Video Showing US Air-Strike On Peaceful Iraqie Demonstration

Originally posted by mad scientist
Get a grip, I agree with Janus.

A grip on what? Reality? Reality is none of you were there.

Or were you?

Originally posted by fanoose

Well, i think you need to see a psychiatrist. you're suffering from schizophrenia, You have two separate characters.

Ha ha, You just can't admit your wrong & your argument is full of holes and politically motivated BS, so you have to try & change the subject again by making a personal attack against me by calling me schizophrenic. Thanks for unintended humor

As someone who loves to play simulations and enjoys high tech weaponry & TADS I enjoy doing the simulations & I enjoy watching the real thing when the BAD GUYS get killed. As a human being I don't like seeing anyone get killed - I don't think that is a symptom of being schizophrenic, I think that's a symptom of being human - flawed maybe, but schizophrenic - not. Do you have a Dr. in front of your name & are you qualified to diagnose schizophrenia, since you've diagnosed my alleged condition based on one paragraph? No, I think you're the one lost in delirium here, because you actually believe the horse crap your trying to feed us, first you�re an expert video analyst & now you�re a Dr. of psychiatry & you believe were dumb enough to believe you.

Now, back to the subject again - oh wait - were changing it for a moment again.

Originally posted by fanoose
Now since you are so active read this thread its the same as this one, exactly and the same video. Now how come nobody got upset nor did you make him a liar when he stated that they were fighters !? how did he know? How did he know they were carrying weapons? i guess the one who started that thread lost his credibility huh? Just talk about hypocrisy.

I don�t ever recall ever saying I am so active as you put it. It may a thread about the same video, but I don�t read every thread and the subject were talking about here is your thread and what you said not another thread and what somebody else said. I may read his thread & if I choose I will coment on his thread - maybe he's FOS as well, but I'll make that determination without your assistance - thank you. You�re the only hypocrate here as you can�t back up anything you say. Every time someone points out where you�re wrong, it becomes change the subject time for you. The worst part about it is you just keep digging yourself deeper & deeper.


[edit on 16-9-2004 by outsider]

The thing is with these videos taken out of context after being smuggled out of the military is there's no way to determine insurgents or civilians at X amount of feet.

It's similiar to the Apache camera footage, they looked like farmers but you had no idea what was happening even 2 minutes before the tape started rolling.

At its best these videos show how accurate weapons systems are.

taibunsuu,

You get my vote for making an accurate statement based on available information. Thanks for bringing some sanity back into this thread.



[edit on 16-9-2004 by outsider]

NaskKat is right Pyros. It's good to see that there are at least a few clear minded individuals left in the free world. It seems that so many people base their opinions upon the opinions of their peers, simply reading and regurgitating the thoughts of others instead of taking in whatever reliable information is given and forming their own interpretations.

Also, those who believe that war can always be avoided in all scenerios obviously paid no attention in their history classes. War has existed at least as long as civilzation has and probably longer. In fact, most civilizations that exist today were built upon war.

I can only think of one way that a nation might be able to completely avoid involvement in any military confrontation at all. If a nation actually found a way to transplant itself to another planet or the depths of space... then maybe... at least for a little while... they could have uninterrupted peace.

I'd even go out on a limb and say that war may well be in our very nature. If this is the case, then war is something that we're going to have to EVOLVE beyond. I hate to be the one to break this news to those of you who don't know this, but evolution doesn't happen over night. Some of us have come a long way in the last 500 years, but it may take another 500-1000 to finally see an end to the horrors of war. Then again, it's possible that the only true end to war is the end of our subspecies lol.

Originally posted by outsider
Ha ha, You just can't admit your wrong & your argument is full of holes and politically motivated BS, so you have to try & change the subject again by making a personal attack against me by calling me schizophrenic. Thanks for unintended humor

As someone who loves to play simulations and enjoys high tech weaponry & TADS I enjoy doing the simulations & I enjoy watching the real thing when the BAD GUYS get killed. As a human being I don't like seeing anyone get killed - I don't think that is a symptom of being schizophrenic, I think that's a symptom of being human - flawed maybe, but schizophrenic - not. Do you have a Dr. in front of your name & are you qualified to diagnose schizophrenia, since you've diagnosed my alleged condition based on one paragraph? No, I think you're the one lost in delirium here, because you actually believe the horse crap your trying to feed us, first you�re an expert video analyst & now you�re a Dr. of psychiatry & you believe were dumb enough to believe you.




You mean As someone who loves to brag . . anyway It would be my pleasure to admit i was wrong, when you give your side of story 'I mean facts' when you have that fact you can show it here and i'll be glad to admit it, but when this video is already stolen i could say my opinion whether it suited yours or not. If you want to prove your point provide me with the facts or just give your opinion and off you go. You remind me with babies when they learn new word they keep repeating it over and over, i don't change the subject if your comment were in the subject, you asked an off topic i answered then you start yelling you changed the subject. Look to what you just said " I think that's a symptom of being human - flawed maybe, but schizophrenic - not. " you even admitted you're even not logical. Unless you show me evidence that what happened there differ from my version of mine, I say if you have that posted and i'll gladly show you my admission of being wrong.




Originally posted by outsider
I don�t ever recall ever saying I am so active as you put it. It may a thread about the same video, but I don�t read every thread and the subject were talking about here is your thread and what you said not another thread and what somebody else said. I may read his thread & if I choose I will coment on his thread - maybe he's FOS as well, but I'll make that determination without your assistance - thank you. You�re the only hypocrate here as you can�t back up anything you say. Every time someone points out where you�re wrong, it becomes change the subject time for you. The worst part about it is you just keep digging yourself deeper & deeper.



Actually he posted the link to his thread before your post in my thread. Did you miss it or you ignored it? And the subject your talking about here is facts and sources as you said before "Stick with the facts - that's all I ask." And when asked about his thread you definitely changed the subject to "I may read his thread & if I choose I will coment on his thread " you asked me question like "Where do you come up with the statement "it's obvious they're not fighters"? How is it obvious? How do you know they weren't carrying weapons"? while their answers is similar to that thread, you sure took the time to jump here and ask these question but avoiding another thread with the same content and a different 'story'! isn't that called hypocrisy?




Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why not?



Their (citizens) houses are very old and weak that might fall on them from any shaking, Now when you strike them it will destroy a large portion of these houses along with families inside. If they are fighters they would use siege or anything to captuer them. They could lead you to another groups (though they are larg for one group), and for those who talked about al-najaf and they are in larg group, its totaly different. al-najaf is more like army called (almahdi) belong to one leader al-sader they are army and they care more about politics and want the occupation out of the holy places. While the rest of iraq is under the what you call them (insurgents) they are in small cells in 6 individuals maximum, this way they won't get maximum damages if they were hit by the enmey. This tactic is used on streets war, They don't belong to any bigger groups and most of their actions comes from revenge than a politics.




Originally posted by Lerkur
While I claim to be no expert on Islam, perhaps this paper would be interesting to you. It makes the case that Al-Taqiyya may not be so foreign to Sunni Muslims.



I read that paper (while i already know what my religion say), and here what i found in the link you provided:
1- The link is from a Shi'ite Beliefs and Practices.
2- The Shi'ite take some weak (unapproved) hadaith (narrations of the prophet) that were fake & false, and say that Taqiyya is aproved in Islam, you have to understand they got their own belief which differ from sunni in lots of ways.
3- From the same page you provided here's what the author say about what sunni think about Taqiyya:

al-Taqiyya According to the Sunnis
Some Sunnis assert that al-Taqiyya is an act of pure hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth and reveal that which is the exact opposite (of the truth). Furthermore, according to those Sunnis, al-Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in Allah (SWT) because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from eminent danger is fearful of humans, when, in fact, he should be fearful of Allah (SWT) only. As such, this person is a coward.

So i don't understand what you meant by "Al-Taqiyya may not be so foreign to Sunni Muslims"? also you should know that Taqiyya means protection/shelter, the Shi'ite believe that you can do it all the time if you wan't to for example: Spread your faith or to give your self i good reputation. . .etc. while the sunni don't accept such thing at all, this's one of the reason they call sunni 'strict' version of Islam while itsn't the only thing permissible in this case is if you are in real danger, i mean your life on the line for example someone put a gun in your head and asked you to say bad things about your religion, in this case its (logically) permissible to free your self by saying it without believing it on heart.




Originally posted by Lerkur
Please, when you read what I have written, understand that I speak in whole sentences. I acknowledge that it is in vogue to take what someone said, break a part out from it, and pretend that that is all that there was, but it strikes me as very poor form. I shall highlight the important part of the sentence that you seem to have neglected.



Nah, my main question to you was "what do you think the iraqis say about the occupation there?" not what do they think the situation will be if they left! and you gave me this answer "but they also acknowledge that the coalition cannot simply leave Iraq or there would be pandemonium", the reason i asked you this is not to change the subject but from your first post i understood that you're believing that iraqis blame insurgents for the sitution thare while the truth is they (iraqis) are the insurgents.




Originally posted by Lerkur
Note that most Iraqis seem to concur.

The part of the poll that you highlighted is quite interesting as well. It shows that despite fears that things would get even worse, they would still like to see the coalition gone. I do not, however, support chopping the Kurds out of the data. They are a fairly substantial part of the Iraq calculation.



They even said if saddam left, Iraq would be unsave. In the same time they wanted him to leave also. When i choped kurds i didn't say totaly but from the poll because they don't want to live with iraqis, they want their own state. In the same time they are so minority bush can take them to his farm. Mind you they didn't suffer anything from this war, actully they don't know anything about the occupation because most of the operations are focused on al-najaf and the sunni triangle (as the u.s call it). Even if we didn't take them from the poll still the majorty 57% of the (iraqis want them out). Though this poll is only on a small portion of the iraqies about 3000 i guess.




Originally posted by Lerkur
is a poor piece of reasoning. You attempt to reason that, because the image on the video is not green, it must be daytime. This is simply not true. All of the rest of your arguing about thermal imaging versus image intensification is just an attempt to distract readers from the fact that your argument does not hold water. While I agree with you that this video was most likely not shot at night, I disagree with your reasoning.



The video shown is so cleare, not what use to see on other videos taken by the military at night. And when i stated that Night Vision (green). I was refering to what the military used at night particularly at the beginning of the invasion on iraq, and since most of alfalujah without electricity, it would need some sort of amplifiers to give a perfect vision. The video is soo clear like its been shot in 2 pm. . And here we go again (distract reader) who's the one who start to explain how IR/NV works? who start to give classes on thermal imaging? who start a religion discussion? You! and now you say i was dstracting the readers! And what you mean by distracting the readers, i didnt post mine as a general comment, it was a reply direct at you, i even quoted you before i replied!




Originally posted by Lerkur
First you state that you did not avoid answering the question, and then you go and provide the answer that was lacking from the previous post. While I would normally chide you for this, I think your actual answer is more interesting than the dancing around the question.

This is one point where I think we can say we have an honest difference of opinion. I am an atheist. If I am in a situation where it is my life or someone else�s, I will pull the trigger every time.



Yes, i didn't. If i were to avoid answering the question i wouldv'e ignored it and never quoted it nor mentioned it on my next post thats avoiding. But actually you've chosen a position for me and want me to answer. Its like saying if you're criminal and a killer what would you do if you faced someone? this's how you put it and want me to answer it, its already being answered from the same question. Some questions can't be answered with yes/no. Truly we all have different opinions if we all agreed on something all the time you wouldn't see any forums at all. Btw your answer (I will pull the trigger) doesn't even fit your question. I would agree with your answer to some what but you said "someone else�s" thats hard to imagine i would have the guts to pull the trigger on babies/children and even if i did my life won't be life, it would be more miserable than a life.




Originally posted by Lerkur
The bomb was, apparently, dropped before the people emerged. The original target was the house. It is true that the pilot is unable to tell, from his view, whether they are fighters or normal people. The forward air controller, on the other hand, was probably looking at them through a scope or binoculars. What you mistook as the pilot talking with his base, was actually the pilot communicating with the forward air controller. Far from showing neglect, this clip shows the level of resolve and capability that the U.S. military has.



Aaah? i'm not the only one with opinion without 'Facts!'. It wasn't about the story nor the (time of day) it was all about 'neglect' & 'military moral' after all. . .





Originally posted by Lerkur
This was part of my original point. Can you at least try to keep similar ideas grouped into a single thread? The manner in which you post many threads without offering much of an analysis in them strikes me as a combination of spamming and trolling. If you posted one thread with a main thesis and then used the various stories as evidence I think you would get a much warmer reception around here. As it is, your actions rub a lot of people the wrong way.



Do you think i'm a TV producer, or this's part of a shows series. If someone was killed in a village he's my news and if its a new scandel i would put it under the carpet!. Most of the threads would get comments from members who don't agree than from members who agree that's why some of the hot threads live long. And the big majority of my (clients) who visit my threads don't complain about the thread but about the contents which doesn't suit their minds. This proved to be one of the biggest lies most of whom visit this thread live in. specially when there is another thread the same as this one, and no one complained. To tell you the truth, last thing i care about (now), is "warmer reception". If you think i would change my posts so i can get "warmer reception" then you definitely need to visit my other threads, and see how they accepted it, or if i changed my posts from that piont or not. To be specific, i really don't post here so i can convince people or not nor do i try to sell'em a bridge. If that's what i want to do, then i'll have to put/follow a specific program and to not try to throw things on a solid forms rather i would make it easy for digestion so to speak.




Originally posted by Lerkur
The reason nobody got upset in that thread is because there was nobody claiming that they were demonstrators a month ago when the story was news. That version of events did not appear until much later.



The reason is that it touched a sensitive nerve, didn't i read something like "How is it obvious they're not fighters? How do you know they weren't carrying weapons?" it wasn't about demonstrators or not. . .

[edit on 16-9-2004 by fanoose]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by fanoose
And even if they were fighters you don't strike'em in the middle of a small street near houses.

Why not?

I am still waiting for the answer to this question.

Originally posted by HowardRoark



Originally posted by HowardRoark



Originally posted by fanoose
And even if they were fighters you don't strike'em in the middle of a small street near houses.



Why not?




I am still waiting for the answer to this question.



Isnt this enough?? i just posted it already above? before your post exactly!





Their (citizens) houses are very old and weak that might fall on them from any shaking, Now when you strike them it will destroy a large portion of these houses along with families inside. If they are fighters they would use siege or anything to captuer them. They could lead you to another groups (though they are larg for one group), and for those who talked about al-najaf and they are in larg group, its totaly different. al-najaf is more like army called (almahdi) belong to one leader al-sader they are army and they care more about politics and want the occupation out of the holy places. While the rest of iraq is under the what you call them (insurgents) they are in small cells in 6 individuals maximum, this way they won't get maximum damages if they were hit by the enmey. This tactic is used on streets war, They don't belong to any bigger groups and most of their actions comes from revenge than a politics.

Their (citizens) houses are very old and weak that might fall on them from any shaking.

Really. Do you know this for a fact? Have you ever been to Faluja?

It's probably a good thing that they are strict muslims, otherwise the teenagers might get together and throw a party with loud music and dancing. They could really "Shake the house down."

Did any of the buildings in the video collapse?

It's a good thing they don't live in the earthquake zone.



Personally, I would have thought that if you are going to take out a bunch of enemy fighters, then you want them all bunched up in a narrow street so that the effects of the blast are confined.

I suppose you would rather see your neighbors kid get killed instead.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Really. Do you know this for a fact? Have you ever been to Faluja?



Yeah, really!
Been there? No. but i also never been to NY still i know they have high buildings!

Facts? Yes i know some iraqis who say this town is an old village with an old houses. And to give you some idea about it here's some photos:





Iraqi survey a destroyed house, following a U.S. army bombardment, early
morning in Falluja September 9, 2004. An Internet statement purportedly
from an Iraqi militant group headed by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
said four of his fighters were killed in two days of U.S. strikes on the Sunni
Muslim town of Falluja. Photo by Mohammed Khodor/Reuters (click here)


Iraqis inspect a destroyed house, following the U.S. air strikes in the town
of Falluja, September 13, 2004. U.S. forces launched air strikes on the Iraqi
town of Falluja on Monday, killing at least seven Iraqis, including women
and children, a doctor said. Iyad Mohamed of Falluja Hospital said 10 other
Iraqis had been injured in the strikes on different parts of the town, just
west of Baghdad. REUTERS/Mohammed Khodor (click here)


An Iraqi youth stands over the rubble of his father's factory after it was
destroyed in a U.S. air strike in the city of Falluja, west of Baghdad, August
24, 2004. The U.S. military said the factory sheltered supporters of
Jordanian militant and suspected al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
REUTERS/Mohammed Khodor (click here)


An Iraqi boy walks through the crater left after an overnight air strike in
the restive city of Falluja September 2, 2004. A U.S. air strike on Falluja
killed at least 14 people including a woman and three children, Iraqi
doctors said early on Thursday. The U.S. military said in a separate
statement it had 'conducted a precision attack' on Wednesday evening
against two safe houses used by associates of al-Qaeda ally Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi in southwest Falluja, a city in the Sunni triangle west of Baghdad.
REUTERS/Mohammed Khodor (click here)

Also look here:
www.iraqvictims.com...
www.iraqvictims.com...
www.iraqvictims.com...
www.iraqvictims.com...
www.iraqvictims.com...

And here:
unimondo.oneworld.net...
www.jrebelde.cu...
i.cnn.net...
i.a.cnn.net...
newsimg.bbc.co.uk...







Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did any of the buildings in the video collapse?



The video ended at a big giant black smoke that covered the screen, but i presume it did based on the 'facts' below and the pictures above.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
It's a good thing they don't live in the earthquake zone.



earthquake is irrelevant here (or as they say 'changing the subject'). and if you want to make relevant (ok by me) then i ask Since when the last earthquake hit/happened in falujah?




Originally posted by HowardRoark
Personally, I would have thought that if you are going to take out a bunch of enemy fighters, then you want them all bunched up in a narrow street so that the effects of the blast are confined.

I suppose you would rather see your neighbors kid get killed instead.



I guess its permissible for you to say 'enemy fighters' but its prohibited on me to say 'normal people'! anyway the way you described is like no one lived in these houses and that street is far from the buildings and residential area. While if you hit it with a missile the blast will destroy the houses and the families who lives in it based on these articles/news ('facts'):





www.iraqpress.org...
The report says that more some 500 houses were destroyed in the fighting and many others were partially damaged or looted.

www.indybay.org...
Fallujans carrying banners reading "rebuild our houses from our oil revenues" are staging sit-in protests demanding compensation for property destroyed during last April's US military offensive. . ."Their house was destroyed, my cousin - like me and many others - is unemployed. Where will he get the funds to rebuild his house? Fifteen people are now been living in my two-bed rooms house since last April. Is that acceptable?" asked Abd Allah al-Dulaymi.

www.menewsline.com...
On Saturday, a U.S. military jet fired at least two missiles into a Faluja neighborhood in an attack on a suspected Al Zarqawi stronghold. At least 18 people were killed and two houses were destroyed.

observer.guardian.co.uk...
AN AMERICAN F-16 jet fired missiles into a residential area in the flashpoint Sunni city of Fallujah yesterday, killing at least 22 members of one extended family. At least two houses were destroyed and six others were damaged as slabs of concrete and steel reinforcing bars were up-ended and twisted skyward in the damage, Associated Press Television News footage showed.

www.buzzle.com...
Witnesses reported that at least 25 buildings had been destroyed. At least 10 people were injured in the fighting, hospital officials said today. One Falluja resident, Hassan al-Maadhidi, returned to the city after fleeing earlier fighting, and said he was distraught when he saw the devastation wrought by the latest onslaught. "I returned to see houses destroyed, streets empty and shops bombarded," he told the Associated Press, adding that he was considering fleeing the city again. However, US military leaders insisted the strikes had been limited, targeting only insurgents. US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said: "Even though it may not look like it, there is still a determined aspiration on the part of the coalition to maintain a ceasefire and solve the situation in Falluja by peaceful means."

www.theherald.co.uk...
In Falluja, witnesses said the US bombing targeted the city's residential al Shurta neighbourhood, damaging buildings and raising clouds of black smoke.
Dr Ahmad Taher of Falluja General Hospital said at least 20 people were killed, including women and children, and 29 others hurt. An ambulance was hit by a shell in the strike, killing the driver, a paramedic and five patients inside the vehicle, Hamid Salaman, another hospital official, said. "The conditions here are miserable � an ambulance was bombed, three houses destroyed and men and women killed," Rafayi Hayad al Esawi, hospital director, told Arab al Jazeera television. "The American army has no morals." Witnesses said that US jets swooped low over Falluja and artillery units fired from the city's outskirts.

news.bbc.co.uk...
Correspondents describe two giant craters in the ground, with one house completely destroyed and the second badly damaged.

english.aljazeera.net...
The victims, from just three families, were taking shelter in a couple of houses that were completely destroyed during the third successive night of air strikes, locals said. Khalid Abbas, a neighbour to one of the houses completely destroyed, told journalists: "We were sleeping on the roof because the electricity keeps going off at night. When the the explosion went off, the blast threw me back by at least five metres.

english.aljazeera.net...
A house in the Shuhada'a district of the city was also destroyed when it came under US aerial bombardment, Reuters reported. US forces have repeatedly used air strikes to hit what they call "terrorist safe houses" allegedly used by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Falluja residents and medical sources say it is Iraqi civilians - including women and children - that are being killed in these strikes.Dr Kamal al-Ani, a doctor at the local hospital, said a US warplane fired a missile that landed in the garden of a house in the Jubail neighbourhood, in southern Falluja. Associated Press Television News footage showed a massive crater beside the house. "We were sleeping in the morning when a US missile hit our house," Saddam Jasim, the home's owner, said as he and his brother cleared debris. "We have nothing to do with the resistance or al-Zarqawi. These are pretexts used by the US military to terrorise the people in Falluja because US soldiers are unable to face the insurgents," he said.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by fanoose]

Related Topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

US bombers kill 22 in Falluja raid
observer.guardian.co.uk...
Americans claim Iraq target was a terrorist safe house
Peter Beaumont in Baghdad
Sunday June 20, 2004
The Observer

AN AMERICAN F-16 jet fired missiles into a residential area in the flashpoint Sunni city of Fallujah yesterday, killing at least 22 members of one extended family.
A US spokesman said the aircraft had been targeting a safe house belonging to the terrorist network run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian directing a suicide bombing campaign against coalition forces in the new Iraqi security organisations.

Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt did not dispute Iraqi accounts that more than 20 people were killed in the attack, but said there was 'significant intelligence' that members of the network were in the house. He admitted there was no evidence Zarqawi was there.

One resident contacted by telephone by the Observer , who had been to the scene of the explosion in the poor Shouhadda area, in the south west of the city, said that at least 22 people had been killed.

Dr Fadhil al-Baddrani said the entire family of Mohammed Hamadi, a 65-year-old farmer, married with two wives, were killed. Among the dead where his wives and children. At least three women and five chil dren were among the dead. 'The whole family is gone,' said al-Baddrani. 'The blast was so powerful it blew them to pieces. We could only recognise the women by their long hair.'

He added that the carnage had been met by angry scenes within the city, with residents accusing the US of staging a 'provocation' intended to reignite fighting in a city that has seen the strongest resistance to the US occupation.

The air strike, and its high death toll among women and children, will inflame tensions at a moment of high tension in Iraq.

Senior coalition officials had been congratulating themselves in recent days for 'neutralising' the inflammatory effect of fighting in Fallujah and Najaf, in the run-up to the handover of power on 30 June.

It is a doubly worrying in Fallujah as coalition sources have privately admitted that the 'Iraqi-isation' of the problem there is close to failing. Among the first to condemn the US attack was the city's police chief. 'At 9:30 am, a US plane shot two missiles on this residential area,' said the police chief, Sabbar al-Janabi, 'Scores were killed and injured. This picture speaks for itself.'

At least two houses were destroyed and six others were damaged as slabs of concrete and steel reinforcing bars were up-ended and twisted skyward in the damage, Associated Press Television News footage showed.

Water poured from a six-metre crater in front of one of the destroyed house. One man displayed several copies of the Koran which were burnt in the strikes.

Outraged residents accused America of trying to inflict maximum damaged by firing two strikes - one first to attack and another to kill the rescuers.

'The number of casualties is so high because after the first missile we jumped to rescue the victims,' said Wissam ali-Hamad. 'The second missile killed those trying to carry out the rescue.'

US Marines pulled back from Fallujah late last April after three weeks of fighting after four American security contractors were killed in an ambush and their bodies mutilated. Ten Marines and hundreds of Iraqis, many of them civilians, died before the siege was lifted and security was handed over to an Iraqi volunteer force, the Fallujah Brigade.

Al-Zarqawi has been blamed for the string of car bombs across Iraq, including one last Thursday that killed 35 people and wounded 145 at an Iraqi military recruiting centre in Baghdad.

US troops also fought insurgents north-east of Baghdad for a fourth day in fighting that has killed at least six Iraqis and one American soldier, according to US military sources and witnesses. In southern Iraq, a roadside bomb killed at least two people, including a Portuguese security officer.

The latest violence comes against a background of increased violence in Iraq in the run up to the handover of sovereignty at the end of this month.

Violence that has led senior ministers in the new Iraqi interim government to threaten 'emergency measures' including martial law or new curfews, should the security situation not improve.