Apache helicopter fires on crowd

In summary: As the Americans withdrew, jubilant fighters and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several young men placed a black banner of al-Qaeda-backed Tawhid and Jihad, led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun.
  • #36
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians. What a surprise.

It mentions "anti-Iraqi forces". What about the dead reporter? What about the dead civilians?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Thanks, phat - that clarifies the issue a lot.
 
  • #38
Just for the "victims deserve it" gang: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
I wonder, do you people think the civilians in the WTC deserved it too? After all, major economic institutions must obviously be valid targets, right? Personally I don't think so. But do you? If not, why not?
 
  • #40
Adam said:
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians.
Show me where it says that.

Adam said:
It mentions "anti-Iraqi forces". What about the dead reporter? What about the dead civilians?
Source ic Wales

AT LEAST 13 people were killed and 55 wounded when a US helicopter fired at Iraqi crowds around a destroyed army vehicle...As the Americans withdrew, jubilant fighters and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several young men placed a black banner of al-Qaeda-backed Tawhid and Jihad, led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun. A US Apache attack helicopter swooped down and opened fire around the Bradley. Witnesses said several people, including a journalist for an Arab TV station, were killed.

My source was ic Wales. Seems to include everything you asked about. The main difference is, it did not mention the blood spattering on the lens and face of the cameraman and other such sensation crap included for effect in the source you posted, but then I don't even think they gave the number killed or injured just to let the mind go totally wild. Where are the facts?
ic Wales
 
  • #41
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
A few more:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iraq13.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/848502.cms
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=561021
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=54998
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Journalist%20Killed
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/256/world/Violence_in_central_Baghdad_ki:.shtml
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1094998141887B262
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581826&section=news

Exactly how many different reports from different parts of the world do you need? How many must say that civilians were killed, including children? When does the civilian death toll cease being the fault of innocent civilians?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Artman said:
Show me where it says that.
Here you go:
"Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."
And no, it isn't within the rules of engagement. Or, more accurately, valid rules of engagement (as set by the military force in question) must fall within the laws recognised by that country.
 
  • #44
This is great. A USA Apache fires on a crowd of innocent civilians. Again. And some users are trying to blame it all on the victims. Again.

The civilians' behavior in this incident cannot be justified. There is a war going on. Under no circumstances should civilians jump on military vehicles (especially if they are burning).

Chalk this one up for Darwin.
 
  • #45
Dubya, these people were in their own town. They live there. It's their home. The USA military is blowing stuff up in their home.

How about I chalk up your unceasing attempts to justify terrorism to blind patriotism?
 
  • #46
Adam said:
Here you go:

And no, it isn't within the rules of engagement. Or, more accurately, valid rules of engagement (as set by the military force in question) must fall within the laws recognised by that country.
That is a quote from a military leader, not the words of the news source. You said:
Adam said:
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians.
So, show me where American News makes that claim.
 
  • #47
Okay, the American news presents the voice of the American government/military making those claims. Better?
 
  • #48
Besides, of course, a treaty Saddam broke (or rather, never complied with) and several UN resolutions.

Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now I know we actually went to war with Iraq for non-compliance with UN resolutions. I'm sure there aren't any other countries out there that are breaking UN resolutions :rolleyes: . But that's another thread.

It now also seems, I'm the only American here who is outraged by the attack. I guess I should just follow suit with everyone else and remain nonchalant while Iraqi civilians die, taking the easier road of blaming them instead of taking responsiblity for the mess we've now created in Iraq.

And just for the record:

Chalk this one up for Darwin.

Misguided human intervention in the form of an Apache helicopter firing a missile at you doesn't count as the "hand of evolution."
 
  • #49
Adam said:
Okay, the American news presents the voice of the American government/military making those claims. Better?
Yes. And thank you for the links. I will read them when I have time (I've checked out some of yours that do offer additional information).
 
  • #50
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Misguided human intervention in the form of an Apache helicopter firing a missile at you doesn't count as the "hand of evolution."

But the stupidity in willingly placing oneself in danger does.

There is a war going on. A military vehicle is burning. Lord knows how much live ammunition -- such as mortar shells --- could be inside. People around you are waving flags identifitying themselves as the enemy of the US. And you cannot see the stupidity in standing on top of the vehicle?
 
  • #52
A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.
 
  • #53
But Reuters reported that four civilians were killed, including an elderly woman when US soldiers opened fire for coming under rocket attack.

Tikrit police are convinced American soldiers -- though not locally based -- fired the fatal shots, but the U.S. military says it has no record that its troops were involved.

U.S. forces accidentally open fire on Iraqi police apparently involved in a high-speed car chase, killing at least eight Iraqis and a Jordanian hospital worker.

SIX children were crushed to death by a collapsing wall during an assault by US forces on a compound stuffed with weapons in eastern Afghanistan, an American military spokesman said today.

So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

HUTALA, AFGHANISTAN (Talon News) -- Hats and shoes littered a blood-stained field in a desolate Afghan village Sunday, a day after U.S. warplanes targeting a terror suspect mistakenly killed nine children.

The Associated Press (AP) reported that American officials offered their regrets Sunday and said they were "deeply saddened" by the deaths. While the Afghan government urged the U.S.-led coalition hunting Taliban and al Qaeda fighters to make sure such an accident is never repeated, the United Nations called for an investigation.
 
  • #54
Dubya, if you blow up a building, and the building crushes the occupants, it's your fault.

Remember that wedding party in Afghanistan? And the wedding party in Iraq?
 
  • #55
So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

I'm sure you've heard of something called cause and effect. If you shoot the wall and it falls on innocent civilians, you have in effect killed the civilians, ignoring the homicidal instincts of the wall of course. :smile:
 
  • #56
I don't think he has.
 
  • #57
Adam said:
As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.
In the case of the World Trade Center, there was no declared war. There is no comparison. What the people in the WTC did was daily routine, what the people in Iraq, hanging around the burning wreckage of a military vehicle, carrying enemy flags, was just plain stupid. I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.
 
  • #58
Actually there was. Many groups had declared war against the USA. Including Osama Bin Laden. I posted part of his letter the other day. I have the whole thing here as a PDF file.
 
  • #59
Artman said:
I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.
Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.
 
  • #60
Here is your statement:

"A few more examples of US troops firing on innocent civilians in recent times:"

And you then cite as one of the examples a wall collapsing during a battle. Your habit of posting such links is disingenuous, especially since you never bothered to post the context. Did you really think no one would bother to read them?

A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Actually, that sounds like an urban legend. I have seen numerous stories about this incident, and the names and locations change each time.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

You can say that about any act of stupidity, for that matter. But I don't think it takes a lot of brains to stay off burning military vehicles.


As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target?

A closer analogy would be: If the civilians saw the World Trade Centers burning from two direct aircraft hits, should they willingly decide to enter the buildings? That is much closer to the level of stupidity displayed by the dead morons.

(Yes, firemen did enter the World Trade Centers, but for obvious reasons.)

Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

1. Anyone standing around or on top of a burning military vehicle is stupid (unless he has some legitimate reason, for which I cannot conjure).

2. Whether or not they are valid targets is still open to question. If some of the civilians, however, identified themselves as the enemy, then they become valid targets. (This may sound unfair, but remember it is the Iraqi resistance that has decided to fight in civilian clothes -- can't blame the US for that.)

3. Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.

One of the reasons soldiers should always fight in uniform is to prevent occurrences such as this from happening. Those innocent civilians that were killed can place the majority of the blame on the behavior of Iraqi resistance fighters (as well as their own stupidity).
 
  • #61
Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.

No one tried and sentenced them. Their deaths were caused by numerous factors. If you really want to blame someone, blame the Iraqi resistance for its habit of trying to mingle with civilian populations, thus making it difficult to distinguish between the two. Accidents then are bound to happen.

In fact, I would bet that a large percentage of civilian deaths are caused by (1) armed militias placing civilians in harms way, (2) civilians that were not so innocent after all.
 
  • #62
JohnDubYa said:
"A few more examples of US troops firing on innocent civilians in recent times:"
They targeted a civilian structure. Again.

Actually, that sounds like an urban legend. I have seen numerous stories about this incident, and the names and locations change each time.
Not really. Search for the name Derrick Richards.

http://www.seniormag.com/whitt/darwin.htm

A closer analogy would be: If the civilians saw the World Trade Centers burning from two direct aircraft hits, should they willingly decide to enter the buildings? That is much closer to the level of stupidity displayed by the dead morons.
It was a valid military target, according to your attempt at logic. Yes?

1. Anyone standing around or on top of a burning military vehicle is stupid (unless he has some legitimate reason, for which I cannot conjure).
My former Principle Warfare Officer aboard my ship was on a burning military vehicle. He directed other people, attempted to help others, et cetera.

2. Whether or not they are valid targets is still open to question. If some of the civilians, however, identified themselves as the enemy, then they become valid targets. (This may sound unfair, but remember it is the Iraqi resistance that has decided to fight in civilian clothes -- can't blame the US for that.)
You can, however, blame the USA for opening fire on innocent civilians. Which is what this is about.

3. Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.
They pulled the trigger, then somehow dashed around in front of the guns to be hit by the bullets?
 
  • #63
Adam said:
Exactly how many different reports from different parts of the world do you need? How many must say that civilians were killed, including children? When does the civilian death toll cease being the fault of innocent civilians?
All of those reports are fine. None of them change the basic fact that those civilians chose to enter a battle.

Your comparisons to 9/11 are straw-man arguments, Adam.
devious_ said:
Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.
Who said this was a punishment? Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.
 
  • #64
JohnDubYa said:
Their deaths were caused by numerous factors.
According to you, they died because of their "stupid" actions.
 
  • #65
russ_watters said:
Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.
Avoidable at the expense of their civil liberty.

And no, they did not forfeit that when they approached a destroyed military vehicle wearing whatever it is they wore.
 
  • #66
russ_watters said:
All of those reports are fine. None of them change the basic fact that those civilians chose to enter a battle.
No they didn't. The battle came into their home.

Your comparisons to 9/11 are straw-man arguments, Adam. Who said this was a punishment? Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.
How is it a straw man argument? It's a direct analogy.

Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley:
Target: Military asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

WTC attack:
Target: Economic asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

This is Dubya's explanation.
 
  • #67
So far, the arguments for why it was perfectly fine and dandy to blow up a bunch of civilians seem to be:

1) It was there own fault for being in their own town.

2) It was their own fault for being ignorant of USA military procedures.

3) It was their own fault for celebrating in the streets after an invader's military asset was destroyed.

4) It was their own fault for standing where they stood when the USA military pulled the trigger.

Have I got them right? Just checking.
 
  • #68
Gza said:
Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now I know we actually went to war with Iraq for non-compliance with UN resolutions. I'm sure there aren't any other countries out there that are breaking UN resolutions :rolleyes: . But that's another thread.
Now what are you talking about? In your other post, you claimed about the lack of "authority." I showed you you were wrong. Whether the UN resolutions presented the US's case or if they were the justification itself (or a little bit of both) is immaterial here: the resolutions gave the US the authority to do what it did. With the massive anti-US bias in the UN, if there was anything to the claim that we didn't have the authority, it would have been raised in the UN.

If you're taking issue with the UN's refusal to back up its other resolutions with action, I'l agree with you! The UN needs to step up to the plate and fix places like Yugoslavia (the US led a NATO force after the UN declined to act) and Rwanda (the UN complained about the US using the "g" word because it compells them to act).

But yes, the failure of the UN to deal with people like Saddam and Milosevich is a topic for another thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley:
Target: Military asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

Civilians were not simply just "present." They willingly climbed aboard a burning military vehicle. Civilians should have enough common sense to know that such activity is dangerous.

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

To compare this situation with the World Trade Center is not even worth bothering. But if you really want to know...

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

This is Dubya's explanation.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even implied, anything of the sort.
 
  • #70
russ_watters said:
.. the resolutions gave the US the authority to do what it did.
Incorrect.
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Note that the IAEA later declared their inspection process complete.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
1) The IAEA declared their inspection process complete.

2) Inspections by all agencies were actually allowed to continue.

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
Iraq did make the required submission, which was intercepted by the USA, which then tore 8,000 pages out of it before anyone else could see it. http://www.sundayherald.com/30195 The USA then made its own copies, gave a few copies they claimed were unedited to UN Security Council members, and gave admittedly edited copies to other UN states.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
Further breaches warranted not invasion of a UN member state, but a new report to the Security Council.

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
1) The IAEA declared their inspection process complete.

2) Inspections by all agencies were actually allowed to continue.

3) Interviews were conducted.

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
Blah, endorsing a letter.

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
This was all done, as reported by the IAEA.

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
As far as I know, Iraq complied fully withn this one as well. The only threat they made was against the USA when the USA was invading. Then Saddam said they would be fought in the streets and such.

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Also done.

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Iraq did its part, as reported by the IAEA. Not sure about every other member state.

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
Well, once again, Iraq complied with them and completed inspections.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
Note: Failure to comply with points 4 or 11 would warrant not immediate invasion, but a decision to "convene immediately" to discuss harsher options.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
See paragraph 12. Breaches warrant a meeting.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Declaration of determination. Blah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
News Another Billion$ or so missing from Iraq.
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Why Iraqis Should Boycott the Election
    • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
News Who is to Blame for Baghdad Blast Killing 2 Britons?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Mr. President: Coffins ? Bring Them On ?
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Iraqis tell the reality of Iraq .
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
News Worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks
    • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top