I've had enough of us killing women and children [Archive]

IrishHand

05-19-2004, 04:27 PM

Of course we'll find a scapegoat if news of this becomes wide-spread and enough people freak out about it. Who did you want to blame, however? (Assuming facts as described above.)
(1) The soldiers who investigated and likely reported that it was just a wedding with a few people firing pistols into the air? Or...
(2) Totally unrelated, the helo pilot who saw muzzle flashes in the middle of the night when he was flying his patrol out over the desert - and then proceeded to neutralize what appeared to be small arms fire directed at his patrol?

I can tell you right now that the helo patrol doesn't need authorization to return fire. Those boys have been getting holes poked in their birds for a year now, with several downed by small arms fire.

The story leaves open the possibility that the soldiers investigated and then called in an air strike, but I find that highly unlikely. If that's the case, however, then I have no problem dropping the hammer on someone for a gross error in judgment.

Like many others things which have transpired (and will continue to transpire) over there, it's a tragedy - but that's war. As the article notes, it wasn't the first wedding we obliterated, nor will it be the last.

IrishHand

05-19-2004, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What in the hell makes a woman's life any more valuable than a mans? What makes a childs life any more valuable than an adults? What makes a civilians life any more valuable than a soldiers?

[/ QUOTE ]
History, religion, morality, convention - feel free to choose one or more, they all fit.

Clarkmeister

05-19-2004, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What in the hell makes a woman's life any more valuable than a mans? What makes a childs life any more valuable than an adults? What makes a civilians life any more valuable than a soldiers?

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes an American's life any more valuable than an Iraqi's?

Gamblor

05-19-2004, 04:32 PM

Does this mean that the acts of a few are the ultimate criteria by which either the validity of war, or the moral and legal judgement of an operation, ought to be determined?

Utah

05-19-2004, 04:37 PM

"What makes an American's life any more valuable than an Iraqi's?"

An American life is not more valuable than an Iraqi's life.

Please answer my questions.

fluff

05-19-2004, 04:38 PM

Including previous weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we're 7-0 against wedding parties.

Clarkmeister

05-19-2004, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that the acts of a few are the ultimate criteria by which either the validity of war, or the moral and legal judgement of an operation, ought to be determined?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my mind, the validity of the war was determined a long time ago, as was its legality.

This is merely another episode showing that while we are the lone remaining superpower, our moral authority at this point is less than zero. The world is right to cry out against us, our actions, and our amoral and hypocritical administration.

Sloats

05-19-2004, 04:42 PM

We seriously have to buy these people firecrackers.

In my culture, you only fire guns at weddings if the groom tries to run away.

Clarkmeister

05-19-2004, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Including previous weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we're 7-0 against wedding parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we are 0-2 against hijacked planes targeting NY.

Funny stuff huh?

JTrout

05-19-2004, 05:08 PM

What makes an American's life any more valuable than an Iraqi's?

Perspective.

I am an American. To me, an American's life is more valuable.
In the greater picture, we are all equal.

But if I had to choose between my neighbor dying, or an Iraqi, it would be no choice.

Clarkmeister

05-19-2004, 05:18 PM

OK, I'm out of this thread because the issue gets me so pissed off. Suffice it to say I am sick of our soldiers dying, our citizens over there dying, and sick of others dying at our hands, all for no good reason. I can see zero good that is coming of this whole misguided operation and until it stops, this kind of crap is going to continue happening. Its a shame, and we are the country that supposedly holds itself to a higher standard.

Sloats

05-19-2004, 05:37 PM

I see us accidentally killing angry civilians who were fed a propreganda to hate us which would create future soldiers/terrorist against us.

I see trying to establish a sphere of influence in the Arab would and possibly not be a focal point in the impending Arab/Israeli holy war.

I see us no longer just letting thing go in the Arab would now that they show that they can hurt us if things go unchecked. We saw the wasp hive build up. We did nothing until one of them stung us hard. We are now knocking another of the hives down. It does not matter to me that whether or not Iraq had WMDs or were a direct threat in the next 10 years. The simple fact is that they could be and we left this situation untidy in for the past 10 years.

MMMMMM

05-19-2004, 05:42 PM

As for this specific incident, let's wait until we find out the specific facts before passing judgment.

As for the larger picture, it seems you are on the side saying better to have left Saddam in power so he could kill 100,000 more Iraqis (over time) than we kill 10,000 or so in the process of removing a despot and giving them a chance at freedom and democracy instead of tyranny and internal terror. Sorry but I can't agree. I can empathize with the Iraqis' current sufferings, but I fear that most in the "anti-war" camp don't empathize sufficiently with the sufferings of the Iraqi people when under Saddam--which suffering and bloodshed was far greater.

A choice between evils, and I think our presence there will be shown to have been the lesser evil when all is said and done over the next few years or decade. Of course I could be wrong but I doubt it.

It is only because we are involved now and are currently more exposed to news from Iraq that our awareness of their suffering feels so much more acute. But factually speaking, their suffering was greater under Saddam, and now they also have a chance at a better and freer society. To me the choice seems clear.

Slacker13

05-19-2004, 05:51 PM

A little premature, the facts are not in. I heard on the radio coming home that they now found large amounts of cash, satellite phones and weapons. Plus I am not going to take a writers word from the AP.
I think these people carry index cards and every time we engage in a fight they says its a wedding, a day care, a bomb shelter full of women and children etc...
If this did happen then yes, it is terrible. But I am certainly not ready to criticize our troops before any facts are in.

superleeds

05-19-2004, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and we are the country that supposedly holds itself to a higher standard

[/ QUOTE ]

A fallacy perpetuated by successive governments and the media. Something so idealistic is never allowed to impinge on the real job of foreign policy - furthering a countries spear of influence.

andyfox

05-19-2004, 09:03 PM

"In July 2002, Afghan officials said 48 civilians at a wedding party were killed and 117 wounded by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province. An investigative report released by the U.S. Central Command said the airstrike was justified because American planes had come under fire."

Serves 'em right for having a wedding party while we were flying planes. I wonder if it was the bride or the maid of honor who was firing at the planes.

andyfox

05-19-2004, 09:08 PM

"Of course I could be wrong but I doubt it."

Very Sklanskyesque.

ACPlayer

05-20-2004, 12:12 AM

Does this mean that the acts of a few are the ultimate criteria by which the moral and legal judgement of an operation, ought to be determined?

Yes.

Hiding

05-20-2004, 12:25 AM

Huh, I'm in a country in the middle of a revolution and I fire a gun in the air and get bombed. Big shocker, at least here its only illegal. So let them do what they want to do, we should leave. That way they can go back to torturing 13 year old kids and raping women, sure thats a lot easier......and a much better plan. We can play poker and mow the lawn, its not happening to our kids

MMMMMM

05-20-2004, 02:44 AM

Gamblor: "Does this mean that the acts of a few are the ultimate criteria by which the moral and legal judgement of an operation, ought to be determined?"

ACPlayer: "Yes."

Then every large-scale undertaking or operation in the world must be immoral, because every large-scale undertaking includes a few persons doing some very bad things.

More dazzling nonsense from ACPlayer.

ACPlayer

05-20-2004, 03:59 AM

Thank you.

If you find it nonsense, I must be on the right track.

crash

05-20-2004, 04:16 AM

I sympathize with the utilitarian argument--accidental deaths of Iraqi civilians can (should?) be compared to the deaths that would occur had we not invaded. But as long as we're being utilitarians...

--deaths are not the only thing that go in the utilitarian calculus. International good will, pride, etc. It seems to be a defensible position for an Iraqi to say "yeah, Saddam was a shithead, but I'd rather be under the old regime than be occupied."

--what about our utility? Sure, one could say we increased it by preempting a future Iraqi attack on us somehow. But occupying a country in the region might hurt us in the long run if we screw it up and all the nutcases get us in their sights. That's the problem with making utilitarian arguments. That's why I was leery about Iraq.

Kenrick

05-20-2004, 04:40 AM

I think there must be more to the story. There'd have to be a good reason the U.S. would investigate the gunfire, find nothing, and then come back later and blow up the place anyway. I mean, come on.

The U.S. has had so much restraint over the years it's almost sad. Other countries do not place as high a regard on life as the U.S. does, and to think the U.S. is out there killing people just on a whim is absurd.

People whine and moan about stuff like mistreating some prisoners and whatever else. boo hoo hoo. War is war. Go watch the video clip from last week where they cut the head off a U.S. contractor who was there to rebuild Iraq. That's right, a decapitation right on broadcast TV. Merry Christmas. These people use women and children as human shields, so cut the crap with this subject line.

I feel fortunate that I somehow survived the bs that most college professors taught when I was there. Everything is about good feelings and good intentions and everything else. Other countries used to be afraid of the U.S. and soldiers would actually surrender out of fear. But the U.S. has been such a wuss for the past decade+ that now Iraqi terrorists run up to U.S. tanks with guns and then seem surprised when the tank actually fires back and kills them. I know people who are fighting in Iraq. The news is full of bs and sensationalism.

I wonder if a lot of people even realize what war is like. Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers are pretty good at showing it. I couldn't even watch all of We Were Soldiers. It hit a little too close to home.

ACPlayer

05-20-2004, 04:49 AM

Good ramble.

War is hell. Dont start it without very good reasons.

War is hell. Occupation of a people who dont want to be occupied is worse. Ask the Palestinians, and now ask the Iraqi's.

You may feel fortunate that you "survived" college. Your little ramble shows that you should have been booted out so you could go off to boot camp, where you belong.

Thank you for your contributions.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 05:26 AM

"I think these people carry index cards and every time we engage in a fight they says its a wedding, a day care, a bomb shelter full of women and children etc..."

That's garbage. There have been numerous incidents of genuine battles, fighters being killed etc and noone has tried to pretend it was anything otherwise. There is no longer any question that the 50 killed in Afghanistan were members of a wedding party despite inital US efforts to pretend otherwise.

If this was really a bunch of fighter where did the 25 women and children come from? Why is the local police chief, hardly likely to synmpathise with people who have been blowing up hundreds of policemen across the country, insisting it was a civilian wedding party?

nicky g

05-20-2004, 05:36 AM

"The U.S. has had so much restraint over the years it's almost sad. Other countries do not place as high a regard on life as the U.S. does, and to think the U.S. is out there killing people just on a whim is absurd. "

Yeah like when it killed 2 million people in South-East Asia, or hundreds of thousands of people in the Phillipines. Restraint is really the word that comes to mind.

"People whine and moan about stuff like mistreating some prisoners and whatever else. boo hoo hoo. War is war. Go watch the video clip from last week where they cut the head off a U.S. contractor who was there to rebuild Iraq. That's right, a decapitation right on broadcast TV."

There have been at least 27 suspicious deaths in the prisons and 2 confirmed murders (plus at least another 2 in Afghanistan), on top of beatings, rapes, dog attacks, deprivation of food and clothing and a system of ghost prisoners that noone knows what has happened to (at least one is dead). The latest photos show a female US soldier grinning over a corpse of a man who has obviously been beaten to death. How is the murder of one person worse than that, filmed or not? Worse than such abuses being carried out by people who have the power of life or death over tens of thousands of people?

"These people use women and children as human shields, so cut the crap with this subject line."

yeah yeah. WOmen and children living in their own homes that the coalition is shelling, being shot trying to get to the hospital in Falluja, they're all "human shields".

nicky g

05-20-2004, 06:04 AM

"What in the hell makes a woman's life any more valuable than a mans? What makes a childs life any more valuable than an adults? What makes a civilians life any more valuable than a soldiers?"

The question is civilian vs combatants lives. People fighting can expect to be fought back against. People who aren't shouldn't. It's not a question of the value of their lives but the rules of war. Are you seriously suggesting there would be no moral difference between rounding up a village of non-combatants and massacring them, and killing the same number of soldiers in a battle?

ericd

05-20-2004, 08:03 AM

What is now happening should be expected in war. Maybe not the specific events but the overall picture.

War is ugly. A force will end up killing enemy, civilians and some of their own. It has always happened and always will. That is the reality of war.

As this war continues to drag on for ? months/years these types of incidents will happen again. No matter how good the intentions of those in charge to prevent them, some will happen.

As the support for this war diminishes, comparisons to Vietnam will increase. For some incite into that time, read "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam. It will give you much to think about.

superleeds

05-20-2004, 08:09 AM

I thought hostilities had ceased.

Or is it still war as long as it suits?

Or is this the so called war on terrorism?

ericd

05-20-2004, 08:18 AM

It sure looks like a war.

We've already used police action. How about armed conflict?

Regardless of what it is called, there is a large, armed force poised to strike at a moments notice.

superleeds

05-20-2004, 09:45 AM

So War when it suits it is then

elwoodblues

05-20-2004, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So War when it suits it is then

[/ QUOTE ]

Yoda, is that you?

Sloats

05-20-2004, 09:52 AM

The US hasn't been in a war since 1945.

We have been in numerous political armed conflicts, but not a war.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 09:59 AM

"I heard on the radio coming home that they now found large amounts of cash, satellite phones and weapons."

One satellite phone, according to Reuters. So the evidence that these people, including small children, were insurgents consists of claims that soldiers found:

Weapons, which we knew the wedding party probably had anyway (regardless of the fact that most Iraqi families are fairly heavily armed)
Money (a dowry? Er, just money?)
A phone. !!!!!

Quick guys, looks like bin Laden's been caught after all! Turns out he was disguised all along as a six year old Iraqi girl amking a phone call at a wedding.

The fact that some troops may have investigated it is meaningless. When US pilots blew up a Kurdish peshmerga convoy that a BBC crew was filiming, it was actually travelling with four US soldiers who were supposed to be in charge of calling in air strikes in the area. Unless they called in those strikes on themselves, communication between units on the ground and in the air is clearly pretty patchy.

superleeds

05-20-2004, 10:02 AM

I agree. Can someone tell the President.

Sloats

05-20-2004, 10:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"I heard on the radio coming home that they now found large amounts of cash, satellite phones and weapons."

One satellite phone, according to Reuters. So the evidence that these people, including small children, were insurgents consists of claims that soldiers found:

Weapons, which we knew the wedding party probably had anyway (regardless of the fact that most Iraqi families are fairly heavily armed)
Money (a dowry? Er, just money?)
A phone. !!!!!

Quick guys, looks like bin Laden's been caught after all! Turns out he was disguised all along as a six year old Iraqi girl amking a phone call at a wedding.

The fact that some troops may have investigated it is meaningless. When US pilots blew up a Kurdish peshmerga convoy that a BBC crew was filiming, it was actually travelling with four US soldiers who were supposed to be in charge of calling in air strikes in the area. Unless they called in those strikes on themselves, communication between units on the ground and in the air is clearly pretty patchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is our duty to stop every wedding so that they will stop reproducing. Logic is SOOO lost on everyone.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 10:22 AM

Does this mean that the acts of a few are the ultimate criteria by which the moral and legal judgement of an operation, ought to be determined?

Yes.

The entire Islamic cause is evil because Osama bin Laden is Muslim.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 10:30 AM

Yeah like when it killed 2 million people in South-East Asia, or hundreds of thousands of people in the Phillipines. Restraint is really the word that comes to mind.

All you people whining about freedom and the value of the individual rights remember that you went ahead and stuffed everyone into the same box only when you're condemning that box.

yeah yeah. WOmen and children living in their own homes that the coalition is shelling, being shot trying to get to the hospital in Falluja, they're all "human shields".

Yes they are, when the terrorists live among them and store weapons in their homes, they are human shields.

I don't know why you're so angry. They're all thrilled that they got to be "martyrs" in building the new free Iraq.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 10:47 AM

"All you people whining about freedom and the value of the individual rights remember that you went ahead and stuffed everyone into the same box only when you're condemning that box."

No idea what you're talking about. Is this directed at me or someone else?

"Yes they are, when the terrorists live among them and store weapons in their homes, they are human shields."

For the last time, having the misfortune to live in a conflict area does not mean you are being used by anyone as a human shield. The only people using the hospital to store ammunition were the Americans; they put snipers on the hospital roof and used it as a base, in clear violation of the Geneva convention. If anyone was usuing human shields it was them. How exactly do artillery gunners and bombers know which homes, if any, have ammuniton in them? Better blow them all up then, yeah?

It's funny. When Palestinian civilians fled the fighting in 1948 that in your eyes disqualified them from returning. If teh Arab armies had have urged them to flee the war zone (they didn't, but regardless), that would be even worse. But if they had have stayed, or if heaven forbid the Arab armies had have told them to stay (they did). you'd say they were being used as human shields! Refugees relinquish their homes, but those who stay are human shields. And this from someone who defends the open Israeli use of human shields! One rule for Arabs, another for the rest of us.

"don't know why you're so angry. They're all thrilled that they got to be "martyrs" in building the new free Iraq. "

You're an arse.

MMMMMM

05-20-2004, 11:23 AM

I agree that there is plenty of reason to be leery.

I'm just saying that the moral disgust at the 10K Iraqis recently killed should be put into perspective in humanitarian terms.

MMMMMM

05-20-2004, 11:26 AM

ACPlayer is making the fairly common mistake of thinking with his emotions rather than with his intellect.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 12:10 PM

When Palestinian civilians fled the fighting in 1948 that in your eyes disqualified them from returning.

No, it was the Arab rejection of the partition plan, and subsequent declaration of war, in combination with the terrorist campaign (which, as I pointed out, began long before 1948) that disqualified them.

If teh Arab armies had have urged them to flee the war zone (they didn't, but regardless).

Lie. Even Plan D showed that the goal was to prevent Arab villages to be used as bases, not to expel the population.

But if they had have stayed, or if heaven forbid the Arab armies had have told them to stay (they did).

This was at times true.

you'd say they were being used as human shields!

There's a difference between being told to stay and actively hosting soldiers in one's home for the purposes of challenging Israeli morality.

And this from someone who defends the open Israeli use of human shields! One rule for Arabs, another for the rest of us.

Using the same word to describe two vastly different activities amounts to language fraud not seen since Orwell.

I have explained: Palestinian Arab terrorist purposely engage Israeli forces inside city limits from inside homes. Israeli soldiers making an arrest for trial (not murdering, take note) take advantage of Arab terrorist racism by providing a neighbour with a bulletproof vest, knowing that the neighbour will not be shot at because he is an Arab. The murder of Israeli Arab George Khoury (and subsequent apology by the terrorists) proves that the enemy is not Israelis, but Jews. Thus, an Arab asking the terrorist to come out serves to minimize the chance of violence.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 12:16 PM

"I have explained: Palestinian Arab terrorist purposely engage Israeli forces inside city limits from inside homes. Israeli soldiers making an arrest for trial (not murdering, take note) take advantage of Arab terrorist racism by providing a neighbour with a bulletproof vest, knowing that the neighbour will not be shot at because he is an Arab. The murder of Israeli Arab George Khoury (and subsequent apology by the terrorists) proves that the enemy is not Israelis, but Jews. Thus, an Arab asking the terrorist to come out serves to minimize the chance of violence. "

Just stop. There is no justification for this and you know it, and it is not racist to prefer to fire on eneny soldier than your next door neighbour. The friendly neighbour technique is a programme of kidnapping civilians at gunpoint and placing them in situations of extreme danger to protect soldiers; it is completely and utterly illegal and outrageous. You also completely ignore the fact that the IDF has used human shilds far beyond the so-called friendly neighbour technique, using Palestinians as shields for firing positions and so on.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 12:22 PM

"No, it was the Arab rejection of the partition plan, and subsequent declaration of war, in combination with the terrorist campaign (which, as I pointed out, began long before 1948) that disqualified them."

So choices made by non-Palestinina governments are enough for hundreds of thousands of civilians to be barred from their homeland?

"There's a difference between being told to stay and actively hosting soldiers in one's home for the purposes of challenging Israeli morality."

I thought we were talking about Iraq. What evidence do you ahve of this happening ona large scale in either place? Are people living in the same appartment block actively hosting insurgents? The same town? THe same country?

"for the purposes of challenging Israeli morality."

At least try and pretend not to be a mindless propagandist.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 12:53 PM

So choices made by non-Palestinina governments are enough for hundreds of thousands of civilians to be barred from their homeland?

You've hit the nail on the head. You're absolutely right (I'll conveniently forget about anti-Jewish Arab terrorism pre-1948, as well as Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini's alliance with Hitler for exterminating Jews, and Arab riots against Jews in Arab states):

What does Joe Palestinian, unaffiliated with terror today, have to do with Palestinian crimes of the past, crimes of terror organizations, and crimes of other Arab states?

The Palestinian Authority is still subsidized largely by those very same non-Palestinian rejectionist governments, as well as aided military by them through Arms smuggling, which is exactly what the IDF is in Rafiach to prevent.

In other words, they're in Cahoots.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 01:01 PM

The friendly neighbour technique is a programme of kidnapping civilians at gunpoint and placing them in situations of extreme danger to protect soldiers; it is completely and utterly illegal and outrageous.

I just explained the friendly neighbour technique is designed to minimize the possibility of violence.

The George Khoury incident proves, beyond reasonable doubt the Arab terrorist anti-Jewish racism against Jews, not Israelis (as Khoury was an Israeli Arab mistaken for an Israeli Jew).

You also completely ignore the fact that the IDF has used human shilds far beyond the so-called friendly neighbour technique, using Palestinians as shields for firing positions and so on.

No, it hasn't.

Slacker13

05-20-2004, 01:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There have been numerous incidents of genuine battles, fighters being killed etc and noone has tried to pretend it was anything otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your correct, and their have also been many battles where they have claimed we bombed schools, women, children, etc..

[ QUOTE ]
If this was really a bunch of fighter where did the 25 women and children come from?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose it's above them to use human shields? These people will surround themsleves with women and children any chance they get. Bottom line, you have to be a damn idiot to fire weapons in the air of a military zone it's about as stupid as robbing a booth at a gun show.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the local police chief, hardly likely to synmpathise with people who have been blowing up hundreds of policemen across the country, insisting it was a civilian wedding party?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am sure he is an upstanding citizen. I can't imagine any corrupt police officers in Iraq.

It's very obvious your against the war, that's your right but our views are much different and I don't beleive it's possible for you and I to agree on anything where this subject is concerned. You read your article of events from an Arabic reporter, I read mine from CNN...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. attack on an Iraqi desert village that witnesses said killed dozens of wedding guests was "no accident," but a targeted strike on a safe house for fighters attempting to enter the country from Syria, a U.S. general said Thursday.

But an Iraqi official said the account of the witnesses appears to be correct, saying the U.S. may have mistaken celebratory gunfire from the wedding for an attack.

Iraqi witnesses shown in a video from The Associated Press said at least 20 people were killed and another five were critically wounded early Wednesday when planes fired on a wedding celebration in a western Iraqi village near the Syrian border.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a coalition military spokesman in Baghdad, said the target was a safe house for smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria.

"We had specific intelligence that showed foreign fighters infiltrated into Iraq," Kimmitt said. "You and I both know these people have been responsible for many of the problems in Fallujah, many of the bombs that we see inside this country. So, as a coalition, we have a responsibility to attack foreign fighters."

A senior coalition official said Wednesday that as many as 40 people were killed in the attack.

Kimmitt said Thursday that ground troops returned fire when they were fired upon, and found evidence to support their suspicions after the firefight.

"We picked up many weapons," Kimmitt said. "We picked up over 2 million Iraqi dinar. We picked up satellite communication devices. We picked up foreign passports. So, we believe that the target location was that of a foreign fighter sanctuary, and we took the appropriate obligatory actions as the coalition in the Iraqi security forces to ensure the people of Iraq stay safe."

A Pentagon spokesman told CNN, "Our report is that this was not a wedding party."

But Iraqi Governing Council Mahmoud Othman said "the story of the local people looks to be correct."

"When there is a wedding, people shoot in the sky," Othman said. "Probably the Americans thought this was some shooting at their helicopter and they shot back and made that mistake."

"When you look at the photo, you see children killed," Othman said. "They don't look like terrorists, some of them are children."

The AP video showed at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial as they were unloaded from a truck. Men with picks and shovels were digging graves in the video.

Witnesses and U.S. military sources identified the village as near Qa'im, which maps show is on the Iraqi side of the Syrian border, along the Euphrates River.

Slacker13

05-20-2004, 01:40 PM

A lot of US this and US that in your posts. Last time I checked Britain was knee deep in this war as well. Or is it just the American battles you find more interest in?

superleeds

05-20-2004, 01:51 PM

Britain doesn't make the major decisions. The US does.

jdl22

05-20-2004, 02:03 PM

Seems pretty clear based on the story you cited that a big problem for us is controlling the border. Not sure how that's done well since the border is quite long and I would assume that refugees are passing back and forth for legitimate reasons.

As for Nicky G he probably doesn't care much for what the Brits are doing because he's Irish.

Bubbagump

05-20-2004, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The question is civilian vs combatants lives. People fighting can expect to be fought back against. People who aren't shouldn't. It's not a question of the value of their lives but the rules of war

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I have a feeling that the "Rules of War" were probably written by a bunch of politicians who had never looked at the business end of a gun.

When the combatants are mixed in with the non-combatants, it
cannot be easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Especially when you've got bullets whizzing by your head. I don't really want to debate the justness of what we are doing over there but I also don't think people back home should be passing judgement on the actions of our soldiers so easily. Most of us, myself included, have never had to make snap life and death decisions under extreme pressue like these soldiers do every day. I don't think anyone has a right to judge them unless they have had similar experiences.

Bubbagump

sam h

05-20-2004, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Plus I am not going to take a writers word from the AP. I think these people carry index cards and every time we engage in a fight they says its a wedding, a day care, a bomb shelter full of women and children etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Whose word are you going to take then? The administration's?

As far as press outlets go, the AP is actually one you should be more inclined to trust, as the nature of its business - providing syndicated content to subscribers across the ideological spectrum - tends to make it fairly careful.

CORed

05-20-2004, 05:49 PM

At the risk of being culturally insensitive, what is it with Arabs and firing guns into the air to celebrate? People accuse Americans of being gun nuts, not without some justification, but even in the old West, they threw rice at weddings, not bullets. For one thing, firing guns into the air is dangerous in and of itself. The bullets come back down, and they come back down with enough velocity to kill or wound. Doing it in a war zone is really stupid, because you're really likely to be mistaken for combatants. Maybe the army needs to produce a training film on how to distinguish between a middle east wedding party and a guerilla attack.

CORed

05-20-2004, 05:56 PM

You forgot one: Biology. From the population standpoint, men are much more expendable than women. One man can impregnate many women. I will grant you that homo sapiens is now much more likely to become extinct due to overbreeding than underbreeding, but evolution, both cultural and genetic, makes it almost inevetible that women will be valued more highly than men.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 07:26 PM

"The George Khoury incident proves, beyond reasonable doubt the Arab terrorist anti-Jewish racism against Jews, not Israelis (as Khoury was an Israeli Arab mistaken for an Israeli Jew)."

It shows there are racists amongst Palestinian militants. I've never disputed that. It doesn't excuse IDF actions and it doesn't prove anything about positions on the Israeli side or about the IDF use of human shields.

"No, it hasn't. "

Again:

[ QUOTE ]

During the al-Aqsa intifada, IDF soldiers have used Palestinian civilians as human shields. This practice has been most common during IDF operations in Palestinian population centers, such as Operation Defensive Shield.

The method is the same each time: soldiers pick a civilian at random and force him to protect them by doing dangerous tasks that put his life at risk . For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:

enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped , or to remove the occupants

remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army

stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers

walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders .

The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials

[/ QUOTE ]
Human shields (http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shield/index.asp)

nicky g

05-20-2004, 07:30 PM

"A lot of US this and US that in your posts. Last time I checked Britain was knee deep in this war as well. Or is it just the American battles you find more interest in? "

It was US forces that killed those people. Regardless, I am not British and have absolutely zero respect for the British army. Well, prehaps minimally more than the US army but that probably stands at less than zero.

Regarding my news, I get it from a range of sources including Arabic, US, British, Irish and continental European.

nicky g

05-20-2004, 07:31 PM

"Your correct, and their have also been many battles where they have claimed we bombed schools, women, children, etc.."

You're correct, and there have been numerous occasions when the coalition has.

ACPlayer

05-20-2004, 10:15 PM

You are young and have much to learn. First let me help you read: there is a word in the sentence -- operation.

Second, let me suggest you read Edward Deming's work on the subject of Quality and measurement of quality. Quality of an operation is measured at the edges and not necessarily in the heart of the operation. You measure the quality of the operation by seeing how it is performing at the margins and then try to improve the errors, again at the margin.

So, yes judging an operation must be done at the edges and the behaviour of the few and the response to the behaviours of the few is fundamental to evaluating the operation.

The operation we are judging, which has been tainted by the actions of the few, is the detention and management of the prisoners at the various institutions around Iraq.

Your example is meaningless. Osama and his men, executed a difficult plan with tremendous difficulties on 9/11. The operation was nearly flawless in reaching its objectives. However, Osama and his crew are still abhorrent terrorists that the world would be better without them. Osama and his crew are not elected representatives of the Muslim community. If they were then perhaps your example may be more meaningful.

Of course, the Islam haters have taken Osama's behaviour and made it part of Islam and the hating of all muslims.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 10:20 PM

The operation we are judging, which has been tainted by the actions of the few, is the detention and management of the prisoners at the various institutions around Iraq.

I was referring to the War in Iraq, not the administration of prisoners in Iraq.

Of course, the Islam haters have taken Osama's behaviour and made it part of Islam and the hating of all muslims.

Naturally, this is why the statement regarding Osama as all of Islam was so fittingly ridiculous given that I was judging the abuse as all of the War, not the prisoner administration.

ACPlayer

05-20-2004, 10:30 PM

Do you ever read the garbage you write?

What did the War in Iraq have to do with Osama? Even the morons in the White House have not shown any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

You are correct about one thing -- your examples are ridiculous, fitting or other wise. You might want to extend that to your logic.

Gamblor

05-20-2004, 10:54 PM

Do you even read what I write?

I first asked, here, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=695195&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1) if the actions of rogue soldiers render the entire War in Iraq immoral.

You responded, here, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=696165&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1) "Yes."

I said, therefore, that if the actions of a few ruin the the morality of a movement, operation, or ideology, then by extension, if we accept that Osama bin Laden is evil, then all of Islam is evil. After all, the soldiers who committed those crimes weren't elected to run that prison, were they but they were acting on behalf of the American Army

Your response was: The operation we are judging, which has been tainted by the actions of the few, is the detention and management of the prisoners at the various institutions around Iraq.

I pointed out that we had different opinions of what the operation in question was: I believed that we were talking about the War in general, while you believed we were talking about the administration of the prisons.

Pretty straightforward if you think about it.

Slacker13

05-20-2004, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was US forces that killed those people. Regardless, I am not British and have absolutely zero respect for the British army. Well, prehaps minimally more than the US army but that probably stands at less than zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we've now determined you despise both the US and British Armed Forces. I really hope the day doesn't come when you need to rely on the very people you hate.

Just for the record here I do not condone the killing of women and children (this will most likely be the only thing you and I will agree on), I have a 7 year old daughter and would die protecting her but if you think for one second the US and British forces are deliberately killing women and children your a damn fool.
Where were you when Suddam Hussein was killing women and children? When Suddams thugs were pulling innocent people out of their homes and torturing them, killing them, raping their wives & children. What a life they had, how dare we disrupt such a harmonious life.

ACPlayer

05-21-2004, 01:39 AM

Well my dear child, if you notice in my response I took only one of the two parts of the "OR" in your statement and responded to that part of the OR.

The validity of the war has nothing to do with how stupid idiots behave on the front lines, nor with the atmosphere of Quantanamo type tactics that appear to have been sent down the line from the Pentagon. The validity of the war is judged independently of the outcome of the war or the method of its prosecution. Of course here the validity of the war is indefensible, except by head in the sand morons or by greedy, selfish jerks.

nicky g

05-21-2004, 04:58 AM

"So we've now determined you despise both the US and British Armed Forces. I really hope the day doesn't come when you need to rely on the very people you hate."

I didn't say I hate them. I said that I didn;t respect them. I'll admit that as a blanket statement that was pretty stupid; I should have said I don;t have a lot of respect for how ether of them are conducting themselves in Iraq, or for the political uses they have been put to. In their respective histories, there are things they've done I respect and things I don;t, and uses they've been put to I respect and uses I don't. On the whole I am not a big army guy; I appreciate their role in protecting people but I'd rather they stick to that in the main than be sent off an half-arsed adventures round the world, and I certainly don't think they are suited to a policing role.

"if you think for one second the US and British forces are deliberately killing women and children your a damn fool."

Both British and US forces have been charged with murdering Iraqi prisoners in their detention, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows if that would ahve even happened if the photos and subsequent outrage hadn't emerged. In battle situations, where it is much harder to gather evidence or ascertain someone's intentions, I see no reason to assume that no individual soldiers are doing the same (Channel 4 news recently scrrened footage of a helicopter gunship shooting a severly injured man; possibly not a civilian but an ct requiring the same degree of callousness) . On the whole that is obviously not either army's intention but in many cases they have been so grossly negligent and put other objectives so far ahead of the well-being of local civilians that it amounts to much the same thing. Shooting anything that moves isn't precisely the same as deliberately picking out children but it's not a whole lot better.

nicky g

05-21-2004, 05:39 AM

"Where were you when Suddam Hussein was killing women and children? When Suddams thugs were pulling innocent people out of their homes and torturing them, killing them, raping their wives & children. What a life they had, how dare we disrupt such a harmonious life. "

What do you mean, where was I? I can't criticise US actions without having a detailed record of having criticised Saddam? Where were you? Out on the streets demonstrating every day, I'm sure. Where are you while peope are being enslaved by the thousands in Burma? What right do you have criticising Saddam when we've yet to hear a peep out of you about Robert Mugabe? Where were you when your own government was supporting Saddam? Trying to make a citizen's arrest on Donald Rumsfeld?

I don't see what this has to do with what we've been discussing, but regarding the war: The war ultimately was an issue of costs. Of course getting rid of Saddam was an admirable objective. Noone here's opposition to the war was based on a desire that Saddam remain in power. The point was that removing him had enormous costs: it took a war that killed many thousands, it had the potential to create disastrous consequences and has in fact had some pretty terrible consequences, including massive instabilty and terrible violence in post-war Iraq. Furthermore if the intention was to go out and make a big effort to save lives, make the world a better place, then there were other competing causes that never even got discussed. Far more lives could probably saved by a variety of sorts of internventions in Africa for example for the kind of money toppling Saddam and "rebuilding" Iraq has cost, and with a much smaller political and human cost (in fact, the opposite). On a different note, entirely the wrong people were doing it; people's whose efforts were bound to be seen as venal (and probably were) through their close ties to various industries and lobbies that stood to benefit, notorious unilateralists, people with past involvement in the undermining of democracies and the support of dictatorships (including Saddam's) throughout the world, and with a dismal record in the Middle East. If the US had suddenly decided that the best way to deal with dictatorships is to topple them through force, that would be one thing; but that's clearly not what happened, and it retains close ties with many other ones. Not being able to solve all the world's problems doesn't mean we shouldn;t try to solve any but this wasn't about solving problems or saving lives, it was about strategic interests in the Middle East, and if there had have been a serious debate about teh best humanitarian intervention available, the one that could save the most lives at the smallest cost, I doubt Iraq would have been the winning candidate.

Gamblor

05-21-2004, 09:14 AM

Of course here the validity of the war is indefensible, except by head in the sand morons or by greedy, selfish jerks.

You just couldn't resist could you.

Sloats

05-21-2004, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being culturally insensitive, what is it with Arabs and firing guns into the air to celebrate? People accuse Americans of being gun nuts, not without some justification, but even in the old West, they threw rice at weddings, not bullets. For one thing, firing guns into the air is dangerous in and of itself. The bullets come back down, and they come back down with enough velocity to kill or wound. Doing it in a war zone is really stupid, because you're really likely to be mistaken for combatants. Maybe the army needs to produce a training film on how to distinguish between a middle east wedding party and a guerilla attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

bullets come down with the same velocity that the left the gun with if the gun was shot straight up into the air.

Well, there might be some air friction.... but it's nearly the same.

B-Man

05-21-2004, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of being culturally insensitive, what is it with Arabs and firing guns into the air to celebrate? People accuse Americans of being gun nuts, not without some justification, but even in the old West, they threw rice at weddings, not bullets. For one thing, firing guns into the air is dangerous in and of itself. The bullets come back down, and they come back down with enough velocity to kill or wound. Doing it in a war zone is really stupid, because you're really likely to be mistaken for combatants. Maybe the army needs to produce a training film on how to distinguish between a middle east wedding party and a guerilla attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it with Arabs engaging in "honor killings" when a girl has been raped (i.e. killing the victim, the the rapist)?

There are a lot of things wrong with this culture (not the least of which is the cult of death, teaching children to hate Jews, teaching children to become suicide bombers, etc.).

The firing of guns into the air at weddings is just stupid. People can call me culturally insensitive, I don't really care, thats just the way it is. We americans may have some dumb traditions, too, but nothing like this.