The BBC is reporting that a US missile attack on a Baghdad market has killed up to 15 people, with many more injured. Film taken in the region showed an incredibly angry and distraught mob of people yelling at the television camera and gesturing towards the bomb site, and holding up what appears to be shoes and clothing of some of the victims. The BBS is reporting this as disastrous news. Only reports I have seen on US television stated that there were reports, but focused on the fact that they were unconfirmed, and moved on to other news.
I can see why some Iraqis have a hard time believing that the US is their savior when non-strategic spots are bombed. No matter what Mr.Bush say to the Iraqis, action speaks louder.
Given that this site is, as you say, of no strategic value, and furthermore given the PR nightmare this will be, possibly except in the US ( given the fact that this is currently the lead story on the BBC News but has barely been mentioned on NBC or CNN) I sincerely doubt if this is anything other than an accident. The point of contention might be that we have decided for the Iraqi people to put ourselves in a situation where our accidents cost their lives, and at least according to some people we have done so to save them.
MacBeth, your cynicism makes me want to choke. 22 young Americans and some number of young Brits have made the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Iraq from Saddam's clutch. This is indeed a terrible accident. I wish you weren't "enjoying" it so much....
Excuse me!?!?!? Where in the hell do you get off telling me I am enjoying the death of innocent people!? Your ignorance is only surpassed by your ability to leap from assumption to conclusion in one breath-taking bound. I am enjoying this in now wya...I have not been cynical about this, and in fact stated that it must be an accident. What does the sacrifice of soldiers have to do with whether or not we should be putting the Iraqi civilian population in a possition where they pay for our mistakes with their lives!>!> Whatever...fabricate a reason to attack, don't worry about a little thing like facts get in the way. I reported the newsstory as word for word/image for image as I could, especially given the fact that it seemed to be getting remarkably little coverage on uS stations despite being the lead story in many other nations...and then I argued with the 1st poster who identified it as a target, stating that it had to be an accident, but saying that the criticism should be directed at the entire situation which makes this kind of tragedy inevitable...and you read that as cynicism and enjoyment. Ignorance upon ignorance.
Uh...it's word for word from the BBC. In fact the first two lines, with the exceotion of " The BBC says" are the exact words running across the bottom of the screen on the BBC World News as I write this...and the image playing is the one I discribed....Are you so myopic that a news event which makes us look bad, even when reported from one of the most respected news agencies in the world, and, as it happens, belonging to one of our few allies, has to be dismissed as being supporting the agenda of a murderous dictator!?!?
Macbeth- I wish I had the time to count the number of threads you have started over the last couple of weeks on the war. THat is the reason so many attack you, for the simple fact that you try to bring up every negative of the war, Bush, our governent, etc. If you give off negativity don't expect alot of "Thank you for the great information" in return. This is a war we're in, there will be casualties deal with it. You can bitcX and complain all you want about the war, but the bottom line it is happening. Nothing you can do about it. The protestors can keep protesting but the bottom line is (per CNN this weekend) over 65% ogf the people are for the war, 15% against, and tho other 20% are somewhere in the middle. So Bush has the public opinion in the US, regardless if the 15% are very vocal.
I couldn't have given a better example of bias if I'd tried...I have started 2, repeat, TWO threads about the war in the last couple of weeks...One was to report Iraqi victims, one to report American victims...Not that you are seeing what you want to see in order to further your bias, but please explain to me how reporting 2 news events from the war, one talkig about American soldiers being taken prisoner and killed, and the other reporting Iraqi civilians killed is bringing up the negatice partof the war, Bush, etc...As you say, if reporting the lead story on the BBC twice, one showing victims on each side of this conflict, is an indication of bias, then what am I allowed to post about? It's raining in New Guinea!?!? The fact that you A) Said that I had started countless posts when I have started all of 2, and B) Interpreted those posts as being anti-American despite the fact that they were both straight off the news, and one ( half) of them was talking about American victims shows just how much you base your criticism on fact.
Oh..."there will be casualties, deal with it"....hmmm...you can't believe how shocked I am that giddyup isn't having breathing rpoblems over this cynicism, given his objectivity...Clearly not as cynical as posting a BBC news reort...
Only nazi scum would make a thread about the war that isn't flag waving and makes the warm fuzzies inside. Stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it, commie b*stard.
LOL! I just realized what a new approach this is...I post a news story, a leading news story ...from the BBC...which makes us look bad...and what are the pro-war-in-this-circumstance people talking about? The messenger.... Remarkable...Oh, the BBC is talking about it again on the World News...Don't they see how wrong they are to do it? I also say the BBC talk about American vicitms a few days ago...clearly a bias here...
MacB, I believe it was Nightline that ran a report of this last night...done by a BBC reporter. He talked about the angry mobs in the streets - showed some footage and some were carrying caskets as well as clothes. The same report also stated that there was a decent amount of angry citizens in the south in the two major cities as well. They are mad for civillian casualties, but also are more wary of the US because of what happened in 1991 after the war. This seems to have been Saddam's plan all along, though - bunker his troops in urban areas to ambush/attack US troops to such an extent that the soldiers have to bring out bigger and bigger weapons to knock out the attacks, leading to civilian casualties and anger.
Did that BBC reporter, who apparently gave the exact same details as I did which so offended some, sign off the air under the name of Saddam?
i dont understand why you guys are getting upset over this thread. if saddam's army are torturing us soldiers, i'd like to know about it. and if a us air strike killed a lot of civillians, i'd like to know too.
Apparently you don't get it...Trying or wanting to know all the facts, or see things from both sides is a clear indication of bias and cynicism. Only those who parrot Bush, Rumsfeld and co. are objective and rational.
Bingo! I really don't see a problem with what MacBeth posted. I imagine most people who support the war (myself included) feel the same way he just outlined. I realized there was going to be civilian casualties, and I still think, as a whole, this is the best thing for Iraq's future. With that in mind, I know the American military will do everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties. And people can conjecture about the Bush's Administration's disingenuous motives for the war until they're blue in the face; it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the war, 20 million people will no longer be under the oppression of a tyrannical, murderous regime. I don't understand how some of the anti-war crowd can just gloss over this on their everpresent quest to mercilessly bash the Bush Administration. I don't know what the total number of civilian casualties is right now, but I do know it pales in comparison to the number of people the Iraqi Regime will continue to murder if they're allowed to continue unimped for all eternity.
Sad news, if it`s true. I have to wonder if they were a casuality of being Human Shields or if the bomb was of course. The propaganda that comes from war makes everyone second guess what really happened. Since I did not see the full story I cant comment on the content, only speculate
Thank you for the update, Saddam. Yes, much better that you hide your head in the sand and pretend the war isn't happening. Only Saddam who would talk about people dying in this war.
MacBeth: "incredibly angry"... "mob"... "distraught"... "disastrous"... Are these lifted directly from teh BBC report? My criticism, and that of others, is the pattern you establish of continually taking potshots at the US war effort. Now you use this tragedy to bolster your positions. I never said you enjoyed the deaths per se. In fact, I think you look past the specifics of the deaths and compress it to a category of US failure that you can chortle over. You can't step back and see the pattern.
