[Article]'Many casualties' after Baghdad market hit

shotamoose

Looks like there's over a dozen dead after air raids hit a shopping area. Link to BBC news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2887555.stm. First few paragraphs:

Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.

The BBC's Andrew Gilligan, at the scene in the north of the city, says it appears that two missiles hit a busy parade of shops.

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims

They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam".

Our correspondent says the buildings have been burnt out and their contents scattered over a wide area, while several cars were set on fire.

He adds that the nearest military buildings are at least a quarter of a mile away.
Reuters news agency correspondents say they have seen at least 15 burnt bodies, while some local people have said the number of dead could be as high as 45.

Correspondents say the incident, if confirmed as a coalition attack, is a massive blow to attempts by the US-led forces to minimise civilian casualties during their drive to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

It is likely to increase anger in the Arab world and beyond about the war.

A spokesman for the Royal Air Force said an investigation would be held into the incident.

If the market had been hit as a result of coalition action, he said, "we deeply regret the loss of civilian life".

Giving the US/UK the benefit of the doubt by assuming this wasn't intentional, it still shows that there is no such thing as a 'clean' or 'smart' or 'humanitarian' war once you stop restricting yourself to bombing empty palaces. Even then there were casualties, now they've moved on to a more diverse range of targets it could get very nasty indeed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

They stated they hadnt targeted anything in that area and did not yet even know if it was their missle.

shotamoose

You don't have to target something to hit it, obviously. That's not the issue. The issue is that even smart bombs go awry sometimes, so you can't have a clean war. Especially when one side has no qualms about 'embedding' their weaponry in the civilian population and the other side has no qualms about firing missiles at that weaponry.

davelerave

Originally posted by Sand
They stated they hadnt targeted anything in that area and did not yet even know if it was their missle.

don't they always deny for a while until the fuss dies down even when it's obvious ,

Sand

They accepted that they hit that bus going to Syria when they took out that bridge didnt they?

And fighting a clean war is very difficult when the enemy uses civillians as a shield - but the war is certainly clean compared to the carpet bombing of WW2 and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis predicted by the prophets of doom.

The americans again have said they have targeted nothing in the area, and they dont yet accept it was even an awry missle of theirs - they reckon it might have been a Iraqi AAA gun, or a SAM which missed its target and fell back to earth. Who knows, the sudden assumption it was the americans when they claim to havent gone near the area may prove hasty.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
The americans again have said they have targeted nothing in the area, and they dont yet accept it was even an awry missle of theirs - they reckon it might have been a Iraqi AAA gun, or a SAM which missed its target and fell back to earth. Who knows, the sudden assumption it was the americans when they claim to havent gone near the area may prove hasty.

Looking at the overview picture of the area, the damage was doen by a very large warhead, not a SAM

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
And fighting a clean war is very difficult when the enemy uses civillians as a shield - but the war is certainly clean compared to the carpet bombing of WW2 and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis predicted by the prophets of doom.

I've had a quick search of the boards and I can't find anyone who suggested let alone predicted there would be 'hundreds of thousands' of casualties. Myself and others mentioned 'tens of thousands', which I stand by as a realistic guess.

So are you basing this 'hundreds of thousands' on anything anyone has said (cos I might have missed something) or are you just exagerating for effect?

Originally posted by shotamoose
I've had a quick search of the boards and I can't find anyone who suggested let alone predicted there would be 'hundreds of thousands' of casualties. Myself and others mentioned 'tens of thousands', which I stand by as a realistic guess.

So are you basing this 'hundreds of thousands' on anything anyone has said (cos I might have missed something) or are you just exagerating for effect?

I would presume the hundreds of thousands refered to by Sand would include deaths of Children due to starvation, lack of water, medical supplies etc, predicted on a widescale by those protesting this war prior to it's start.
This hasn't happened yet, but it could happen, if humanitarian supplies do not go through.

I note the coalition forces are denying outright that they were responsible for the market bombing and are saying that the damage, was consistant with an Iraqi surface to air missile that fell down.They say a cruise missile would have done a lot more damage and that they did not target that area at all.

Now the Iraqi information minister on the other hand is still stating that Um Quasar has not fallen out of Iraqi control:rolleyes:
Tell that to the embedded journalists reporting live from there on various TV news channels, or to the British engineers working to restore water supplies to Basra.
On the news this morning, I heard, fascinating accounts from U.S injured soldiers of Iraqi "civilians" taking off their outer garments when captured and revealing soldiers uniforms underneath.

Meanwhile we hear reports of Iraqi soldiers opening fire on their own civilians in Basra...I wonder are those dead and injured counted in the toll of civilians dead so far mentioned to be in the high hundreds by the Iraqi health minister this morning?:rolleyes:
Oh the fog of War.
mm

DadaKopf

Just an aside: last Friday's Guardian G2 section had a nice little history of the Tomahawk missile. The article was about how the missile has replaced the B-52 as the symbol of US military might and how it has, consequently, altered both political and military strategy.

All this hinges, of course, on the missile's accuracy - which, according to US Navy reports, was 80% effective in the 1991 gulf War (its first tour of duty). It was found out later, though, that the Navy had a "novel" way of measuring the missiles effectiveness. A successful mission only referred to those missiles that didn't get stuck on their launcher.

Sand

Looking at the overview picture of the area, the damage was doen by a very large warhead, not a SAM

I dont know what your field of expertise is, all I can say is that I have seen or heard no recognised group of experts opinion yet on what weapon might have caused the damage.

The Americans apparently disagree with your analysis, but despite having access to experts the americans are involved so they cant be taken as gospel.

Is it so hard to take the position that it is unknown what hit the market place, who fired it and why it hit that market place - especially when the americans deny targeting anything in the area, whilst on the other hand being fairly quick to accept responsibility elsewhere? Im just back from work, but Ive heard or seen nothing yet that actually casts significant light on the important questions.

froggy 2

“hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis”

First, tens of thousands would be more accurate, secondly the war is not over, thirdly … in fact it depends on what you name “innocent victim”.
For many people, it seems that it is an equivalent for “civilian”; I cannot agree with that:
If Saddam HUSSEIN, his militias, his elite guards cannot be considered as innocent… the question remains when it gets to the basic Iraqi soldier. Don’t we have to take him into account if we number dead Iraqis? Is he guilty of anything? How many of those soldiers will die?
Of course, you can answer that he is forced to fight under menace by fanatics, but it seems to me :
a) That this version of the story is only partially true. Reports of the (french) medias indicate that the proportion of the population greeting GI's joyfully is real, but it's far from being a general feeling[1].
b) That it doesn’t change the fact: they are innocent victims of the war; and I don’t consider you can avoid this question answering just “well, it’s the price to pay”, since this war is being led in the name of freedom, and against the axis of evil… It is precisely what makes the difference between good and evil.


[1] You can say French medias are biased on that point, but they are certainly not half as biased as CNN or al-jazirah (not to mention FOX NEWS). Additionally, resistance in OUM QASR by basic, non-professional, and isolated units seem to indicate at least a minimal -real- will of fight and imply a minimal support of the local population, this tends to confirm this version.
Also confirmed by an interview of a shiite leader on TV yersteday : if they hate HUSSEIN, they don't like westerners either.