Several Killed as U.S. Bombs Wrong Target in Iraq

[her209]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...tory&u=/nm/iraq_dc

Several Killed as U.S. Bombs Wrong Target in Iraq

AAYTHA, Iraq (Reuters) - A U.S. warplane mistakenly bombed a house in northern Iraq (news - web sites) on Saturday, killing several people in an attack likely to inflame anti-American anger ahead of controversial elections due at the end of the month.

Furious residents of the village of Aaytha, south of the city of Mosul, said the air strike flattened a villa and killed 14 civilians. Reuters television pictures showed 14 freshly dug graves after the bombing in the early hours of Saturday.

The U.S. military said at least five people died after an F-16 warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong target.

"The house was not the intended target for the air strike. The intended target was another location nearby," the U.S. army said. It added that it "deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives" and that an investigation was under way.

Iraqi anger over civilian casualties in Iraq has dented U.S. efforts to get the country behind the elections. Many Sunni Arab leaders say violence in Sunni areas will make fair elections impossible, and plan to boycott the polls. Large numbers of Sunni Arab Iraqis say they are simply too scared to vote.

Insurgent groups -- mainly comprising Sunni former members of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime, nationalist Iraqis wanting foreign troops to leave, and foreign Arab fighters with links to al Qaeda -- are waging a deadly campaign to derail the polls.

A suicide bomb killed four people near a checkpoint south of Baghdad on Saturday, while militants abducted three senior Iraqi officials in the same area, police said. A female French journalist has also been missing since Wednesday and is feared to be the latest foreign victim of a kidnapping spree.

IRAQI ANGER

Residents of Aaytha said U.S. army vehicles surrounded part of the village before the strike in the early hours of Saturday. The U.S. military said the stray bomb was dropped during an operation to capture an insurgent cell leader.

Last May, there was widespread anger among Iraqis after U.S. Marines attacked an isolated villa in the desert in western Iraq, killing around 40 people, including six women.

Survivors said the house was attacked just after a wedding party and that all the victims were innocent civilians. The American military said that while a party may have been taking place, the house was a base for insurgents.

U.S. air strikes on targets in the city of Falluja also caused controversy last year -- the American military insisted the attacks targeted insurgents but local doctors and residents said many civilians were also killed.

Persistent violence, particularly in Sunni areas of Iraq, threatens to undermine the country's elections. President Bush (news - web sites) has pledged that American-led troops would do everything possible to safeguard Iraq's first national ballot since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But with three weeks left, Bush acknowledged that four of 18 provinces were still not secure enough for Iraqis to vote.

In the past week alone, Sunni insurgents have killed nearly 100 people in bombings, ambushes and assassinations mostly targeting fledgling security services they regard as collaborators with foreign occupiers.

Under pressure to quell the violence, the U.S. military said it had captured a key leader of a northern cell of an Islamist group headed by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, responsible for most of the bloodiest attacks.

It said the arrest marked "significant progress in the inevitable destruction of the ... Zarqawi terrorist network" in the volatile northern city of Mosul.

SUICIDE BLAST

South of Baghdad, a suicide car bomb tore through a petrol station in the village of Mahaweel, killing four people and wounding 19 who had been queuing at the fuel pump, police said.

The blast, near a lawless area known as the "Triangle of Death," struck near a roadblock manned by police and soldiers.

Three Sunni officials from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit were abducted on a road south of Baghdad while returning from the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, where they held talks with Shi'ite leaders to bridge sectarian divisions over the elections.

The delegation included the head of the northern Salaheddin provincial council, the deputy to the provincial governor and the dean of Tikrit law school, police and tribal sources said.

Many leaders of Saddam's once-privileged Sunni minority have called for a delay in the vote, saying persistent attacks in Sunni areas would scare away many voters and skew the results in favor of the long-marginalised Shi'ite majority.

But interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shi'ite, has rejected any postponement of the vote, which is expected to cement the Shi'ites' newfound political dominance.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and Lin Noueihed in Baghdad, Sabah al-Bazee in Samarra and Maher al-Thanoon in Mosul)

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Originally posted by: her209
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...tory&u=/nm/iraq_dc

Several Killed as U.S. Bombs Wrong Target in Iraq

AAYTHA, Iraq (Reuters) - A U.S. warplane mistakenly bombed a house in northern Iraq (news - web sites) on Saturday, killing several people in an attack likely to inflame anti-American anger ahead of controversial elections due at the end of the month.

Furious residents of the village of Aaytha, south of the city of Mosul, said the air strike flattened a villa and killed 14 civilians. Reuters television pictures showed 14 freshly dug graves after the bombing in the early hours of Saturday.

The U.S. military said at least five people died after an F-16 warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong target.

"The house was not the intended target for the air strike. The intended target was another location nearby," the U.S. army said. It added that it "deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives" and that an investigation was under way.

Iraqi anger over civilian casualties in Iraq has dented U.S. efforts to get the country behind the elections. Many Sunni Arab leaders say violence in Sunni areas will make fair elections impossible, and plan to boycott the polls. Large numbers of Sunni Arab Iraqis say they are simply too scared to vote.

Insurgent groups -- mainly comprising Sunni former members of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime, nationalist Iraqis wanting foreign troops to leave, and foreign Arab fighters with links to al Qaeda -- are waging a deadly campaign to derail the polls.

A suicide bomb killed four people near a checkpoint south of Baghdad on Saturday, while militants abducted three senior Iraqi officials in the same area, police said. A female French journalist has also been missing since Wednesday and is feared to be the latest foreign victim of a kidnapping spree.

IRAQI ANGER

Residents of Aaytha said U.S. army vehicles surrounded part of the village before the strike in the early hours of Saturday. The U.S. military said the stray bomb was dropped during an operation to capture an insurgent cell leader.

Last May, there was widespread anger among Iraqis after U.S. Marines attacked an isolated villa in the desert in western Iraq, killing around 40 people, including six women.

Survivors said the house was attacked just after a wedding party and that all the victims were innocent civilians. The American military said that while a party may have been taking place, the house was a base for insurgents.

U.S. air strikes on targets in the city of Falluja also caused controversy last year -- the American military insisted the attacks targeted insurgents but local doctors and residents said many civilians were also killed.

Persistent violence, particularly in Sunni areas of Iraq, threatens to undermine the country's elections. President Bush (news - web sites) has pledged that American-led troops would do everything possible to safeguard Iraq's first national ballot since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But with three weeks left, Bush acknowledged that four of 18 provinces were still not secure enough for Iraqis to vote.

In the past week alone, Sunni insurgents have killed nearly 100 people in bombings, ambushes and assassinations mostly targeting fledgling security services they regard as collaborators with foreign occupiers.

Under pressure to quell the violence, the U.S. military said it had captured a key leader of a northern cell of an Islamist group headed by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, responsible for most of the bloodiest attacks.

It said the arrest marked "significant progress in the inevitable destruction of the ... Zarqawi terrorist network" in the volatile northern city of Mosul.

SUICIDE BLAST

South of Baghdad, a suicide car bomb tore through a petrol station in the village of Mahaweel, killing four people and wounding 19 who had been queuing at the fuel pump, police said.

The blast, near a lawless area known as the "Triangle of Death," struck near a roadblock manned by police and soldiers.

Three Sunni officials from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit were abducted on a road south of Baghdad while returning from the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, where they held talks with Shi'ite leaders to bridge sectarian divisions over the elections.

The delegation included the head of the northern Salaheddin provincial council, the deputy to the provincial governor and the dean of Tikrit law school, police and tribal sources said.

Many leaders of Saddam's once-privileged Sunni minority have called for a delay in the vote, saying persistent attacks in Sunni areas would scare away many voters and skew the results in favor of the long-marginalised Shi'ite majority.

But interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shi'ite, has rejected any postponement of the vote, which is expected to cement the Shi'ites' newfound political dominance.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and Lin Noueihed in Baghdad, Sabah al-Bazee in Samarra and Maher al-Thanoon in Mosul)

Key word in bold. Unlike the terrorist POS we are fighting we do not target innocents on purpose.

Just my .02

 

[SuperTool]

This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

 

[judasmachine]

we have to do this periodically to keep up the enrollment in the insurgency, so we have an excuse to stay there.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

I would think soldiers dying would be a matter of course as well, but they still get linage in the paper when one of them gets sacked.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

Read the article, testiclelips.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

Read the article, testiclelips.

I have recently come to the realization that I must be very careful how I respond to personal attacks here at P&N. It seems no matter what people say to me I am always wrong if I reply in kind. I'm quite sure if I had posted either of those replies one or more of the people who generally agree with your worldview would have reported me by now. I wish it was not so. Please don't misinterpret my refusal to respond in kind. You really left yourself open with that last one but I am, unfortunately, unable to respond for fear of repercussions. You and a few other members apparently don't have the threat of those consequences to stop you.

 

[jpeyton]

BBond, don't worry too much. Hell, next time you disagree with something Dari says, just reply with "You must have a reading disability", and then follow with "Read the article again". It works for them, right?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
BBond, don't worry too much. Hell, next time you disagree with something Dari says, just reply with "You must have a reading disability", and then follow with "Read the article again". It works for them, right?

:thumbsup:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

Read the article, testiclelips.

I have recently come to the realization that I must be very careful how I respond to personal attacks here at P&N. It seems no matter what people say to me I am always wrong if I reply in kind. I'm quite sure if I had posted either of those replies one or more of the people who generally agree with your worldview would have reported me by now. I wish it was not so. Please don't misinterpret my refusal to respond in kind. You really left yourself open with that last one but I am, unfortunately, unable to respond for fear of repercussions. You and a few other members apparently don't have the threat of those consequences to stop you.

Here, let me do it for you...

Go play in traffic, Penisface.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

Read the article, testiclelips.

I have recently come to the realization that I must be very careful how I respond to personal attacks here at P&N. It seems no matter what people say to me I am always wrong if I reply in kind. I'm quite sure if I had posted either of those replies one or more of the people who generally agree with your worldview would have reported me by now. I wish it was not so. Please don't misinterpret my refusal to respond in kind. You really left yourself open with that last one but I am, unfortunately, unable to respond for fear of repercussions. You and a few other members apparently don't have the threat of those consequences to stop you.

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm and jokes were exposed. Again, read the article and pay careful attention to the fourth word in the body of the article.

 

[BBond]

I read the article in the OP and two other sources as well.

Try to wrap your mind around this; It's be really tough to mistakenly drop five hundred pound bombs on Iraqi civilians' homes if you didn't go through all the trouble of making up reasons to attack them, unprovoked, in the first place...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BBond
I read the article in the OP and two other sources as well.

Try to wrap your mind around this; It's be really tough to mistakenly drop five hundred pound bombs on Iraqi civilians' homes if you didn't go through all the trouble of making up reasons to attack them, unprovoked, in the first place...

Must we go through the reasons and the history behind the reasons again? In the end, the Administration was wrong because of the flawed intelligence, which existed for 3 Administrations, 2 Clinton and 1 Bush. There, you happy? Now that the meat and potatoes of your sarcastic joke as been done away with, what else do you have to say?

 

[Steeplerot]

Thats what happens when you are at the mercy of something with a ironic name such as "military intelligence".

 

[BBond]

If the reason for attacking Iraq was, as you say, flawed intelligence, and several administrations shared that same flawed intelligence, what was the overriding reason that forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq, unprovoked, on March 19, 2002?

And if the current Bush administration was using the same intelligence his father's administration used ten years ago I would suggest they may have been, as some CIA analysts have said, using outdated information revisited to justify their unprovoked invasion.

Don't you "conservatives" believe in accountability? Or is accpuntability only for we subjects and not the royalty?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BBond
If the reason for attacking Iraq was, as you say, flawed intelligence, and several administrations shared that same flawed intelligence, what was the overriding reason that forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq, unprovoked, on March 19, 2002?

And if the current Bush administration was using the same intelligence his father's administration used ten years ago I would suggest they may have been, as some CIA analysts have said, using outdated information revisited to justify their unprovoked invasion.

Don't you "conservatives" believe in accountability? Or is accpuntability only for we subjects and not the royalty?

More of a taking intelligence from selective sources that fit their agenda.
Reason they don't listen is becasue they are polarized to listen to only their own failing leaders and yesmen, common sense takes a backdoor to the long term goal they are hell-bent on carrying out.
See: Stalingrad

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BBond
If the reason for attacking Iraq was, as you say, flawed intelligence, and several administrations shared that same flawed intelligence, what was the overriding reason that forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq, unprovoked, on March 19, 2002?

And if the current Bush administration was using the same intelligence his father's administration used ten years ago I would suggest they may have been, as some CIA analysts have said, using outdated information revisited to justify their unprovoked invasion.

Don't you "conservatives" believe in accountability? Or is accpuntability only for we subjects and not the royalty?

Bush invaded because he feared the marriage of outlawed nations and terror cells after September 11. A prime example of that was Afghanistan. He also invaded because Hussein's Iraq had 17 outstanding UN resolutions against it.

BTW, I never said anything about his father's administration. Every Administration is 4 years. Hence I said three because Clinton had two and the current Bush has one so far.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: BBond
If the reason for attacking Iraq was, as you say, flawed intelligence, and several administrations shared that same flawed intelligence, what was the overriding reason that forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq, unprovoked, on March 19, 2002?

And if the current Bush administration was using the same intelligence his father's administration used ten years ago I would suggest they may have been, as some CIA analysts have said, using outdated information revisited to justify their unprovoked invasion.

Don't you "conservatives" believe in accountability? Or is accpuntability only for we subjects and not the royalty?

More of a taking intelligence from selective sources that fit their agenda.
Reason they don't listen is becasue they are polarized to listen to only their own failing leaders and yesmen, common sense takes a backdoor to the long term goal they are hell-bent on carrying out.
See: Stalingrad

Exactly my point in this thread.

They hear only what they want to hear, make decisions based on the erroneous information, then deny responsibility because they are the victims of bad information.

Pathetic...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
If the reason for attacking Iraq was, as you say, flawed intelligence, and several administrations shared that same flawed intelligence, what was the overriding reason that forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq, unprovoked, on March 19, 2002?

And if the current Bush administration was using the same intelligence his father's administration used ten years ago I would suggest they may have been, as some CIA analysts have said, using outdated information revisited to justify their unprovoked invasion.

Don't you "conservatives" believe in accountability? Or is accpuntability only for we subjects and not the royalty?

Is it to much to ask that You stay on topic, Bob?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is newsworthy how? Must be a slow news cycle. It was my understanding that civilians getting killed was a matter of course over there.

What were those civilians doing there anyway? Don't they know there's a war on? They should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we are finished liberating them.

You must have a reading disability.

What was I supposed to say? That they should have the common sense to leave Iraq until we find that WMD?

Read the article, testiclelips.

I have recently come to the realization that I must be very careful how I respond to personal attacks here at P&N. It seems no matter what people say to me I am always wrong if I reply in kind. I'm quite sure if I had posted either of those replies one or more of the people who generally agree with your worldview would have reported me by now. I wish it was not so. Please don't misinterpret my refusal to respond in kind. You really left yourself open with that last one but I am, unfortunately, unable to respond for fear of repercussions. You and a few other members apparently don't have the threat of those consequences to stop you.

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm and jokes were exposed. Again, read the article and pay careful attention to the fourth word in the body of the article.

How quaint. The word "mistakenly" allows the act to be excused. Whoops, we went to war on "mistaken" intelligence. Excuse us.

How about a new, refreshing approach for the apologists? This one is getting tired.

 

[Ozoned]

Very subtle message from Namir Noureldine, but very clever.


["] Several Killed as U.S. Bombs Wrong Target in Iraq


IRAQI ANGER



SUICIDE BLAST ["]

 

[BBond]

Oops, we mistakenly killed 100,000 Iraqis while liberating them...

What happened to the much touted "conservative" dictum of accountability?

I want all you working people to go into work on Monday, make a huge error that threatens to bankrupt the company you work for, then tell the boss it was just a mistake. Let me know the results while you're on your way to the unemployment office...