US kills 40 in mosque attack in Iraq

[Shalu Ban]

US - led forces did this
No wonder an Iraqi says:
�We were pleased when the Americans overthrew Saddam's miserable regime but today our lives are worse than they were when he ruled in Baghdad.�
[ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Shalu Ban ]

[Michael Ernest]

I couldn't access that article, so I'm wondering if this is the response the US chose to the attacks on US nationals and soldiers a few days ago.

[Warren Dew]

Here's another link:
Toronto Star article (really long link at www.thestar.com)[/URL]
Another excerpt:

Reports said the bombing of the Abdel-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque in Falluja culminated a six-hour battle in which, marines said, fighters in the mosque fired a rocket-propelled grenade that wounded five Marines. An F-16 then dropped a 225-kilogram bomb on the mosque perimeter and a helicopter fired a missile into the compound.
There were varying reports of casualties. Associated Press reported that Iraqis said up to 40 people were killed. U.S. officials said no civilians died.
An Associated Press reporter who went to the mosque said the minaret was standing, but damaged, apparently by shrapnel. The bomb blew away part of a wall, opening an entry for the marine assault. The reporter saw at least three cars leaving, each with a number of dead and wounded.
Speaking on CNN, American Brig.-Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the mosque structure was not damaged. He said provisions of the Geneva Conventions that protect holy places during war were nullified when insurgents attacked U.S. Marines from the mosque.
"When you start using a religious location for military purposes, it loses its protected status," he said.

That's in the "triangle" area north of Baghdad.
There's also stuff happening with regard to Al-Sadr south of Baghdad (he's the cleric who's wanted for killing another cleric, and whose newspaper the U.S. shut down recently).

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I couldn't access that article, so I'm wondering if this is the response the US chose to the attacks on US nationals and soldiers a few days ago.

Sometimes I wonder why a headline news is not known to people ??

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Shalu Ban:

�We were pleased when the Americans overthrew Saddam's miserable regime but today our lives are worse than they were when he ruled in Baghdad.�

Literally true yesterday, today, and tomorrow - but perhaps not next week or next month. It depends upon how long the fighting lasts. The US is still planning to hand over power to Iraqis on June 30th. The fighting was begun by people who stand to lose by the handover. The Sunni's in Fallujah stand to lose in a democratic Iraq. The young Shia cleric whose 'militia' is fighting attempted to control the government but was shut out of it instead. By his fellow Shias, not the US. He'd rather die than submit, and may well gain his heart's desire....

[John Dunn]

militia-men who fight from mosques while people are praying are ... Very Holy. We should do our utmost to protect them.
[ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: John Dunn ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Unemployment in Iraq is down from 60% when Hussein was in power to 10%. No worshipers were in the mosque whan it was attacked. Under international law when Iraqis uses mosques, schools or hospitals as shields they become buildings.

No wonder an Iraqi says

Around these parts we recognize this as

9) Proof by Limited Survey (Hasty Generalization Fallacy)

[Derek Grey]

In response to the original poster...the American soldiers too did not expect the Iraqis to display their gratitude by murdering and mutilating American people.
Sometimes I wonder how addictive habit is....even when u take people from Hell and put them in Heaven they fight for their freedom to go back to Hell.
Anyways, as another poster correctly stated ..... when terrorists take refuge in a holy shrine its not safe to call it holy anymore. Else everyone would jump into their holy places and get away from the LAW.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shalu Ban:
US - led forces did this

As we should have. No doubt we'll do it again, and rightfully so.
Forty according to the Iraqi Sunnis, although accounts differ. And I'm sure they were all worshippers too. :roll: The mosque itself was never bombed. A wall around the mosque was bombed (although we would have probably been justified in levelling the mosque). I'm surprised not everybody has wised up to their PR tactics by now.
Oh the indignant outrage.

[Joe King]

I expect that most of the Iraqis dont want to cause trouble and don't want to attack the coalition, but there are a small group of people who sense the power vacume, and want to get power of their own.
In a way its like a runners pushing for a good starting position before a race starts - the different groups in Iraq know that the coalition will go at some point, and when they do there is going to be an almighty struggle for power - they are attempting to get as much support as possible before that time.
I'm concerned that its almost impossible for the coalition to stop the fanatics from getting power - if they are left to it then they gain ground, and if they are stopped they become "oppressed" and gain ground through propoganda.
Another problem could happen after the hand over of sovrienty - what if Iraq has elections, and a fundamentalist group gets voted in and orders the coalition to leave? Could the coalition justify calling the elections void and overthrowing the new Iraqi government, or would it leave Iraq as the new Iran? It could be a very interesting year ahead in Iraq.....

[Paul McKenna]

Ok! This does it for me.

..Marchers - carrying colorful flags and banners reading, "Sons of the great Fallujah, we are with you on the road of jihad (holy war) and victory" - came upon the Marine cordon on the western entrance to the city.
After searching the vehicles for weapons, the Marines allowed two ambulances full of medical supplies, two minibuses carrying vegetables and other food and a dozen cars with Sunni clerics and officials to enter the city.

After reading this, I dont really care anymore if US loses the war in Iraq. I mean if the US military would willingly supply food and medicine to its enemies then heck! why should I care?
Maybe Jason can shed some light on this apparent stupidity.

[Don Stadler]

if they are left to it then they gain ground, and if they are stopped they become "oppressed" and gain ground through propoganda.

One obvious way to ensure that these fanatics don't gain power is to give them ground - 6 feet apiece. Which is now happening.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Ok! This does it for me.

After reading this, I dont really care anymore if US loses the war in Iraq. I mean if the US military would willingly supply food and medicine to its enemies then heck! why should I care?
Maybe Jason can shed some light on this apparent stupidity.

Maybe the food was for the tens of thousands of non-combatants in the city? Are they the enemy?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Maybe Jason can shed some light on this apparent stupidity.

While I would be willing to bet that the supplies are destined for combatants, we can't prove that. They are humanitarian supplies so there is no valid reason for us to deny their entry into the city. While there is a cordon around the city, the city is not under seige. The US military is trying to prevent weapons and fighters from entering or exiting the city only, AFAIK.

[HS Thomas]

A British judge has awarded �200,000 to 2 Kossovons who survived an onslaught by peace-keeping paras in Kossovo. British soldiers and politicians are aghast.
Law and order.
[ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
A British judge has awarded �200,000 to 2 Kossovons who survived an onslaught by peace-keeping paras in Kossovo. British soldiers and politicians are aghast.
Law and order.

They can pay that once they cut the cheque to the barristers who defended Al Qaida's man in the UK - which was paid by the UK taxpayer.
The combination of international law, UK domestic law, and UK judges produces amazing results regularly....

[HS Thomas]

There's more. The para-troopers were firing in self-defence. Iraqi civilians may well be filing claims later.
[ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Anand Jayaraman]

Hi guys,
Now look
what the Japanese have gotten into.
Ooooh! Man. Is this not getting a bit tiresome??
[edited to remove derogatory racial term --JM]
[ April 09, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Tony Alicea]

The Japanese have not gotten into anything.
It is the EVIL muslim radicals that have.
We have to destroy them no matter what.
They are anti-Civilization. They are an impediment to the proper development of Humanity as specified by Nature Itself. Even real Muslims agree with this.
Peace!

[Mapraputa Is]

We have to destroy them no matter what.
We already started. (Warning: lots of realistic pictures).

[Tony Alicea]

Great! Things are going according to Nature's plan!
YESSS!!

PS: Are you Anti-American? Wouild you like to see us all dead?
Just askin'!

[Joe Pluta]

This will be my ONLY post in this thread.
I cannot understand someone who shows pictures of dead civilians without denouncing the sick, twisted murderers who caused their deaths by using them as human shields. The implication that these deaths are somehow the fault of the allied forces is incomprehensible.
Only the lowest, most sick-minded of terrorists fires upon armed soldiers from within a civilian building. I mourn for those civilians, and I lay the responsibility for their deaths entirely upon the abject cowards who fired the rocket launchers from within the mosque, and on the people who support their actions, explicitly or implicitly.
Those who do not completely and entirely denounce the demented mindset of madmen who fire at armed soldiers from within mosques, churches, apartment buildings and hospitals are as guilty of any civilian casualties as if they killed those children themselves. Take a close look. These children are the currency of appeasement.
Showing such pictures might serve a purpose if one were to show the mass graves from Hussein's regime; this would be proof that these children would die no matter what we do. At least now they have a chance, although any chance they have is greatly weakened by the apologists for these sickening acts of terror.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

So Tony, you don't have issues with Iraqi people as such, your only concern is that they can somehow kill us? Just checking if I understand you right.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
We already started. (Warning: lots of realistic pictures).

I just heard an LA Times reporter on Fox News. He was speaking from the outskirts of Fallujah. Remember that aid convoy I was complaining about earlier in this thread, the convoy that was carrying food and medicine to the Iraqi insurgents.. guess what!! the insurgents killed the convoy thinking it was US marines under cover. And whom do you think they will blame, Map?? They will portray this murder on Al Jazeera and Portland Times as the fault of US marines.

[Jason Menard]

Pictures of dead bodies posted out-of-context means little. I feel horrible every time an innocent civilian gets killed, but I am also smart enough to realize these civilians get killed because of the choices of the terrorists in most cases. They choose tactics which are designed to protect themselves at the expense of civilians. I guess it doesn't matter, most people in the world are naive enough to eat this stuff up, as evidenced by the link you posted. Can you tell by those pictures who fired the shots that killed those people? Can you tell where they were when they got killed, and who else was where they got killed?
War sucks Map, nobody will argue that. If they want an end to the blood shed, they know what they have to do. Hell, we haven't even had military in that town until they showed that they were unable to behave as civilized human beings should (the four murdered security people were apparently lured to their deaths by "friendly" Iraqi Civil Defense forces btw). I didn't see you reacting in horror to the deaths of those four Map. Where was your outrage and your links to pictures then?
I saw images of some of the fighting. I watched one fighter use a perfect lying stance when he fired his weapon. The people doing the fighting have military training, there is no doubt about it. So, it is likely that the vast majority of these were soldiers, with foreign fighters mixed in. These "soldiers" are not wearing uniforms, they are not obeying any laws of combat, and they are purposely seeking to blend themselves in with non-combatant civilians. Coalition military on the other hand is obeying the laws of combat and only targetting legal targets. If civilians are killed along the way, guess what that probably means in most cases... they were in the midst of legitimate military targets. Why were they probably in the midst of legitimate military targets do you think Map? Because these legitimate military targets try to kill Americans while surrounding themselves with civilians.
I don't think there is anybody serious who claims with a straight face that we withdraw coalition forces from Iraq. That's just plain idiotic and anybody who makes a suggestion hasn't even given the briefest of thoughts to what that means. I don't think anybody wants to see civil war in that country. I don't think anybody wants to see a country that has absolutely no security. I don't think anybody wants to see the place become another Iran during the 80's. The only way to prevent this from happening is for coaltion forces to remain in the country, stabilize, and pacify it. The Sunni triangle must be pacified in order for that country to be able to stand on its feet after getting rid of the mass murderer who kept things in check through fear. The religious militias, such as the Iranian backed Mehdi army, must be disbanded or destroyed in order for the country to be able to function peacefully. And yes, this does mean whether or not the population wants these things to happen. Even though they may want to break into civil war, we're not going to allow that to happen. And guess what we're trying to do now... pacify the Sunni triangle and destroy the Mehdi army so that a peaceful and stable Iraq can rise from the death and oppression brought on it by Saddam Hussein.
Really Map, what would you have us do?

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: Pictures of dead bodies posted out-of-context means little. I feel horrible every time an innocent civilian gets killed, but I am also smart enough to realize these civilians get killed because of the choices of the terrorists in most cases.
I don't think anybody believes that Americans went out of their ways to deliberately kill Iraqi children.
War sucks Map, nobody will argue that.
Then I would think people would try to avoid it by any means, instead of working hard to find any good (or not so good) reason to start it, like our brilliant administration did?
they want an end to the blood shed, they know what they have to do.
We occupied their country and now we explain what they have to do to stay alive? Would you be thrilled to be treated like this? Be a coward and we won't hurt you... Yeah, right.
I didn't see you reacting in horror to the deaths of those four Map. Where was your outrage and your links to pictures then?
Well, I didn't express any outrage in this case either. Just pictures, everybody is free to make whatever he wants to make out of them, and put them into whatever context he thinks they belong to. As for those four guys, I wanted to post, but then thought all I can say would be cheap. What happened is sickening, and I feel no connection to the people who did it, so I am not sure what I can say. I cannot think about anybody I know who would be able to hate other people so much to mutilate dead bodies. These guys need professional help, they are outside of my diapason of understanding.
So, it is likely that the vast majority of these were soldiers, with foreign fighters mixed in. These "soldiers" are not wearing uniforms, they are not obeying any laws of combat, and they are purposely seeking to blend themselves in with non-combatant civilians.
You forgot to mention that there is no way they would defeat American forces in an open combat. Are you complaining that they aren't idiots?
Why were they probably in the midst of legitimate military targets do you think Map? Because these legitimate military targets try to kill Americans while surrounding themselves with civilians.
Jason, if they tried to kill Americans in America, all my sympathies would be with you. But what you are saying is that we have a right to occupy any country we feel like occupy, and expect local people kiss us? Well, get some experience with America being occupied by Iraqis, and then talk to me again, Ok?
The only way to prevent this from happening is for coaltion forces to remain in the country, stabilize, and pacify it.
Sounds good. Practically, if this will cause a rebellion, should we kill all the rebels?
Really Map, what would you have us do?
Frankly, me preference would be to stay out of the whole mess. If a country is going to break into a Civil War, it doesn't need any help from outside. At least they would have nobody to blame but themselves. It's healthier this way. But as we did get ourselves into this mess, I don't see any good solution. Jason, try to imagine that the US has been occupied by a much stronger Muslim Army. Because they believed the US had some deadly weapon threatening them. They didn't find anything, but whatever... Really, who cares. There is a rebellion, you might even disagree with it, but seeing American kids being killed - is this something you would easily brush off? Really?

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Jason, try to imagine that the US has been occupied by a much stronger Muslim Army. Because they believed the US had some deadly weapon threatening them. They didn't find anything, but whatever... Really, who cares. There is a rebellion, you might even disagree with it, but seeing American kids being killed - is this something you would easily brush off? Really?

I wouldn't brush it off - in that situation, if I considered the occupation to be oppressors, I'd blame the kids' deaths squarely on the American insurgents who used them as human shields, because evil oppressors can only be expected to kill innocent people given half a chance.
On the other hand, if the occupiers were actually doing the majority of the population a favor by getting rid of a former oppressive government, I might feel differently; if they were supposed to be helping me out, I'd expect them to do their best to put down the insurgency while avoiding the killing of civilians wherever possible. But in that situation, I'd also be really careful about getting some facts before deciding that it was the occupiers, and not the remnants of the oppressive former regime, that killed the innocent kids.
So which of those two situations do you think the U.S. presence in Iraq is?

[Shalu Ban]

The ultimate victims are innocent Iraqis and American soldiers who die. Who is responsible for their death? Is killing the only solution?

[Bert Bates]

How about a little diplomacy? This is a complicated situation no doubt, it's clear that the current administration is incapable of diplomacy - they come from 'unilateral coalition' , 'shock and awe' school.
On the other hand, I haven't heard anything from the Kerry camp concerning a credible diplomatic solution...
It seems like the answer lies somewhere beetween 'shock and awe' and total withdrawal.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
How about a little diplomacy? This is a complicated situation no doubt, it's clear that the current administration is incapable of diplomacy - they come from 'unilateral coalition' , 'shock and awe' school.

We do seem to have worked out a cease fire so maybe "incapable of diplomacy" is a bit strong.

[Jason Menard]

What kind of diplomacy can exist in the midst of "we will veto any resolutions on Iraq which contain provisions for use of force"? Oh that's right... French diplomacy.

[Paul Stevens]

'unilateral coalition' Exactly how many nations does it take to not have that label Bert?

[Jason Menard]

I think to some people these days, unilateral simply means "without the permission of the UN". :roll:

[John Smith]

... and to some people, diplomacy means "shock and awe".

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Shalu Ban:
The ultimate victims are innocent Iraqis and American soldiers who die. Who is responsible for their death? Is killing the only solution?

I don't see how you can meaningfully call a soldier in a combat zone a victim of anything. For that matter, in a place where guerillas dress as or hide behind civilians, or take refuge in structures that are otherwise protected as sacred, I don't know that you can rightly call anyone capable of getting out of the way an innocent.

[Mapraputa Is]

So which of those two situations do you think the U.S. presence in Iraq is?
Are there only two options available?
We all are formed by circumstances we have to live through, and Iraqis experience as I understand is largely different from what people from cozier countries had to go through. A few destroyed buildings shocked America so much, that it said never be the same. How about watching your city being bombed for a month? And then 12 years of sanctions, when 60% of population had to rely on food ration? Are you sure you would be as rational as you are now, if you had to watch all this happening to your country?

[Victor Hess Victor Hess]

I read this post and i am amazed. I can only conclude that you are either

{unkind comments removed -MH}

I hope the people who manage this board will not be cowards and delete my post, because if you do i will post again.

You are free to do so, of course: and this will, in turn, escalate.
Or.
You can make your points in an articulate manner, and not focus on the perceived personalities of the people who disagree with you. Rather, you could focus on the topic under discussion, and illuminate your ideas logically. I hope you choose to do the latter.
Best regards,
M
[ April 13, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[John Smith]

Victor Hess to Jason: I read this post and i am amazed. I can only conclude that you are either
Jason's responsibility, among other things, is to preserve the civility of the discussions here in MD, and he does it rather well, considering the diversity of people, topics, and points of view. Your post, on the other hand, is full of diverse labels with no common theme or sense. I happen to disagree with Jason most emphatically on the issue of this discussion, but resorting to standard name calling can hardly help anyone's cause. Do you know that it is within the Geneva Conventions to bomb a holy place if the enemy is firing from there? Perhaps all the countries subscribing to these conventions exposed their citizens to too much of the ultraviolet light?
[ April 13, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
A few destroyed buildings shocked America so much, that it said never be the same. How about watching your city being bombed for a month? And then 12 years of sanctions, when 60% of population had to rely on food ration? Are you sure you would be as rational as you are now, if you had to watch all this happening to your country?

Well, I won't claim to be all that rational right now ... when the World Trade Center went down, my reaction was pretty different from the rest of Americans. I had been expecting something like that for a decade or so, and I was simply relieved that the terrorists hadn't managed to get ahold of a nuclear weapon, and as a result only took out two buildings and a few thousand people rather than the entire southern half of Manhattan and a few hundred thousand people. So while some (most) people feel that America will never be the same, I don't actually feel that it's all that much different. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, I've been expecting that this is the way war in the 21st century will be fought.
If I were Iraqi, I might very well blame the U.S. for Gulf War I and the 12 years of painful sanctions that followed - and possibly even for the fact that Iraq's isolation from the rest of the world permitted Saddam and his two sons to make the government even more oppressive than it would otherwise have been, since it meant that Saddam no longer had anything to lose in terms of international relations.
From that point of view, though, Gulf War II is a good thing - again, thinking about me as an Iraqi - because it ends the interminable period of sanctions and the spiral into poverty, and gives 'us' (the Iraqis) a chance to start over. And even as an American, I think that's a much larger part of this administration's motivation - to do good by the Iraqi people - than the administration publicly admits.
Do the Iraqis see things that way? I think most did a few months ago. The number may be waning because of sensationalist reporting like those photographs, though; I can only hope that the U.S. is doing anywhere near as good a job in getting the facts out to the Iraqi people.

[Victor Hess Victor Hess]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Victor Hess to Jason: I read this post and i am amazed. I can only conclude that you are either
Jason's responsibility, among other things, is to preserve the civility of the discussions here in MD, and he does it rather well, considering the diversity of people, topics, and points of view. Your post, on the other hand, is full of diverse labels with no common theme or sense. I happen to disagree with Jason most emphatically on the issue of this discussion, but resorting to standard name calling can hardly help anyone's cause. Do you know that it is within the Geneva Conventions to bomb a holy place if the enemy is firing from there? Perhaps all the countries subscribing to these conventions exposed their citizens to too much of the ultraviolet light?
[ April 13, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

I am calling the situation as I see it. if we are going to have rules, then we have to make sure that those rules apply to everyone who posts on this board; Mr menard included. This is not about one person, the bigger issue is the sanctity of human life and Mr menard post was very callous and insensitive. (perhaps the other bartenders in this forum may want to review it as to its intent and meaning)
I wonder how some people on this board would feel if it was some blonde blue-eyed children in Sunday School who were bombed.
For too long i have observed the inuendo and Implications of his statements go unchallenged. If someone is a bartender on this forum, then it is a position of responsibility that must not be abused.
If I am expected to respect the rules of this forum, then everybody must. To do otherwise is have this forum degrade to an animal farm (i.e all animals are equal but some are more equal than others) thosw who have read the novel "Animal Farm" will understand what i mean. That's all for now