http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101700808.html?sub=AR U.S. Air and Ground Strikes Near Ramadi Kill 70 Health Workers Dispute Military Claim That Targets Were Suspected Insurgents By Jonathan Finer Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, October 17, 2005; 4:27 PM BAGHDAD, Oct. 17 -- A series of U.S. air and ground strikes Sunday near the western city of Ramadi killed 70 suspected insurgents, the military said in a statement Monday. But Ramadi health workers and residents, including several eyewitnesses, reported 39 civilians among the dead, including 18 children allegedly killed when an aerial bombardment targeted a U.S. Humvee that had been disabled by a deadly roadside bomb on Saturday. The events described in the conflicting accounts came the day after insurgent attacks and clashes with U.S. forces near Ramadi held down turnout there for the country's referendum on a new constitution. Turnout in the area was reported at around 10 percent, as many voters said they feared going to the polls. With only incomplete national results available Monday, the referendum appeared to have passed, although it was soundly defeated in Anbar province, the scene of Saturday's clashes. The province has a Sunni Muslim majority and contains insurgent strongholds. Ramadi is Anbar's capital and largest city. Family members of the victims descended upon Ramadi General Hospital, which ran out of refrigeration space for the dead. The bodies of a woman and three children lay in the garden Monday, and victims' relatives fought with each other as they sifted through remains. The details provided by the U.S. military of the various attacks that resulted in the deaths differed widely from witnesses' accounts. Ahmed Fouad, a Ramadi resident, said children and others had gathered near a Humvee that had been struck by a roadside bomb in the Albu Fahad area, east of downtown. It is not uncommon for residents to gather to photograph such scenes. Insurgents also often videotape the results of attacks for propaganda purposes. Just after 7 p.m. Sunday, warplanes bombed the area, killing 18 children, including Fouad's son and 8-year-old daughter, he said. "She was killed with her brother when they were near the Humvee," Fouad said. "Her mother had a stroke out of shock." He said family members carried the victims to the city's Albu Kharbeet cemetery to be buried. The military said in its statement that at 1:25 p.m. Sunday, crew members from an F-15 fighter watched 20 men arrive in four vehicles at the crater site of a roadside bomb that killed five U.S. and two Iraqi soldiers on Saturday. It said the men were placing another bomb at the same spot when the F-15 dropped a "precision-guided bomb, resulting in the death of the terrorists on the ground." The military statement described two other incidents in which insurgent fighters were targeted. "All the attacks were timed and executed in a manner to reduce the possibility of collateral damage," the statement said. "There were no reports of Coalition or civilian casualties." At 7:30 p.m. Sunday, according to the statement, two U.S. helicopters patrolling north of Ramadi saw young men gathering at a suspected terrorist safe house. The men fled and fired small arms at one of the helicopters, an AH-1W Cobra, which returned fire with its 20mm cannon, killing an about 10 insurgents, the statement said. At that same location, at 7:50 p.m., a team of F/A-18 fighters observing the scene saw 35 to 40 insurgents loading vehicles with weapons, the statement said. One of the planes attacked them with a precision-guided bomb, according to the statement. "The combined strikes resulted in approximately 50 terrorists killed," it said. In another incident reported in the military's statement, between one and three insurgents were killed in an airstrike and firefight with U.S. forces near the provincial government compound in Ramadi just before 9 p.m. Sunday. In Washington, President Bush hailed increased turnout in Saturday's constitutional referendum and said he was encouraged by Sunni Arab participation and by the greater role of Iraqi forces in providing security. "My first reaction to the vote was that an increase in turnout was an indication that the Iraqi people are strongly in favor of settling disputes in a peaceful way," Bush told reporters at the White House after a meeting with the visiting president of Bulgaria. He said Iraqis "understand that working to find common ground in a constitution is much better for their future than relying upon killers and people who will kill innocent children and women for the sake of creating havoc." Bush said he was also "pleased to see that the Sunnis have participated in the process." Trying to work out political differences peacefully "stands in stark contrast to the al Qaeda types and the terrorists and the killers that are trying to drive the process through violence," he said. "The way forward is clear," he said. "The political process will continue with a constitution, if finally ratified, and then an election, coupled with a security plan that continues to train Iraqis so they do the fighting." Pointing to reduced violence during the referendum compared to National Assembly elections in January, Bush said that "one of the reasons why is because the Iraqi forces took the fight to the enemy and provided security." He added, "So yesterday was a very hopeful day for peace. It was an exciting day for a country that only a few short years ago was ruled by a brutal tyrant." Special Correspondents Omar Fekeiki and Bassam Sebti contributed to the report. Staff writer William Branigin contributed from Washington.
LOL - Apparently making fun of Christians is the new hatred du jour of the liberals. This bombing was not done in the name of Christianity, nor does it have anything to do with Christianity.
No, but worse: it was done in the name of the people of the U.S. I marvel at how the military always lumps all deaths together as 'insurgents', when the absolute majority of the time it's mostly civilians with may be (not even a definite thing, but just may be) a few insurgents/terrorists among them. I agree with bigtexxx, it's not Christianity, the U.S. has nothing to do with Christianity, never has and never will.
It has always worked that way throughout history. State powerhouses committing atrocities justify their crimes by dismissing the victims as seditious, or merely as numbers, without names, faces and histories, or as the inevitable casualties of a superior morality.
I agree with you that Christianity was not the motive behind attack, but I have a suspicion that the thread starter's intent was to rebut the calls in other threads by many for "Muslim leaders" to condemn terrorism. There is a parallel that the crimes committed by both sides are not in the name of propogating their respective religion (contrary to the claims of the Islamophobes on this board) but rather to use it as a common ground for garnering support for the cause. Just because George Bush's claims that God told him to start this war don't sound as barbaric and outlandish to our ears as "jihad" and "Allah" doesn't mean that there is no relation. Al-Qaeda appeals to its Muslim base while George W. Bush rallies around the Christian Right.
Sadly, that is too true, and the Bush Administration is carrying this to a high art. It's the fortunes of war to the government and, too often, for the press in it's coverage. To the victims, their families, relations, and friends, it is something else... it is murder. I thought Vietnam was bad, and it most assurdedly was, but at this early point during the conflict in Iraq, assuming it lasts as long as Vietnam, I don't recall the press being this manipulated, or lying on it's back so readily, for the rape of the truth by the Administration. Keep D&D Civil.
Deckard, I'm sure you'll agree with me in that I'll take Huntley, Brinkley, and Cronkite over O'Reilly, Hume, Hannity, and Rivera any day. We never saw this with the former group mentioned.
you need to check your history. advocacy journalism as we know it today began with uncle walter's reporting during TET, 1968.
Extending the logic from some crap in another thread, if these hapless Iraqis have to die, they are better off dying in hands of the American liberators than in the hands of Saddam.
Yes, I would agree. The press back then, while not being immune to being manipulated, wouldn't have stood for the blatant **** that is happening today. Those who didn't see the quality of press coverage back then, as some of us did, just don't understand how that quality has plummeted. "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone... " Keep D&D Civil.
He knows his history. Obviously, you don't. I would like to have seen an Administration official offer your "uncle walter" money for running government propaganda and calling it "news" in 1968. Or at any other time in his career as a journalist. Keep D&D Civil.
Yep, and if Uncle Walter hadn't done it, perhaps we would still have troops in Vietnam today. Wouldn't that be a joy!
Iraq is a country in which if the U.S. stays - things like this will continue to happen and the divide will grow. However; if the U.S. leaves, the country will end up in a worst state then it was under Saddam. Yup, there a word to describe this situation: Quagmire The best case scenario is that we build up an Iraqi Army powerful enough to declare martial law so the U.S. can leave finally. Then that Army can be headed by a ruthless despot who will crush all those who even dare speak against him. Of course, this ruthless dictator will turn against us at some point and invade a neighboring country. Hopefully, after a brief war, we can check his nuclear ambitions with inspections. If he doesn't comply, we can always dispose of him and try again to build democracy.
I think the difference was that there were fewer press services and so they could speak with more authority and had a narrower talent pool to hire people who could present the news with more charisma and gravitas. I don't believe that the mainstream press of the 50's and 60's though was any less biased and IMO was probably more biased because they weren't competing with other news sources. I think the new movie Good Night and Good Luck while a great high point of a journalist standing up to a power mad Senator it is also an example of bias because how does becoming an advocate for any particular position qualify as being an objective reporter? I'm not saying that it is wrong necessarily that journalists are advocates but at that point they are being biased. We can't bemoan on one hand that our journalism is biased while at the same time demanding that journalists become advocates. Once you become an advocate you are biased.
Journalists are news reporters. Advocate journalists are columnists Somewhere, this line of distinction has been blurred.
Back to the question. Not all Christians can condemn this terror. Abortion or anti-Gay only Christians cannot condemn this terror. Those Christians who put allegiance to the GOP or to GOP front group preachers cannot condmn this terror. Many other Christians can condemn this terror.
If someone who condemns the war can 'support the troops,' why can't someone 'for' the war be against killing innocent people? And why does being anti-abortion/anti-gay and christian have anything to do with it?
