BEIRUT -- Oh, man. The BBC is reporting another possible massacre of Iraqi civilians, this time in Ishaqi, 60 miles north of Baghdad. Up to 11 people may have been "deliberately shot" by U.S. troops.
The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people.
A spokesman for US forces in Iraq told the BBC an inquiry was under way.
The military says it was a firefight with Iraqi insurgents, and in the course of the battle a house collapsed under heavy fire, killing a suspect, two women and a child. But Iraqi police said the Americans rounded up 11 people and shot them in the house. They then blew up the building.
The BBC says the tape, provided by a hardline Sunni group opposed to the occupation, showed bodies with clear gunshot wounds and appeared to be genuine.
Now, just because a Sunni group supplied this video doesn't mean it should be discounted. Greeted with skepticism, yes, discounted, no. The group that brought the Haditha video to our attention at TIME was a Sunni NGO opposed to the American presence, and Haditha looks to be exactly as they described it: a massacre. Also, it makes absolute sense that a Sunni group would be the messenger. Thanks to the rampant sectarianism, only Sunni groups can operate in Sunni areas, and they're bearing the brunt of the violence from the U.S.
So why don't they play up the horrors of the Shi'ite groups that are also massacring Sunni families? Well, it wouldn't do any good. Anyone think the Iraqi government is going to be particularly responsive when the Shi'ite prime minister (Jaafari) appointed a Shi'ite Interior Minister (Jabr) who packed his ministry with Shi'ite death squads while America dithered and/or trained them? Of course not.
But, also, this is what happens when democracies go to war in a media age: The innocents -- or aggrieved -- take their case to the American people. If their own government won't protect them, perhaps the people that elected the government that put their government in place will. It's a vain hope, I know, but what else do they have left?
UPDATE 6/2/06 8:16:40 PM +0200: U.S. military denies allegations of Ishaqi massacre.
ABC News has learned that military officials have completed their investigation and concluded that U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement. A senior Pentagon official told ABC News the investigation concluded that the allegations of intentional killings of civilians by American forces are unfounded.
but how can the american people protect the iraqis? it´s bushs second term in office, rummy is still in charge of the pentagon. is there any chance to impeach these guys?
tell me, i`m german.
Well, I did say it was a vain hope, didn’t I?
” … a house collapsed under heavy fire, killing a suspect …” Now that, it seems to me, is a suitable subject for a journalist to investigate. How many times have we heard of people being shot or bombed because they are “SUSPECTED” insurgents or foreign fighters? (Remember the massacre of the desert wedding party at Makr Al Deeb, back in 2004? They were “suspected foreign fighters.” Remember the recent demolition of a Pakistani village by remote control, because there were Al Qaeda “suspects” there?) The US military (and I guess the US people) seem to have developed a mindset in which being suspected of something is just the same as being guilty of it. If a “suspect” is shot, it’s somehow not as bad as killing an innocent in error. And since they’re now dead, no proof of the suspicion is apparently required. The Iranians are “suspected” of enriching uranium to weapons grade. So it’s necessary to attack them? Is this a sort of manifestation of national paranoia, or what?
Looks like standard israeli occupation tactics. Same brutality,same discrepency in military hardware, same inpunity, same racist overtures, same biased reporting.
Not that it didn’t happen. But, it’s always possible to shoot dead bodies post-mortem and say they were found with gunshot wounds. I’m thinking the Iraqi’s don’t have a crack CSI team on hand to figure these things out before propoganda is spread againt the US.
Bad things happen in both war and peace. Those who commit crimes should be punished. There is NO excuse to kill those who, at the time are known to not be a threat.
Still, Saddam AVERAGED KILLING 30,000 Iraqi’s A YEAR. The US has been in Iraq OVER three years.
Total Iraq deaths due our war and the LIBERATION of the Iraqi people are estimated to be around 30,000.
SO, our war there has not only SAVED at least SIXTY (60,000) Iraqi lives, it has also stopped the torture of MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis.
It has SHUT DOWN the special prison Saddam had to hold, beat, rape, torture and murder CHILDREN (age 12 and under) whose only crime was someone in their family had said something someone in Saddam’s regime did not like.
One child who was TORTURED was ONLY TWO YEARS OLD!
The facts are our actions in removing Saddam’s regime from power & liberating the people of Iraq was both fully justified and a neccessary part of the war on terror.
Anyone who not agree is either IGNORANT of SUFFICENT facts OR they are TOO STUPID to understand simple things like FACTS!
Mr. Reinhardt,
May I inquire as to why you feel you must post here when your posts are composed almost entirely of emotional rhetoric?
KM, any forensic pathologist or coroner worth his salt should be able to recognize when wounds are inflicted after death.
This supposed Ishiqa massacre was proven to be false you people know that right?
When the US ground troops went to search this house in Ishiqa, they came under fire from a man inside with an ak-47 (which was later found inside the building when Iraqi police came to do an after-action report). To avoid unnecessary risk to US troops, they brought in air support who used their 30mm machine guns on their apache helicopters to “soften-up” the target. Before they could enter the house, it collapsed.
First of all, a 30mm bullet WOULD inflict wounds to people even after it penetrated the outer brick layer of the house, but would have been fragmented from penetrating the brick to the point that the injuries to the occupants would look like small caliber bullet wounds.
By the way the police officers that supposedly witnessed “US troops coming in and shooting people” werent even at the scene, they were simply repeating what they heard from civilians.
This is just another example of house the media gets hold of something and turns it into political ammunition before taking the all the facts. People in the media didn’t care to research the fact bullets had the capability of going through the building, and that these bullet wounds didn’t have to be inflicted at short range with small arms fire.
Not to mention the fact that the bodies sat in the house for more than a day before the officials came to pick up the bodies. Thats plenty of time for agenda-driven sunnis to tamper with the evidence in hopes of creating a media uproar to affect the minds of some of the mindless liberals and anti-americans in this world.
Note how BBC conveniently left out ALL the information that contradicted the claims of the sunnis. They left out 3 facts:
The US troops were shot at from the building.
US troops used heavy machine guns to neutralize the threat, not knowing the man who shot at them had his entire family in the house.
When US troops searched the wreckage of the house it was in the middle of the night and they left quickly without doing a thorough investigation for fear of being attacked (Ishiqa is FILLED with Sunni insurgents).
If BBC, the source for almost all the information of this story, even cared to mention these facts. I guarantee half of you people who actually believed the Sunnis’ story would think again before using this as some sort of metaphor for the entire US Military, US Government, or the US war effort in general.
P.S. About the Haditha story, it was only 4 marines all younger than 20 years old who engaged in this supposed massacre, their squad leader had just been killed and they had no leadership. So take that into consideration before you come to the conclusion that “the US Military is committing genocide.”
Miraba, I could care less how, or what, I post here appears to be TO YOU.
I am into FACTS, LOGIC, TRUTH KNOWLEDGE, and HONESTY. It is what I post. (And unlike most, post my full name.)
The REAL IRAQ
Amir Taheri, the former executive editor of Iran’s largest daily newspaper, Kayhan recently wrote an interesting essay on the successes in Iraq called “The Real Iraq” Of course, it is certainly insightful to get the thoughts from a native to the region He wraps his essay up by writing:
“Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe today’s Iraq, the only one with a ring of truth is ‘messy’
Yes, while the situation in Iraq today is messy, births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?”
From the Vets For Freedom Organization
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/blog
Seems to me the US government/military always deny any wrongdoing until it is beyond any doubt and the whole world knows they are lying. Liberated Iraqis? Sure doesn’t look like it from Australia.
Amer Taheri was caught lying about the ethnic markers the Iranian government was supposed to introduce. There is no reason to believe what he says.
Taheri did not lie about the iran dress code. There IS legislation moving forward to impose restrictive dress on ALL Iraqis. And there has been discussion about adding to it codes for minorities - as used to be worn in Iran for hundreds of years. This addition is not yet written into the proposed legislation - but it WAS under discussion.
Taheri is a far more reliable commentator than the BBC. The BBC is remorselessly biased against the BBC.
Go check this whole Ishaqi story out at www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com. In London we have been living with BBC bias and journalistic inefficiency for years - we can smell it a mile off.
If you believe everything you hear out of Iraqi you have a problem.I opposed wars in both countries when they started after 9/11, but I know enough to question these massacres stories.
If you believe everything you hear out of Iraqi you have a problem.I opposed wars in both countries when they started after 9/11, but I know enough to question these massacres stories.
If you believe everything you hear out of Iraqi you have a problem.I opposed wars in both countries when they started after 9/11, but I know enough to question these massacres stories.
Well, there is a Brit rag that knows that if you put gory pictures with a story it sells better.
Trouble is they are not too picky about which pictures to put with a story.
or are they?
Michelle Malkin has the story.
Papa Ray
Michelle Malkin has the story.
That’s a semantic impossibility, since to ‘have a story’, you need to be a journalist.
You know, like the host of this blog? In Iraq? As opposed to basement-general ‘experts’ such as Kent who seems to know that ‘Ishiqa’ [sic] is a Sunni stronghold?
As for Ishaqi, the Iraqi government has agreed to disagree. If a family gets mown down through walls by machine-gun fire from a helicopter, then it’s following rules of engagement. It makes those dead no less dead, and makes those who survive no less angry.
And dear me, What does it take for people to admit that they were taken in by liars? If Amir Taheri writes that the sky in Iran is shocking pink and filled with yellow mushrooms, you’ll have people who refuse to believe otherwise.
(ObCorrection: yes, I know Christopher’s in Beirut now.)
George: “I opposed wars in both countries when they started after 9/11, but I know enough to question these massacres stories.”
This is wise; one should always doubt massacre and atrocity stories. They are usually false, whether snowballing rumors or deliberately constructed propaganda. But one must never forget that atrocities always happen, in every war, regardless of the noble self-image of the armies and nations involved, and some of the grotesque stories are true, regardless of the source. Don’t assume that every massacre rumor in Baghdad gets fast-tracked to CNN. Reporters hear many horrible stories which would deserve to be front-paged if true, and use their BS filters (and limnited resources) to screen out the vast majority.
Nor can we plausibly say that the atrocities that we discovered and punished the only ones that happened.
When did the Sunnis earn victimhood status, Christopher?
Have you ever commented about the lack of coverage over the last 3 years of relentless Sunni atrocities against the majority (60%) Shiite population since the Baathists were removed from power? Thousands upon thousands of civilians - Shiite children being a favorite target.
It’s a reminder of the CNN (and other) media admissions of collusion with Saddam’s regime because they wanted to ensure their ability to report from Baghdad even if this meant covering up Baathist jackboot repression of 80 % of the Iraqi population.
Nothing seems to have changed.
Miraba, we’re talking about Iraq. Where propoganda (from every side) rules about as much as leaflets telling people they will be killed for wearing shorts.
We’re also talking about the kind of people who would riot over cartoons, but not over their neighbors killing eachother. No matter what any doctor says NOW about when the bullets entered the bodies, the damage is done.
“No matter what any doctor says NOW about when the bullets entered the bodies, the damage is done.”
Quite true. Right now I’m mostly appalled that there were nine “collateral deaths” when the commander “properly followed the rules of engagement.”
This whole issue just burns me up. Until the facts actually get told, we don’t know anything, and it’s wrong to jump to the conclusion that our troops are murderers. I’m glad to see that one of these investigations has cleared our guys.
“Right now I’m mostly appalled that there were nine ‘collateral deaths’ when the commander ‘properly followed the rules of engagement.’”
Miraba, were you appalled that the “rules of engagement” lead to the deaths of civillians? If you’re finding fault with the rules of engagement, I’m hardly suprised the rules are what they are.
I would assume that, if you were a US commander engaging insurgents, you would have to choose between… a) using heavy weapons (ie air attacks) to soften up the target before moving in or b) just move in on foot at greater risk to US troops. Despite advances in the accuracy of heavy weapons, there would clearly be a high risk of civillians being killed and/or wounded in any kind of bombardment.
So basically it comes down to a decision of how to balance the risk of between the US soldiers and Iraqi civillians.
Building on the above, I would expect the US military to set up rules of engagement that tend to value the lives of their own soldiers (whom they are directly responsible for) over the lives of foreign civillians, regardless of the public mission of the US army. I’m not saying thats good or bad, I’m just saying thats what they’re going to do, as have all armies in the past.
In retrospect, it was clearly a bad idea to kill nine civilians to take out one insurgent. I don’t know what the situation looked like to whoever ordered the airstrike. I don’t know if whoever ordered the airstrike was really following the rules or not. I don’t know if the rules of engagement are reasonable or not. But I DO know if you want to keep more Iraqi civillians alive, more US soldiers will be killed.
“Right now I’m mostly appalled that there were nine ‘collateral deaths’ when the commander ‘properly followed the rules of engagement.’”
Miraba, were you appalled that the “rules of engagement” lead to the deaths of civillians? If you’re finding fault with the rules of engagement, I’m hardly suprised the rules are what they are.
I would assume that, if you were a US commander engaging insurgents, you would have to choose between… a) using heavy weapons (ie air attacks) to soften up the target before moving in or b) just move in on foot at greater risk to US troops. Despite advances in the accuracy of heavy weapons, there would clearly be a high risk of civillians being killed and/or wounded in any kind of bombardment.
So basically it comes down to a decision of how to balance the risk of between the US soldiers and Iraqi civillians.
Building on the above, I would expect the US military to set up rules of engagement that tend to value the lives of their own soldiers (whom they are directly responsible for) over the lives of foreign civillians, regardless of the public mission of the US army. I’m not saying thats good or bad, I’m just saying thats what they’re going to do, as have all armies in the past.
In retrospect, it was clearly a bad idea to kill nine civilians to take out one insurgent. I don’t know what the situation looked like to whoever ordered the airstrike. I don’t know if whoever ordered the airstrike was really following the rules or not. I don’t know if the rules of engagement are reasonable or not. But I DO know if you want to keep more Iraqi civillians alive, more US soldiers will be killed.
“Right now I’m mostly appalled that there were nine ‘collateral deaths’ when the commander ‘properly followed the rules of engagement.’”
Miraba, were you appalled that the “rules of engagement” lead to the deaths of civillians? If you’re finding fault with the rules of engagement, I’m hardly suprised the rules are what they are.
I would assume that, if you were a US commander engaging insurgents, you would have to choose between… a) using heavy weapons (ie air attacks) to soften up the target before moving in or b) just move in on foot at greater risk to US troops. Despite advances in the accuracy of heavy weapons, there would clearly be a high risk of civillians being killed and/or wounded in any kind of bombardment.
So basically it comes down to a decision of how to balance the risk of between the US soldiers and Iraqi civillians.
Building on the above, I would expect the US military to set up rules of engagement that tend to value the lives of their own soldiers (whom they are directly responsible for) over the lives of foreign civillians, regardless of the public mission of the US army. I’m not saying thats good or bad, I’m just saying thats what they’re going to do, as have all armies in the past.
In retrospect, it was clearly a bad idea to kill nine civilians to take out one insurgent. I don’t know what the situation looked like to whoever ordered the airstrike. I don’t know if whoever ordered the airstrike was really following the rules or not. I don’t know if the rules of engagement are reasonable or not. But, generally speaking, I DO know if you want to keep more Iraqi civillians alive, more US soldiers will be killed.
Yon has something to say about speculation.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/hijacking-haditha.htm
Papa Ray
Unless I have the story wrong, a terrorist was in the house of those “collateral deaths”. If a high value terrorist is visiting my house, nobody should complain if I am killed in the process of killing the terrorist.
I made two comic strips about recent killings: http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/
I made two comic strips about recent killings: http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/
Regarding Haditha and the rest, I constantly see references to the “Rules of Engagement.”
But I have been unable to evaluate the facts and allegations without SEEING the verbatim ROE.
Can anybody provide the verbatim full text of the Iraq ROE to me at my e-mail address?
jrmerit@comcast.net
Thank you.
There aren’t a blanket set of ROEs for Iraq. There are different situations requiring different ROEs. Also, I know what they are/were in Ramadi, for example, but I was asked not to publish them because the Marines wanted to keep their enemies off balance. They feel that if they publish the ROEs, it will be that much easier to adapt to and exploit them, which seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. So I didn’t publish them.
Needless to say, however, shooting women and children in their homes at point-blank range does NOT fall under the ROEs.