
And they claimed I used to jump the gun...

You can't rule out the possibility that an Iraqi missile caused this damage. They fire so much crap up in the air at B-2 bombers that are long gone before the bombs hit, and it's all gotta come back to earth somehow.

While there is a chance that this could've been a US bomb, it could've very well been an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile. Although the Iraqi foreign minister claims it was absolutely a US bomb, he's the same guy who claims that Iraq is beating the US troops...

Unfortunately, this will only stir up anti-US feelings in Iraq...

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by G4scott

You can't rule out the possibility that an Iraqi missile caused this damage.

[chomp]

Unfortunately, this will only stir up anti-US feelings in Iraq...

agreed on both points. that's what i mean when i say bin laden is winning the PR war. in that regard, it doesn't matter who is killing the iraqi civilians, it only matters that they're dead. and that makes for great terrorist recruitment material.

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by alset
More deaths? You say that as if we've stopped killing people. This war could last much longer than anticipated, with far more casualties than anyone would care to imagine. I'll be interested to see how this period in our lives appears in history books when I have children.

Dan

Yes, Dan, more deaths. More deaths of innocent Iraqis if we just left Saddam alone than if we remove him by force. People are easily swayed by the human cost of military action, but do not often consider the human cost of inaction.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by macfan
People are easily swayed by the human cost of military action, but do not often consider the human cost of inaction.

please list the other countries in which you would propose military action.

kansaigaijin
Mar 27, 2003, 01:01 AM
Iran, N. Korea top the list.

G4Scott that is a laugh. That is the standard evasive retort. Try to come up with something better. The one comparing the sheer number of missles launched was much better. It was fired by an aircraft. There is a sandstorm going on, that is the likely cause of the problem. The pilot likely couldn't see what he was shooting at, but went ahead anyway. Much better to fess up than to try and weasel out of it, don't you think?

try Guardian.co.uk and or an eyewitness report here,
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165

then come back and say too bad.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin
Iran, N. Korea top the list.


i want macfan to give us the complete list of countries suffering human rights violations under their respective oppressive regimes that he thinks we should invade militarily.

macfan
Mar 27, 2003, 01:52 AM
kansaigaijin,
Too bad. In war, people die. Sometimes innocent people die, in spite of the best efforts to prevent them from dying. It is horrible. Whether it was due to a US or UK plane or a couple of SAMS falling back to earth. Did anyone think that a war could be waged without these kinds of deaths? Why do you think this kind of thing is a last resort?

"It is good that war is so terrible, else we should come to love it too much." --Robert E. Lee.

So far as the pilot not being able to see but shooting anyway, if these were cruise missiles, they are not flown by pilots. Some other weapons are guided by satellites, and these are not dependent on line of sight by a pilot. There is an investigation. If these casualties were caused by allied action, they will not hide from it. Just like when the Chinese Embassy was hit due to a targeting error.

zimv20, what about Zimbabwe? They seem ripe for picking! ;)

caveman_uk
Mar 27, 2003, 03:14 AM
It's easy to say it's worth it when it isn't your family's scorched body parts littering the street...

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by macfan

zimv20, what about Zimbabwe? They seem ripe for picking! ;)

please understand it's difficult for me to take your "we need to go to war to free the iraqi people" argument seriously if you're not serious about the plights of all oppressed people.

should i infer that you support this war for other reasons? perhaps killing arabs satisfies some wish for revenge.

macfan
Mar 27, 2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by caveman_uk
It's easy to say it's worth it when it isn't your family's scorched body parts littering the street...

And it's easy to say it's not worth it when it isn't your family member executed, cut into bits, and sent home in a bag by Saddam.

zimv20,
The problems in Zimbabwe may yet be solved without a traditional military invasion. Mugabe is an old man. He's going to die soon. There is an organized and significant political opposition to his government. There are some places, like China, where the benefit of any military action to end the oppression of those people is far outweighted by the potential disaster of having a war with China. You can't take military action in every instance. It should be the last resort.

And why should I take your argument about the horror of civilian deaths seriously when you don't care what Saddam does and has done and will continue to do to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, if not hundreds of thousands?

I will not retaliate to the personal insult that you think I believe it is a wonderful thing to kill Arabs. That kind of talk could get you banned.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by macfan

And why should I take your argument about the horror of civilian deaths seriously when you don't care what Saddam does and has done and will continue to do to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, if not hundreds of thousands?

i do feel for the plight of the iraqi people. however, i'm not the one on this board crying out for the horror of the civilian deaths. it _is_ bad, but my concern lies more w/ the PR effect, which has the potential to cause much greater harm.


I will not retaliate to the personal insult that you think I believe it is a wonderful thing to kill Arabs. That kind of talk could get you banned.

you're right. you've said nothing that warranted it. i apologize for directing it at you.

i do think it explains the war support for a lot of other people.

dobbin
Mar 27, 2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin

try Guardian.co.uk and or an eyewitness report here,
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165

then come back and say too bad.

The Guardian and The Independent (and The Mirror) are the "anti-war" newspapers in the UK. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they are bound to report this differently to the "pro-war" media.

If they look hard enough they'll be able to find "witnesses" who "saw" a plane, but actually I doubt they would have seen the plane that dropped this bomb if thats where it came from. It would have been long gone by the time the bomb hit. I believe that we will not know the truth until the war is over, and quite possibly not even then.

This is a tragic incident, whoever caused it, but we must get on with the job and not dwell on incidents like this for too long.

I hope there are not too many more deaths, either civilians or military on either side. I personally don't think there is much difference between killing civilians or conscripted soldiers who are forced to fight with little training or equipment. It is a sad fact of war that people will die, but I honestly believe we are taking more care to reduce casualties than any other war in history.

caveman_uk
Mar 27, 2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by dobbin
The Guardian and The Independent (and The Mirror) are the "anti-war" newspapers in the UK. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but they are bound to report this differently to the "pro-war" media.

Whereas 'The Sun' (coincidently owned by the same group as Fox in the states) ran with the headline 'Saddam executes our boys' - about the pictures shown on Al-Jazeera of two dead soldiers, one obviously shot in the chest. That they had to die at all is tragic. But shot in the chest - perhaps they were shot in battle...there is nothing to say they were executed. Just carry on demonising the enemy lads because then the proles won't care when we start bombing Baghdad 'properly' .

leprechaunG4
Mar 27, 2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin
Iran, N. Korea top the list.

G4Scott that is a laugh. That is the standard evasive retort. Try to come up with something better. The one comparing the sheer number of missles launched was much better. It was fired by an aircraft. There is a sandstorm going on, that is the likely cause of the problem. The pilot likely couldn't see what he was shooting at, but went ahead anyway. Much better to fess up than to try and weasel out of it, don't you think?

try Guardian.co.uk and or an eyewitness report here,
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165

then come back and say too bad.
If you aimed with your eyes and dropped a bomb like it was 1942 maybe, but since we live in the modern world nice try, but dream on. A GPS guided bomb cares not whether there is a sandstorm. Nice bs try though, really.

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 08:52 AM
I think anyone can see from this war how utterly useless, incompetent and ornamental the media has become.

Everyone should listen to this bit from RTE on Monday, it's about a 30 minute segment, but boy, is it ever worth listening to.

rtsp://streaming2.rte.ie/2003/0324/tonightvb.ra?start=%2200:25:03%22&end=%2201:00:00%22

One journalist points out that there are 35 embedded journos on ONE carrier in the Gulf. ONE! Why you need even one unless they're there to cheerlead is beyond comprehension, because the action is all happening elsewhere.

Yet, day after day, the media are showing more of these worthless embedded live reports and, hey, did anyone notice they STOPPED SHOWING BAGHDAD ALTOGETHER?!!? There have been no live shots of the daily bombings since the second day of shock and awe, scarce reports of it and scant coverage of the ground combat hell-on-earth.

G4scott
Mar 27, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin
Iran, N. Korea top the list.

G4Scott that is a laugh. That is the standard evasive retort. Try to come up with something better. The one comparing the sheer number of missles launched was much better. It was fired by an aircraft. There is a sandstorm going on, that is the likely cause of the problem. The pilot likely couldn't see what he was shooting at, but went ahead anyway. Much better to fess up than to try and weasel out of it, don't you think?

try Guardian.co.uk and or an eyewitness report here,
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165

then come back and say too bad.

I don't mean to put you down, but your argument is weaker than mine.

With the technology we have, these weapons know their targets before they are ever fired. The US knows when the weapons hit their targets, and they have no evidence that any weapons were off course.

These attacks are launched from B-2 bombers, which by the time the bombs hit their targets, the planes are past Baghdad. The report that they heard a plane is questionable, since it'd be suicide to fly a plane where people can actually hear it in Baghdad because of the anti-aircraft fire. The noise they heard was probably the missiles coming in.

In these bombings, the pilots don't see what they're bombing because it's inacurate when bombing buildings, and woudl cause even more damage.

Get your facts right.

I'm not saying that this absolutely wasn't a US bomb, I'm just saying that there is a chance that this was an iraqi missile too.

caveman_uk
Mar 27, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
With the technology we have, these weapons know their targets before they are ever fired.

Sadly the people who fire them may not...Why else do RAF tornados get shot down by American missiles?
The US knows when the weapons hit their targets, and they have no evidence that any weapons were off course.
That they're owning up to anyway

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 10:51 AM
*Tomahawk missiles can go astray. They can and will adjust their course based on terrain.

*It's much more likely that one of the hundreds of bombs or misslies we drop in Iraq on population centres per day goes astray than one of the few rockets that Saddam has launched towards the American and British forces.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 12:56 PM
never heard of newscentral, but they offer this article (http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/national/20822d64.shtml)

U-S officials confirm missiles were fired into Baghdad neighborhood

(Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar-AP) -- U-S military officials are offering more information on a missile attack that Iraq says killed 14 people in a residential area of Baghdad.

U-S Central Command says it fired some precision-guided weapons in a civilian residential area.

But it says the missiles were aimed at nine Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles and launchers -- some of which had been placed within 300 feet of homes.

A statement from Central Command says when Iraqi officials place military weapons near civilian areas "such damage is unavoidable" in some cases.

It's the worst single episode involving civilian deaths that's been reported since the start of the U-S bombing campaign.

In addition to the 14 people reported killed, the Iraqis say 30 others were hurt.

It happened in a heavily-populated neighborhood of northern Baghdad consisting of homes and about 30 shops.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 27, 2003, 01:14 PM
Anyone who thinks war is clean is naive or simply ignorant, anyone who thinks thousands of bombs and missiles being dropped on a city isnt going to kill anyone but saddam's military again is being foolish. Anyone standing out in the middle of a city why it is being taken over is not using common sense. Civilians should either get the hell or stay in their homes like we asked them to. This is War not a game. more will die before its all over but when it is over there will be no more Saddam or his murderous regime.