Mohannad Gazi al-Kaabi, who was appointed by the US authorities to run the largely Shia Muslim area of Sadr City in Baghdad, died on Sunday. He was shot during an altercation with US troops at the local council's compound. US Central Command says it is still investigating the incident in the area where US-Iraqi tensions are high.

It appears that the American soldiers stopped the mayor from driving into the Sadr City council compound, in line with rules to prevent car bombings. The mayor took exception and began to fight with one of the guards. Another soldier fired warning shots and finally shot the mayor in the upper leg. He bled to death - more... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3260469.stm)

Err...? :o He "bled to death" after being shot in the leg? Did he not receive any medical attention?! You would have thought one of the guards might have recognised him? Does anyone who has an argument get shot? Does the US Army not realise there are other ways of doing things? Did they not consider perhaps hitting him with a rifle butt? Or is shooting people in the legs their only policy?

:o :mad:

Come on you don't know the full story of what happened. The soldiers out there at the moment are taking flak from all directions and it's hardly surprising they are getting very jumpy. Unless everyone knows what actually happened they can't say sod all :)

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Come on you don't know the full story of what happened. The soldiers out there at the moment are taking flak from all directions and it's hardly surprising they are getting very jumpy. Unless everyone knows what actually happened they can't say sod all :)
He bled to death via a leg wound! Having read the full story (link now fixed) it sounds like it was a very minor incident involving one man (the Mayor) - not exactly too much for them to cope with.

I can understand if he was armed, or if there was a group - but this was a man trying to enter his own council complex and got in to an argument - a fair reason to shoot and let him bleed to death? Not in my book.

I'm not condoning it I'm just saying we don't know the full story - the BBC link says 'apparently' - in other words they weren't there. It's only one side of the story. Where is the US troops explanation of the events?

It was probably censored for swearing, which left them with a two-word statement! Did you see the report from the BBC news crew who got bombed by the americans? Amazing, but literally every other word from any of the American Soldiers was f***. I swear a lot but even I thought it was a bit much...

Originally posted by fnkysknky
I'm not condoning it I'm just saying we don't know the full story - the BBC link says 'apparently' - in other words they weren't there. It's only one side of the story. Where is the US troops explanation of the events?
If the US Army had felt its troops had acted in the correct manner, would they still investigate the incident? (That's a question, not a statement by the way!).

Also, having decided to shoot him (which might or might not have been the best option), letting him then bleed to death is surely a little shocking? It's not like they were in the middle of nowhere - they were at the gates of a council complex.