Market place bombings.

[Reginald]

I've been listening to the troubling news about the number of casualties that have recently occured in the two incidents this week in Baghdad. There are some things that trouble me.

To begin with lets not allocate blame one way or another about the origins of the explosions, but look at the following.

Is it not the responsibility of the authorities in the city to ensure that the citizens of Baghdad take at least some precautions during the period of an air raid? Much talk was made prior to the conflict about Iraqi shelters and each person laying in months of provisions. Yet for some reason the Regime seems happy to have swathes of its populous "out and about" during the raids. This is no great suposition, you can always clearly see on the Baghdad cam, cars driving around before, during and after the raids and people can also been seen on the streets in better footage.

I accept that Radar damage could hamper air raid warnings, however, one bomb going off should be sufficient to start the civil defense precautions, and some of these raids last for hours.

I believe that the Regime is being negligent at best or looking for casualties at worst, during these situations.

Can you honestly imagine this practice of being in the streets during an air raid happening in the Uk or any similar country?

Now down to who.

In the absence of conclusive facts I realise that the following is just discussion....

Does anyone find it that hard to believe that Saddam could have done this to his own people? We quite rightly feel terrible about the loss of these civilians, but would he? 80 civilian lives spent to harden the resolve of the people of Baghdad? Thats not much of a price to pay to a man who has shown how little he values the lives of his own citizens.

I just get a little skeptical, when first a market place is hit, mid air raid, with what looks like a petrol tanker parked in it, and then a few days later , another market place is hit, the death toll is higher.

I will admit that my first reaction was it was a US/UK bomb, after some thought I am not so sure.

[schplurg]

I'm not familiar with those particular incidents myself. Not only do I find it not hard to believe that he would do that, I fully expect it. I wonder who's been lobbing missiles at Kuwait City where that Mall was hit?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/29/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Interesting that earlier today, this same story/same link mentioned that they found a tail-piece of the missile. I don't see that mentioned now(?)

The fact that I'm not surprised that a man would deliberately do this to his own citizens is sad. Very sad. :(

[Darat]

Well this is a war and there will be civilian casualties. That is just a simple fact.

What I am astonished at is that the media seems to be treating these events as if they are unexpected or could have been avoided. No-one I speak to is surprised that there have been "accidents" and civilian deaths, so why is the media acting as it is?

I could understand if there was a campaign aimed directly at killing civilians, such as both sides during WW2 carried out in their bombing missions, but it is blatantly obvious that the coalition forces are trying to avoid civil deaths.

(Yes I know they could have been avoided if there was no war - but I am talking about a war situation.)

[Cleopatra]

Reginal, there is a worse scenario than the one you described.

To be exact it's not a scenario , it's a fact.It's not Saddam that is hiting the city it's the Coallition BUT

Saddam's guerillas, do exactly what the "heroes" of PLO and Hamas are doing.

They go hide in urban areas, hoping that the other part won't dare to hit there. That's why, Mr. Unique and others who sympathize Hamas,the Israeli army invades the camps and we have human loses.

As you said it's a War and it's their obligation to protect their people.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by schplurg
I'm not familiar with those particular incidents myself. Not only do I find it not hard to believe that he would do that, I fully expect it. I wonder who's been lobbing missiles at Kuwait City where that Mall was hit?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/29/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Interesting that earlier today, this same story/same link mentioned that they found a tail-piece of the missile. I don't see that mentioned now(?)

The fact that I'm not surprised that a man would deliberately do this to his own citizens is sad. Very sad. :(

Thats an interesting point. The Regime in Iraq complain bitterly at civilian accidents in Baghdad, and yet at the same time launches missiles at a city with the sole intent of causing civilian casualties, under no possible pretense of military targeting.

[PogoPedant]

Rginald,
The political issues aside, are you suggesting that the country being attacked should carry the blame for civilian casualties. Does this not sound just a little bit like 'she asked for it, wearing skimpy clothes like that'? Are you not in the least bit ashamed?

[Badger]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Rginald,
The political issues aside, are you suggesting that the country being attacked should carry the blame for civilian casualties. Does this not sound just a little bit like 'she asked for it, wearing skimpy clothes like that'? Are you not in the least bit ashamed?

In this case, the Iraqi army is putting its civilian population directly in the line of fire by stationing garrisons, and equipment within civilian neighbourhoods. The term "human shield" has been used, and I think it's appropriate.

Your analogy doesn't relate to this scenario at all.

[EvilYeti]

If that country deliberately puts its citizens in harms way by placing military installations in centers of high population and not evacuating the surrounding area in times of war, yes it is their fault. Or if they are too cheap to buy good quality anti-aircraft munitions; you know, the kind that doesnt fall back down and explode.

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Rginald,
The political issues aside, are you suggesting that the country being attacked should carry the blame for civilian casualties. Does this not sound just a little bit like 'she asked for it, wearing skimpy clothes like that'? Are you not in the least bit ashamed?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Rginald,
The political issues aside, are you suggesting that the country being attacked should carry the blame for civilian casualties. Does this not sound just a little bit like 'she asked for it, wearing skimpy clothes like that'? Are you not in the least bit ashamed?

I dissagree.

The regime in Iraq is faced with a Fact. It is Being Bombed.

it can...(Amongst other things)

1)Inform its populace that staying at home would be safest, and instruct its police etc to assist in this process.

2) Inform its people of the danger but let them make their own arrangements for their safety.

3)Do nothing.


I would suggest that 1 is the most responsible, I would say that Iraq fits in with 2.

I also think that the analogy you choose bears very little relationship to this issue.

[The Fool]

If I were Saddam at this very moment I would quickly deduce that the only chance of survival of my regime was if the Population Hates the US more than it hates me. Therefore, and I think he has already figured this one out, I would have a couple of heavy guns lob a couple of shells into heavily populated zones every single time a stike occured within earshot of the City... Lets not talk about "rules of war" here, thats a joke. The US is learning a big lesson here already, rules are for the losers. If you have to follow rules and your enemy doesn't you are in trouble from the start.

All the people that are whooping and yelling "we will kick ass" because we have lots of shiny tanks and planes and hi tech weapon, the ones talking about "shock and awe" are making the fatal mistake of fighting the current war using the tactics from the previous war.. People who do this rarely succeed.

Once the population of Baghdad is suitably conditioned that an internal revolt is not going to happen, the Iraqis are in a much stronger position..... We would probably have to kill 5 or 10% of the population of the city to reduce it, This would be a disaster that could easily bring down a president.... this will sow the seeds of an ongoing resistance that will make the palestinian problem look like a sideshow.

Do I sound like a defeatist, a pessimist or a closet Saddam supporter? Well, I can only ask you to accept that I am none of these. I am just angry that Idiots have started something that they have no way of controlling. Idiots, plain and simple. If you simply want to bring down Saddam you ferment popular internal revolt, you don't bomb his gang back into popularity.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Reginald

Can you honestly imagine this practice of being in the streets during an air raid happening in the Uk or any similar country?


Does anyone find it that hard to believe that Saddam could have done this to his own people?

Just for perspective, it has been 57 years since a western nation's population have last been subjected to air raid bombings. If I am not mistaken, the WTC is the event that ended that tranqil, safe period.

I would imagine the Iraqis have largely become desensitized to air raid sirens, warnings, and bombs.

I remember my Grandparents and great uncles telling stories about how during Germany's bombing campain during WW2. British civilians and public servents at first were very cautious and obviously scared. Over time the common bombings were accepted as a normal every day risk.

Fires in London needed to be put out, medical aid needed to be given, food and supplies needed to be distributed: if these activities stopped then things would really get nasty.

The attitude of the Brits was: "We must not loose heart, we defy Hitler and must carry on doing what we must do. If we give up , the enemy wins. "

Unfortunately none of us sitting at home have the 'benefit' of having lived through these types of experiences. Also we can only speculate what is happening in Iraq despite having 24 hour war coverage.

Is it possible that Saddam Hussein has given orders to bomb his own people possibly to get the Iraqi public outraged at US and UK forces?

Saddam has without a doubt bombed, gassed, and terrorized his civilians in the past. Given his past transgressions, yes he could have ordered the bombing of that market.

Another possibility:

Saddam's missile arsenal have been known to include many "dud scuds" that never reach a specific target or just drop to the ground because they malfunction. This is a charitable interpretation of this incidents though.

[svero]

Well considering that they just suspended tomahawk surgical precision flights over Saudi Arabia because too many of them were landing on the Saudis I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it was a missle or bomb that went astray given the circumstances. Is it possible it was a propaganda move by Saddam? Sure.. anything is possible, but the simpler and more believable story is that a missle went astray and some civilans got hit.

[kedo1981]

We need to stop with the “fight for Iraqi freedom” propaganda and switch to a “ hey people of the middle east, look what a coward Saddam and his cronies are to stand behind the skirt tails of women” type propaganda.

[Troll]

Crap. I'm agreeing with The Fool on the prospect of Hussein having his own guys do it.

But even if it was an errant missle on our part does anyone think he is not cheering the chance to elevate the number of civilian deaths to blame on coalition forces?

Has anyone else noticed that lately, at least on the american news channels, when attacks occur in Baghdad, it's not until the bombing has stopped that the sirens sound?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by svero
Well considering that they just suspended tomahawk surgical precision flights over Saudi Arabia because too many of them were landing on the Saudis I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it was a missle or bomb that went astray given the circumstances. Is it possible it was a propaganda move by Saddam? Sure.. anything is possible, but the simpler and more believable story is that a missle went astray and some civilans got hit.

I have also noticed that whenever something like this happens (a bomb killing civilians or landing in Kuwait City), the military response is "We're investigating what happened. It might have been an Iraqi missile." Then it just kind of sits and nothing comes out of it.

Recall the first "market missile" was a full week ago. But no one is actually talking about that one anymore, because in the meantime, something else has happened to distract our attention. The "stall and let it blow over" approach is very suspicious to me. When the military has good things to say, they say it early and often, even if it isn't even true. When it is bad news, they always say they have to wait for more information before they can comment. You think if they had any good reason to think that was an Iraqi missile, they would say "We are investigating, it might have been Iraqi"? Not at all.

As for the different standards for civilian casualties, it's a natural result of the approaches from the two sides, and an attempt by the Iraqis to show the US in a bad light. The US and its allies are the ones who are claiming that this is not about the Iraqi citizens. OTOH, regardless of the best efforts, civilian casualities will still happen. So Iraq is trying to use those as evidence that the US doesn't care about Iraqi citizens.

Yes, the Iraqis use civlilians as human shields. But then, they aren't the ones who are claiming that it has nothing to do with civilians. Thus, it's not the killing of civilians that they are complaining about, it is the killing of civililians after claiming that it is not the goal to kill civilians. It is an attempt to shake the Iraqi people's trust in the statements of the US government.

Now, the solution from the government standpoint is pretty simple, and they have to stand firm: We do not and will not intentionally attack civilian targets. All of our targets are militarily based. On the other had, in the course of these events, there will be civilians that will die for various reasons, including the fact that some bombs get off course, or that they get in the way (unwittingly or intentionally). We do our best to minimize the possibility of that happening, but sometimes, it still does.

Actually, I think the military has done a good job of saying this exact thing. However, it is the media who don't seem to get it. The media still seems to go along with the thinking that if a stray US missile hits a civilian area, that it somehow supports the fact that the US is targeting the Iraqis.

[svero]

>distract our attention. The "stall and let it blow over" approach
>is very suspicious to me.

Well it's totally completely par for the course normal everyday to me. What I find suspicious is how the casette recorders that record everything the pentagon tells them and play it back masquerading as people don't seem to understand the most basic nature of propaganda. Repeat this casette recorders.. the US will sometimes lie or stall if it's not in their best interest to tell the truth. Or in other words... it's more important that the troops succeed and don't die than it is that CNN has the whole truth. What's actually pretty sad and pathetic is the really basic lowest level garbage propaganda being used. Even a complete moron should be able to see through their BS. It's always "On Target", "Just as PLanned" or a "Terrorist attack" or "Civilians forced to fight" and so on... It's never ever "yeah we misjudged this... we got it totally wrong" -- And if you were a US army general would *you* tell your troops out in the field that you f**cked up the supply line judgement or grossly underestimated something? I'm not saying that's the case necessarily, but if it were, the generals certainly aren't going to admit it. When you're in charge of people and their lives are on the line you act like you're in charge and that everything is going well.

>As for the different standards for civilian casualties, it's a natural
>result of the approaches from the two sides, and an attempt by
>the Iraqis to show the US in a bad light.

Sure. Absolutely. Everytime one Iraqi died, if I were Saddam I'd report 100 martyred by those evil agressors or however they put it. It's his job to play the opposite game as best he can.

>Yes, the Iraqis use civlilians as human shields. But then, they
>aren't the ones who are claiming that it has nothing to do with
>civilians.

I'm pretty sure this is blown out of proportion. The Iraqi's are forced to use gorilla tactics and blend in with civilians because they are so horribly outgunned. If they fight out in the open they'll just die. So it's not a choice of using civilian shields or not, it's a choice of dying or not. The civilian shield thing is just more propaganda. See how bad and terrible the regime is? He's using women and children to hide behind! It's not even good propaganda. It's far too transparent.

>goal to kill civilians. It is an attempt to shake the Iraqi people's
>trust in the statements of the US government.

I believe it's aimed more at the west to keep up political support for the war. Average Iraqis don't get CNN. Their propaganda comes in the form of short wave radio broadcasts and leaflets in arabic being transmitted and distributed by the army.

>However, it is the media who don't seem to get it. The media
>still seems to go along with the thinking that if a stray US
>missile hits a civilian area, that it somehow supports the fact '
>that the US is targeting the Iraqis.

Well I donno... As far as I'm concerned the media is pretty darned gung ho! It's 2 seconds of market killings with a nice santized view and then back to 1 hour of some retired general moving little tanks around on a map talking about strategy. Given the choice of targeting civilians, or suffering mass british and amercian casualties what will the commanders in the field choose? What would you choose? War is ugly. Sometimes the choices that need to be made aren't, target civilians or not target civilians but rather, how many people will die in scenario A vs scenario B and there is no nice happy no civilians die scenario C.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by svero
>distract our attention. The "stall and let it blow over" approach
>is very suspicious to me.

Well it's totally completely par for the course normal everyday to me.


"Stall and wait" is most certainly _not_ par for the course for something good. When we attacked Saddam's bedroom the first night, we heard all about it and how we might have even killed him in the process. And this took less than 2 hours before that came out. When helo pilots were captured in Iraq, we were awfully cautious. Eventually, they could admit that a heliocopter was lost, but they could not confirm anything about the status of the pilots. The next day, they could confirm that the pilots were missing. Bad news comes slow. With good reason, I might add (err on the side of caution). Something good? Nah, that comes right away.


>Yes, the Iraqis use civlilians as human shields. But then, they
>aren't the ones who are claiming that it has nothing to do with
>civilians.

I'm pretty sure this is blown out of proportion. The Iraqi's are forced to use gorilla tactics and blend in with civilians because they are so horribly outgunned. If they fight out in the open they'll just die. So it's not a choice of using civilian shields or not, it's a choice of dying or not. The civilian shield thing is just more propaganda. See how bad and terrible the regime is? He's using women and children to hide behind! It's not even good propaganda. It's far too transparent.


Hey, no fair trying to understand actions by considering what the Iraqis must be thinking. Don't you know you have to look at it from _our_ perspective? Next thing you know, you will be admitting that the Iraqi chemical suits might be protection against a potential US chemical attack...


>goal to kill civilians. It is an attempt to shake the Iraqi people's
>trust in the statements of the US government.

I believe it's aimed more at the west to keep up political support for the war. Average Iraqis don't get CNN. Their propaganda comes in the form of short wave radio broadcasts and leaflets in arabic being transmitted and distributed by the army.


Sure, either way. It's still an attempt to try to discredit statements by the US. I think they will do that to whoever they can.


>However, it is the media who don't seem to get it. The media
>still seems to go along with the thinking that if a stray US
>missile hits a civilian area, that it somehow supports the fact '
>that the US is targeting the Iraqis.

Well I donno... As far as I'm concerned the media is pretty darned gung ho!

Well, they are certainly gung ho about the whole war thing, but when I say "they don't get it" I am talking about their response (no matter how brief) to such bombings. Reporters still ask the generals about these incidents. To me, they are not worth talking about as any more significant than any other bomb that landed.

Of course, the reason the media only spends a minute or two of sanitzed images is because there is no action to show. They want to show bombs going off, fires burning, mushroom clouds, and anti-aircraft fire. Heck, all the injured people were already gone by the time they got there. Nothing interesting to show.

[svero]

>"Stall and wait" is most certainly _not_ par for the course for
>something good.

Oh yeah. I agree totally. I just meant it was par for the course to stall if something bad was the issue. Some stuff they have to report on like lost pilots and so on, but something like the marketplace bombings can be stalled effectively. We're looking into it... we're collecting data... and so on.

>To me, they are not worth talking about as any more significant
>than any other bomb that landed.

Yeah I can see your point. Except one might point out that the media should report or focus on these issues because it's important that people understand exactly what it is that's happening over there. I think a lot of Americans support the war because they've simply never suffered, or even travelled to a war torn country to see first hand what the damage is like. Anyway... it probably doesn't matter. There's really no grief in bloody foreigners on your tv screen. It's something far away. Also, Americans are desensitized to violence from film and television. There's also a question of balance. While the media tends to lean heavily to the right, I believe they still try to report in a fair and balanced way. Even though CNN has a host of army generals reporting for them, you know...you're still seeing the Iraqi tv broadcasts and so on. It gives an illusion of impartiality. In fact I'd go as far as to say that they probably do feel that they're reporting in a more or less balanced way even though how it comes out is very different than left indie media or arab media or whatever.

>Of course, the reason the media only spends a minute or two of
>sanitzed images is because there is no action to show.

I see your point and there is some truth to television choosing images that are good in and of themselves. But on the other hand they could have aired violent bloody images the way the arab channels do. They just choose not to. I'm not so sure those images aren't sensational. I think there may be a view that gory images of Iraqi death will reduce support for the war and that this is a time when the media should do what it can to support the troops. Maybe it just has to do with what editors feel is appropriate to air. Maybe they feel it's just too gruesome.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by svero
I see your point and there is some truth to television choosing images that are good in and of themselves. But on the other hand they could have aired violent bloody images the way the arab channels do. They just choose not to. I'm not so sure those images aren't sensational. I think there may be a view that gory images of Iraqi death will reduce support for the war and that this is a time when the media should do what it can to support the troops. Maybe it just has to do with what editors feel is appropriate to air. Maybe they feel it's just too gruesome.

I just think because it's not enough of a video game.

Now, bombs flying and things exploding? That's exciting.

Of course, this implies that the media isn't interested in really reporting what is happening and is more concerned about showing dazzling stuff in order to get ratings. Which I think is dead-on correct. Every news channel wants to be the next CNN from Gulf War I.

The TV stations _loved_ the "shock and awe" compaign. That is exactly what they were waiting for. Up until that point, the coverage was people standing in the desert saying, "Nope, I don't see anything happening yet."

[ShowMe]

The lack of critical thinking on this aspect is rather frightening, considering where this forum is located.

It was a Baghdad marketplace. somehow I doubt that any Iraqi authorities are going to allow the United States, or any of its allies, to come in and inspect the area.

So any "investigation" is going to be the US looking at tacitical maps, checking on what targets were hit, which were missed and what happened to the missles that missed. And that's not going to be a real high priority in the middle of a war.

Will Hussein use that as a propoganda advantage? Of course. Is he capable of killing his own people to further his regime? He's done it before.

As for the helicopter pilots, the US usually has to investigate, verify who the people are an notigy their families. If I had a son or daughter in the war who may have been shot down I don't want to here it on Foxnews first. Nor do I want someone telling me it's my kid, and then coming back and having to say "never mind".

The war is one week old. The only reason it seems so much longer is because we have 24/7 coverage. Imagine if you only had weekly updates; we would be hearing that coalition forces are within 50 miles of Baghdad, even after a 2 day sandstorm. And most people would be saying, "Damn, they went quick".

[Reginald]

From 1984 ch17

A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties.



:(

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ShowMe
The lack of critical thinking on this aspect is rather frightening, considering where this forum is located.

It was a Baghdad marketplace. somehow I doubt that any Iraqi authorities are going to allow the United States, or any of its allies, to come in and inspect the area.

So any "investigation" is going to be the US looking at tacitical maps, checking on what targets were hit, which were missed and what happened to the missles that missed. And that's not going to be a real high priority in the middle of a war.


Right. So we just figure it might be an Iraqi missile in the meantime. We don't know it wasn't one of ours.

In terms of the "critical thinking," what seems more possible: That is a result of an Iraqi missile (of which they apparently don't have very many; if this was an rocket launched grenade, it would be a different story), or is it one of thousands of US missiles that got off track? We know that happens, just ask Saudi Arabia.

We know the US is shooting lots of missiles. We know that some of them are missing their targets. Why is it crazy to think that some of them might be hitting market places in Baghdad?

Given the number of attacks carried out, I _expect_ that we will hit civilian areas on occasion. War is hell, even with lots of smart bombs. It is silly to deny that.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by ShowMe
The lack of critical thinking on this aspect is rather frightening, considering where this forum is located.



I am not capable of critical thinking. I am however capable of honing my skills so I can improve my ability to study arguments, present arguments, and learn to use tools to evaluate arguments.

I am a student on a learning curve. Sorry to disappoint you ShowMe, but I have not arrived yet.

[Baggle]

pgwenthold, I think you misunderstand why the US is not currently thinking that this is their damage. The reports that I've heard on the matter suggest that the damage is not nearly as much as the rest of the missles that have hit Baghdad has left, the crater not nearly as deep, first of all. More evidence pointing to the fact that this was actually an Iraqi AA shell that went off course and exploded on the ground is that today the person in charge of AA defense in Baghdad was relieved of duty, reportedly. Sorry, I hear this all on the radio and see some on TV, so I've got no sources, but I am sure the info is out there, and somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

-Baggle


EDIT: just as I wrote this, I saw a report on Fox News that says that British Intelligence sources are now saying that their look into the marketplace explosisions are not AA shells, but actually Surface to Air(SAM) missles that went off target. No idea how reliable this information will turn out to be.

[Kess]

Originally posted by Baggle
pgwenthold, I think you misunderstand why the US is not currently thinking that this is their damage. The reports that I've heard on the matter suggest that the damage is not nearly as much as the rest of the missles that have hit Baghdad has left, the crater not nearly as deep, first of all.
That's a good point. There's was a photo shown of the Iraqis inspecting the point of impact of the latest market strike. Assuming they're looking at the correct spot, it wasn't even a crater - just a scorched, cracked patch of concrete. I'd've thought a cruise missile would've been far more devastating.

[svero]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
We know the US is shooting lots of missiles. We know that some of them are missing their targets. Why is it crazy to think that some of them might be hitting market places in Baghdad?


This is exactly how someone rational would look at this matter. Those who want so desperately to believe it was an iraqi missle or bomb set off by saddam for propaganda reasons do so because it's in their emotional best interests. As I've said before.. it could have been, but the more reasonable and likely scenario is the one above.

[Baggle]

It reminds me of when I heard that a US missle "hit a bus full of civilians in Syria" and out of 30, 5 died and 10 were injured. If a missle hit their bus, those people would've been toast, so I questioned it right away. Eventually I found out that a US missle had been let off at the bridge the bus was on much before the bus actually got to that point and the bridge was actually on the Iraqi border. Random bad luck was responsible.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

The argument is not that Saddam did this on purpose for propaganda, although it certainly is a good secondy use for it. The missles may have been fired off and just had bad rockets, or get hit by their own AA and been knocked off course, or whatever else may have happened. Point is, this is a completely likely explanation for the event. Just as likely as one of our missles going off course, if not more. After all, we inspect all of our weapons very intricately, but I doubt the same can be said for Iraq. Our weapons are probably of a much higher grade, as well.

Heres a link that talks about the matter:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82563,00.html

-Baggle

[svero]

>The argument is not that Saddam did this on purpose for

That argument has also been made.

>else may have happened. Point is, this is a completely likely
>explanation for the event.

It's unreasonable to assume that as the most likely cause though because there are so few Iraqi air weapons being fired relative to the number of US weapons. Let me put it this way... If I said to you 3000 missles were fired.. 1 of them was Iraqi. One went off course and killed a marketplace full of people. Was it more likely a US missle or an Iraqi missle? You don't have to be a statistician to figure it out.

>Heres a link that talks about the matter:
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82563,00.html

I really don't think foxnews is a fair and balanced reputable source of information for these matters.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Kess
That's a good point. There's was a photo shown of the Iraqis inspecting the point of impact of the latest market strike. Assuming they're looking at the correct spot, it wasn't even a crater - just a scorched, cracked patch of concrete. I'd've thought a cruise missile would've been far more devastating. I also heard that Tomahawk missiles do not explode if they realize they are off target, which would explain the small crater. However, at those areas that had tomahawks accidently hit (Saudi-Arabia and Turkey) they showed very obvious wreckage on the news, which makes the Tomahawk a less likely candidate as the weopon involved at the markets.

I believe the SAMs that Iraq uses are supposed to destroy themselves if they fall below a certain height, so if they hit markets it would be because this function failed.

We probably won't know the culprit until the war is finished.

Walt

[Baggle]

Your math is off, svero. You are looking at the total amount of missles and bombs that we've dropped as to how likely it is that one went off target. You should be looking at how many we fired that day, on that sortie. Overall statistics have no bearing in how likely this particular incident was our fault. The information that I've heard is that we dropped two bombs/missles during that mission, not 3,000.

Actually, I found this in a Washington Post article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49022-2003Mar29.html
... a B-52 bomber that had intended to strike an antiaircraft weapon near the site of the explosion returned to base without dropping the bomb meant for that target. But new information has emerged that at least one cruise missile was also in the area, the official said, although it is still not clear whether the missile was responsible for the devastation.

So that means that there is a limited number of cruise missles in the area that could go off target and hit the marketplace at the time of the explosion, whatever the actual number is. I am not claiming to know that this is one thing or the other, as I have no way of knowing, but I only suggest that you're assessment of the situation and of who will be most likely to blame is miscalculated. It was either one or two of our cruise missles that were in the area, which could've malfunctrioned and would've heavily damaged the area, or malfunctioning Iraqi AA missles, which may not have been operating under radar. The choice really seems too close to call. I hope you see my logic.

-Baggle

[svero]

>Your math is off, svero. You are looking at the total amount of
>missles and bombs that we've dropped as to how likely it is that
>one went off target. You should be looking at how many we
>fired that day, on that sortie. Overall statistics have no bearing
>in how likely this particular incident was our fault. The
>information that I've heard is that we dropped two
>bombs/missles during that mission, not 3,000.

You know... as I was typing that I just KNEW someone would call me on it. It's true, I don't happen to know how many missles were fired that day, or exactly what percentage stray off course. What I do know is that the Americans are widely reputed to have the most powerful army in the world, and that it has been said that many bombs and missles would be used in a "shock and awe" campaign. Without knowing the exact stats, it seemed reasonable given the info I had to assume that there were significantly higher numbers of missles and bombs being fired by the US overall. The percentage of missles that go off course (assuming that this is even an accident.. who knows maybe it was a targeting mistake, or they thought there was a bunker there etc...) is a percentage of the total number of missles fired. So now we have this explosion in Bagdad. So you look where the explosion is and say, hey there were just two missles in that area, so if you know 1% go off course then 1% of 2 is very unlikely, never mind the fact that there were x missles overall throughout all of Bagdad. Is that a reasonable way to look at it? I'm not sure it is.

[Baggle]

I am not sure exactly what you are implying, but if you are implying that the odds of one of our missles going off course because we have fired off a lot of missles, the math doesn't hold. Previous events have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a new event in these situations. You have a 50% chance to get heads on the first flip of a coin. Flip the coin 50x and get 50 heads and on the 51st flip, you still have a 50% probability of getting a head. The same applies to these missles. If we fired 3,000 and none went off course, that doesn't mean that the next one "is due". Just because the failure rate is 1% doesn't mean that every 100th missle malfunctions.

Also, as far as a targeting error goes, I believe that is unreasonable. For us to believe that would be for us to believe that the US brass is involved in a cover up of the event, and not giving all the information it should be. I feel that if this were the case, the US would fess up, apologize, and say something along the lines of, "Our mistake. These things will happen." No. The explosions was either our accident or done by the Iraqis, by accident or on purpose, IMO.

-Baggle

[svero]

>new event in these situations. You have a 50% chance to get
>ads on the first flip of a coin. Flip the coin 50x and get 50 heads
>and on the 51st flip, you still have a 50% probability of

I understand that, but what are the odds the coin landed heads if you look on the table and you see a head? That's the scenario here. We're not calculating the odds that the missles on a particular sortie went off, we're calculating the odds that an explosion in bagdad was created by an american missle.

>Also, as far as a targeting error goes, I believe that is
>unreasonable. For us to believe that would be for us to believe
>that the US brass is involved in a cover up of the event,

Propaganda will outweigh truth in the war especially when it comes to morale and protecting soldiers lives. They may admit to it later but now wouldn't be the right time.

[Baggle]

Alright, I think I am not clearly making my point.

My point is merely that it is just as likely that it was an Iraqi missle as it was an American missle, while seeming(to me) to be more likely. It seems like an awfully big coincidence that not much damage was done, the USA was has not acknowledged a mistargeting(where we have 7 other times, even where civilians were killed), Iraq has not produced any evidence(cruise missle fragments, which I am sure would be around...did you see the wreckage from that Silkworm that flew into Kuwait? You could readily identify it and it was a huge missle), and now the commander of Iraqi air defenses is fired(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82563,00.html). I stand by my critique.

-Baggle

[Reginald]

You wont get an answer to this with statistics. Not possible.
Its a two edged sword, more planes and missiles=more AA fire....you see?

Eye witness reports don't help much either, one gentleman reported going outside on hearing a plane (back to resonsibility for safety there as a side issue) and as he saw it flying over there was an explosion (Source Baghdad TV). Again, the plane could be associated with the event, it could have been AA fire trying to down the plane or indeed a cruise missile that coincidentally hit as the plane flew over. It could have been a shell fired into the populous at the time of the air raid, to create a propaganda event.

I have seen the footage of the "crater" and as has been commented on in this thread, it is small. However a grenade is small but put in the right place with the right density of targets they can be devastating.

There are so many ways this could come about.

In a strange irony, the concerted effort to publicise these two events, have to a large degree distracted from a larger, albeit more dispersed number of deaths that have occured since.

I think to get a clearer picture you have to look at the mindset of the parties involved.

We have to ask ourselves, have the US and UK during this conflict, or during Bosnia, Afghanistan or the Gulf war, ever denied events like this in the past?

I remember the TV station incident, the civilian bunker in GW1, the chinese embasy, the wedding in Afghanistan...there are quite a few where they have admitted blame

If anyone has sources to the contrary (in these "modern" conflicts) then please post them, thats not a challenge that is a genuine request.

Having read all the posts that people have kindly taken time to present, I am still of the opinion that this was either an Iraqi mistake or a propaganda excersise. However when some evidence (alas the dead are evidence of an event, not evidence of the methodology in this case) surfaces, I reserve the right to say "I was wrong".

Edited to remove a superfluous "And"

[Supercharts]

"NETANYA, Israel (Reuters) - A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded pedestrian mall in an Israeli seaside town on Sunday, wounding at least 30 people in the first such attack since the start of a U.S.-led war on Iraq" News on Yahoo.

[svero]

>My point is merely that it is just as likely that it was an Iraqi
>issle as it was an American missle, while seeming(to me) to be

Well you believe what you want to believe. Fact is that the Americans are bombing Bagdad with larget numbers of missles and they do miss. The Iraqis by contrast fire very few missles. So depsite what's been said there is a reasonbale statistical way to look at it. Flip a coin 1000 times - what's the chance it lands heads once? Flip it once - what's the chance it lands heads once? That's the question, and the answer is painfully obvious if you don't have some emotional need to believe it never lands heads in the 1000 flip case.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by svero
>My point is merely that it is just as likely that it was an Iraqi
>issle as it was an American missle, while seeming(to me) to be

Well you believe what you want to believe. Fact is that the Americans are bombing Bagdad with larget numbers of missles and they do miss. The Iraqis by contrast fire very few missles. So depsite what's been said there is a reasonbale statistical way to look at it. Flip a coin 1000 times - what's the chance it lands heads once? Flip it once - what's the chance it lands heads once? That's the question, and the answer is painfully obvious if you don't have some emotional need to believe it never lands heads in the 1000 flip case.

Point 1) Who said this has to be an Iraqi missile?? From the size of the crater in the second event it could have been an AA round. These are not dumb lead bullets, these are HE rounds designed to explode and throw shrapnel in all directions thus maximizing a chance of a "hit" and I would suggest they have put a LOT of rounds up!!

Bear in mind too that these rounds/shells vary in size from 23mm to 130 mm.

Point 2) The Iraqis are using Sam missiles such as SA2-16 some of this technology is commig up to 40+ years old. I would suggest a much higher failure rate for items such as these, especially given ECM and flare availability on coalition aircraft.

Would you like to include some of these facts in your example? Or am I just expressing some emotional need in bringing these up?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Reginal, there is a worse scenario than the one you described.

To be exact it's not a scenario , it's a fact.It's not Saddam that is hiting the city it's the Coallition BUT

Saddam's guerillas, do exactly what the "heroes" of PLO and Hamas are doing.

They go hide in urban areas, hoping that the other part won't dare to hit there. That's why, Mr. Unique and others who sympathize Hamas,the Israeli army invades the camps and we have human loses.

As you said it's a War and it's their obligation to protect their people.

1. I do not sympathise with Hamas.
2. You do not provide all the pertinent facts.

(a)Hamas hits Israel
(b)Israel hits Hamas
(c)Unfortunately, Palestinians die.

Before (a), Isreal inflicts 25 year military occupation of Palestine. That may have something to do with (a).

You left out

[Baggle]

First, let me explain the math a bit furthere here. We fired one or two missles around the general area of the marketplace. It makes no difference at all if we fired 1,000,000 missles that day in Iraq. There were only one or two in the general area, and therefore only one or two that could have malfunctioned. It's not the chances of flipping a coin 1,000 times and seeing if it lands on heads once, it's flipping a 100 sided die and seeing if it lands on side X one time for each missle. For the overall statistics of misfiring missles, yes, you are correct. They are not likely to go off target, but when you start firing so many of them, odds can finally catch up with you. However, that is for the entire military campaign, and for ANY missle to go off target, not this one in particular. Have you ever heard that if there are a small amount of people in a room, it is very likely that two people will have the same birth date? I think the numbers are 45 people = 95% certainty. However, if you had 45 people in the room, it is very unlikely that somebody else will have the same birthdate as you in particular. The odds then diminish greatly to 44/365, whatever that reduces to. The concept is the same here. There is a very good chance that if we launch 1,000 missles, some will go off target. However, there is a very, very small chance that missle #235(or any other number) will be the one to go off target. One in one thousand, actually(if 1,000 were fired). I hope I did an okay job of explaining this further. I am taking a statistics course right now and I rarely study and never do homework, so if I am wrong on anything, please correct me guys.

Now, let's say the coalition fired one or two missles toward the general area. Let's say that Iraq fired one or two missles around the general area as well(although its more likely that they were fired from the exact area, as there is a missle defense system located there, as evidenced by the report I cited, where the B52 failed to drop its payload on the air defense system in question, while also being likely that more than one or two were fired). If they had the exact same chance of failure, then one may be just as likely to hit the marketplace as the other. However, the blast radius and crater are small, the Iraqi air defense minister was fired, and there is no evidence from the Iraqis that it was an American missle. Add these to the seemingly logical guestimation that Iraqi missles are not as cared for or as carefully constructed as American missles(due mostly to budget restrictions on the part of Iraq compared to the USA, probably), then things seem to suggest that this may not be the coalitions fault. I am not claiming, as I've repeatedly said, that this is definitely not the fault of the coalition. However, it is just as likely, if not more likely, that this was Iraq's doing, if accidently.

If you want my personal opinion on it(which I've actually not said a word about until now), I think it was an accident and Saddam(or whoever is in charge now) got pissed and fired(killed?) the guy for possibly making him look foolish if anybody were to think that it was Iraq's fault. This is not to say that I don't think Saddam is above doing it if he thinks it suits him, but if he does not order it, it definitely should not be happening, in his view. Although I think it would have been generally forgiven in the international community if Iraq came out and said, "Hey, accidents happen. It was our missle, but had we not been forced to fire it because of the USA, it wouldn't have happened. So the USA is really to blame!," and they may have had some legitimate justification. However, you also musn't ignore the fact that it was located in a civilian neighborhood. So I think Iraq made a political mistake by blaming it on the coalition's missles. Sure the Arabs will blindly believe it, but it may not be as easy to convince the USA or Europe, who they may have been able to win over with the other explanation as well, and gotten much more sympathy.

Also, to the other folks in this thread who are discussing Israel, I'd much appreciate it if you let this thread stay on topic, and just concentrated on the issue at hand. If you want another Israel thread, I'd be very much appriciative if you'd start a thread for it.

-Baggle
PS: insult me again and this debate is over. I will debate facts and logic and if you provide me with enough evidence, I will gladly change my position on the matter and concede that I was wrong and you were right. I expect the same from everyone here, even if it is unreasonable. This is all I will do, however, and even if insults are all too tolerated and thrown back and forth in this forum, I refuse to let anybody I am trying to have an honest debate with hurl them at me. It happens again and you've lost a great debate partner. Even if I am not the wisest or most educated person on this forum, I try to the best of my ability to reduce emotion to an absolute minimum and maximaze logic, and I do demand respect, even if you disagree with me. I will do the same for you, unquestioningly. It is possible, after all, for two people to have the exact same facts and have different viewpoints on a matter, although I'm not sure that's is what's happening here. Thanks in advance for the future courtesy.

[svero]

>Point 1) Who said this has to be an Iraqi missile??

Not me. In fact I suggested several times it could be a propaganda bomb etc...

>Point 2) The Iraqis are using Sam missiles such as SA2-16
>some ?of this technology is commig up to 40+ years old. I would
>suggest a much higher failure rate for items such as these,
>especially given ECM and flare availability on coalition aircraft.

I agree with this point. They probably do have a higher failure rate.

>Would you like to include some of these facts in your example?
>Or am I just expressing some emotional need in bringing these
>up?

I really don't care if it was a US missle or not. I merely point out that given the number of missles/bombs being used by the US it's reasonable to assume it was American. I've said several times that it *could* have been something else, but the more likely answer is that it was US weapon given the difference in the number of weapons being fired. They did 800 sorties on bagdad last night alone.

[svero]

>First, let me explain the math a bit furthere here. We fired one
>or two missles around the general area of the marketplace.

According to whom? Like I've said before it's in the Pentagon's best interest to downplay this, and I would go as far as to say they should do their best to do just that.

>it makes no difference at all if we fired 1,000,000 missles that >day in Iraq.

You're right of course that in calculating the chance that a particular missle fails this is of no importance, but here we are, two regular joes watching tv and getting the news that an explosion happened somewhere in Bagdad. We know for a fact that the U.S. has more weapons and is in the process of undergoing a heavy bombing campaign. That's really all we have of any significance to go on. Anything else is a leaning towards hope. Therefor I say it's most reasonable to assume it was a stray US weapon.

>side X one time for each missle. For the overall statistics of
>misfiring missles, yes, you are correct.

In my view this is really the only significant fact we have. Anything else it too easily tainted by propaganda from either side.

>PS: insult me again and this debate is over.

I assume you refer to how I point out that you may have some emotional need to believe that the weapon was not a U.S. weapon. I don't consider that to be an insult. It's a reasonable explanation for why you seem to side with an unlikely scenario. And not you in particular, but anyone who holds this notion. I really have to ask myself - Why would someone look at a bombing campaign in Bagdad where the US fires thousands of weapons on the city every day and come to the conclusion that an explosion in a marketplace was caused by one of the few Iraqi weapons being fired? Your logical stance seems to be that there were only a few missles fired in that general area, but I think that ignores completely issues of propaganda. I think to be safe, we should only look at the total numbers. What else can we know with any certaintly? As they say... in any war truth is the first casualty. I can however say with some degree of certainty the the US has and is firing more weapons and is in the process of bombing the city. In fact if we knew the percentage that go off course we could probably say, that given 800 sorties a day with roughly x bombs per sortie 2 marketplaces is a pretty good number. I don't know what the exact stats are though. All I know is that too many missles were landing is SA and so the tomohawk flights over that country were suspended.

[Baggle]

According to whom?
"Pentagon officials protested in the immediate aftermath of that explosion that no bombs or missiles had been dropped on targets anywhere near the area, and they suggested that the explosion could have been caused by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile that had missed its mark and plunged back to earth."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49022-2003Mar29.html


[/quote]We know for a fact that the U.S. has more weapons and is in the process of undergoing a heavy bombing campaign. That's really all we have of any significance to go on[/quote]
I'd have to disagree. We have the Pentagon's word to go on. See the article above. Maybe you think they are lying. I'm working on the assumption that they are not, based not on hope, but for simplicity. The Pentagon also says there is a missle defense battery in that neighborhood, and the Iraqis enter the equation.

As far as overall statistics go, I do not know for sure. I know for a fact that the US has thus far said that 7 missles have gone off course. How many have been fired? For simplicity's sake, let's say 2,000. 7/2,000 = .35% (one third of one percent) chance that any particular cruise missle will go off course, or about 1 in every 300 that are fired. If 10 were fired in that same area that same day at that same time, just for arguments sake, using the stats I provided above, there would be a .5% chance that one or more would go off target, with the .5% obviously being for 1 going off target, and the odds dimishing as more are calculated to go off target. Those odds are possibly 5 or 10 times more likely than what the actual odds are, and yet are still very low. We do not have the information on the Iraqi air defense batteries, but it would be likely to assume that the failure rate is higher than that of cruise missles. Given the fact that there was an AA site next to the market, and that the Iraqi air defense administrator was just fired per news sites, the crater was small or non existant, and there has been no material evidence provided by the Iraqis that the missle was American, things become very hard to call. I would say that the odds are actually more in favor of the Iraqis being responsible with the facts we currently have.

My logic has absolutely no basis in emotion at all, and is sound. At this point there is no way to know whose By the way, I did the calculations that I provided with my Ti83 Plus graphing calculator with this formula: 1-binomialcdf(10, .0035, 1). Correct me if I am wrong, please.

-Baggle

[svero]

>I'd have to disagree. We have the Pentagon's word to go on.

There's really no point in discussing this further. So for my last post on this I'll just say that the Pentagon is not a source you can trust on this issue unless they admit it was there fault, in which case you can reasonably assume they're telling the truth because they stand little to gain from it other than buying some credibility for when other missles go off target or when they need to target civilian areas on purpose. You might just as well quote Iraqi officials saying it was a US missle. Neither can be believed.

Given that it is entirely reasonable to assume the Pentagon and Iraqis both use propaganda and lies to their advantage, I stand by my original opinion. Many many missles fired - likely cause - one went off target.

edit : their ->they're

[Kiwi9]

This article: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=392161
apparently gives some information about the missile.

...that vital shard of fuselage was computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans – if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Kiwi9
This article: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=392161
apparently gives some information about the missile.

...that vital shard of fuselage was computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans – if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.

Welcome to the Forum Kiwi9.

Thanks for that link.

The plot thickens, The US can only verify it if it's of US or maybe Allied manufacture, not if it's of, say Chinese or Russian build.

I would accept that if this is part of a cruise or similar then it does lend weight to that arguement, however later in the article it say's...

"We have never seen anything like these wounds before," Dr Ahmed, an anaesthetist at the Al-Noor hospital told me later. "These people have been punctured by dozens of bits of metal." He was right. One old man I visited in a hospital ward had 24 holes in the back of his legs and buttocks, some as big as pound coins. An X-ray photograph handed to me by one of his doctors clearly showed at least 35 slivers of metal still embedded in his body

Which to me points to a large anti-aircraft shell. (See my earlier post)

[Baggle]

For you to equate the Pentagon and the Iraqi military in terms of propoganda is unreasonable. You may not like the US gov't, but that does not mean that the Pentagon actively lies to the American people. If you want to make this claim, I'd think Occam would disagree with you, and I'd kindly ask for some evidence.

Also, for you to dismiss all of my math, statistics and logic in favor of your own original opinion without ever discussing, conceding to, or refuting them disappoints me. Numbers don't lie.

-Baggle

[svero]

>For you to equate the Pentagon and the Iraqi military in terms
>of propoganda is unreasonable. You may not like the US gov't,
>ut that does not mean that the Pentagon actively lies to the
>American people. If you want to make this claim, I'd think
>Occam would disagree with you, and I'd kindly ask for some
>evidence.

Welll..... I said I wouldn't continue this discussion but this begs a response. Lets just toss out what I may feel about the US govt's credibility out the window since it's not really all that relevant. If a report comes out that may hurt troop morale by turning the public against the war, and it may save lives to stall on it or deny it for the timebeing then I'm all for that, and I don't think it's below the pentagon to lie in a case like this. If given the choice of telling the truth, or lying to the public and a general knew with some certainty that telling the truth would cost the lives of 15 American soldiers what would he do? What should he do? Anyway it is my contention that the pentagon and us govt lie to to the american people all the time and history supports that. Ever heard of the gulf of tonkin? The sales of uranium to iraq from nigeria that turned out to be badly forged fakes? yeah.. their credibility is pretty low.

>Also, for you to dismiss all of my math, statistics and logic in
>favor of your own original opinion without ever discussing,
>conceding to, or refuting them disappoints me. Numbers don't
>lie.

I don't dismiss your math. I'm sure your numbers are correct. I just feel you're measuring the wrong data, so I see little point to it. It's like I ask how fast does that motorbike go, and you come up with a whole nubmer of pages of formulas showing it's 90km's per hour based on the wrong kind of motor. What's the point?

Besides, here's another problem with your argument. Presumably we're arguing what the likelyhood is that the pentagon lied when they denied that the marketplace bombing was their fault, so I think it's fair to say that you shouldn't be quoting pentagon sources in defense of the theory that it's just as likely to be an iraqi missle.

[svero]

OK. According to an article I just read... speaking strictly of Tomahawks and not all other types of bombs/missles being launched ... They have an 85-90% success rate in the field. I also read that about 700 or so were fired so far in this war as of a few days ago.(more by now) That means 70 or so would have failed in one way or another if stats from the Balkans were correct. The US claims only 15 of 700 failed, which may be true if the technology has improved since the balkans, but either way 15-70 misses of Tomahawks alone. I know that doesn't necessarily support my argument, but I thought I'd throw out a few numbers instead of vague guesses to think about.

[Baggle]

First of all, let me start by thanking you for continuing this discussion with me. I appreciate it.

Let me clarify why I don't think it's reasonable to assume the Pentagon is lying about this matter as an initial thought. The USA killed 5(I think) civilians and injured 15 or 30 when one of our missles hit a bus on the Iraqi border. The Pentagon came clean immediately. US forces launched a patriot missle at a British fighter and destroyed it, killing two soliders. The Pentagon came clean immediately. Many other things have happened that make the US look bad, and the Pentagon has come clean. Why would the Pentagon be so worried about this incident? It's not like a lot of people died. 15 innocent people is a terrible loss, but it is statistically acceptabe. It is especially acceptable when there are completely legitimate and viable military targets around those civilians, placed there purposely. I think if the US really thought they were responsible, they'd come clean and put a, "Saddam put those air defense weapons we were targeting and missed in a civilian area! He's a madman!," spin on it. But they didn't. Granted, the Pentagon may have lied at other points in time about other things, but there is little evidence to suggest that the Pentagon is actively covering up mistakes in this war. If they did knowingly cover things like this up, and the public found out later, there'd be hell to pay.

Now, back to math. I am not sure you completely understand how statistics work. We may have launched 100 or 1,000 cruise missles that day, but, according to the Pentagon, only a few were in the area in that acceptable time period. So even if we launched 500 at 1am, if the marketplace exploded at 8pm, those 500 make no difference, if you see what I am saying. We don't have the raw data, but we have the facts that the Pentagon assembled. These may be true or false, but I think if we are going to get anywhere, we need to work on the premise that the Pentagon is telling the truth. After all, as you said, the chance percentage that the Pentagon is lying is uncalculable.

Also, you did address my math in your last post, but nothing about the other evidence. Evidence like the Iraqi air defense minister being relieved from duty, the doctor reports that victims had many fragments in their bodies, reports that Iraqi civil servants were ordered to clear the area of fragments before journalists got there, and the lack of physical evidence from the Iraqis. I don't think these should all be dismissed without some thought first given to them, and they change the debate quite a bit.

-Baggle

[svero]

>Let me clarify why I don't think it's reasonable to assume the
>Pentagon is lying about this matter as an initial thought. The
>USA killed 5(I think) civilians and injured 15 or 30 when one of
>our missles hit a bus on the Iraqi border. The Pentagon came
>clean immediately. US forces launched a patriot missle at a >British fighter and destroyed it, killing two soliders. The
>Pentagon came clean immediately. Many other things have
>happened that make the US look bad, and the Pentagon has
>come clean. Why would the Pentagon be so worried about this
>incident?

I could offer several explanations but the simplest is that the incidents you mention are very different from a civilian area in bagdad. Remember that the army is trying to win hearts and minds as they say. Iraqis will be less concerned about a bus of syrians near the border or friendly fire accdients than civilian areas in Bagdad and given their already deep distrust of the west they may not even feel it's an accident. And I know you'll think I'm a cynic, but coming clean on a few less problematic mistakes is a way to buy credibility for those they'd rather cover up.

>at other points in time about other things, but there is little
>evidence to suggest that the Pentagon is actively covering up
>mistakes in this war. If they did knowingly cover things like this
>up, and the public found out later, there'd be hell to pay.

I guess we'll see, but I expect stories that show that to surface eventually.

>Now, back to math. I am not sure you completely understand
>how statistics work. We may have launched 100 or 1,000 cruise
>missles that day, but, according to the Pentagon, only a few
>were in the area in that acceptable time period.

Yeah I understand this. But, it seems ridiculous to me that we should discuss the statistical chance that one or two missles goes off target in a discussion about the likelyhood of the pentagon lying, given that the only reason to reduce the number of missles to one or two is what the pentagon told us. Also in this particular case we already have an explosion. It's not the chance that one or two missles may misfire before they're fired. I agree with you wholeheartedly that if that number is correct (1 or 2 missles fired vs a few Iraqi missles fired in the same area) there's no particular reason to believe it was an American missle and maybe there's even a likelyhood that it was Iraqi, but given the lack of evidence for that claim besides "the pentagon told me so" I still feel it's more reasonable to look at the number of missles fired overall. I mean... Has the pentagon admitted to destroying any civilian centers in bagdad? With literally thousands of bombs being dropped on a heavily populated city every day and night and with a well documented failure rate of 5-10% not one of them went of course into a civilian area? Not a single one?

>Also, you did address my math in your last post, but nothing
>about the other evidence. Evidence like the Iraqi air defense
>minister being relieved from duty, the doctor reports that victims
>had many fragments in their bodies, reports that Iraqi civil
>servants were ordered to clear the area of fragments before
>journalists got there, and the lack of physical evidence from the '
>Iraqis. I don't think these should all be dismissed without some
>thought first given to them, and they change the debate quite a
>bit.

Well... I think those pieces of information don't amount to much more than rumors. I need something more substantial for it to be a reasonable thing to debate. But assuming they were true, I'd say that the air defense minister being relieved neither points one way or the other, the Dr. reporting doesn't mean much to me as it could have been any kind of bomb and I have no expertise about this kind of damage, the numbers on the fragments that were in western script indicate US make rather than russian or chinese (possibly french I suppose), and the clearing of debris to be rather suspicious. But you're talking about information coming out of Bagdad where there are only a few independent journalists and official Iraqi statements. It's really not much to go on.

[Baggle]

Just to clarify, the bus was full of Iraqi refugees headed toward Syria, not Syrians headed toward Iraq. As far as us not hitting other civilian centers? I believe that one wholeheartedly. Part of the Iraqi war plan is to make the US look very bad internationally. A complaint about the marketplace bombing has just been heard before the UN security council by Iraq. I assure you that every mistake the USA makes that leads to loss of innocent life will be reported on as heavily as possible by our own media, but especially by state run Iraqi media and other Arab news agencies. See the report today about 7 fleeing Iraqi women/children dead when soldiers opened fire on their van? Tragic indeed.

About the missle fragments having western style writing on them, I saw the article and it seems questionable. Sorry if this exposes my ignorance, but is this a reputable newspaper? The article seemed pretty biased, and used some emotional wording. Why no pictures? A little old man took the piece and the Iraqi gov't does not know, yet he told a western journalist? Isn't that risky? Seems suspect, but if it can be verified, it would definitely lend credence to your argument. Has anyone else reported or confirmed this part of the story?

Touching on the math again...If you'll recall, the calculation I gave was for 10 missles being fired in that general area at that general time frame. The chance of one or more going off target was .5%(half of one percent). If you think there were 100 missles fired at that time in that area, which is very unlikely, that raises the chance to 5%, which is still very low.

Again, I am not arguing that the US military could not possibly be responsible for this attack. They may well be. I am just arguing that it is premature to judge who was responsible for the incident at this point in time, especially given the facts that I've presented in this thread. At the very least I would expect a, "Ya, what a tragedy. It's too soon to tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US was responsible," from a skeptic.

-Baggle

[svero]

>About the missle fragments having western style writing on
>them, I saw the article and it seems questionable. Sorry if this
>exposes my ignorance, but is this a reputable newspaper?

Well I think Fisk and the independent are reputable, however he has a strong left leaning, and that is exactly why I didn't quote that same article, which I'd already read before it was posted, in my arguments. I didn't want to sully the argument with something that I knew would be attacked by people already familiar with his work.

>Why no pictures?

Well he's in Bagdad... it may not be all that easy to get pictures out.

> Has anyone else reported or confirmed this part of the story?

Who's going to confirm it? Who's in bagdad? A few indie reporters that aren't already missing. Aside from that we get all our info from the pentagon, or embedded reporters in the south or iraqi tv. How would it be confirmed? You've already said you out of hand dismiss anything reported by the Iraqi govt. I'm not sure there's much hope of independent confirmation.

>Touching on the math again...If you'll recall, the calculation I
>gave was for 10 missles being fired in that general area at that >general time frame. The chance of one or more going off target
>was .5%(half of one percent).

Operational in field results from the balkans are more like 5-10% not .5% -- Anyway.. I still don't think it's really worth it to even do this calculation. With regards to some stories of mistakes being reported, I don't know how the decisions are made, but perhaps in some cases it's not easy to deny. Maybe there was an embedded reporter there and they couldn't easily hide it?

>Again, I am not arguing that the US military could not possibly
>be responsible for this attack. They may well be. I am just
>rguing that it is premature to judge who was responsible for the
>incident

And I've said all along that it could be Iraqi, but I've pointed out that given the sheer number of weapons fired, and given our lack of reliable information and the preponderance of disinformation and propaganda it was not unreasonable to assume it was probably a US weapon. Without more information I'll stand by that for the timebeing. If it is indeed thousands of weapons being fired every day and night and the percentage chance is similar to the balkans (10% roughly) then we're looking at minimum 100 misses a day, and probably a lot more. To say that none of those hit civilian areas is optimistic to say the least.

[svero]

This is a followup to the eariler independent article posted...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393066

I'd say it's certainly not conclusive, but of interest to the topic at hand.

[Baggle]

Great info in that article. Turns out it wasn't a cruise missle after all, if this is correct, which would explain a lot of things that I brought up. Thanks for the link. Do me a favor and if it's no hassle, continue to follow the story from this paper. I'd be very interested to hear the updates on it.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Originally posted by svero
This is a followup to the eariler independent article posted...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=393066

I'd say it's certainly not conclusive, but of interest to the topic at hand.

Well, if its true then that means that we accidentally killed Iraqi civillians. Very sad. The tone of the independent though makes me want to slap someone. "an embarrassing blow to Washington " Do these guys live in the real world? Civillian casualites happen unfortunately. Of course, I find it interesting that the serial number survived and was found.

[LTC8K6]

If the iraqis are placing legitimate military targets such as missile batteries in civilian areas then they are partly to blame.

Since we know they are doing this, there you go.

[loCAtek]

Pentagon officials had earlier said that a U.S. airstrike did target nine Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles and launchers in residential areas of Baghdad about 3 a.m. ET Wednesday, but no target was near the Shaab district. Some of those systems were within 300 feet of homes.
...

Photographs of the bombed marketplace have now been analyzed by military officials who concluded the craters and other damage was not representative of what would have happened from a 2,000-pound bomb.
from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.marketplace.bombing/)The US knew what they were trying to hit and the Baghdad marketplace not a target. (http://www.af.mil/news/opscenter/Mar2003/32603298.shtml) Now, you can say you don't believe the military, but would you believe the Iraqi ministers who say things like, "victory is at hand,'' ? A friend of mine has also noticed they are re-using old photos of civilian casualties from Palestine and other places.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, if its true then that means that we accidentally killed Iraqi civillians. Very sad. The tone of the independent though makes me want to slap someone. "an embarrassing blow to Washington " Do these guys live in the real world?

This is the part that is bothering me. The media are playing right into the Iraqi propaganda, falling for it hook, line, and sinker. The US military keeps saying, we don't target civilians. Yet, the media falls all over themselves to find examples where civilians are getting hurt.

No one ever claimed that civilians weren't going to get hurt or killed, and to act like it is a big shock is just dumb. The key is whether the US is targeting civilian population. It is pretty clear the answer is no. However, when Iraqis do things that require us to put civilians at risk, such as pretending to be civilians or putting military equipment in civilian areas, then civilians are going to get hurt.

The big mistake the military made in this case, IMO, was the whole "It might have been an Iraqi missile" crap. They really need to take this head on, and be honest with everyone.

"As you know, Helen, we do not target civilians in any way, and focus on military operations. We will, as always, do our best to avoid civilian casualties. However, in the course of these actions, civilian casualties undoubtedly will occur. While we regret that this will happen, we will not allow it to hinder our military objectives."

When someone asks if it was one of our missiles that hit the market place, the answer is simple. "Might have been, yes. While our guided bombs have been extremely successful, some get off course, unfortunately. But, we do not target civilians..." (see above)