Talk:Amiriyah shelter bombing

Neutral Point of View

While the Amiriyah shelter page certainly has been the target of some atrocious additions in the past (the picture of "An Iraqi girl" unconnected to the events at Amiriyah). The current page is a selective and sanitized view of history at best.

The current page features prominently the post-war comments of a defector who said he "was told that it [the Amiriyah shelter] was a command center" and that he "decided it was probably Saddam's own operational base". These comments are worth a mention on this page. However, with a little research you can certainly find comments of Iraqis and others who dispute the use of the shelter as a command center. The page ought to at least explain that whether or not the shelter was being used as a military command post or hideout for officials of the Iraqi regime is a matter of contention.

Rick Atkinson, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and former assistant managing editor at The Washignton Post, documents in his book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War," that there were reservations among the military leadership who were involved in the selecting bombing targets about selection of the Amiriyah shelter.

While there is contention as to whether the shelter had been used as a command center and, thus may have been a legitimate military target, I don't think there is any disputing that the bombing of the shelter was a horrible mistake that did not achieve any military result. There is not a single account of the bombing's aftermath (whether from Western or Iraqi sources) that shows that any military or political personnel or assets were in the shelter at the time of the bombing. BBC reporters with full access to the site the morning of the bombing found no evidence of military use. What they did find was the charred remains of more than four hundred women and children.

I have added paragraphs that provide a more complete picture of the events at Amiriyah.

Image

Is the picture Amariyah B.jpg (labled "An Iraqi Girl") a victim of the atack? The description does not say; if she is it should probably be labled as such (or labled with her relation to the bombing). --Hansnesse 07:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Human face

I put on the top of the page not an image, but a human face, as the true story of Amariyah can hardly be told by reporting the number of children killed without also saying what could have been. David Cruise 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Top Picture

Thank you Hansnesse for reverting the 207.233.110.65. I visited his homepage and looked at his recent contributions:

• Amiriyah shelter
• Terminator 2: Judgment day
• King Kong
• Doom (film)
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Support for use of atomic bombs)

The 207.233.110.65 was looking for a way to discredit the article and, as you correctly predicted, the Iraqi's girl's picture appears to be the weak point. I'll try to add a footnote explaining the intended point. Let's keep our options open and see what happens. David Cruise 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely not let vandals determine what gets put into Wikipedia. Thanks, --Hansnesse 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The explanation of the girl's image at the bottom of the page is far too emotional and manipulative - it sounds like something Mike Moore would write (I realise some people would see that as a good thing). I would personally recommend losing the footnote and titling the picture differently - or, even better, getting rid of the picture entirely. Only people looking for a cause to feel bad about to make themselves feel better would value such a shallow inclusion. The story told in the article is horrific and sobering enough. Sorry for any offense taken at this statement but I really do find the picture and explanation to be far too much like feeble emotional blackmail. The footnote would never be included in an actual print encyclopedia.

Thank you for talking about this issue as is is through discussion of opposing views that we learn more about ourselves and our world. I cannot agree with you more that the footnote would never be included in an encyclopedia subservient to the ruling classes. So far we have more freedom, thanks to the Internet, than ever before.

I did not mean the picture to be an emotional blackmail; I intended it to contribute toward our emotional and moral awakening. Instead of removing the picture, we should remove the blinders from our eyes. David Cruise 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

David, when I view the picture (or rather, the footnote to it) I do not feel an emotional and moral awakening - I suddenly feel manipulated which lowers my opinion of not only Wikipedia but also of the article itself (how much of it can I trust now? I go through the wording wondering if some of it has been intended to subtly tweak emotional triggers to sway me toward someone else's point of view i.e. why do we need to be shown a picture of some generic child and (re)told about the human cost? Does someone have an anti-US agenda? Believe me, I do not support war or the murder of innocents. Reading this article gave me a lump in my throat. I have children of my own. But I would rather people gained a real feeling from the facts (as I did) than viewing some picture which is essentially ARTIFICIAL in it's presentation).

By saying that you intend to contribute to our emotional and moral awakening you are implying that we as an audience are not savvy enough to determine the human tragedy and cost of this event. Whilst the fact of our general stupidity may or may not be true, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not intended as a platform to preach from - it is supposed to be a tool to disseminate information. Your statement about encyclopedias being "subservient to the ruling classes" makes your agenda clearer - I respect your views but I am sure that others will agree that this is not the place or way to express them. - SoT.

Also, please note the following from the Wikipedia help entry on "Neutral Point Of View":

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

I believe the fact that innocents were killed is obvious and doesn't need someone's emotional manipulation to sell the point - SoT.

Linking to "Supreme Crime" shows extreme bias because it implies that the US initiated the Gulf War with the intent to conquer territory or subjugate people. As this goes against the US's professed intention for their involvement, implying such is a matter of opinion or, at the very least, a point of debate and not neutrality. Please read the "Neutral POV" article. Sak Mo Dee

I agree with SoT. The girl's picture is manipulative, pointless, and silly like a Monty Python sketch. The images of the scorch marks left by the victims is far more disturbing then this random photo.

BTW, on the IP adress thing: the IP 207.233.110.65 is for the Moorpark College computer lab. I happen to know the guy who posted the inflamitory stuff (we both attend chemistry, and I can tell who he is by his tone): he was being a jackass, but his point was valid. The point that no men were killed, only "human beings" sounds rather un-NPOV to me, and the picture is extremely silly. Additionally, the point made that there were "no adult males" sounds as though the writer is suggesting that this act is particularly horrific, and is suggesting that the tragedy wouldn't be quite so - well, tragedic - if it was in fact adult males inside. --A Moorpark College Student, using the computer lab

Hansnesse, you were right to begin with. I removed the top picture and the recent not "Neutral POV" edits. David Cruise 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Massacre

Shouldn't this be entitled the Amiriyah Massacre? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Almost the entire article is about the event. Nethency (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure

I read (in only one source) that in 2004, American forces closed down the site, which was being used as a memorial. Anyone knows more about that? Nethency (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mukhabarrat

This is unsourced (and I'm not sure why it was there anyways) so I moved it to talk for discussion:

While the tragedy should not have happened, it is suggested that the Iraqi Mukhabarrat families were the primary victims.

Comments and Suggestions

I read the article, and though not thoroughly familiar with the incident, I applaud the overall neutral tone regarding the description of the tragedy. A few points I would like to address:

• The first line says the "The Amiriyah shelter bombing...was the killing of over 408 civilians...". I'm not even sure if this is correct or encyclopedic grammar, but even if it is, it sets an accusing tone, as if the deaths of the civilians was intentional. I would suggest: "The Amiriyah shelter bombing was the aerial bombardment and destruction of a shelter thought to be a legitimate military target, though it resulted in the deaths of over 400 Iraqi civilians."
• In the section Debate after the fact, I would like to see the line about the journalist who "did not find evidence of military use" deleted or at least modified. How is a journalist qualified to recognize military equipment? How is he qualified to make a forensic evaluation of a mass casualty site?
• In the same section, if there was "an aerial antenna [at the shelter] that was connected to a communications center some 300 yards (270 m) away", should it be pointed out then that the Iraqi military deliberately set up the shelter as a decoy? The Iraqi military appears to be guilty of setting up its own people to be targeted, which would (and did) result in a propaganda opportunity.
• Reference #2: The quote that this is "the single largest civilian massacre in modern air warfare" should be deleted as biased, even sensationalistic. What about such examples as the German bombardment of Stalingrad, the Japanese bombardment of Shanghai, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of German and Japanese cities in WWII, or the Iraqi air strikes against Iran in 1987? Could 9-11 be considered part of that category?

Despite these points, I'd like to emphasize that I think the article is informative and fairly neutral on what is obviously a delicate subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What worries me is not this particular article (which, as any historical article in English Wikipedia gives an extraordinary amount of space to the American press POV) but the unduly amount of time some people spends trying to soften the stance of some articles about the misdeeds of US military. If we really wanted to get a neutral point of view, the best approach would be to find some Iraqi and American sources and expose them side by side, although I know this will not give you a NPOV (where could we find it in a war?). However, the point of view of some people here, explaining that killing over 400 civilians is not that bad, is a shame. I find highly probable that the US military has made a lot of mistakes in the Gulf, as any army makes in any war. Given that probability I think it is about time that American public starts to comprehend this fact and to understand that no amount of article political make-up can give the United States a better stance that asking for forgiveness and accepting the humiliation in those cases. Any other kind of justification sounds lame and hollow, specially when many people in this world looks towards the US as a bastion of the last strong civil liberties among ordinary people. It is very important to differentiate perceived attacks on the American Government from perceived attacks on the American people. Those are different entities, the former one has responsibility for its own actions and not always has the support of the later. So, puhleeze, stop trying to find some kind of justification for the unjustifiable, it looks better in this more or less liberal Encyclopedia. --Ciroa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Boneyard90, thanks for the comments. A few responses:

• I've changed the wording somewhat. The question of "legitimate" targeting is addressed, factually later in the article. It make sense to call it first an aerial attack, and also to say that it killed over 400 civilians.
• Readers may judge the journalist's capacity for making the relevant judgment on their own.
• Not our place to explain the use of antenna. We could equally point out that the antenna was attached to a prominent building nearby the comms center. If reliable sources do so, please cite and state that they do.Otherwise this is a conspiracy theory, that seems highly dubious.
• It does seem unrealistic, although "single" may eliminate some of the competition.

--Carwil (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

MH Assessment Comments

"Coverage" appears near-complete. The References look good, but there is a request for citation in the lead. An infobox would fulfill "Supporting Materials". Maybe a photo of the memorial? Or the woman who's a guide there? Boneyard90 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent article in The New York Times

After 25 Years of U.S. Role in Iraq, Scars Are Too Stubborn to Fade
This article includes a quote from a book calling the bombing an intelligence failure. I'm posting the link to this article because another Wikipedian may find it useful for this Wikipedia article. 71.183.129.191 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amiriyah shelter bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128175408/http://naeemjeenah.shams.za.org/amariyah.htm to http://naeemjeenah.shams.za.org/amariyah.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m30603&hd=&size=1&l=e
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C98289%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Radioactivity"

I removed this section:

In 2002 it appeared that the place was still radioactive, a consequence from the use of uranium in the missiles.

The ref said: as explained in the French-language documentary "Irak, d'une guerre à l'autre", produced in 2002. The documentary features a Geiger counter being brought in the building and the counter detects a significant amount of radioactivity inside the destroyed bunker

The used bomb type is not known to contain Uranium, and environmental radiation in a bunker has other, more plausible explanations (such as Radon). A Geiger counter doesn't tell you the source of radiation. This would require extensive testing in a laboratory. The source is speculative at best and thus not suitable for an encyclopedia. --2A02:8070:89C0:7800:8CFC:3131:9A4D:F3C5 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding to this, the author of this section has been blocked from editing several times over similar additions. User_talk:FlorentPirot --2A02:8070:89C0:7800:8CFC:3131:9A4D:F3C5 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sally Ahmad Salman's photograph

Aside from the glaring NPOV issues I found while editing this article (we get it, we get it, they incinerated innocent women and children, please yell it into my other ear as well), one thing caught my eye: the photo of Sally Ahmad Salman.

Now, not even an hour before editing this, I was reading the talk page for "Qassam rocket", in which there are multiple discussions (the most prominent linked there) about the article's (now long removed) usage of a photo of Osher Twito, an Israeli boy who lost a leg to a Qassam rocket. Several messages cite (also removed) images from other articles about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that were only added to silently push POVs through emotional responses, including photos of victims. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but we've got one of those images right here.

My condolences to Sally and the 400+ who perished. Not trying to hide her existence or the bombing's victims or legacy in any way. But is her image actually needed here? Yes, she's a victim of this awful bombing, but isn't this also one of those aforementioned victim photos used to push POVs? If it is, it'd be good if it was removed, I think. AdoTang (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The photos of victims of an attack are useful to help illustrate an article's subject.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Legality

The legality section has several problems.

• This source says nothing of the sort at page 216. It does talk about it on page 257, does point out that "The term “willfully” incorporates recklessness, but excludes simple negligence." But it doesn't say whether the US engaged in recklessness or negligence, let alone try to explain the difference between the two.
• This source doesn't say much either beyond what is said in bullet one.
• The ICRC reference doesn't talk about this event at all, and its usage appears to be OR.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)