You need to register to access the story, I believe. Sorry, but since it included new information, or claims at least, i wanted to include it. Registering is free though.
Heh. Well, welcome to the wonderful world of news reporting, buddy!
Well, the funny thing is that those agencies (CNN and FoxNews most certainly) has not showed such reluctance earlier in this war. Check out the original reporting f. e. of several “finds” of WOMDs. Does “chemical weapons factory” ring a bell?
Furthermore, that there were an incident is not disputed by anyone. Why is the incident not reported at all by those above?
Hope you can find it again. Would be interesting to read…
So what do you think about the discrepancy between the “shots from the roof” and “shots from the crowd” versions, given by US military sources, Slayer?
Are you refering to me, here? Which facts did I twist? How did I blame American soldiers?
For sure. I said just about that in an earlier post.
These people are of course US military officials, though. And I have merely remarked that statements such as “We didn’t fire at the crowd, but at the top of the building” and “all we can say now is that we did not shoot into a crowd” seems to be contradicted by claims from other US military officials.
Good for you that you believe.
What claim have I made that I should prove?
Again, i am making no assertions as to what happened or who is to blame, since there’s simply not enough information to do so yet. I think you will grasp that, should you care to read the whole thread.
I read the report of a Spanish reporter who describes it like this: There was a meeting of local ethnic leaders who were appointing an Arab governor and this was a demonstration which got out of hand. It started getting violent. He heard an American say to a local bodyguard “don’t fire!” but shots rang out and confusion and shooting ensued.
Anyway, it seems the cause of the demonstration which led to this was that the people did not accept the Arab governor they were being given.
I think I agree with the assessment that the Iraqi response is mixed. There were those who’d be willing to make a deal with the devil to get rid of Saddam and they will support the US right now. There are others that pretty much resent any American interference and want the US out ASAP.
Thousands protested in Baghdad recently at the Palestinian hotel and according to another AFP story 20,000 demonstrated at Nasiriyah over the new government talks.
“Yes to freedom … Yes to Islam … No to America, No to Saddam,” the crowd chanted in the centre of the city."
Pretty catchy no?
Regardless of what really happened in Mosul, I think we can pretty much guess how it’s being perceived by Iraqis.
Completely hypothetically - I have no idea what happened:
Say you’re a lone or a small group of Iraqi gunmen who wants to resist the US. If you have any intelligence, you know you might kill 1 or 2 US soldiers before you’re killed. In the grand scheme of things, worthless to your cause.
So you think… you can wait around until a crowd forms, ideally in some sort of anti-American rally around US troops. You fire wildly into the crowd and retreat - or even just fight it out. People will remember that they were shouting anti-American things, then guns started going off, and all they see is the US soldiers firing (return fire), so they naturally assume the US soldiers are killing them.
It creates a huge PR incident, and you go out with far more of a bang than if you just attacked some US troops.
Yup, but I am not about to translate the entire thing. http://www.estrelladigital.es/articulo.asp?sec=mun&fech=16/04/2003&name=iraq_mosul The reporter was there and had to retreat into the building with the US forces. By the times the shooting started the demonstration had been going on for a while and already a car had been burnt in protest. It is not like a peaceful demonstration and suddenly shots rang. It had been going from bad to worse.
It says the demonstration was getting quite heated and the US forces called for reinforcements and it was the arrival of the 40 reinforcements which sort of triggered the whole thing.
I cannot see any obvious, direct, responsibility anywhere. It seems one of those situations where nobody is really at fault but things happen when you have invaded a country.
I was surprised to see an anti-American demonstration in front of US troops which went quite peacefully and without incident. I guess we should expect more incidents like Mosul because when you have people demonstrating, a volatile situation, and troops who are supposed to keep order but are outsiders. . . well, it is a bad recipe. The kind of thing you expect when you occupy a country.
Sounds very likely. If true, it indicates how hard & delicate a task it will be to gain support for US friendly iraqi officials. (As discussed in Collounsberrys thread).
Do anyone know if Mosul is Shia, Sunni or Kurd country?
Shots were fired. People got scared and confused and fired back. Some of the casualties and wounded were probably from the original shots, some were probably from the US forces returned fire. Because, lets face it, you discharge any firearm in or near a crowd, the chances are someone will get hurt. Attempts (not that I’ve seen any) to blame all deaths on the Americans will no doubt be implausible, but equally so will be attempts to say that the American forces didn’t cause any of the woundings at all.
Nobody can fire into a crowd and miss everybody. Nobody.
Yep. That is probably so, but some unfortunate decisions may have been made. And the US obviously must try to avoid these kinds of events if they really want to see an Iraq which is both democratic and US friendly.
Something of that kind. But I suggest you read the account of Col. Andrew P. Frick above.
Frick essentially says: Shots came from the crowd. Warning shots were fired above the crowd. After that the people that hadn’t fled and remained in the crowd was assumed hostile and fired upon.
I’m not vouching for the accuracy of this or any other account, though.
This is why most people dreaded the occupation as much, or more, than the war itself. I’m not making dire predictions or placing blame. We can all agree that the can has opened and some substantial worms are already present, I believe.
However, nothing about this looked particularly easy from the start. Moreover, the torture chambers have made me want to “stay the course.” GWBs like the guy driving you home at 100 MPH after your car breaks down. I’m just rooting for him to get us there. If I try to grab the wheel, or make him stop, we’ll certainly lose control. If it all works out, we’ll be home early. :eek: [sub]Not the best metaphor[/sub]
Huh? A group of Iraqis bent on doing as much damage to the Americans as possible wouldn’t conspire to think of an intelligent way to inflict the most damage possible?
I also emailed CNN and Fox and asked them if they have any information and when they plan on reporting the story if they do.
I’m not sure exactly what happened but what I think doesn’t matter much. I’m not Iraqi. I wonder what they think and how this will affect their feelings toward their liberators?
I have to insist that it was not an entirely peaceful situation where shots rang out of nowhere. The demonstrators were very angry and had burnt a car and the situation was very tense. The demonstartors were throwing stones at the US troops who had to take shelter in the building and call for reinforcements. The arrival of the reinforcements further angered the crowd and that is when all hell broke loose. US troops took refuge in the building for over four hours while they were taking fire from outside.
Who fired the first shot is irrelevant. Don’t make it sound like they were having a tea party and someone fired for no reason. Before any shots were fired the crowd was already burning cars and throwing stones and pretty angry at the people in the building who were planning on imposing a governor they did not want. Probably the presence of US troops just made a volatile situation worse.
