US soldiers deny....and later admit to killing demonstrators
- Thread starter flavio
- Start date
flavio, why did you leave this part out?
"Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks."
I know you are so biased that you will do anything up to and including leaving out the fact that the troops were under fire but don't you think it just makes you look a little stupid to do so? You know that fact will be pointed out.
What do you expect troops to do when they come under fire?
"Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks."
I know you are so biased that you will do anything up to and including leaving out the fact that the troops were under fire but don't you think it just makes you look a little stupid to do so? You know that fact will be pointed out.
What do you expect troops to do when they come under fire?
I think his point was the initial US denial. If the govt. can think they can get away with something, they will deny it until there is too much proof to keep refuting it. It's a lot easier to insinuate that the Itaqi's shot each other than to admit it was the US, and they would do that if there was no evidence to the contrary.
etech, why did you leave this part out?
"The Americans [troops] were turning around the crowd. The people moved toward the government building, the children threw stones, the Americans started firing. Then they prevented the people from recovering the bodies," he said.
There have been so many conflicting reports of this incident that to me its become impossible to comment on it other than to say it's unfortunate and we need to do our best to see that it doesn't happen again.
Could we not also title your post: Iraqis deny....but later media witnesses admit to Iraqis shooting at US soldiers?
Don't worry etech, Flavio is good at using only certain parts of a quote and taking them out of context, I know from firsthand experience. Regarding this issue I think there has already been a thread started on it. Besides I'd like to see how some of you handle a situation where there are crowds of people, enemies have been known to were civilian clothing, and then things start getting crazier with rocks and guns going off. It sucks that it had to come to this and I do feel bad for the protestors but everyone, including the soldiers, have a right to self preservation, they were doing what they thought necessary to control the situation and minimize the loss of life the best they could. None of us truely know the situation.
Probably for the same reason you left out the paragraph that directly follows the one you quoted:
This is quite the ping pong we've got going here, you chirping little birds.
Somebody should have just posted the whole darn article.
...my point exactly. The article provides both sides of the story, and so did the initial poster.
Why the fvck did you start another GD topic on this same subject? Bringing your stinking, neffing, Off Topic, bad habits to this Forum now? :disgust:
Judgement
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2001
- 3,815
- 0
- 0
All the reports on this are biased against the troops. US troops had no reason to fire other than if they felt their lives were threated, yet everybody seems to like to describe the situation as the US troops opening fire on the civilians for no worthwhile reason. I'm sure they were just dying to unload on a group of civilians and get the US plastered all over the media as murderers. They were there and are trained for these situations... unlike the media who is basing their articles on reports from other people whom most likely were unable to differentiate the shots fired by US troops and someone firing on US troops. People are trying so hard to make the US look bad that they've begun to only remember the pieces of information that support their views as opposed to thinking about it what happened objectively and intelligently.
IMO the US troops were most likely shot at and those who heard the gunshots only saw the US troops shooting in retaliation, thus assuming the initial fire they heard was from US troops also.
This does not mean the shooting was completely justified though, I have a hard time understanding why civilians were being shot at if they weren't seen to be the ones shooting at US troops. This is a blurry line though as some of the civilians at the demonstration probably had weapons and were standing in the general direction that shots came from; Iraqi resistance forces wouldn't exactly be wearing uniforms, making it difficult to differentiate them with peaceful citizens. We could have been reading an article about how some Iraqi resistance forces mixed in with the protesters opened fire on US troops, killing 7+ soldiers because the soldiers were hesitant to fire back into the crowd.
IMO the US troops were most likely shot at and those who heard the gunshots only saw the US troops shooting in retaliation, thus assuming the initial fire they heard was from US troops also.
This does not mean the shooting was completely justified though, I have a hard time understanding why civilians were being shot at if they weren't seen to be the ones shooting at US troops. This is a blurry line though as some of the civilians at the demonstration probably had weapons and were standing in the general direction that shots came from; Iraqi resistance forces wouldn't exactly be wearing uniforms, making it difficult to differentiate them with peaceful citizens. We could have been reading an article about how some Iraqi resistance forces mixed in with the protesters opened fire on US troops, killing 7+ soldiers because the soldiers were hesitant to fire back into the crowd.
oh you anti-american Saddam loving nazi... how dare you post such anti american saddam loving nazi-drivel?
What exactly is your point? Do you think you have unearthed some massive conspiracy to conceal the truth? Or is it possible that the initial reports from the media were wrong. Or maybe the initial report going to CentCom was wrong. Personally I don't recall CentCom saying anything about it except for that last statement by Gen. Brooks. That is what I consider to be 'official' statements by the way. Either CentCOm or the Pentagon. None of this generic military spokesman BS that gets thrown around all the time.
The problem is too many people see only bad intentions by the US while others can see NO wrong (or at least minimize) US transgressions. Saddam was a lying, despotic POS. The US government is certainly not despotic (unless you are gay or a female at the Air Force Academy) . . . it will tell a tall tale (if not a clear falsehood) from time to time.
When embarassed . . . lie . . . particularly if it is difficult to verify.
When embarassed . . . lie . . . particularly if it is difficult to verify.
Why not always tell the truth?
Ingrate? We went to all the trouble of freeing those bastards and now they don't trust us?
Ingrate? We went to all the trouble of freeing those bastards and now they don't trust us?
Dumbass! I posted this 04/16/2003 2:22 PM in the topic on the same damn subject yesterday!Originally posted by: flavio
Missed the thread topic did ya?
...and the article from today as well? I guess I could try to be like you and post good "plucky" articles from the Sun
- Tuesday's Bloodshed...
Brooks said the U.S. troops guarding the wall fired warning shots after seeing some people in the crowd shooting weapons into the air. The Americans then were shot at and began firing at some people in the crowd, including some who tried to climb over the wall, he said.
"It was lethal fire, and some Iraqis were killed as a result of that," Brooks said. "We think the number is somewhere on the order of seven, and there may have been some wounded as well."
Earlier reports quoted witnesses as saying as many as 10 Iraqis may have died and dozens were wounded. Those accounts said the crowd became unruly during a speech by the city's new governor-general outside his office.
Several of those wounded in Wednesday's incident accused American troops of firing at them from rooftops, but a Marine sergeant near the scene denied that. He said U.S. troops on top of a building came under fire from gunmen on another building across a park and the Americans shot back.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter