“US soldiers have reportedly killed up to 15 Iraqi demonstrators and wounded 50 more after opening fire on a protest last night in the town of Fallujah, west of Baghdad. The Arab television channel al-Jazeera said the Americans opened fire after someone in the crowd threw a stone at the US soldiers. Al-Jazeera said around 200 people had gathered for the protest against the US occupation of their country. The protest was sparked when the Americans took over a school for use as a military base, it said. Local residents said the demonstration was conducted by students between the ages of five and 20, but a US official claimed that some of them were armed. He claimed the US soldiers only shot at the crowd after coming under fire and insisted that only seven people were injured in the shooting.”
How is taking over a school for military purposes and shooting at civilians (yes, let’s wait and see how armed they were) help the Iraqi people?
Even when you’re being shot at, you do not shoot into a crowd .
You’ll only end up killing innocent bystanders. Shoot in the air, for Pete’s sake, duck and take cover.
Bloody Sunday ring any bells, no?
How much longer is US going to stay in Iraq, when they’re so blatantly not wanted?
There are daily anti-American demonstrations in most large cities in Iraq which is a bad recipe because when bad things happen there it will cause more demonstrations where worse things will happen.
BTW, there was some “accident” where US forces were stockpiling explosives in a residential neighborhood and they exploded killing about 15 people. This also prompted more antiAmerican demonstrations. I could not find this reported by CNN or other sources. Does anyone have some links?
You have to love the logic of the US forces. They have been storing explosives and detonating them in this site which is located in a residential neighborhood and when this shit happens they say
So it is Saddam’s fault that the US have been doing the same thing Saddam was doing? How does that make sense?
Other reports said it was strictly an accident but the US blames sabotage. I have no way of knowing what might be the truth but the US has been lying so much lately that I don’t trust anything. Especially when they are the source saying it was sabotage and independent reporters do not say that.
At any rate,
I don’t know what can be done but my guess is the situation can only get worse. I just cannot see the US cleanly installing a nice government and going home. I think the political process is going to be long and messy and, in the menwhile, anti-American sentiment will grow. The more incidents at demonstrations the more it will grow.
They will stay until something representing a government has been established. Or do you think it would be better for US troops to just pack up their tents and let the country decend into anarchy?
They will stay until they have forcibly imposed a democracy upon the Iraqis. The oxymoronic nature of this notion will not perturb the US forces it seems. And concerning anarchy, it doesn’t seem as though the US troops have been able to drag the country out of anarchy—never mind any descent into such a state.
And, of course, all of this assumes that the US has a right to be there in the first place. Wouldn’t their right to be there be granted by the Iraqis themselves? But they are protesting the US occupation. Hmmm……
Because the US Forces didn’t MOVE the explosives into that position, they’re dealing with them in place, where they found them. That’s why it’s “Saddam’s fault”. The Iraqi military put the ammunition in a populated civilian neighborhood in the first place. The logic is perfectly sound. The chances of civilian and military casualties are exponentially higher if you attempt to transport them miles and miles through populated areas than to just “quarantine” the immediate area around their present location and destroy them. It’s the best of a bad situation, but the best none the less.
lander2k2 The fact that there are some protests going on is not an accurate way of measuring the wishes of the Iraqi people as a whole. The only way we’re going to do that is by setting up a democratic system and letting them vote. Whether they want the US troops there of not, I doubt many of them will feel getting a vote for the first time in decades is an imposition. “Imposing democracy” implies that that is not the wish of the Iraqi people to have free and fair elections, and I would need several “cites” to be convinced of that. Ignoring the results of such a vote would be imposing a Government. I wouldn’t bet the farm that THAT won’t happen if the vote turns out to be something the US doesn’t want, it’s a little early to start condemming the US Gov for mistakes we believe they will make in the future. We have plenty of mistakes happening right now to deal with.
First, you’re making a pretty big assumption by blaming the US for the injured bystanders (if, in fact, there were injured bystanders). Why couldn’t they have been hit by people firing on the American soldiers? And why doesn’t your entreaty against firing into a crowd apply to non-Americans?
Second, it’s rather apparent that you are 1) not a soldier, and 2) totally unconcerned for the lives of American soldiers. When someone starts firing at American soldiers, the soldiers should not just duck and cover. They’ll be overrun and killed. The only way to end the conflict, and potentially save the lives of bystanders, presumably involves firing on enemy positions. It’s possible that some bystanders were hit, but that’s certainly no more the fault of the Americans than the people that were shooting at them.
Finally, here is a rather important quote that you left out of your excerpt (emphasis added):
But, but, Al-Jazeera said it started when a rock was thrown at the building…
I don’t know, I generally give the troops the benefit of the doubt until more information becomes available, but every US screwup (I’m talking friendly fire, crashes, things that aren’t disputed) erodes my faith a little more…
They could’ve. Have you got anything to back that up?
It’s the US military’s word versus the civilians in the crowd at this point, and that’s probably all it’s ever going to be.
There are demonstrations breaking out all over the country and they all have the same message. Reminds me of Bush comparing 12 million anti-war protestors to a “focus group.” I’m not pushing for the ‘pack your shit and go now’ solution either, but the troops are plainly not wanted.
I’m not sure that’s wanted either with all these protestors pushing for a theocratic government. We’ll see what happens.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet when it comes to oxymorons. The longer the troops stay there, the more likely there’ll be a fundamentalist backlash and possibly a government of this sort.
Here is a logc that I find totally beyond my comprehension or ability to understand. This happens all the time with Palestinians and Israelis and now its happening to Iraqis and US troops.
Iraqis either shoot or throw rocks at soldiers with automatic weapons and tanks and they are totally surprised that these people would shoot them.
Palestinians do this practically everyday. They have terrorists go over to Israel, blow themselves up in a crowded area and they cant understand why tanks come down their street the next day.
Iraqis stage an anti-american demonstration, bring guns and a bunch of hot-heads and saddam loyalist wannabees, taunt the americans and insult them and they cant figure out what in the world could go wrong with that scenario.
I understand that most of these are the work of a few emotional people but innocent people do get hurt and the Iraqis are as much to blame as the americans and if the Iraqis are using this nationalism angle to justify their violent behavior then let them own up to the consequences as well. They are exhibiting the same ruthless traits of their former leader. They dont give a damn about the other Iraqis so long as they are in charge.
What is the estimated number of demonstrators compared to the population of Iraq? Is it a significant percentage? 12 million is a big number, are the Iraqi demonstrations on that order (even on a per capita comparison)? Cite?
I also believe, as you do, that the troops are not wanted by a large percentage of the population. I also believe a large percentage of those people also realize that the US/UK forces there are a necessary evil (in their eyes) in order to bring the country out of the current chaotic power vacuum. Many Iraqis understand that pulling out en mass right now would not be wise for the region or the Iraqi people.
Which directly contradicts what you say. Not that I am surprised by the twisted logic of those who predicted Iraqis would welcome the invaders. Now we have all sorts of explanations and justifications as to why they are demonstarting against the occupation.
The fact is that this situation was predicted and the problems it would create wer predicted an those in favor of the invasion dismissed it and said it would not happen. And yet, it’s happening. You can explain it as much as you like but it’s there
See, if you can provoke the armed forces into shooting innocent civilians, then a lot of people (both your own and the visiting press/human rights organizations/whatever) are going to come to the conclusion that the armed forces are murderous half-wits who shoot first, and the country would be better without them. And if I’m a lucky terrorist, I can probably send a few rounds against the soldiers and then disappear into the crowd (effective cover, unlikely I’ll get shot unless I’m shooting against 1 Para or the hooligans from Hereford, who would cheerfully wade through the bodies to get to their target, if that’s what it takes).
So every dead Iraqi who was not carrying a gun becomes a symbol of the contempt shown by the occupying force for the Arab/Muslim population.
Every market stall and house that the Israeli bulldozers push over is another symbol of the sontempt which the Israelis show for the Palestinians.
If you’re a soldier facing that situation, it also sucks. You either shoot in response to incoming fire (knowing that you’ll be killing or wounding innocent bystanders) or you take increasingly deadly fire from terrorists hiding amongst the civilians. And if the civilians (who, we must remember are indeed out there protesting in the first place) see that the soldiers are not gboing to fight back, well then everything can turn to shit.
How about a little perspective? The story that I linked earlier (from msnbc.com) estimates that there were approximately 200 demonstrators. It also describes the area as predominantly Sunni, and identifies it as an area that provided strong support for Saddam’s Baath Party. And still, this was the first demonstration in the area.
I realize that some Iraqis don’t want Americans in Iraq under any circumstances. But I think people like sailor are fooling themselves if they think most Iraqis aren’t happy to have Americans in their streets rather than Saddam’s henchmen.
Why is this only true in Arab countries? Here in America, we’re taught that exposure is the antidote to hatred and ignorance. The conventional wisdom is that if white supremacists ever got to know any black people, their prejudices would be completely deflated.
Similarly, the Iraqis have been living under a regime that bombards them with anti-American propoganda. They’ve been taught that Americans hate Arabs and want to stamp out Islam. Al Jazeera makes Americans out to be murderous monsters. My hope is that the longer we stay, the more Iraqis will see that their irrational fears – that we’ll attack their mosques, or that we’re the enemies of Islam, or that we’re trying to suppress their people – are totally unfounded.
This happened in a Sunni/Baath party stronghold. Of course they don’t want the troops there. This was Saddams people. Or put a different way, these are the people who did Saddam’s bidding.
It started as a demonstration against the troops. It wasn’t a picnic outing. Nobody was out flying a kite. They were “celebrating” Saddam’s 66th birthday by rioting. During the “demonstration” people started to shoot at the troops. When I protest I hold up a sign, I don’t shoot people.
“Even when you’re being shot at, you do not shoot into a crowd .
You’ll only end up killing innocent bystanders. Shoot in the air, for Pete’s sake, duck and take cover.” ---- REALLY, What army did you serve in? The French Foreign Legion? Have you ever been shot at?
The US troops are occupying a school building. yeah, so… We are at war. These area’s are not completely secure. Should we have consulted you for better a location? Did your father worry about school buildings in Dresden?
As for the storage dump, It wasn’t put there by US troops, it was Saddam’s dump in the first place (yes, it also housed US arms). It was ATTACKED by opposition forces (they’re called Iraqis). So who do you think killed the civilians? When you launch rockets into an amo dump in the middle of a civilian population, what do suppose was the intended outcome? That’s what happens in war, bad people do bad things.
Maybe we should have a nice discussion about the IRA and their noble quest for, what? peace, land, potatos, warm beer? What???
Sorry, but all you rely on in your entire argumentation is pro-US propaganda of the most ridiculous kind.
a)There were demonstrations with tens of thousands of participants.
b)Al Jazeera is not making the Americans out to be murderous monsters. They are BBC-trained journalists who report from an Arab perspective. If you can’t stand different perspectives, sorry, you ARE oppressors. In case you missed it, British soldiers were disgusted by the way the US troops interacted with civilians throughout the war. Maybe they are part of anti-American propaganda, too? Al Jazeera reporters have quite a bit more integrity than the Fox News bunch.
Entirely irrelevant. Or rather, it should have incited the US troops to proceed with extra caution and possibly get out of there.
Which most of the people there did. That didn’t help them.
Here’s a hint, Mr. Expert. The British troops, which have PLENTY of experience dealing with aggressors in crowds have repeatedly been disgusted at the way the US have interacted with civilians. Your personal contempt for the Geneva Conventions tells us a lot about you.
Thanks again for demonstrating how irrelevant you consider the geneva conventions.
Any proof for that? No. Thank you.
Maybe you should educate yourself a bit on the IRA, and what actions towards them yielded what outcome. You might learn something. Right now, you demonstrate just as little care about civilian lives as Saddam’s henchmen.
No one said so. And contrary to your rant, it is not the only alternative. The presence of US troops is currently the strongest factor driving the Shiites towards a religious style government.
Coincidentally, to avoid the detrimental effects long-term presence of invasion troops have on a country while at the same time preventing the detrimental effects from a total loss of control to small interest groups is one of the situations UN peacekeeping was conceived for. But God forbid Neocons would admit that the UN is more fit to deal with a situation than the US of A. A dozen dead civilians is still better than one blue helmet.
We’ll see what happens.