Guest Lottie Posted November 7, 2004 #1 Share Posted November 7, 2004 raq's government has declared a 60-day state of emergency in response to the escalation of violence by militants. Official spokesman Thaer Naqib said the emergency would cover the whole of Iraq except Kurdish-run areas in the north. He said the move came in response to mass killings and destruction of the country's infrastructure carried out by "criminals and terrorists". He said the violence was part of a plot to derail the interim Iraq government's progress towards January's elections. In the latest violence, Iraqi insurgents stormed a police station in the western province of al-Anbar, disarmed 21 officers and shot them dead. Fighting at the Haditha police station, 200km (120 miles) west of Baghdad, lasted about 90 minutes, sources say, as the building was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. In other violence on Sunday: Another six policemen were shot dead in a similar attack in the neighbouring town of Haqlaniya Two British soldiers from the Black Watch battle group stationed at Camp Dogwood, 20 miles (32km) from Baghdad, were seriously injured in a suicide attack Three Iraqi officials from Diyala province were killed on their way to the funeral of a colleague One US soldier was killed and four others wounded in a car bomb attack in western Baghdad, the US military said Another car bomb went off in Baghdad outside the house of Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. The minister was not at home at the time, but one of his guards was killed. On Saturday, more than 30 people were killed in another rebel stronghold, Samarra, which US forces only recently declared they had regained control of. Curfew It is not clear at this stage what the state of emergency will mean in practice. Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is due to give full details on Monday. STATE OF EMERGENCY Prime Minister has power* to: Impose a curfew for a short, defined period in areas facing serious security threats Restrict the freedom of movement, assembly and use of weapons by Iraqis or foreigners suspected of crimes Cordon off and search an area if its inhabitants are suspected of possessing weapons Freeze the assets of those accused of insurgency *Under the National Safety Law passed in July However, the BBC's Alastair Leithead in Baghdad says it could include a curfew and extra powers for the police and military. The insurgents' offensive is seen as a response to a planned assault by US troops on their stronghold of Falluja. American and Iraqi forces are continuing preparations for the attack, amid reports that more than 100 insurgents have volunteered to drive suicide car bombs into the advancing troops. There has been artillery fire on positions inside the city, with American aircraft heard almost continuously overhead. As well as the risk of suicide attacks, US commanders said they expected resistance to an offensive to include car bombs and even crude chemical weapons. Mr Allawi still hopes to avoid a US-led attack on Falluja, but feels he cannot wait much longer, his spokesman said on Sunday. "He still hopes that it may be possible to avoid a major military confrontation in Falluja and is now - together with his ministerial colleagues - engaged in a last-ditch effort to see if a peaceful solution can be found," Thaer Naqib was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency. The BBC's Paul Wood, embedded with the US Marines, says they believe that Falluja will be their biggest engagement since Hue, the Vietnamese city they captured in 1968, losing 142 men and killing thousands of the enemy. It is reported from inside Falluja that insurgents, tribal chiefs and Sunni Muslim clerics have invited the media to enter the city under their protection to witness any assault, which they described as a crusade against Islam. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancing_Dumplings Posted November 7, 2004 #2 Share Posted November 7, 2004 oy jeeze what else could go wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lego jedi Posted November 7, 2004 #3 Share Posted November 7, 2004 glad i'm not in the army right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Angel Posted November 7, 2004 #4 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Isn't it a bit late to be calling a emergency? its been going on since the us declared "victory" in iraq... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted November 7, 2004 #5 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Isn't it a bit late to be calling a emergency? its been going on since the us declared "victory" in iraq... 347156[/snapback] You took the words right out of my mouth...I think somewhere around March 2002 when Bush decided to drop any mention of Osama and start mentioning how evil Saddam was would have been a great time to declare an emergency... If not then, Bush's Shock and Awe bombing campaign probably would have been another good time to run up the "emergency" banner... I think Iraq was a bit slow on declaring an emergency...they must have been getting their news updates from the white house website... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 7, 2004 #6 Share Posted November 7, 2004 lol it would be hilarious if it were nt for the 140 000 dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retired UM Posted November 7, 2004 #7 Share Posted November 7, 2004 this is just the interim iraqi gov. trying to get Imperial rule over their country, like Saddam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 8, 2004 #8 Share Posted November 8, 2004 140 000 dead? those seem like very inflated figures to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikuchiyo Posted November 8, 2004 #9 Share Posted November 8, 2004 State of emergency sounds like a RAtM album. *** Biggest Quagmire ever! Pro war or not, that war went on for too long and has caused too many death...the only thing that could fix all this is a huge time machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 8, 2004 #10 Share Posted November 8, 2004 deaths 140 000 dead? those seem like very inflated figures to me One article i found in less than 10 secs stating that at least 100 000 in a conservative estimate have died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 8, 2004 #11 Share Posted November 8, 2004 deaths 140 000 dead? those seem like very inflated figures to me One article i found in less than 10 secs stating that at least 100 000 in a conservative estimate have died. 348066[/snapback] and i'm saying it seems very inflated, i mean a sample size of 1000 people? i just find it odd that the Lancet is the only one proclaiming such a vast amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted November 8, 2004 #12 Share Posted November 8, 2004 (edited) omg - 100,000?!?! That's a genocidal number! O_O EDIT: Oh wait... how many of those were Iraqi soldiers who died in the actual war against the coalition? I know that there were about half million Iraqi troops fighting in that war... Edited November 8, 2004 by Erikl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 8, 2004 #13 Share Posted November 8, 2004 and i'm saying it seems very inflated, i mean a sample size of 1000 people? i just find it odd that the Lancet is the only one proclaiming such a vast amount It has no affiliation witbh any political parties.. Erikl it isnt taking soldiers deaths into acciunt , IN FACT i dont think any estimates are. This is all civillian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted November 8, 2004 #14 Share Posted November 8, 2004 O_O There should be an investigation as to how some many civilians got killed. OMG. This simply an unbelievable number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 8, 2004 #15 Share Posted November 8, 2004 because of poor planning and indiscriminate bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese2 Posted November 8, 2004 #16 Share Posted November 8, 2004 It has no affiliation witbh any political parties.. Erikl it isnt taking soldiers deaths into acciunt , IN FACT i dont think any estimates are. This is all civillian. Well, no wonder you have such a bad taste in your mouth about this war, Wun. I can tell you, there were NOT 100,000 civilian deaths in this war. That number is extremely inflated. SO, if you were to believe that there really are that many people dieing, I can see why you would be so against it. But, unfortunately, reading periodicals, doesn't match someone going there, and the information THEY can provide. You are not ever going to believe this, but you are being swayed by fanatical reporting. That number isn't even close to be accurate. Reese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted November 8, 2004 #17 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Accurate or not, that State of Emergency was the right thing to do IMO. Allawi should make a public speech saying that as long as there is a strong insurgency, the country will remain in a state of emergency, and coalition forces cannot be responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians as a result of them defending themselves. (I know they should be responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians but I still think that he should say it... maybe itll shift the mentality over there and people might frown upon the insurgents? Actaully wait, maybe we should get a Moore equivalent to Iraq to film all the horrible things insurgents are doing, then play it all over TV there?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 8, 2004 #18 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Well, no wonder you have such a bad taste in your mouth about this war, Wun. I can tell you, there were NOT 100,000 civilian deaths in this war. That number is extremely inflated. SO, if you were to believe that there really are that many people dieing, I can see why you would be so against it. But, unfortunately, reading periodicals, doesn't match someone going there, and the information THEY can provide. You are not ever going to believe this, but you are being swayed by fanatical reporting. That number isn't even close to be accurate. Obv i believe you are being swayed by fanatical reporting the other way. could u provide a source to prove the article i posted is wrong?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese2 Posted November 8, 2004 #19 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Yes, I know you think that I am swayed from the 'other' side. My outlook comes directly from people close to me, that were and still are there. Believe me, I, not in any fashion, am going to try to say there were not civilian deaths, but on that scale, there really were not. My husband has top secret clearance, so although he can't and does not divulge to me a lot of what happens over there, (Or on any of his missions) there are aspects he is allowed to tell me, and the figures in that article are grossly inflated. He wouldn't lie. My cousin wouldn't lie. They, just like yourself are very kind people, and if they had any knowledge of such civilian casualties, they would be deeply affected. That is where my comment came about in the other thread. I really think you are kind humanitarian. I might not always agree with you, Wun, but you have a good heart, that does show. Reese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted November 8, 2004 #20 Share Posted November 8, 2004 thanks for that . I hope your right. I would prefer you to be right than me. I hope im proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now