Eva it isn’t really important, as it has nothing to do with the conversation here. What the geneva convention says, or doens’t say, about the duty to protect civilians is completely inapposite to the issue of whether or not the people crashed the checkpoint on purpose.
—Maybe they are? What’s your point? What does the fact that the soldier was Muslim have to do with other soldiers? This must be one of those bombs that doesn’t go off.—
What does the fact that some Iraqi suicide bombers do with other Iraqis?
—More like incoherent bomb. I have read the above five times, I still have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I’m just stupid, but could you try to restate this?—
The eyewitness account by the commanding officer seems to imply that no warning shots were fired in time: he chewed out his men over this. Yet news agencies continued to report warning shots (often putting it in the title of their stories) long after it became clear that, far from evidence for some sort of rational progression of ignored warning shots, there was no such evidence and in fact actually the suggestion that if there were warning shots, they came much too late to do any good.
It goes to the conditions on the ground. You can’t simply look at an incident in a vacuume. It goes to show that this is not a novel or new technique.
Have you read this thread? Are you being deliberately obtuse? The commanding officer was observing from a distance, made his comment, and then, after talking with the people who were closer to the incident, everyone agreed that the warning shots had been fired. It is all reported in the same article.
Eva, Rhum:
Here’s a link to the fourth Geneva Convention should be the relevant document.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
My original source was my friendly local Swedish state tv, so I guess we’ll have to read through this rather large document to get the straight dope.
I’ll get back to you when done.
Rhum: “everyone agreed that the warning shots had been fired. It is all reported in the same article.”
Rhum, let’s stick to the facts here. I’m fairly sure that the article said that “Several” people confirmed that warning shots had been fired (and without any comment as to timing). Again investigation is pending. I’m sure if any investigator were taking this case just on the basis of that article s/he would include that the issue of warning shots–if and when they came–was as yet, officially speaking, undetermined.
Now you’d asked me about that Washington Times article. What do I think? Well, let’s take a look:
“U.S. military officials said there is growing evidence that the seven Iraqi civilians killed by American soldiers at a checkpoint Monday were coerced into carrying out a suicide mission.”
Okay, “growing evidence.” Well since there was no evidence prior to what’s reported in this article–no bomb in the car, no story from the driver or any other survivor to that effect, no apparent motive for why anyone would risk their own lives and that of their entire extended family–“growing evidence” can refer to any evidence at all. So let’s see what the quality of that evidence is…
“Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, acknowledged in his daily press briefing yesterday that several Muslim clerics are reporting that checkpoint charges by Iraqi civilians are being “done under duress.””
This is probably the same press conference that I heard on the radio. What does it actually amount to? Muslim clerics are reporting “duress” (a very vague term) at some checkpoints. Which checkpoint? No info. What kind of “duress”? Nada. Any information connecting it to this particular family? None. Just a vague and unspecified assertion that somewhere at some Iraqi checkpoints some civilians are under some kind of duress.
""“It’s not just the coalition that’s identifying that there are some problems here with the way the regime is doing its business and the way it’s brutalizing the population,” Gen. Brooks said."
Irrelevant. One can completely concur with both “the coalition” and with Muslim clerics that there are “problems…with the way the regime is doing its business…” without believing that the Land Rover drover was coerced into cooperating in the killing of his family.
"*There has not been a dramatic increase in suicide missions, “but we know that these tactics are used out there on the battlefield. This is a regime that is seeking tactical advantage by doing these types of things,” Gen. Brooks said.
First bolded statement is irrelevant. Second bolded statement could be relevant in the most general way if there any substantive connection found between this incident and these other “types of things” (such as information that other family members of the driver were in a hostage situation). None forthcoming.
The next few paragraphs go on to discuss other incidents.
Then "“That was a setup by the forces there, perhaps Fedayeen Saddam, trying to put those innocent people in the back and then making it look like, of course, the coalition forces killed all these innocent civilians intentionally,” [a retired army major said] said on the Fox News Channel program “Hannity & Colmes.”
Not only pure speculation, but speculation from a person who has no special claim to knowing what’s going on. Except for the fact that this is a retired army major rather than, say, a retired shoe salesman, it’s not clear why anyone should listen to his speculation about what may have occurred. Perhaps Fox News should be interviewing us as well.
“On the same program, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the care that allied forces take to protect their forces and rescue prisoners of war is in sharp contrast to that of Iraqi leaders.
“Compare that with the savagery of Saddam’s regime, which kills its own people, which pushes them into battles they can’t win, which threatens to shoot them if they don’t drive through checkpoints, which hangs women if they applaud or if they wave at American forces,” said Mr. Gingrich.
“The difference between their brutality and our concern and our compassion is stunning. And yet we seem to have great difficulty in Europe and around the world drawing such a simple, such an obvious and such a 100 percent contrast in values,” Mr. Gingrich said.”
I think this exceprt speaks for itself. Much like the retired army major, Gingrich knows F-all about this particular situation. We can be clear that he’s content to see nothing but a 100 percent contrast in values and chalk up the episode to that. In other words the American government is great and the Iraqi government is evil. Well, gee, that’s an original opinion from a notable Republican on Fox.
What is just as clear is that his remarks constitute 0% evidence that what happened at the checkpoint wasn’t a terrible tragedy that had nothing to do with Saddam’s regime.
Now let me add this source comes from the Washington Times, a rightwing rag. These news sources–the WT and Fox News --do great discredit to journalists everywhere by serving up blatant propaganda in the form of “news.”
And the US military and US government should be ashamed to have had Brooks (the only official representative) blowing smoke based on such flimsy “evidence.”
You are right, it was not everyone, and I therefore retract that statement. The actual language of the article:
Look, I’m not saying the article is the Rosetta Stone on the issue, but there have been many people in this thread, (who have been conspicuously absent since these reports were posted I might add) who have claimed that it was impossible that these people were rushing the checkpoint. They have claimed that speculation that this was anything less than the total tragedy it appears to have been at first glance is immoral war mongering. There was even a pit thread opened on the topic, if you haven’t seen it. (where I would also note that participation from the more militant bleeding hearts has also dropped off since these reports were published)
All I have said is that it was possible, just possible, that there was coercion going on. Just a few days later we had an incident with the screaming woman who appeared to be pregnant. Either she was an unwilling victim, which shows the Iraqis are willing to blow up their own pregnant women for a chance to kill a few soldiers, or she was a willing participant. Perhaps she was screaming to attract attention and lure the soldiers closer. Either way, the incident is further evidence of the fact that seemingly innocent civilians are involved in these attacks, contrary to assertions in this thread such as:
All I need to make is a de minimus showing that it is possible, and I believe I have done that. To wit:
[list=1]
[li]Suicide attack several days prior to the incident we have been discussing here at a nearby checkpoint, demonstrates a desire to attack checkpoints.[/li][li]Apparent irrational behavior on the part of the driver in this incident, see also ExTanks’s first hand experience and comments on the nature of military checkpoints. See also the comments in the WP article from the soldiers on the scene, who noted that this driver did not behave the way any other civilian driver had approaching their checkpoint.[/li][li]Obvious public relations benefit for the regime in having civilians killed by coalition forces.[/li][li]Demonstrable disregard for civilian life by the regime in the past, examples too numerous to list.[/li][li]Comments by clerics that people rushing checkpoints are acting under duress. No he didn’t mention, at least in the report we have, this particular incident, but it is reasonable to infer, given the timing of his statement relative to this incident, that his comments applied here.[/li][li]Most recent attack involving a woman who appeared to be pregnant, and was possibly conspiring with the bomber to kill soldiers. Demonstrates that either some pregnant women are willing to act as suicide bombers, or that suicide bombers are willing to kill their own pregnant women. Either reading attacks the argument that the van could not have been on a suicide mission because suicide bombers don’t take their families with them. [/li][/list=1]
If from that list you can’t conclude that there was a possibility of intentional attack, then I guess we just disagree.
Actually, Rhum, I’ve several times said that I acknowledge a possibility of an intentional attack. As a matter of principle, I never exclude any possibility when a situation is as murky as this one (it’s odd, for example, that discrepancies remain as to the number of dead). It’s possible, to take just one example, that the Washington Post reporter is not very good and bungled this story.
You asked me what I thought of the Washington Times article, and I replied.
(I do realize though that, by your account, there are other posters who, unlike me, have been positively excluding the possiblity. That may be true; I just don’t remember.)
My point has all along been that when a possibility is as remote as this possibility seems to be, the position of the US government and of any responsible press should reflect that remoteness. But elements of the press (Fox, WT) have not been responsible: on the contrary, they have tried to cast as much doubt as possible by using the flimsiest of evidence, combined with unfounded speculation and irrelevant supportive data. And the spokesperson for the US military also blew smoke. The American people deserve better than that. And the rest of the world can rightly point to this an example of disingenuousness on the part of officials, and (resultant) cluelessness on the part of many Americans.
This aspect of our debate as entered glue factory territory for me, and I suspect for you as well.
Ok, finally managed to catch up with this thread… Phew!
I’m not quite sure if you include me among those people, Rhum, or whom you refer to… Maybe you could be a bit more specific?
Either way I have never stated anything of the kind. I have said that speaking in possibilities - possible and not possible - is quite useless. Since everything is possible until we know for a fact.
Speaking in likelyhoods is what we should do in this thread. And I do maintain that, still, in all likelyhood this was an accident, given the total evidence posted here as of yet (including the WP article).
Which is pretty irrelevant unless an opponent has stated otherwise. Maybe someone has…? Certainly not Mandelstam, i would hope!
And either way we do not know as of yet if she was pregnant or not. She appeared to be. So either she was, or she had a pillow under her clothes. Both very possible still, no? Which is most likely? I’d ahve to say non-pregnant until further evidence.
This incident is evidence only to that some iraqis are using suicide bombings against US and British troops. Nothing more, yet. The absolute majority of suicide bombers have been “seemingly innocent civilians”. Why it’s certainly part of my mental image of “suicide bomber”.
It is still very unlikely! There are no confirmed cases that I am aware of where a suicide bomber have taken a whole bunch of children with him/her. Or even a single child.
In the cites posted by Mandelstam the survivors themselves say nothing about any form of coercion! By now the US army have had a long time to interogate the survivors. Nothing to that effect has emerged.
Off course new information may emerge. Then this thread, this speculation might actually be justified. As of now it is not.
I just wanted to pop-in and ask if OliverH if he has any more cites, besides the one he recently gave, about non-US coalition forces who said “they quite consistenly have expressed disgust and contempt at the way the US Forces have been interacting with others.”