10 dead, more wounded when US troops fire on protest

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-30 07:54am

10 dead, more wounded when US troops fire on protest

Fucked up situation and paranoia on both sides- including the Iraqis thinking that 100 US troops stationed in a school (ostensible reason for protest- they wanted the school reopened) were going around at night and perving on Iraqi women with night vision goggles.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-05-06 07:18pm

Shades of Kent State, eh? (though is it really a shade when more people are killed?)

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-07 03:30am

The incident has become quite controversial in media circles- especially skepticism at US claims- they claimed they were fired upon from the crowd, yet while firing into the air is common, press examined the school building the troops were in and there wasn't a single bullet hole or broken window, and witnesses insist the crowd wasn't armed.

I think they're starting to call it the Fallujah incident or some such. Or is that another one?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 03:36am

Vympel wrote:The incident has become quite controversial in media circles- especially skepticism at US claims- they claimed they were fired upon from the crowd, yet while firing into the air is common, press examined the school building the troops were in and there wasn't a single bullet hole or broken window, and witnesses insist the crowd wasn't armed.

Any such claim is utter bullshit. From the morning of the very first incident you could clearly see numerous bull holes in the walls and windows of the building.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-05-07 04:10am

You know I just watched the movie "Rules of Engagement" and this situation(from what I hear) sounds very similar.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-07 04:53am

Death from the Sea wrote:You know I just watched the movie "Rules of Engagement" and this situation(from what I hear) sounds very similar.

That movie sucked ass ....

Any such claim is utter bullshit. From the morning of the very first incident you could clearly see numerous bull holes in the walls and windows of the building.

This is what the reporter wrote:

The evidence at the scene overwhelmingly supports this. Al-Ka'at primary and secondary school is a yellow concrete building about the length and height of seven terraced houses located in a walled compound. The soldiers fired at people gathered below them. There are no bullet marks on the façade of the school or the perimeter wall in front of it. The top floors of the houses directly opposite, from where the troops say they were fired on, also appear unmarked. Their upper windows are intact.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 04:56am

Vympel wrote:
This is what the reporter wrote:

The evidence at the scene overwhelmingly supports this. Al-Ka'at primary and secondary school is a yellow concrete building about the length and height of seven terraced houses located in a walled compound. The soldiers fired at people gathered below them. There are no bullet marks on the façade of the school or the perimeter wall in front of it. The top floors of the houses directly opposite, from where the troops say they were fired on, also appear unmarked. Their upper windows are intact.

What they wrote? I'm talking about video which clearly showed hits and was being showed by CNN for about a day and half.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-07 07:14am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
What they wrote? I'm talking about video which clearly showed hits and was being showed by CNN for about a day and half.

How do you know it was the school?

CNN's reporter on the scene didn't say anything about bullet marks on the school or its perimter wall, and the website only showed pictures of some shot up cars. Additionally, the Army brought out 3 (or was it two?) AKs it found in some neighbouring houses to prove it's case- when they could've just simply pointed at the building. Not a peep.

Unless you're confusing it with the police station incident (which happened, IIRC, a day later, after the school incident?)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 09:41am

Vympel wrote:
How do you know it was the school?

Because it looked like one and was stated to be it in the report.

CNN's reporter on the scene didn't say anything about bullet marks on the school or its perimter wall, and the website only showed pictures of some shot up cars.

I don't know what report you where watching. While the camara showed the holes and broken windows the reportered said "These fresh bullet holes and brokwn windows seem to support the American story."
[/quote]

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-07 09:43am

Bloody media. Schizophrenic reporting ....

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-23 10:37am

Sorry to bump, but Human Rights Watch just released a report on ballistic evidence at the school. No bullet holes. They were nails in those holes.

Extract from a larger report on the entire Fallujah incident

The bullet holes that some journalists reported seeing on the perimeter wall turned out to be holes left by nails-some of the nails were still in the holes, and the square patterns formed by the different holes showed they had been used to hang posters or signs. Human Rights Watch found no evidence of the "bullet holes in a second-story window" or the school façade "pocked with bullet holes" described by one journalist

Follow the link to read the entire report. Bottom line, the US forces didn't take any fire towards the school, and if they did, they must've been basically blind and incredibly bad shots. What they did take was stone throwing.

The lack of bullet marks on the school and perimeter wall contrasts sharply with the walls across the street, which bear the marks of more than 100 rounds-smaller caliber shots as well as heavy caliber machine gun rounds-shot by U.S. soldiers. The facades and perimeter walls of seven of the nine homes across from the school had significant bullet damage, including six homes that had been hit with more than a dozen rounds each.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-23 10:53am

We're becoming the freakin' IDF...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-23 10:59am

HemlockGrey wrote:

We're becoming the freakin' IDF...

If it had happened anywhere but Fallujah (pretty much the worse place you could possibly be if you were an American) ... the entire situation isn't helped by more dubious Iraqi rumors (like the NVGs used to perve on women rumors) like the Americans used electroshock therapy on me, or there's Jews going around buying up all our land and building settlements (IIRC), etc etc bullshit bullshit bullshit ....

This all goes back to that the 3ID needs to be withdrawn post haste. They've been in the region for how long, on top of the four months of combat duty? They were supposed to go home in June.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-23 11:09am

Funny, they don't present a single photo. This report is bullshit, bullet holes where clearly shown on TV on both the walls and along the top edge of the building where troops where stained the day after it all happened.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-23 11:15am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Funny, they don't present a single photo. This report is bullshit, bullet holes where clearly shown on TV on both the walls and along the top edge of the building where troops where stained the day after it all happened.

Don't be inane. Those weren't bullet holes. Why would Human Rights Watch lie? Did you read the report? And furthermore, why would the Lt Col in question offer up an explanation for the lack of those holes if they were really there? Were they lying about that too? Why?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-23 11:27am

Vympel wrote: Don't be inane. Those weren't bullet holes. Why would Human Rights Watch lie? Did you read the report? And furthermore, why would the Lt Col in question offer up an explanation for the lack of those holes if they were really there? Were they lying about that too? Why?

Because the organization has an agenda against the United States. It wouldn't be the first time.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-23 11:30am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Because the organization has an agenda against the United States. It wouldn't be the first time.

There have been other times when Human Rights Watch has fabricated such an incident and built an elaborate scheme of lies upon lies (they would have to misrepresent the physical evidence and also misrepesent both the questions asked of the Lt Col and his answer) on a publically available report to damage the credibility of the United States?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-23 02:23pm

Skimmer...No offense, but you are being stupid. Support your case with examples. We have a report from the Human Rights Watch, against you.

WHAT THE FUCK! We go in as liberators, then deny them the right to arm themselves or to peacfully assemble!!! That is FUCKED UP! No wonder they hate us. No wonder I hate us.

We are violating our own fuking constitution when dealing with another country. Not only are we an occupation force(also fucked up) we are an oppressive occupation force. This needs to be stopped, but so long as Shrub is n office e cant do fucking shit...How long will it be before we lose our rights? Oh wait, we already have...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-23 03:30pm

WHAT THE FUCK! We go in as liberators, then deny them the right to arm themselves or to peacfully assemble!!! That is FUCKED UP! No wonder they hate us. No wonder I hate us.

Ok, first off, by 'arming themselves' I can only assume you're referring to the disarment and disbanding of 400,000 Iraqi soldiers. I'm sure you'll see the inherent stupidity in allowing disgruntled irregulars to carry around AK-47s in a warzone.

Further, a rock-throwing mob is not a peaceful assembly. Just FYI.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-23 03:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Skimmer...No offense, but you are being stupid. Support your case with examples. We have a report from the Human Rights Watch, against you.

WHAT THE FUCK! We go in as liberators, then deny them the right to arm themselves or to peacfully assemble!!! That is FUCKED UP! No wonder they hate us. No wonder I hate us.

We are violating our own fuking constitution when dealing with another country. Not only are we an occupation force(also fucked up) we are an oppressive occupation force. This needs to be stopped, but so long as Shrub is n office e cant do fucking shit...How long will it be before we lose our rights? Oh wait, we already have...

On one side they are happy the US flushed Saddam out,and on the other side most of them still want to kill Americans.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-23 04:05pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK! We go in as liberators, then deny them the right to arm themselves or to peacfully assemble!!! That is FUCKED UP! No wonder they hate us. No wonder I hate us.
Ok, first off, by 'arming themselves' I can only assume you're referring to the disarment and disbanding of 400,000 Iraqi soldiers. I'm sure you'll see the inherent stupidity in allowing disgruntled irregulars to carry around AK-47s in a warzone.

Further, a rock-throwing mob is not a peaceful assembly. Just FYI.

As ar as I read, that protest was peaceful. According to the report above, those holes are from nails.

And IIRC we confiscated weapons from civilians.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-06-23 05:30pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:And IIRC we confiscated weapons from civilians.

Allowing irregulars to carry AK-47s in a fucking war zone isn't smart.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-24 12:45am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Allowing irregulars to carry AK-47s in a fucking war zone isn't smart.

They halted the practice of taking AK-47s away from households- it's a no-win situation in that public order is at zero, so if you're not armed, looters can, will and have enter into innocent peoples homes and simply rob them for everything they're worth. They're not allowed to have 'heavy' weapons though- by that I assume they mean the full range of machine guns and the ever so ubiquitous RPG-7.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-24 12:50am

Vympel wrote:
They halted the practice of taking AK-47s away from households- it's a no-win situation in that public order is at zero, so if you're not armed, looters can, will and have enter into innocent peoples homes and simply rob them for everything they're worth. They're not allowed to have 'heavy' weapons though- by that I assume they mean the full range of machine guns and the ever so ubiquitous RPG-7.

Actually there only allowing business owners and guards to hold onto rifles, in theory anyway, and they where suppose to obtain permits. In practice I doubt that’s going to be enforced and everyone is going to hold onto there rifles.