← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 19870 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-08-29
2005-08-29 06:31 | User Profile
Even if this shooting really was an accident, what happened in its aftermath is disgusting and inexcusable. I have nothing against the decent soldiers in Iraq who are there just because they have to be, but as for those sick bastards who can refuse to give water to a dying man that they just shot, and who can laugh and joke in the presence of people who are crying over an innocent loved one's body -- I hope they come home in body bags themselves! We have enough conscienceless criminal thugs in this country.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050828/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestmedialead[/url]
US sniper kills Reuters soundman in Iraq Sun Aug 28, 3:13 PM ET
US forces in Baghdad shot dead a Reuters television soundman and wounded a cameraman, Iraqi police said.
"American soldiers opened fire on the team, killing the soundman and wounding the cameraman before detaining him," the police said.
The crew had arrived at the scene of an earlier rebel attack on an Iraqi police convoy in al-Adel district, west of Baghdad, which killed two and wounded one, police said.
US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said the incident was unfortunate but stopped short of apologising.
"This is unfortunate... but sometimes mistakes are made. We don't target civilians," he said when questioned by reporters covering the finalisation of Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein constitution.
"Military operations unfortunately are not a perfect science... Sometimes mistakes happen, and when they are made we investigate," he added.
Reuters said 35-year-old Waleed Khaled was shot in the face and took at least four bullets to the chest, while cameraman Haidar Kadhem was wounded in the back.
"I heard shooting, looked up and saw an American sniper on the roof of the shopping centre," Kadhem told colleagues who arrived at the scene before he was detained by US troops, it said.
Two Iraqi colleagues who arrived on the scene minutes after the shooting were also briefly detained, then released, Reuters said.
**They said that Khaled was still alive when they reached him, and that US troops refused to give him water despite the blazing sun.
"They (US soldiers) treated us like dogs. They made us... including Khaled who was wounded and asking for water, stay in the sun on the road," Reuters quoted a television crew member Mohammed Idriss as saying.**
A Reuters correspondent who arrived at the scene about an hour after the shooting, said Khaled's body was still in the driver's seat, the face covered by a cloth.
"Entry and exit wounds could be seen on the face indicating shots from the victim's right. There were several bullet holes in the windscreen and at least four wounds in the chest," Reuters quoted its correspondent as saying.
"His US military and Reuters press cards, clipped to his shirt, were caked in blood. In one, there were two bullet holes," it said.
To the right of the scene, a U.S. soldier, apparently a sniper, was posted on the roof of a shopping centre, it added.
After a brief inspection of the car in which Reuters team travelled, US troops allowed Reuters staff and the dead man's family to have it towed away. They handed them a military body bag to remove the corpse, Reuters said.
"As Waleed's tearful relatives inspected the body at the scene, a US soldier said: 'Don't bother. It's not worth it'. A few other soldiers joked among themselves just a few meters (feet) from the body", it added.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said early August that at least 52 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion to topple Saddam began in March 2003. Another 21 media support staff such as drivers, translators, and security guards have also been killed in the line of duty.
Insurgent actions were responsible for the bulk of the deaths, it added.
2005-08-29 10:02 | User Profile
Angler,
Taking this report at face value I'd say an apology isn't good enough. An investigation followed by a courtmartial sounds in order to me. I'd love to know more about this incident for I have seen one of those rifles and looked through the scope. You damn well can see what your target is in detail as it seems in this case due to the I.D. card being used as an aiming point.
It is stupid and cruel stuff like this that helps the resistance to recruit members.
2005-08-29 12:59 | User Profile
Reuters said 35-year-old Waleed Khaled ...
Was this an iraqi working for reuters ?
You (sert and angler) shouldnt be so quick to complain about troops being mean/cruel. You might want to ask an elderly WWII vet who fought the japs what he saw or done to the little slant-eyed bugers.
2005-08-29 13:09 | User Profile
Yeah, he was a "stringer". The US media uses them simply because it is unsafe for an American would be at risk to walk the streets.
2005-08-29 13:11 | User Profile
Angler,
Well do not forget the wounded Iraqi POWââ¬â¢s who shoot and killed by US soldiers some time back. I am sick of the Neocons promoting such savagery.
2005-08-29 13:13 | User Profile
The only reason we hear about this story is because the victim worked for an international news agency. I'm sure there's 100's or 1000's of similiar shootings of innocents by the US military that we never, ever will hear about. What America is doing in Iraq is the most unholy thing I've ever seen this country do.
2005-08-29 13:14 | User Profile
You have to bear in mind that our troops are now hostages of a sort, being kept in harm's way far beyond a prudent tour-of-duty length. We don't know if there have already been insurgents there using phony or stolen press credentials to wreak havoc; and the longer our guys are left there, the less it's going to matter to them if and when they make these gruesome errors of judgment.
Like it or not, this is war. Human decency is not one of the qualities that keeps you alive in a combat zone. My Lais don't occur spontaneously, out of the blue; they take place after displays of trust and decency are betrayed by being hugged by detonating children and 'innocent villagers' who toss grenades at you after you let your guard down.
I'm not excusing such incidents, but trying to approach this realistically. There's a reason you want to resolve things through diplomacy and use the military only to defend your actual national interests rather than those of Jewish policy wonks; and things like this are among them. Strip away abstract, photogenic concepts like [I]honor [/I] and [I]courage [/I] and [I]cowardice [/I] and all the rest of them, and the bare-bones reality of war is that there is only the [U]living[/U], and the [U]dead[/U]. I'm sure our guys are tired of 'noncombatants' driving car bombs into crowds, too: and the longer we keep them there as cannon fodder and human targets, the less they're going to care about the cost of making sure that they're still alive, and the [I]other guy [/I] is dead.
2005-08-29 13:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]You (sert and angler) shouldnt be so quick to complain about troops being mean/cruel. You might want to ask an elderly WWII vet who fought the japs what he saw or done to the little slant-eyed bugers.[/QUOTE] Josey,
Note that I prefaced my comment about taking this report "at face value." You simply can't go around shooting folks just for the hell of it without making someone mad. If Il Ragno's theory is correct, then no problem. I personally think that enemy combatants captured wearing civilian clothes and no identifying marker showing them as combatants should be executed.
2005-08-29 13:52 | User Profile
Loathsome people The Freepers, Dershowitz and Horowitz are glorifying this kind of savagery, torture, and mass murder and that one find very disturbing.
US Troops Kill Injured Iraqi Prisoner on Film [url]http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-11/16/article01.shtml[/url]
2005-08-29 13:52 | User Profile
Sert:
I don't minimize the horror of things like this. But when hitmen kill the target you point out to them, the onus of guilt should fall heaviest on the guy taking out the contract - not the contractor.
I don't have a good feeling thinking about the men who put our troops in kill-or-be-killed situations day after month after year - with no end or relief in sight - getting all 'moral' and choosing scapegoats, by lot, when things go fubar. You wanna know why I rant and rave about nuking Israel? It's the fact that Bill Kristol gets to eat a steak dinner tonight and trade witticisms with his fellow Jews.... while the kids he's helped shove into this meatgrinder have to relinquish their humanity just to stay alive.
2005-08-29 15:32 | User Profile
Il Ragno,
I don't disagree with you about who is ultimately responsible. I'm looking at this from a tactical point of view whereas, yours is strategic. Like you, I am just as pissed off at those who put these guys in this position in the first place for the vilest of reasons.
What was that you used to say? Oh, yes, "Kill the ghoul. Nuke Israel". Right now I wouldn't be too upset if I woke up one morning if Israel and those three subs they have were discovered to have disappeared. [IMG]http://www.xs4all.nl/~ernstmul/images/jewish/jsmile014.gif[/IMG] I would want to see the Madagascar option put into effect to compliment this.
2005-08-29 16:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You have to bear in mind that our troops are now hostages of a sort, being kept in harm's way far beyond a prudent tour-of-duty length. We don't know if there have already been insurgents there using phony or stolen press credentials to wreak havoc; and the longer our guys are left there, the less it's going to matter to them if and when they make these gruesome errors of judgment.
Like it or not, this is war. Human decency is not one of the qualities that keeps you alive in a combat zone. My Lais don't occur spontaneously, out of the blue; they take place after displays of trust and decency are betrayed by being hugged by detonating children and 'innocent villagers' who toss grenades at you after you let your guard down.
I'm not excusing such incidents, but trying to approach this realistically. There's a reason you want to resolve things through diplomacy and use the military only to defend your actual national interests rather than those of Jewish policy wonks; and things like this are among them. Strip away abstract, photogenic concepts like [I]honor [/I] and [I]courage [/I] and [I]cowardice [/I] and all the rest of them, and the bare-bones reality of war is that there is only the [U]living[/U], and the [U]dead[/U]. I'm sure our guys are tired of 'noncombatants' driving car bombs into crowds, too: and the longer we keep them there as cannon fodder and human targets, the less they're going to care about the cost of making sure that they're still alive, and the [I]other guy [/I] is dead.[/QUOTE] I understand what you're saying, but just to make it clear: I'm not angry about the accidental shooting (assuming it was really an accident) so much as the wanton cruelty displayed in its aftermath. Whether in a war zone or at home on a golf course, there's just no excuse to laugh and joke at the expense of family members who are weeping over the bleeding body of a loved one, since at that point it was already clear that a terrible mistake had been made. That kind of behavior is simply demonic -- and, like Sert said, it will fuel the insurgency.
I also want to reiterate that I have no problem with US soldiers who are decent and who are merely stuck in Iraq, just trying to survive. Not all of them (or even most of them?) are "Freepers in uniform," if you will. You hear about a lot of soldiers needing counseling after witnessing the deaths of civilians. While it's unfortunate that they have been psychologically scarred by their experiences, at least it shows that they're decent people and have consciences.
Of course I agree that the ultimate blame lies on those who started this war. No argument there.
2005-08-29 16:55 | User Profile
Just remember those famous words of our nations greatest philosopher..."They hate us for our freedom."
VDARE.COM - [url]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050828_iraq.htm[/url]
August 28, 2005 Does Anyone Know What We Are Doing in Iraq?
By Paul Craig Roberts
President Bush is out of touch with the American people, the US military, and international political reality.
With every poll showing smaller and smaller minorities approving of Bush and his war in Iraq, with top US generals sending signals that they want to reduce US troops in Iraq, and with the world at large viewing Bush as a fanatic who cannot acknowledge his blunders and mistakes, Bush announced in his weekly radio address that "our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve."
Does Bush think he is a dictator?
The polls show that it is the American peopleââ¬â¢s resolve that Bush bring his Iraq venture to an end, an orderly end if possible, but to an end. Every explanation Bush has given for his invasion of Iraq has proved to be false. Yet, Bush still speaks of "our noble cause," while taking great care to avoid Cindy Sheehan and her question, "What is the noble cause?"
Perhaps Bush supplied the answer in his reference in his weekly radio address to "our efforts in . . . the broader Middle East."
What are our efforts "in the broader Middle East"?
The only American efforts "in the broader Middle East" that have been defined are in the policy writings of Bushââ¬â¢s neoconservative advisers who cooked up the invasion of Iraq. For the neocons, our efforts are in behalf of Israelââ¬â¢s security.
The neoconsââ¬â¢ belief that Israel is made more secure by US military aggression in the Middle East is delusional. How is Israel made secure by an invasion that turns the Muslim world against America as all polls show and Iraq into a training ground for al Qaeda, as the CIA says has happened?
The US has been defeated in Iraq, both militarily by a limited insurgency drawn from only 20 percent of the population and politically by Iraqi divisions as the "constitutional process" demonstrates.
As Knight Ridder reported on August 25:
"Insurgents in Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the US military to a stalemate. After repeated major combat offensives in Fallujah and Ramadi, and after losing hundreds of soldiers and Marines in Anbar during the past two years--including 75 since June 1--many American officers and enlisted men assigned to Anbar have stopped talking about winning a military victory in Iraqââ¬â¢s Sunni heartland."
"I donââ¬â¢t think of this in terms of winning," said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines . . . The frustrating part for the (home) audience, if you will, is they want finality. They want a fight for the town and in the end the guy with the white hat wins."
Thatââ¬â¢s unlikely in Anbar, Col. Davis said.
Frustrated by a determined insurgency, Bush administration officials predict that improvements will follow the Iraq constitution. However, the constitution may be leading to civil war.
Sunnis say they will reject the constitution because it leaves them out of the oil wealth, which goes to the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, and because it is punitive toward the old ruling party, that is, toward Sunnis.
Perhaps it is the neocon plan for Shiites and Kurds to join the US military in a war to the death against Sunnis.
But what comes next? How would Turkey regard a largely autonomous oil rich Kurdistan on the border of its own Kurdish province?
And how would a war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis play out in the Middle East divided along those lines? Does the US want to wed itself to Iranian Shiites against Saudi Sunnis?
It sounds like a lot of long term instability. Perhaps the old Islamic divisions are what the US government is relying on to enable it to continue to rule the Middle East. Muslims might consume themselves in their internal hatreds while the US builds its bases to control the oil.
Thatââ¬â¢s been the tried and true practice of Western colonialists since the fall of the Turkish empire after World War I.
Can it work this time? US ambitions are too much of a threat to other countries which are well positioned to cause us grief. Will the world be able to resist the opportunities to undermine an over-extended and self-righteous United States?
Sooner or later, too, Shiite and Sunni leaders will realize that they are pawns in American hands bleeding themselves in behalf of American power. Sooner or later Muslim humiliation at the hands of the US and Israel will permit an Osama bin Laden to reunify the Muslim world.
These are, of course, speculations. But history has few events without unintended and unrecognized consequences.
2005-08-29 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I also want to reiterate that I have no problem with US soldiers who are decent and who are merely stuck in Iraq, just trying to survive. Not all of them (or even most of them?) are "Freepers in uniform," if you will. You hear about a lot of soldiers needing counseling after witnessing the deaths of civilians. While it's unfortunate that they have been psychologically scarred by their experiences, at least it shows that they're decent people and have consciences.[/QUOTE]
Something that's never spoken of lest it toss an inconvenient monkey-wrench into the Machinery of War. We know about the KIAs and the guys who return all decked out in catheters and wheelchairs forthe rest of their lives. The press won't do more than allude to them, but we know they're there (and later when some of them become drug- or booze-addicted and homeless, they magically become the people 'conservatives' point to when they fret about declining social standards....America much prefers her veterans to be intact, thumbs-up cheerful and suffering no ill effects whatsoever). But what of the ones who successfully kill for Israel in America's name without incurring injury? Do they come back 'intact'?
Of course, eventually these 19 and 20-year-olds are gonna be 30, 35, 40 years old and they're going to be wrestling....like ol' Smedley Butler did...with what they [I]had to do [/I] to win the day for good ol' United Fruit. It's of course a godawful thing to be shipped home in a box or attached to an i.v., but we're also asking those 19-year-olds to kill total strangers in a sovereign nation that's never done us a moment's harm, and not all of them are going to handle that the same way. Some will adjust to it; some will laugh at dying men begging for water; and some won't ever be okay with any of it. None of them, in this case, will ever be able to say 'they had it coming' because their cruelest and most deserving enemies - [I]America's [/I] enemies - are all back home, swapping one-liners on the NR blog page, wearing tailored suits and eating lobster and foie gras, and equating [I]suspicion of Israel [/I] with [I]treason to America [/I] at well-attended fundraisers and symposiums in our nation's capital. If our kids were allowed to open fire at a few of [I]them[/I], they could at least justify it as drastic measures needed to root out a clear and present danger to America - the true enemies of their homeland.
2005-09-01 14:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I understand what you're saying, but just to make it clear: I'm not angry about the accidental shooting (assuming it was really an accident) so much as the wanton cruelty displayed in its aftermath. [/QUOTE] If the story is true as written, and in my experience stories we read are only part of the truth, your point is spot on and a key concern of the entire leadership within uniform. The only way to win hearts and minds is to be unrelentingly professional in the conduct of this nation building effort, or guerrilla war, or both, or "Safety and Stability" operation. Or mess.
Why? As the Marines found out in Haiti 1994, as Somalia showed, as some good folks in Bosnia found out, you are under a microscope and every faux paus gets magnified to the international political level from the squad level. There is no buffer provided by the chain of command.
The Iraq combat operation is an exercise in political muscle, and if the folks in it reflect a less than professional image, for example that complete idiocy at Abu Graib, the damage done to every other group of folks over there, in terms of their unavoidable guilt by association and the fuel given the opposing side's fires of motivation, is immense.
I honestly don't think the civilian leadership, save maybe Rumsfeld on a good day, ever understood that from day one.
It still boils down, however, to the relentless exercise of good leadership and discipline at the battalion, company, platoon, and squad level. Hard, hard, hard. Maybe, in the 24/7 satellite media age, impossible.
Whoever referenced My Lai is on to a good thought, but it is important to remember that the officer in charge of that platoon was a 90 day wonder. He was at higher risk of being unable to maintain good order and discipline under fire. The current "professionals only" structure generally drives those odds down, but as this story appears to show, can't completely eliminate it.
I recall the tag line from the Canon camera commercial with Andre Agassi.
"Image is everything."
In a hand held video cam media war, it sure is.
AE