More than 20 Iraqis hurt after US fires missiles near hospital

[LiberalNation]

What are you to really do when the enemy decides to set up shop next to a hospital.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AmakfB7Noy9.UqMrNDeCEuYDW7oF

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military on Saturday fired missiles at a target about 50 yards away from the general hospital in Baghdad's Sadr City district, wounding more than 20 people and destroying ambulances, hospital officials said.

Dr. Ali Bustan al-Fartusee, director general of Baghdad's health directorate, told The Associated Press that 23 civilians were injured.

He said no patients in the hospital were hurt, but that some of the wounded included civilians outside on their way to visit patients, and that around 17 ambulances were damaged.

Earlier, hospital officials said 28 people were injured; the reason for the discrepancy was not immediately known.

The missile were fired from a launcher on the ground, the U.S. military said. It said in a press release that it destroyed a "criminal element command and control center" with missiles in northeastern Baghdad — where Sadr City is located — around the same time Iraqis reported the attack near the hospital.

The U.S. military also said that American forces "only engage hostile threats and take every precaution to protect innocent civilians."

Shiite extremists are known to have operated in a building next to the hospital, according to local reporters.

The attack left a crater just outside the concrete barriers of the hospital and badly damaged several ambulances and some other vehicles, AP Television News footage showed. The explosion also demolished a brick building.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have been locked in street battles with Shiite militias since late March in Sadr City, a Baghdad slum of 2.5 million people and the base of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army.

More than 100 people have been wounded in clashes Friday and Saturday in Sadr City, Iraqi health officials said

The U.S. military said Saturday that 10 militants were killed in fighting on Friday, including a sniper and a triggerman accused of planting armor-piercing roadside bombs in Sadr City and the adjacent Ubaydi area. U.S. forces used aircraft and an Abrams battle tank in Friday's attack, the military said. Iraqi health officials said about 75 people were wounded in those clashes.

U.S. soldiers killed four militants early Saturday elsewhere in Baghdad, the military said.

The American military also said Saturday that a U.S. soldier died of wounds sustained in

[red states rule]

The US military does not like collarteral damage, but it sure helps when civilians stay the hell out of the troops way

[LiberalNation]

Hard to stay out of the way of rocket fire raining down on you.................:rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Hard to stay out of the way of rocket fire raining down on you.................:rolleyes:

I guess you would have been opposed to the bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII as well.

Our military have been often mistaken for the wrath of God by the terorrists and our troops are very happy to send them to see Allah :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

We have to do what we can to defeat them. If we don't they will continue to use innocent people as shields.

[LiberalNation]

Problem being turning once innocent people into the enemy. No one takes kindly to their family member being killed.

[hjmick]

As a rule, our military does it's very best to avoid this sort collateral damage. It's regretable and tragic, but it happens.

[red states rule]

Problem being turning once innocent people into the enemy. No one takes kindly to their family member being killed.

and letting the terrorists know they can use innocents as shields will tell them we do not have the guts to take them on

Looks like you want to play right into their hands

I am willing to try and win the hearts and minds of terrorists, but I am also willing to splatter them when needed

[DragonStryk72]

Hard to stay out of the way of rocket fire raining down on you.................:rolleyes:

Harder to stay out of the way when the enemy purposely chooses to use you as a human shield. that's why they set up shop next to a hospital. It is the insurgents that are causing the civ casualties, because they keep using them as shields.

[stang56k]

We shouldn't be there in the first place so all this collateral damage dissuasion is asinine.

[red states rule]

We shouldn't be there in the first place so all this collateral damage dissuasion is asinine.

and how would you deal with terrorists? Use harsh language, and assualt them with more Useless nations mandates to clean up their act?

Or treat it like the Clintons did - look at terrorism as a crime and not an act of war?

[PostmodernProphet]

/shrugs....how do we know there was ANY collateral damage and that the 23 injured weren't the Sadr militiamen manning the target?......

[stang56k]

and how would you deal with terrorists? Use harsh language, and assualt them with more Useless nations mandates to clean up their act?

Or treat it like the Clintons did - look at terrorism as a crime and not an act of war?

....Have you not seen enough evidence yet that Iraq had no involvement or ties to 9/11 if that is what you are implying. Even so the administration knew there was no connection so they concocted this absurd lie about weapons of mass destruction, which has no factual bases ether. So we are left with only on logical reason to have invaded... We just didn't like them? Give me a break sir. Your statement of Terrorism as an act of war regarding Iraq holds no water. Also.. the so called insurgents and terrorist in the present, are mostly comprised of fathers and brothers that have lost a loved one during this invasion. You would be pissed and aggressively fighting the invaders too if that was your case; I guarantee that.

[red states rule]

....Have you not seen enough evidence yet that Iraq had no involvement or ties to 9/11 if that is what you are implying. Even so the administration knew there was no connection so they concocted this absurd lie about weapons of mass destruction, which has no factual bases ether. So we are left with only on logical reason to have invaded... We just didn't like them? Give me a break sir. Your statement of Terrorism as an act of war regarding Iraq holds no water. Also.. the so called insurgents and terrorist in the present, are mostly comprised of fathers and brothers that have lost a loved one during this invasion. You would be pissed and aggressively fighting the invaders too if that was your case; I guarantee that.

Pres Bush NEVER linked Saddam to 9-11; but Saddam was a terrorist and likns to AQ

Hey, bring the terrorists to Iraq. Our troops will either kill or capture them

I am more pissed at liberals who are doing all they can to undermine Pres Bush, and smear and unsult the troops

[stang56k]

Pres Bush NEVER linked Saddam to 9-11; but Saddam was a terrorist and likns to AQ

Hey, bring the terrorists to Iraq. Our troops will either kill or capture them

I am more pissed at liberals who are doing all they can to undermine Pres Bush, and smear and unsult the troops

Proof Saddam was a terrorist? That is a matter of perspective.

And again with the labels, Being anti-Iraq war does not make you automatically liberal.

[red states rule]

Proof Saddam was a terrorist? That is a matter of perspective.

And again with the labels, Being anti-Iraq war does not make you automatically liberal.

So to you Saddam was a warm and fuzy guy

You do fit the mold of the anti war liberal. Defend America's enemies, while bashing America

[Noir]

I guess you would have been opposed to the bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII as well.


You are not using a proper comparison, to use a more realistic comparison use Northern Ireland, would you see it acceptable if the British government had launched missiles into areas in Northern Ireland where there were suspected IRA men?



Problem being turning once innocent people into the enemy. No one takes kindly to their family member being killed.

Exactly, i notice it doesn't mention how many terrorists they hope to have killed, is there a figure? but you need only look at how many innocent families have had members murdered/injured on this page, each on of them could fuel more terrorists

[red states rule]

You are not using a proper comparison, to use a more realistic comparison use Northern Ireland, would you see it acceptable if the British government had launched missiles into areas in Northern Ireland where there were suspected IRA men?



Exactly, i notice it doesn't mention how many terrorists they hope to have killed, is there a figure? but you need only look at how many innocent families have had members murdered/injured on this page, each on of them could fuel more terrorists

So you are among those who would let the terrorists get away with using human shields, and let them operate with total freedom?

If is incredible to see so many people willing to do exactly what the terrorists want them to do

[Noir]

Please let me restate, would you see it acceptable if the British government had launched missiles into areas in Northern Ireland where there were suspected IRA men?

[red states rule]

Please let me restate, would you see it acceptable if the British government had launched missiles into areas in Northern Ireland where there were suspected IRA men?

Today we have laser guided missiles. The Britich government did not have them. What the British government decided to do is their business

Personally, if you are out to kill terrorists you can't fight a PC war and expect to win

[Noir]

Today we have laser guided missiles. The British government did not have them.


and these missile are so precise the US only killed/wounded 20 innocents.


What the British government decided to do is their business
The brits did what was right, the US attitude of firing missiles in is short sighted and stupid. You would really hope those at the top would be smart enough to see this.



Personally, if you are out to kill terrorists you can't fight a PC war and expect to win
Ah ofcourse, but if you are an occupying force you can win by taking actions that will almost certainly injure/kill innocents, silly me.

[Gaffer]

First off the media is only interested in civilians killed. Bad guys will be counted in that number without question. The rule in the msm is to always make the military look bad.

Second, the "innocent" people killed or injured have a predetermined mind set. They either know the strike was caused by the bad guys hiding among them or they already hate the US troops and are allowing the bad guys to set up among them. There won't be any more new recruits as a result of the strike either way. It's the same tactic the pals use. Hide among the population and when innocents get killed you make a big deal of it. Those sympathetic to the terrorists will continue to aid them. Those not sympathetic will point them out.

[red states rule]

and these missile are so precise the US only killed/wounded 20 innocents.


The brits did what was right, the US attitude of firing missiles in is short sighted and stupid. You would really hope those at the top would be smart enough to see this.



Ah ofcourse, but if you are an occupying force you can win by taking actions that will almost certainly injure/kill innocents, silly me.

You have made your position very clear

You will cower and cave to the terrorists which wil encourage them to continue to use innocents as human shields

Lets not do anything to piss off the terrorists even more then they already are

[Noir]

You will cower and cave to the terrorists which wil encourage them to continue to use innocents as human shields

Excuse me? there is a difference between cowering and caving in and using your head. Its not about pissing of the terrorists, its about winning hearts and minds, but who would wana do that when we can just bomb 'em eh? :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Excuse me? there is a difference between cowering and caving in and using your head. Its not about pissing of the terrorists, its about winning hearts and minds, but who would wana do that when we can just bomb 'em eh? :rolleyes:

As I popsted before, I am willing to try and win the hearts and minds of terrorists - but I am also willing to splatter them all over the wall when needed

BTW, how do you win the hearts and mind of pigs that want you dead?

[Gaffer]

and these missile are so precise the US only killed/wounded 20 innocents.


The brits did what was right, the US attitude of firing missiles in is short sighted and stupid. You would really hope those at the top would be smart enough to see this.



Ah ofcourse, but if you are an occupying force you can win by taking actions that will almost certainly injure/kill innocents, silly me.

The missiles are used because ground troops can't get at the bad guys. It wasn't that they suspected the bad guys were there, they knew the bad guys were there. It was a harden defensive position with lots of innocents around it. They used the method that would ensure taking out the enemy with the least amount of collateral damage and friendly casualties.

You are silly, you know nothing about war or what is involved in a combat situation. Just swallow the media line and pretend its fact.

[red states rule]

I am sure Noir agrees with this POV when terrorits attacked an airport in Britian

SUV-Driving Doctors Attack Great Britain
We've all witnessed the havoc wrought on our health care system by doctors who turn a profit at the expense of those they are sworn to "serve and protect". Millions of Americans die every year, and Bush's Big Pharmaceutical Buddies are laughing all the way to the bank. Now, it appears as if our national cult of greed has spread across the pond. Two British physicians were arrested last weekend for what appears to be either a scheme to drum up business by maiming & mutilating innocent people, or an elaborate publicity stunt for Chrysler.

On Friday, London police discovered a Mercedes - exactly what you'd expect a doctor to drive - packed with explosives and parked in front of a West End nightclub. Another wired Mercedes was found later in the morning. The following day, two doctors rammed a Jeep Cherokee into the Glasgow airport terminal. Both men were uninjured by the initial crash, which once again raises serious questions about why these rolling death machines are even allowed on the road. However, one of them suffered severe burns when he covered himself with petrol and struck a match. Lucky for them they staged their attacks in a nation revered for it's progressive health care system. They'll both be receiving their free hysterectomies in five to six months.

As usual, the Freepers wasted no time blaming the attacks on "Islamofascists", yet only far-right media whores like Faux News have even mentioned the nationality or religious beliefs of those involved. That's because the whole argument is irrelevent and designed purely to cast aspersions on the peaceloving Muslim peoples - the vast majority of whom don't even drive SUVs.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/07/uk-under-attack.html

[stang56k]

So to you Saddam was a warm and fuzy guy

You do fit the mold of the anti war liberal. Defend America's enemies, while bashing America

No, what I did see was a guy in control of a country that had almost every bit of his infrastructure dismantled in 1992, then all the years leading up to 2003 had ever single embargo and sanction in acted on his country. He was pretty powerless to do anything let alone start a terrorist crusade and destroy the United States....

And, I am not bashing America I'm bashing American policy which is decided by a few people. And if you want to get technical with your small thinking, we are a republic of the people, vast majority of the people have the same views as me, chew on that. Nothing is more anti-American than a few persons deciding and going against the will of the people. But, I am glad people (the world) will remember America as the people that killed multiple innocent people in Iraq, all for a buck. You are leaving behind an America to the next generation the world hates. As the world progresses the necessity for countries to NEED the United States is diminishing. Which means they will stand up for the shit we do overseas, its inevitable.

And, yes im more scared of the likes of China and Russia than a few suiciding Arabs that live in caves.

[red states rule]

No, what I did see was a guy in control of a country that had almost every bit of his infrastructure dismantled in 1992, then all the years leading up to 2003 had ever single embargo and sanction in acted on his country. He was pretty powerless to do anything let alone start a terrorist crusade and destroy the United States....

And, I am not bashing America I'm bashing American policy which is decided by a few people. And if you want to get technical with your small thinking, we are a republic of the people, vast majority of the people have the same views as me, chew on that. Nothing is more anti-American than a few persons deciding and going against the will of the people. But, I am glad people (the world) will remember America as the people that killed multiple innocent people in Iraq, all for a buck. You are leaving behind an America to the next generation the world hates. As the world progresses the necessity for countries to NEED the United States is diminishing. Which means they will stand up for the shit we do overseas, its inevitable.


Yea Saddam was in control, with mass graves, torture chambers, a secert police that rounded up people, and had connections with terrorist groups

Peace niks like you love to rant about how Pres Bush made them hate us, but who made them hate us during the 8 years of Clinton when they attacked us 5 times under his watch?

Libs never learn from their past errors, they still think terrorism is a crime and not an act of war. They makes excuses for the terrorists, and fall back on blaming America

[Noir]

As I popsted before, I am willing to try and win the hearts and minds of terrorists - but I am also willing to splatter them all over the wall when needed

What are you talking about? i want to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary Iraqi, not the terrorist, as the terrorist is prob to far gone. The problem is that taking this action means that innocents get splattered, causing more to empathize with terrorists and hence creating a greater problem.



BTW, how do you win the hearts and mind of pigs that want you dead?

As i ahve just stated you won't win over current terrorists, but you have to do your best to reduce the support for terrorists, and wounding 20 innocents by a hospital ain't gonna win over to many people on the street.


The missiles are used because ground troops can't get at the bad guys. It wasn't that they suspected the bad guys were there, they knew the bad guys were there.It was a harden defensive position with lots of innocents around it.

This bit seems odd, can you please link me to a description of where the terrorists where, i mean was it a house or what? Because surly the US Army should be able to carry out a breach on an enemy stronghold without resorting to missiles.


They used the method that would ensure taking out the enemy with the least amount of collateral damage and friendly casualties.
and missiles where the best weapons to use in an area you described as a "defensive position with lots of innocents around it." way to reduce collateral :salute:

[Gaffer]

I couldn't get it to link here but if you check out the Long War Journal you can read all about this action, why and where it occurred, and what weapons were used. There were no aircraft used in this strike. They were GMLR's. This was a sadr strong hold with the hospitals used as staging areas. Most of the casualties were sadr militia.