September 14, 2004
September Thirteen
“At least 37 people were killed in Baghdad alone Sunday. Many of them died when a U.S. helicopter fired on a disabled U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle as Iraqis swarmed around it, cheering, throwing stones and waving the black and yellow sunburst banner of Iraq’s most-feared insurgent organization.”That is what the news sources like Fox News, MSNBC, CBS and Salon are saying about the recent attacks in Iraq by the U.S. Military.
Here are snippets of text from some of the news articles:
CBS News: “The U.S. military said jets carried out a precision strike on a site in Fallujah where forces loyal to Jordanian-born terror suspect Abu Muse al-Sarawak were meeting.”Okay, so let’s define their view of “precision”. This quote speaks for itself. “Dr. Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least 16 people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others wounded.” That is “precision” to the United States. More innocent lives lost.
MSNBC: “Based on analysis of these reports, Iraqi Security Forces and multinational forces effectively and accurately targeted these terrorists while protecting the lives of innocent civilians.”Okay, so let’s also define their view of “accurately” and “protecting”. I’ll just let the quote speak again. “Dr. Adel Khamis of the Fallujah General Hospital said at least 16 people were killed, including women and children, and 12 others wounded.” Does it read better this time when accuracy and protection are considered?
Salon: “One strike hit an ambulance as it sped away with wounded, a hospital official said; the U.S. military said innocent lives were spared.”“Precision”, “accuracy”, and “protection”...
Fox News: “This strike further erodes the capability of the Zarqawi network and increases safety and security throughout Iraq,” the military statement said.“Safety”, and “security”... Add those to our list of vocabulary for the night as well.
You might conclude as I have that there is more to the story than the U.S. mainstream media wants us to believe. Common Dreams quotes an Army Major:
“The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had been hit earlier and it was on fire,” said Major Phil Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. “It was for the safety of the people around it.”Democracy Now! further reports on the deaths, including the slaying of the reporter from al Arabiya, Mazen al-Tumeisi. Reporters and civilians on site tell a very different story than the U.S. media does. In an interview between Amy Goodman and Patrick Cockburn of the London Independent, Cockburn recalls:
“But in any case, if you look at the video of the al Arabiya correspondent who was killed, you can see that he’s standing about 150 yards from the Bradley and it was here that the rockets landed. It wasn’t actually close. They were aiming for the Bradley and they certainly missed it and fired straight into the crowd. There shouldn’t be any doubt about this, because sadly, we have film of theCockburn also disagrees with Major Phil Smith on the idea that the U.S. was simply trying to destroy the Bradley vehicle:
moment that the rockets landed killing all these people.”
“I mean, the reason they put forward is that they wanted to destroy the arms and ammunition on board of the vehicle, which had been abandoned in the middle of Haifa Street, but again, this is peculiar to do this from the air because when this vehicle was hit by a bomb, they removed the wounded, and it would have been quite easy to, you know, -- if you wanted to destroy the vehicle at that stage safely to simply put an explosive charge or grenade inside, which I have seen done in Baghdad before, but it’s pretty amazing to wait and then attack your own vehicle from the air when there are crowds around it. And in this case, you don’t even hit the vehicle. You fire your rockets 150 yards away.”The Guardian brings us a recap of the events from a witness, G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad:
“I had just reached the corner of the cube when I heard two explosions, I felt hot air blast my face and something burning on my head. I crawled to the cube and hid behind it. Six of us were squeezed into a space less than two metres wide. Blood started dripping on my camera but all that I could think about was how to keep the lens clean. A man in his 40s next to me was crying. He wasn’t injured, he was just crying. I was so scared I just wanted to squeeze myself against the wall. The helicopters wheeled overhead, and I realised that they were firing directly at us. I wanted to be invisible, I wanted to hide under the others.”So there you have it, folks. On one hand we have the United States calling this a “precision” and “accurate” attack on terrorists which has increased the “safety” and “security” in Iraq. On the other hand we have reporters on the scene (that are still living) calling the attacks unjustified and brutal. Both sets of sources detail the death of innocent civilians, but the first hand tries to present these events in a positive light, as if they further efforts to remove terrorism in the world.
It seems that once again reporting inside and outside of the U.S. has developed quite a few discrepancies in the facts and figures. Is it any wonder that so many Americans these days fear that the Federal Government is not being honest with them? I know that I for one am sick and tired the war in Iraq.
Posted by Adam Ducker at September 14, 2004 02:02 AMGreat article, Adam. I still want to know who created the yellow cake document that Cheney used as a basis for alleging nuclear intent by Iraq? This administration deceived America before, during, now, and I am sure long after, about so many things. One thing is clear to me, Cheney is a kind of Nixon reincarnate, pulling illegal strings in the background like the outing of Wison’s wife, a crime under law, and then squashing any investigation into these activities.
Where are the investigations into abuses at all the other prisons reported? Why only Abu Ghraib? So much more will come out after Bush is long gone, but, what good will it serve? It will only create more distrust and suspicion about our government, which has far, far too much authority to cloak its actions and activities from the the public and its representatives.
I truly pray the the honest, responsible, and caring folks of this nation are not further cheated out of an honest, responsible, and caring government which they have every right to expect. But expectation will not be enough to make it happen, they will have to demand it at the polls, and keep demanding it, until they finally get it.
Posted by: David R Remer at September 14, 2004 08:50 AMAdam,
I hear what you say, now how do you believe we should go forth in Iraq?
David,
Cheney, Rumfield, Bush 41, etc. is/was part of the Repub;ican elite in 1970’s. Bush43 is just the Jr. in this their grap for power. Your old enough to remember when Nixon had his men do some untold things and how they wanted to dominate the world. Do you think they changed their minds over the years?
Not to interupt, but since this is a third party blog - I read that Nader is on the Florida ballot as the reform party candidate pending court action. Dems are working hard to get him off. Absentee ballots will be sent out at the end of the week, so we will see what happens soon.
Posted by: Jack at September 14, 2004 02:01 PMThe war was wrong. Our troops should not be there. It is a war for oil, money, votes or for whatever other reason you think it is wrong. But don’t try to explain your sides views by quoting liberal TV or magazines or Conservative radio or magazines.
Reporters- they know its hazardous duty and they have a chance of being killed.
Iraqi civilians?- if you are supporting the enemy, you are against the US troops, and you have a chance of being a target.
I am tired of hearing, whichever side, use whatever news, good or bad, to try and get their candidate more votes.
David,
I’ve been thinking about the hypocrisy of the current Whitehouse administration that glorifies freedom, democracy and personal sacrifice of soldiers, yet is dishonest to the American people about the reasons for war, dishonest about the current events in the war, and dishonest about the means to end the war. If George Bush is a war president then why isn’t he doing a better job with that war? The “honest, responsible, and caring folks of this nation” do deserve better than this yet many of us can’t see past this bloated nationalism that the Bush administration has drummed up. The saddest part of Bush winning another term in the Whitehouse is just how many people support him on the basis of the War Against Terror.
Henry,
First and foremost, you cannot force a revolution on a group of people. Where would the United States be today if another nation had forced us to free ourselves from Great Britain? The people of a nation must first be organized enough to want their freedom, and then fight for it. Only then can they form their own means of government.
Above almost all else I believe in non-violence and I believe there are non-violent solutions to these problems in Iraq. While I can list numerous methods of violence which have not yet worked, I can’t list one good non-violent solution to these problems. Frankly, the research and experience is missing here. Even the teachings of Gandhi fall on deaf ears with the United States government. It is essential that research be done in the area of non-violence. If even half of the time and resources that are used to build weapons of war were spent on developing non-violence throughout the world, then the results of such a thing would be of great significance to the socioeconomic evolution of the human race.
Many people tell me that the Middle East contains some sort of inhumane population of murderers, or that it is filled with uncivilized evil heathens who have no concept of right, and truth, and justice. If you believe this then our thought processes could not be further apart and my ideas about non-violence could very easily mean nothing to you.
Jack,
I’m from Arkansas where Democrats have challenged Nader as well. A lawsuit was filed by the state Democratic Party soon after Nader was placed on the ballot. It’s happening all over the United States. You know that your party is in decline when you have to sue your opponents off the ballots. It’s infantile if you ask me.
Tim,
The American people are not getting the full story when it comes to Iraq. Every international news source contradicts the US media (Conservative and Liberal) and this is an issue which should send up a flag with each and every one of us. Reporters know the risks they take but it doesn’t make it okay for them to be slain by our military. The same goes for the people of Iraq. These deaths are not justified in any way.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 14, 2004 04:37 PMAdam,
First, sorry there is really bad guys over in the Middle East just like there is really bad guys in the US. I to believe in a non-violence approach, yet I also understand some men don’t believe in honor and respect. For them I have no mercy for that is my lords role; however, our role in society is to sometimes call people into justice. With Iraq, Bush was wrong on reason, Saddam was wrong on dumb, it is sad people have to suffer for their political leaders. Yet, this is the way of man for over 4,000 years.
Again, how would you stabilize Iraq and Afganistan?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 14, 2004 05:15 PMAdam, you are right, I guess I read the wrong stories about what happend. The story I read was about a group of people around a Bradley, celebrating the death of American soldiers and holding up the flag colors of the terrorists.
I must have missed the story where the US military lined up all the people and the reporter against a wall and shot them. My mistake.
To say that these people were “SLAIN” by our military is an incredible injustice. They were aiding the enemy and were in a hostile area. When you aid the enemy, you are the enemy.
International news is correct on all things? Homicide bombers only kill innocent men, women and children who deserve it. Their families aren’t compensated for it either. Every US soldier kills innocent muslim kids. Al Jezeera rules!
I agree that Americans should look elsewhere for the truth. They rely to much on liberal TV and neocon radio. But I cannot agree that our troops are savages and that everything they do is evil. I have many friends who have returned from Iraq and what you see on TV or hear from international news is only the bad things. For every single bad thing that has occured, thousands of good things are being done.
The war was wrong. The info. suspect. But I will not condemn our soldiers who are trying to do good. They are heros!
Posted by: Tim at September 14, 2004 05:43 PMHenry,
As I said before, I have no great solution for Iraq. We do not know how to fully go about it non-violently but we do know that every violent war in history has yet to stop another war from coming. We must research non-violence and re-examine our methods for solving problems in the world.
Tim,
First off, I’m not trying to get in a heated argument with anybody here. Your level of sarcasm makes be believe you think that is what I intend. Second, I never said everything our troops do is evil. I simply said that the reporters and the civilians in the area were unjustly killed. That much is certain. One of the few things that lines up in all of these stories are the death of people near the vehicle when it was hit, and the reporters who were injured while trying to cover the events. The hostile areas you speak of are peoples homes. It seems wrong for me to say aiding the enemy makes someone the enemy. How were these people aiding the enemy anyway?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 14, 2004 06:25 PMTim,
Many of those hit by the rockets in Haifa Street […] were on their way to work. “We are just ordinary workers. We are just trying to live,” said Haidar Yahyiah […]Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 06:31 PM
Adam,
I don’t think that we can find a simpl no violent way to deal with Iraq. You must understand that some people are bullies. Reasoning with them is not an option you are allowed. Therefore, Iraq must come to terms within itself.
If Bush had went in with the full force of the army we may of stood a chance to a peaceful solution. Now, your guess is as good as mine on where we go from here. All I know is that America owes the Iraq people the opportunity to build their new nation. That for us to cut and run from this duty is not an option. Force if needed to be used must be focused and the area warned. After that all people are fair game.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 14, 2004 08:50 PMIn the late sixties and early seventies the United States was embroiled in a “Police Action” in another part of the world. I was one of the protesters against that “Police Action”.
Looking back I would still be against that war, but for very different reasons. We seem to think in this country that just because we have the most powerfull military on the planet, that countries will just roll over for us.
Who have we been victorious against recently?
We have fought nobodies. Lets look at who we have fought against.
Panama, Grenada, The Balkans (we’re still not done there yet), Somalia, Afganistan, Libya (that was a tough one), and Iraq.
I was against going to Iraq because we don’t take care of business. We didn’t do it the first time and we haven’t done it yet.
We go in, screw around, destroy the country and then say oops.
I don’t blame the troops. I blame the DOD.
The government says that we have the best trained troops in the world. I say, prove it.
Unless we get our act together Iraq will become the quagmire everyone said it would be.
We are going to lose in Iraq for the exact same reasons that we lost in Vietnam.
Posted by: Rocky at September 15, 2004 01:43 AMRocky, there never was going to be a win in Viet Nam, just as there can never be a win for the U.S. in Iraq. The reason is simple, the nature of the conflict is one of civil war. We were never going to unify Viet Nam under a democracy, anymore than we are going to unify the multiple conflicting groups in Iraq. The day we exit, is the day the Iraqi’s will say, good, we kicked their ass, now on to the next group.
Their are only three ways to resolve a civil war via an external foreign power, 1) destroy the entire nation and invite a new population based on some immigration policy stipulating support for the foreign power’s regime of choice, 2) set up a police state much like Saddam had in place in perpetuity, and 3) the second is to not get involved in the first place.
Absent either of those resolutions, having invaded can only result in quagmire. Damn shame Bush through option 3 out the window so hastily. A far better scenario would have been to back off Saddam, let him invade another neighboring country and tell the middle east, Saddam is your problem, not ours, push him back and we will give some support, or let him takeover and you get nothing from us. It would have been effective and cheap in the long run, I think.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 02:06 AMWhat we need is a military action plan!
I nominate Senator Biphan and McClain to head up the cause for peace. They looked better good this past summer as he and his colleges told Bush how to handle Iraq transfer of Power.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2004 02:28 AMAdam —
So do you think the attack was intended to kill civilians? It does seem odd that the military would choose to destroy the vehicle from the air while it was surrounded by people (and those who say, “Oh well, they shouldn’t have been there” must have attended the Bush School of Diplomacy).
I just don’t get it. It seems to me we’re doing EVERYTHING wrong in Iraq. While I don’t think Bush and his administration are the smartest we’ve ever had, I think they’re cannier than they appear. What are they really trying to accomplish?
Alejo,
I really can’t decide what we intended by blowing it up from the air. I would guess it would be to save American lives first of all. Secondly, Cockburn told us that the attacks were yards away from the vehicle. Your guess is as good as mine though. I’m kind of in the dark about the events leading up to the air attack. I’ve only gone through the events captured after it. Tim said the people there were aiding the enemy. I did see a photo of the people with the flag down the gun on the vehicle. Maybe Tim can tell us a bit more if he’s still watching this post.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 15, 2004 10:43 AMAdam, there was no one in the Bradley that they were trying to blow up. From what I read, the Bradley was attacked and evacuated around 6 AM. The air strike to destroy the Bradley was a couple of hours later.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 11:33 AMI know I’m biased against Bush and his policies, but I just can’t see what military or political purpose a move like this could serve — unless the real intent is to terrorize the Iraqi people and prove to them that we can do anything we want. Or, it was an attack fueled by the anger and frustration of our troops. I just can’t see another reason to have behaved this way.
Posted by: Alejo at September 15, 2004 01:13 PMAdam: JB is correct about the Bradley. But after it was evacuated, the innocent civilians, just walking to work, took time to stop at the vehicle and celebrate our defeat at that position. Waving the flag colors of the local terrorist forces who our troops are in battle with.
Celebrating is supporting and supporting is aiding. If they are aiding the enemy then they can be classified as the enemy. It is not like the military found a housing area, said lets kill some civilians and bombed it.
Tim,
I don’t think anybody here thinks they said, “lets kill some civilians” but still, supporting is aiding? I support a lot of causes, but that doesn’t mean I aid them.
Jack,
By the way, I’m attending a court hearing tomorrow in Arkansas over the Democrats sueing Nader. I’ll have more on that later.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 16, 2004 07:06 PM
