Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Four killed in the streets of Baghdad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Four killed in the streets of Baghdad

    It's still unclear who exactly these people were.

    Originally posted by Associated Press
    FALLUJAH, Iraq - Jubilant residents dragged the charred corpses of four foreigners — one a woman, at least one an American — through the streets Wednesday and hanged them from the bridge spanning the Euphrates River. Five American troops died in a roadside bombing nearby.

    The four foreigners were killed in a rebel ambush of their SUVs in Fallujah, a Sunni Triangle city about 35 miles west of Baghdad and scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.

    It was reminiscent of the 1993 scene in Somalia, when a mob dragged the corpse of a U.S. soldier through the streets of Mogadishu, eventually leading to the American withdrawal from the African nation.

    In one of the bloodiest days for the U.S. military this year, five American troops died when their military vehicle ran over a bomb in a separate incident 12 miles to the northwest, among the reed-lined roads running through some of Iraq's richest farmland.

    Residents said the bomb attack occurred in Malahma, 12 miles northwest of Fallujah, where anti-U.S. insurgents are active. U.S. Marines operate in the area, but it was unclear whether the slain troops were Marines.

    Chanting "Fallujah is the graveyard of Americans," residents cheered after the grisly assault on two four-wheel-drive civilian vehicles, which left both in flames. Others chanted, "We sacrifice our blood and souls for Islam."

    Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.

    "The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep," resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.

    Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase "Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans."

    APTN showed the charred remains of three slain men. Some were wearing flak jackets, said resident Safa Mohammedi.

    One resident displayed what appeared to be dog tags taken from one body. Residents also said there were weapons in the targeted cars. APTN showed one American passport near a body and a U.S. Department of Defense dentification card belonging to another man.

    U.S. military officials in Washington said the situation was still confused but they did not think the victims were American soldiers and believed the SUVs were not American military vehicles.

    Witnesses said the two vehicles were attacked with small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades.

    Hours after the attack, the city was quiet. No U.S. troops or Iraqi police were seen in the area.

    Fallujah is in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where support for Saddam Hussein was strong and rebels often carry out attacks against American forces.

    In nearby Ramadi, insurgents threw a grenade at a government building and Iraqi security forces returned fire Wednesday, witnesses said. It was not clear if there were casualties.

    Also in Ramadi, a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy, witnesses said. U.S. officials in Baghdad could not confirm the attack.
    Animals.
    Editor-in-Chief
    GameSquad.com

  • #2
    in their minds they are fighting the good fight, if it was a western country in the same situation we would be fighting the same way, but probably not dragging corpses thru the street, but hey thats our value system not thiers.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      The president has tried to force democracy and happiness upon people who for most part haven't earned it and quite frankly don't need it at this time in their development. Next time (I hope there isn't "next" time) when this country moves against a hostile Middle Eastern regime it will kill as many members of the ruling class as possible, raze all presidential palaces and then withdraw without worrying about the population and its needs for democracy. The happiness or unhapiness of an ordinary citizen has no sygnificance in the Arab world, but when the anti-American foreign minister Prince Abdullah gets shot and killed by US troops people take notice. The dead and wounded Iraqi civilians will be forgotten but the end of Saddam and his two evil sons will be remembered in the region for the next 500 years.

      Tragic and bitter lessons in Iraq but there was no other way to convince the White House which was so naive it was out of control. I still remember that incredibly naive carrier speech about how the Iraqis looked into the eyes of the US troops and saw love and compasssion and so on.

      The president has won the war but now it will be best if he leaves office. I have no doubt operation Iraqi Freedom will prove to be full success in the end because quite frankly even 7 car bombs per week can't stop the inevitable transition of power, but the fruits of this success will benefit the wrong people.
      Last edited by MonsterZero; 31 Mar 04, 09:30.

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        BTW, this American tendency to see enemies as friends is nothing new. Look at FDR and how he adored Stalin. He thought "he could trust" Stalin.

        "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
        --Frederick II, King of Prussia

        Comment


        • #5
          And so it goes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            [...] withdraw without worrying about the population and its needs for democracy.
            Well, problem : for many people the situation has become worse and you, still, can not live on Democracy itself.

            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            The happiness or unhapiness of an ordinary citizen has no sygnificance in the Arab world,the dead and wounded Iraqi civilians will be forgotten but the end of Saddam and his two evil sons will be remembered in the region for the next 500 years.
            Don't tell me the US worried about civilian casulties in their last wa..., err, humanitarian actions, or works to remind of them.
            Well, who invented the idea of "collateral damage", again?

            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            I still remember that incredibly naive carrier speech about how the Iraqis looked into the eyes of the US troops and saw love and compasssion and so on.
            Well, the Nazis (this should not be a simily too the poor US GIs)
            also saw love and compassion when they "liberated" the first parts of the Soviet union, but that also changed because nothing became better for the population.

            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            but the fruits of this success will benefit the wrong people.
            Here I completely agree with you, as we speak obviously more and more fanatics (re-)gain power. just see what they have provoced again, but I think you can't blame the mob alone for all of this.
            "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
            which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
            The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
            returned to its home base."

            Comment


            • #7
              mr_clark, I understand your country's pressing need for Iraqi oil even at the expense of keeping people like Saddam in power. Germany is the biggest country in Europe now and those BMWs on the autobahn burn lots of gas.

              I understand your position, if Germany doesn't grab her slice of pizza, somebody else will.

              "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
              --Frederick II, King of Prussia

              Comment


              • #8
                Iraq is real messed up. Until Bremer and the rest of the Coalition recognize the violence is resistance to organization, law & order, and not just occupation, the situation will continue to deteriorate. American troops have alienated themselves from the population by withdrawing behind barricades, leaving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to cope with kid-nappings, robberies, and murders. Studies confirm the Iraqi police are ill-prepared to address all these problems. Training focuses on combatting resistance to the occupation force. Vigilanty justice is one remedy Iraqis are turning to. The other is protection organized by Islamic clerics, who are in some cases the source for local violence they are contracted to protect against.

                The US and the Iraqi Interim government must develop a clear strategy designed to build confidence in somekind of judicial system. A risky part of this strategy would be allocating resources committed to fighting insurgents to addressing crime, and increasing our presence until Iraqi officers have had time to properly train. Yet, the end result, peace and stability, makes it an acceptable risk.

                Originally posted by mr_clark
                Don't tell me the US worried about civilian casulties in their last wa..., err, humanitarian actions, or works to remind of them.
                Well, who invented the idea of "collateral damage", again?
                I think we the military worried alot about civilians casualties, and tried to minimize them. During the war, and even now, commanders and leaders recognize the importance of winning over the population. This doesn't mean we did our best. On the contrary, I am critical of incidents where American soldiers could have exercised greater restraint to avoid civilian casualties. Yet, overall, I think we did, and do a better job than most armies would under similar circumstances.

                [RANT: Unrelated]
                The invasion of Iraq, IMHO, was not a humanitarian effort. We did so mainly for our own interest. If we were to analyze this debate purely from an humanitarian perspective, I believe most people would find neither side pursued a policy that actually minimized the suffering of civilians. Both camps pursued policies which in many ways appeared to lack emphasis on Iraqi civilians. Those who supported the war created instability, increased poverty, and basically replaced an evil dragon with a pool of snakes. Those who opposed the war thought it best to allow the Iraqi people to suffer under Saddam's rule.

                The sad truth is no one has anything to be proud about when it comes to Iraq. Maybe we will in the future. Our societies are so caught up in egotistical displays of nationalism, we have yet to realize just how far our actions stray away from our ideals and purpose. Maybe if we looked each other in the eye, and honestly said "I did what was best for me" instead of trying to look good, we'd have more respect for each others positions.[/RANT]
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MonsterZero
                  mr_clark, I understand your country's pressing need for Iraqi oil even at the expense of keeping people like Saddam in power. Germany is the biggest country in Europe now and those BMWs on the autobahn burn lots of gas.

                  I understand your position, if Germany doesn't grab her slice of pizza, somebody else will.

                  Ahh, now I see, it's the Bundeswehr who invaded Iraq, liberated the oilf... ah civilians and protected important governemnt buildings (well, at least the oil ministry) from looting. And it's Germany and not the USA who, with 5% of the worlds population is the Nr. 1 enegry consumer and consumes more than the following 4 states together ! STATISTIC
                  Sure, we are the ones who desperately need to secure our energy resources, and especially oil, it's certainly not the USA who is the worlds Nr.1 oil consumer and consumes more than the following six countries combined! STATISTIC

                  It's all so clear now
                  "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                  Henry Alfred Kissinger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MonsterZero
                    mr_clark, I understand your country's pressing need for Iraqi oil even at the expense of keeping people like Saddam in power. Germany is the biggest country in Europe now and those BMWs on the autobahn burn lots of gas.

                    I understand your position, if Germany doesn't grab her slice of pizza, somebody else will.

                    Well, sure, and what country was it again that spent billions supporting the Iraqi regime between 1980 and 1989, and made them believe they can't be stopped if they take what they want and invade Kuwait? Of course the money this very country "donated" was used internationally, investing in Soviet tanks and western European military hardware and technology. Why they spend their cash on non-American equipment? Hmm, guess it was because all the old M-60's were sold to Iran in the mid 1980s...
                    "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
                    which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
                    The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
                    returned to its home base."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The motivation behind Germany's policy on Iraq is economical. The EU's energy demands are expected to rise to around 50% vs the America's 70% or more in the thirty years or so. The European governments have pursued new strategies to reduce those figures. However, heavy oil import dependence is pretty much universal, and continues to drive foriegn policy, particularly in reference to the Middle East.

                      From an economic standpoint, Germany, like France stood to benefit more from keeping Saddam's regime in place and at odds with the US rather than supporting the invasion. Bush offered concessions to both Germany and France. Yet, Chirac and Schroeder wanted more than a simple handshake and smile. In 2002, they'd both seen how Bush failed to uphold his end of a deal with Russia in exchange for Putin's support of the war in Iraq. An UN resolution placing the organization in control of the Nation-building effort in Iraq was the best way to ensure Bush Jr upheld his end of the bargin. Of course, he refused.

                      I also believe France and Germany, who are just emerging from the Cold War background, feared being forced back into the shadows by the strengthening of America's position in the Middle East.

                      When you look at it objectively, all the major powers involved could trace their policies on Iraq to economics. It is tragic a compromise could not be reached that would have eased enough concerns to permit the US to go forward with invasion with broader international support. I'm certain it existed.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Kraut, interesting links.
                        "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game."
                        "Hey, you just made that rule up."


                        Heil Dicke Bertha!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          On the cover of this morning's ''Irish Independent'' a pretty conservative newspaper, there is a photo of the two bodies janging from the bridge. They are just charred pieces of charcoal really.

                          This is brutal stuff but are we sure we are not just seeing this through western eyes, I mean if they were Iraqi security guards would we even get to hear about it? Perhaps but only just.

                          TBH I don't think any Iraqi police or military force would survive long if the US forces were out of the picture.

                          It seems to me the Iraqi opposition has proved itself ruthless and determined enough to deal with any force the Americans choose to leave behind once they park themselves out of the way when power is handed over.

                          Are we looking at a ''Decent Interval'' scenario like in Vietnam that allows the US to withdraw and then after a period of time a new anti American military force regains Baghdad and other cities.

                          Well we don't the future but it is certainly a plausable outcome.
                          http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            At this point I would support involving the UN if a significant portion of the UN members are committed to doing something constructive in Iraq. With UN support it's possible that Morocco, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt might send some aid to help police the nation and stabilize the security situation. Although Iraqi resistance groups have stated that they will treat all foreigners alike, a lot of this may be rhetoric.

                            The problem with this is at a root level. As Deltaphooh has correctly pointed out, all the major powers have other agendas in Iraq. The US wants to establish a friendly democracy in the region. Other countries have their own ideas and political ideals. It is quite possible that even with UN support the situation might not improve. If the UN does get directly involved there's no telling how that might turn out. There are a few nations that have a fairly significant vested interest in seeing this whole project fail. They would love to see that, as a stable, happy Iraq does not suit their purposes. I have no doubt that some would actively work to undermine the credibility of the UN itself.

                            Consider this possibility: President Bush does an abrupt about face and presents a fair minded proposal to the UN which allows for a transfer of control to the UN itself. The UN would then be in a position of having to recruit the necessary forces from countries willing to participate, set up some type of command structure, and design a funding scheme for the whole operation. All forces in Iraq would then adopt the "blue beret" on the UN forces. Sounds good so far. But the senior UN staff would surely realize that the credibility of the organization would be laid on the line. The UN supporters have been claiming that the US-led coalition should have been the UN all along. If the UN did assume the mission, it might be a do or die affair. If the UN assumed control and Bush gave in to all the UN's demands, where would the blame be placed if the operation goes sour? If the UN put all of its considerable clout into the effort, yet was still unable to achieve results better than the US-led coalition, what would that mean for the future of the Security Council? If the US government gives the UN what it wants (what it says it wants anyway), and the UN fails to live up to the task, it could very well be the swan song of the Security Council.

                            For this reason I believe there is an excellent chance that the UN will talk a lot, but will actually attempt to avoid taking control. UN diplomats will scream that this should be a UN mission, not a "unilateral" US action. However, they won't accept it if it is handed to them. They will come up with a series of ever more restrictive prerequisites to postpone the issue.

                            Do I think the UN could be of assistance at this point if it wanted? Yes, but I think various members will attempt to block anything constructive at this point. Giving speeches and putting forward grand proposals on multilateral foreign policy schemes is all fine and dandy, but when it comes right down to actually doing something--the UN will balk.

                            For better or worse this is going to remain a US-led operation for the foreseeable future--even if John Kerry is elected and makes nice with everybody.
                            Editor-in-Chief
                            GameSquad.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Don Maddox
                              All forces in Iraq would then adopt the "blue beret" on the UN forces. Sounds good so far. But the senior UN staff would surely realize that the credibility of the organization would be laid on the line.
                              Not dissimilar to the way US credibility has been on the line for a while, both from the way the run up to the war was handled, but also in the aftermath. That might have been an tenable argument before the war broke out, but now that there's a nation of 25 million with a serious security problem, the potential loss of face/credibilty is somewhat irrelevant.

                              In any case, the way the "UN is useless" rhetoric has been the past couple of years, I find it hard to believe it matters. The critics of the UN (the irrational ones, the UN is by no means perfect) already believe that the UN has no credibilty and is worthless, so "proving" them right or wrong doesn't really change anything.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X