|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: International Relations |
|
US Soldiers Kills 3 Teens, Wound 7 Others In Iraqi Wedding Parade |
Current rating: 0 |
by Tim Potter
(No verified email address) |
29 May 2003
|
A U.S. Army official, who asked that he not be identified by name, said the incident was under investigation. He said he could provide no comment Wednesday night, other than to say: "Celebratory gunfire is dangerous."
Yeah, you might get the death penalty for such celebrations, courtesy of Uncle Sam... |
|
Surrounded by family and relatives Abdul Salam Jassin, 17, lies wounded in Samarra General Hospital (Philadelphia Inquirer Photo/Peter Tobia)
SAMARRA, Iraq - U.S. soldiers opened fire on a festive wedding parade earlier this week, killing three teen-agers and wounding seven others after the celebrants fired weapons in the air, medical officials and survivors said Wednesday night.
The shooting, about 10 p.m. Monday, was only one of a series of deadly incidents this week that have sharply increased tension between U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.
The incident highlights a clash of cultures. It is a popular custom in Iraq to fire weapons in the air to celebrate weddings and other festive events.
But the practice has been prohibited under a new weapons policy being enforced by U.S. troops.
Three teens remained in "very critical" condition Wednesday night, and four other young people were in stable condition, said Dr. Abdul al Rahman, who helped treat many of the victims at Samarra General Hospital in this town a 90-minute drive north of Baghdad.
A U.S. Army official, who asked that he not be identified by name, said the incident was under investigation. He said he could provide no comment Wednesday night, other than to say: "Celebratory gunfire is dangerous."
Rahman said soldiers told the hospital staff that the gunshots had provoked a deadly reaction. But one of the wounded, 17-year-old Abdul Salam Jassim, said U.S. soldiers didn't open fire until several minutes after the celebratory shooting had occurred.
Jassim suffered a gunshot wound to the abdomen that destroyed his colon, Rahman said.
In the hospital bed next to Jassim lay 12-year-old Mohammad Ahmed, with gunshot wounds to his abdomen, thighs and scrotum. "He's a child," Rahman said.
Following the shooting, the doctor said, several U.S. soldiers with rifles walked into the hospital, seeking the names of those who had been wounded. The sight of armed soldiers, so soon after the shooting, so frightened people in the hospital that some of them fled.
Rahman said, "I was very surprised. I was very afraid." What added to the tension, he said, is that the soldiers seemed "very irritable."
He and others complained that the American soldiers issued a 10 p.m-to-5 a.m. curfew one day after the shooting. The curfew, the Iraqis said, interferes with their evening prayers at Samarra's famous gold-covered mosque.
As the sun set Wednesday, 50-year-old Younis Hamid al Rifaai stood over the fresh grave of his 13-year-old son, Ahmed, one of the three teen-agers who were fatally wounded. Al Rifaai said his son had wounds in his spine, stomach and lungs.
The earthen mound over the boy's grave was still damp as al Rifaai and hundreds of men held their hands up and chanted Muslim prayers.
The boy had been invited to join the wedding celebration convoy. Most of those killed and wounded were riding in a minivan and a truck filled with young people taking part in the convoy of vehicles cruising through downtown Samarra.
As hundreds of men at the cemetery pressed in around al Rifaai Wednesday evening, he told a reporter that Samarra's people would not accept what he termed "aggression by U.S. forces." He demanded an official investigation of the tragic shootings.
When the gunshot victims arrived at the hospital Monday night, it took at least 15 doctors to treat the patients, Rahman said. "There is no reasonable cause for these deaths," he said.
He and the father of the 13-year-old who died said they had the same message for U.S. soldiers: "Enough."
Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this report.
© 2003, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/ |
Comments
|
History Adds To Doubt On Arms |
by Bryan Bender
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 May 2003
|
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's conclusion that two truck trailers seized in Iraq were probably used as mobile bioweapons labs is unlikely to dispel doubts about prewar assertions that Iraq had a vast program of weapons of mass destruction, according to defense analysts.
Despite previous US assertions that Saddam Hussein's government had enough deadly agents and chemical toxins to kill millions of people, no biological or chemical materials have been found nearly two months after the fall of the Iraqi regime.
The doubts are being further fueled by establishment in the Department of Defense of an office intended to improve the flow of intelligence from the CIA and other spy agencies. The head of the new office, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, is being billed as an advocate for the military's changing intelligence needs.
But some critics say the office will mold intelligence to further the administration's foreign policy goals and erode the independence of other US intelligence agencies. Current and former lawmakers, as well as analysts, say that's what may have happened on Iraq.
Yesterday's less-than-definitive findings on the suspected mobile labs strengthen the views of some critics that the administratin inflated prewar intelligence reports to build support for the invasion. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency reached their conclusions about the suspected mobile labs by eliminating other possible uses for the facilities.
''It plays into the lingering doubts about the administration's claims,'' said Corey Hinderstein, an analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. ''To use such a controversial methodology is somewhat disturbing. It is yet another example where the US credibility is being hurt.''
Members of the House Intelligence Committee are also concerned about the validity of prewar intelligence. Last week, the panel asked the CIA to review the prewar intelligence on suspected Iraqi weapons and Iraq's possible links to terrorism.
The committee ''wants to ensure that the analysis relayed to our policymakers . . . was accurate, unbiased, and timely,'' said a May 22 letter to CIA director George J. Tenet from Representatives Porter J. Goss, a Florida Republican and the panel's chairman, and Jane Harman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat.
The Bush administration denies that it shaped intelligence to support its goal of regime change in Iraq. General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday on ABC's ''Today'' show that he had ''high confidence in the intelligence data that we had before we went into Iraq.'' He said he believed that it ''is a matter of time'' before weapons of mass destruction are found.
In an effort to address any new concerns about politics mixing with intelligence, Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon's new intelligence czar, said last week that he and his staff of about 100 will not be involved in either gathering future intelligence or analyzing any findings.
The office ''isn't here to process intelligence,'' Cambone told reporters. ''The task here is for us to be able to articulate to the intelligence community what the needs and interests of the department are going to be. It's an important distinction to make.''
He acknowledged that the unit will work on ''improving the flow of information . . . from those who collect and analyze it . . . to those who employ it in the military and civilian worlds within the Department of Defense.''
Such a role, however, is causing concern among opponents of the office, who fear that political bias will be infused into the process and that intelligence contrary to the administration's goals will be left out of the public discourse.
''There is always a tendency to blend intelligence information into the political agenda,'' said former US senator Sam Nunn, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee. ''The Pentagon is driven by policy.''
The Bush administration, in particular, has ''people with very strong-willed views leading the civilian side,'' Nunn said.In previous roles, Rumsfeld and Cambone were involved in reassessing intelligence reports. In 1998, Rumsfeld, as a private citizen, led a congressional commission to gauge the threat from ballistic missiles. Cambone was his staff director.Around Rumsfeld, ''there has been a long pattern of mistrust of the intelligence agencies and having independent assessments that exaggerate the threat,'' said Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. ''This is what happened to us in Iraq,'' Cirincione said. ''The intelligence agencies were bludgeoned into providing intelligence information that would support their preexisting policy.''
Cirincione warns of a repeat of the late 1970s, when current Bush administration advisers such as Richard Perle participated in what was called ''Team B'' to reappraise the Soviet military threat.
''They came out with an independent evaluation of a much greater threat that proved completely wrong,'' Cirincione said. ''This formed the Reagan administration policies during the 1980s, but by the end of the decade it was clear that the intelligence agencies had it right. But being wrong has never stopped these guys.''
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/globe/ |
|
The Case For War Is Blown Apart |
by Ben Russell and Andy McSmith
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 May 2003
|
Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.
Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".
But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House.
Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer."
Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 liters of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".
But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.
"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbors, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.
"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists.
"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."
He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."
Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour Defense minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made."
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat Defense spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were skeptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real."
But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defense Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations."
Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".
The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes."
Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."
The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."
The build-up to war: What they said
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
http://www.independent.co.uk/ |
|
Iraq Townsfolk Riot After U.S.-Led Weapons Search |
by Wafa Amr
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 May 2003
|
Thu May 29, 2003 03:53 AM ET
HIT, Iraq (Reuters) - The police station in the tense Iraqi town of Hit smoldered on Thursday, a day after it was set alight in what residents said was a riot over intrusive weapons searches by Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers.
U.S. troops trying to quell lawlessness seven weeks after Saddam Hussein's downfall have come under attack in several parts of central Iraq in the past few days.
A farmer said he saw a U.S. helicopter go down near Hit, 90 miles northwest of Baghdad, on Wednesday, although the crash was unconfirmed.
Another resident, 24-year-old Amer Aziz, who said he represented the young men of Hit, told Reuters the trouble began when police and American troops began a house-to-house search for guns on Wednesday morning.
"The Iraqi police were very rough with our women," he said. "They forced their way into houses without knocking, sometimes when women were sleeping. This is a very conservative town."
Uproar ensued in the Sunni Muslim town of 155,000 as angry residents surged into the streets, burning police cars and throwing stones and handmade grenades at the Americans.
Aziz said a parley had taken place in the afternoon, when townsfolk told the Americans to leave or face suicide attacks.
"I convinced the young men to withdraw and then the Americans withdrew," he added.
Another young man, 26-year-old Ahmed al-Mashhadawi, said a hand grenade had been thrown at a U.S. tank as it left town. "We killed one soldier and wounded others," he said.
The U.S. military said on Wednesday it was checking what happened in Hit, but has not confirmed any casualties.
One resident, Adnan Mizdar, said U.S. troops had fired during the clashes, wounding a 10-year-old boy and two other people. Residents said they had already left hospital.
"We are not Saddam's men," said a man named Abu Qasim. "Saddam is gone, but we want the occupation to end. The Americans must know they can never come back to town."
He said the Iraqi police, who were all locals, had left with the U.S. troops. The Iraqi flag was still flying over the burned-out police station. Residents said they had taken its contents to a mosque for safekeeping.
U.S. soldiers wearing chemical suits and gas masks were deployed some five miles outside Hit on Thursday, with seven tanks and a score of military vehicles.
It was not clear why the troops had donned protective gear. No chemical or other banned weapons have been found in Iraq since the United States and Britain invaded on March 20.
A farmer said he had seen a U.S. helicopter crash about five miles from the town at about 1 p.m. on Wednesday. Another helicopter had lifted the wreckage away.
The Pentagon said on Wednesday it had no information on a media report that a U.S. helicopter had gone down in the area.
The U.S. Central Command said a U.S. soldier was killed when he came under hostile fire in Iraq on Thursday. The Centcom statement did not give the location of the shooting.
In other recent incidents, two U.S. soldiers were killed and nine wounded in an ambush near Falluja, west of Baghdad, on Tuesday. Six days earlier, American soldiers killed two Iraqis who fired anti-tank rockets at an armored vehicle in the city.
On Monday, two U.S. soldiers were killed and four wounded in two ambushes, one in Baghdad and one north of the capital. |
|
Re: US Soldiers Kills 3 Teens, Wound 7 Others In Iraqi Wedding Parade |
by Bill Lanning
WLanning (nospam) aol,com (unverified) |
Current rating: -2
22 Jul 2003
|
|
I am continually amazed at the milksop Americans unearthing themselves in any effort to engratiate themselves with their perceived superiors, the Europaens. Please do us a favor and relocate yourselves to Europe so you can practice your bootlicking on a regular basis. Shots were fired and returned. Firing weapons not a smart thing to do in war zone. WMD were relocated to Syria prior to and during the war. Search elsewhere for your condemnation of the country that gives you the ability to do so without fear of death. Try doing that in a Sadam regime. You would be tortured and murdered like others who did far less in Sadam's eyes. |
|
