home

More Innocents Die

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:05:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The Bush administration has been dismissive of "collateral damage"--the innocent lives taken when the bombs fall--but the government in Afghanistan wants the Bush administration to know that it takes those lives seriously.

In a rare rebuff, Afghanistan's government sharply criticized the U.S. military Tuesday for killing up to 17 civilians in an air strike and ordered an immediate inquiry. ... It marked unusual criticism from the government of President Hamid Karzai, often viewed by critics as an American puppet.

Killing innocent civilians is no way to win the hearts and minds of a population, but it's a great way--whether in Afghanistan or Iraq--to encourage anti-U.S. sentiment while providing a recruiting tool for terrorists.

< Prosecutor Addresses Jail Requests for Judith Miller | Joe Wilson on Leakers: Elliot Abrams, Libby & Rove >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More Innocents Die | 80 comments (80 topical)
    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    First reports--to be further checked--had it that the terrorists were hiding, as usual, among civilians. If true, that means the terrorists are morally and legally responsible for the deaths. Is there a difference between the hearts&minds results of terrorists killing civilians on purpose and Americans killing them by accident?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#2)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    RA, I am guessing that you are not in PR or sales.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    I am not going to go insane on this one, i will only say, its totally mad, and we all best understand what is coming next, hey Bush where is bin laden? Evil,evil and more evil.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    So anti-US sentiment in France is based on D-Day bombs that killed civilians? Anti-American sentiment in Germany is based on the flattening of various cities there during WWII? Suddenly, it's all clear to me. I guess people in the Shenandoah Valey still shoot at Federal officials because of Sheridan's ride there too, hmm?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    RA, So the unarmed civilians are supposed to throw the armed fighters out? You don't have a clue what these people are going through, yet you casually cast blame on them to justify your government's murderous operations. No wonder they hate us.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#6)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    The Geneva Convention puts the responsibility on the side which chooses to take up positions among civilians. It's not the civilians' fault. It's the terrorists' fault. On the left, of course, nothing in the terrorists' fault.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    RA, For what? Tell me. Tell them.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Please provide links to where the Geneva Conventions allow killing civilians because terrorists are among them.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#9)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Sailor. Read it yourself. In the meantime, contemplate the implication of your point. Anybody who hides among civilians is immune from military action. Anybody who straps civilians to the front of their tanks wins the war. The winners of the war are the kind of people who would strap civilians to the front of their tanks. To the extent this enables terrorists, I'm sure you'd think it was a dandy idea.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    JR Do you have a clue at all or is your favorite past time comparing apples and watermellons?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    The US has never been concerned with civilian deaths in Iraq. As a prime example see Fallujah. Armies of occupation and conquest, especially those who are undermanned, are seldom concerned with such trivial details.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#12)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Richard, According to the Bush administration, there have been terrorists or suspected terrorists walking amongst us here in the USA, but I don't recall any American towns being bombed. Do we apply one set of rules here in the USA and another set in Afghanistan and Iraq? This brings up a second point. Whose country is it anyway? What the Bush administration is saying is that the elected government of Afghanistan has no say over the conduct of foreign soldiers stationed in their country. This includes the right of these foreign troops to bomb villages, arrest, detain, and abuse Afghanis whenever and however they want without being in any way accountable to the Afghani government. Doesn't a government have the right to oversee what happens within its borders? Or is Karzai nothing more than a puppet, and democracy in Afghanistan nothing more than a dog and pony show?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
    Still unclear on the concept?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#14)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    ok, I'm confused. Are the geneva conventions important or not???? Or are we the only ones who get to decide when to follow them? The civilians who lost family in bombings are *NOT* going to blame the terrorists that THEY BELIEVE might or might not have been about. They are going to blame the people who dropped the bombs. Duh. They may not shoot at federal officers in the south, but I know people who refuse to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. 140 years and many southerners are *still* royally pissed. (and patriotic, yeah, its weird) People are odd in their rage. Especially inherited rage.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    The terrists are civilians. Ok RA, think how you felt on sept 11. Now what if rather than a few planes crashing into three buildings, instead there were bombs falling for years all accross your country. I am no "patriot", but anyone who bombs my homeland and kills innocents is my ENEMY automatically. I would be in the streets trying to kill them. Same for Iraqis, Afghanis, etc. By killing indiscriminately we are justifying their jihad. BTW: check out our statistics for our "smart bombs" as many as 1 in 10 do not hit their intended target.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#16)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Do the civilians whose families are killed by terrorists decide their hearts and minds are not with the terrorists? Or is there some other dynamic here? Thanks for the cite, Ern. But it was wasted effort, which is why I didn't bother. With one or two exceptions, the folks on this board are not dumb. They know this stuff. They either use it when it handicaps the US, or they ignore it.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    RA, I don't think Ern's post helps your argument, I believe it is a solid refutation. But then again, I can read words that are beyond the 6th grade level.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    you can't see how section 7, among all the others, might be applicable. You might want to double check those reading comprehension scores you are bragging about. the scary part is you may understand but favor using such methods because it means the other side wins. but, I won't question your patriotism or love of this country.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    V2Marty writes:
    The terrists are civilians.
    Congratulations on the dumbest statement of the month. But hey, it is only the sixth. And check out the statistics of the accuracy of conventional bombing. You will find it to be much, much, much worse than 90%. Jen writes:
    Or are we the only ones who get to decide when to follow them?
    No, actually the terrorists have decided not to follow them. Now we have said the terrorists don't deserve the GC, but we still treat them exceedingly well. Just thought you would want to know. As for Southerners still being pissed. Not really. We just don't like Damnyankees. BTW - "Damnyankee" is one word. However, many people from outside the South are not Damnyankees. It is a name you must earn. ;-) Go figure, eh? et al - It is rather obvious that the terrorists will hide and operate within civilian areas. It is also rather obvious that the GC was written about the LAST war. Which, some of you may remember, was fought between nation states. This one is not. And it will be messy. Get over it.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#20)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Good post, Jim. I disagree on one item. This war will be messy--they all are--but so far less messy than many others.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Art.51 applies to both sides of a conflict. Each side is responsible for their own actions. In other words, we are accountable for what we do.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Not sure what makes my statement stupid... we are fighting people that we cannot differentiate from civilians, hence the huge civilian losses and growing dislike for occupation forces: see why we lost in Nam. About the smart bombs, I urge you to look at the distinction between improved and good.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#23)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Cheetah. Correct. And so the terrorists are responsible for what they do, including the use of civilians as shields, including the results of that act. We are not foreclosed from fighting them, but are foreclosed from using area weapons. As you know--but will no doubt deny--our weapons are as discriminating as it is possible to make them. Indiscriminate weapons such as carpet bombing is not being done in cities. Fallujah could have been flattened by a couple of B52 strikes. Instead, we sent our young men door-to-door to die fighting hand to hand. This would not impress a lefty, of course, but the point is that normal people can tell the difference.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
    That is the important part. Regardless of what the terrists do.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    As I said, we are accountable for what we do! This is not a left or right or centrist notion. Get it?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#26)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    to those who only skim my posts and refuse to read the entire thing. I KNOW PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO SING THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC. in small little plain words, this means they are still royally pissed. And yes, the propper spelling is Damnyankee. And no. We do not treat the terrorists exceedingly well. Nor do we treat the old goathearders who get swept up as terrorists exceedingly well. (there actually was an old goatherder swept up as a terrorist- he was not treated well)

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Jen, I read your post, and you made a great point.
    People are odd in their rage. Especially inherited rage.
    We would do well to remember that.

    Besides the goatherder, I recall the story of the poor taxi driver, written about in the Times. As I said, we are accountable for what we do.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    RA clearly didn't have the ability or desire to answer my question and once someone else provided a link that clearly contradicted ra's opinion he was still in denial. Sheesh!
    5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Sailor - Yes, RA did. Read his comment. V2Marty writes:
    Not sure what makes my statement stupid... we are fighting people that we cannot differentiate from civilians, hence the huge civilian losses and growing dislike for occupation forces: see why we lost in Nam.
    Because what you are saying is that you can never fight these people, so that means is that they automatically win.... Duhhhhh. Jen - Well, you weren't until your last paragraph. But that earned you "damnyankee" status. Congrats! ;-) BTW - Having attended many meetings and singings where the Battle Hym was belted out in booming southern drawls, I am curious about your statement that many will not sing it. Could you educate us?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Because what you are saying is that you can never fight these people, so that means is that they automatically win....
    Nice try, but no. The question is: given that a terrorist is holed up in a civilian area, should you blow the whole place to hell or are there alternative methods? The US always goes for maximal force as part of their shock and awe philosophy. They feel that eventually the Iraqis will be intimidated into behaving,i.e. "they will tire of being killed" However people fighting for control of their country are unlikely to quickly give up. Every innocent killed has fathers, sons, brothers etc who are now likely to join the fight against the US. But if your intentions are conquest and/or occupation why should you care?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#31)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Born in Chicago, raised in Brasil. I'll take damnyankee as a compliment thank you. Eu sou quem eu sou, filha do meu pai. The friends (and family members) I refer to are Virginia mountain folk and southern Georgia folk. They cite something about union troops coming through destroying stuff and generally carrying on all impolite. So, my defense of old goatherders is beyond the pale, eh? Well, goats can be annoying.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#33)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Soc. You know better. Everybody knows better. Maximal force? Why is one stone upon another in Fallujah? Why did even one Marine die there? As I say, only a couple of people on this board are stupid enough to believe themselves and soc--and Sailor--aren't one of that sorry crew. You know better. You lie.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    I read ra's comment; it was completely contradicted by GenCon 5 and was really just going 'la,la,la' with his fingers in his ears..

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Jen, My dad is a New York Jew in rural Georgia. Imagine all the things HE refuses to sing.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Hey ed, try reading at the 7th grade level with me: 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#36)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    JL. Define the failure of the US to take precautions. I know you wish you could convince the US it was morally required to quit once the terrorists had surrounded themselves with civilians. But try being rational for a change. Show the US using area weapons. Show Fallujah being wiped off the map by a succession of Arc Lights. Show US Marines sitting back at a couple of miles to see the show. Show rules of engagement which insist on maximum force at any time for any reason.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    ra, thanks for calling me a liar, I appreciate that almost as much as if tom delay said I was corrupt. "(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
    The air strike that killed civilians came Friday on a house in the same area. The number of people killed was still unclear, but "roughly half" may have been civilians, while the rest were Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.
    So RA, define "excessive". The Pentagon apparrently thinks '1 to 1' isn't. What ratio of civilian to insurgent casualties do you find acceptable?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    I used 'roughly half" because it was released by the DoD. Since they have lied at every step of the way* the ratio is probably much higher of civilians to insurgents. (Think NVA, VC body counts in VN.) * 'we didn't use napalm' 'we didn't torture anyone' 'we know where WMDs are' 'mushroom cloud' 'yellow cake' 'mission accomplished' 'we have enough troops' 'we have enough body/vehicle armor' 'we didn't kill that prisoner' 'we didn't desecrate the quoran' 'it wasn't a wedding party' etc, etc etc. BTW, everyone should be free to weigh in on what is an 'acceptable' ratio of civ to insurgent deaths during an 'operation.'

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#38)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Dadler What fun! I only hope he refuses to sing "Marching Through Georgia" hehe

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    RA: That is a good point, I am not on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq so I am not privvy to any more information than you. However, when I read stories such as this: Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country. None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete. Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s1009418.htm In October, the British medical journal Lancet estimated 98,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation. The study was based on interviews with people in 988 households with 7,868 residents randomly selected across Iraq. Forty-six percent of the violent deaths were of children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported. The findings were dismissed by the U.S. and British governments as inaccurate. The more I read and remember our governments denials about Khmer Rouge, Serbia etc., the more I believe that more civilians are dead than we care to know.....

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    RA - dont ever call me a liar kiss my a** If you dont want anybody killed dont go to war. You are assuming that Iraqis are less than human and don't count for anything. You're pathetic

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#41)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Marine snipers deliberately targeted ambulance drivers in Fallujah, pictures of this are all over the net. The US, at one point, closed the only bridge to the local hospital. Both of these actions are clear violations of Geneva. Wingers are starting to make me sick- see you at the war crimes trial! A-holes!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    The US has also used napalm in Fallujah. An indescriminate weapon if ever there was one. So ra, answer the question: what ration of civilian to insurgent deaths qualifies as excessive for you? 1:1 , 1:2 , 1000:1?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    PPJ and Richard Aubrey... Just curious...What did you guys think of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#44)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    sailor - From your quote:
    but "roughly half" may have been civilians, while the rest were Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.
    You do understand that "may have been" is not exactly a strong statement of fact. I mean, the first half may have been 100% terrorist. Ernesto - Just curious, what strategy would you use to fight the WOT? (Yes, Ernie, I have asked you that before. So it is your turn.) Jen - No, your goat herder defense didn't get the job done. I think maybe it is your complete persona. RA - Don't let'em get your (old) goat. ;-) et al - In most wars the country's infrastucture is completely destroyed, as many people are killed as possible, and the society is disrupted and eliminated as much as possible. The purpose of this is to reduce the remaining civilians into a state that will make them accept the fact that they have been beaten, and it is in their best interest to not cause trouble. We didn't do that in Iraq because our intent was to get rid of Saddam's WMD's, the ability for him to make WMD's and to change the regime. We had no quarrel with the Iraqi general population. Our good intentions are being repaid by terrorists operating in civilian areas, mosques, etc. Our options are to walk away, or to attack as humanely as possible. Afghanistan is basically the same except that they were never thought to have WMD's. Now I realize that the hawks among you want us to give up and come home, turning the search for terrorists over to the local Taliban or al-Qaida branch, while the doves want us to also pay damages. Ain't gonna happen folks. Bush may not be able to ride a bicycle, but he knows what to do when attacked, by terrorists or killer rabbits.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    PPJ...I answered that already...check the "Mondy Open Thread". Now let's hear YOUR answer to MY question. Thanks.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#46)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    The correct ratio of potential civilian deaths to enemy combatant deaths is as few as possible while still completing the mission. One decides if the mission is worth the potential civilian deaths. The point here is that we are extending ourselves to reduce the civilian deaths to as few as possible. One moron someplace even complained that the civilians had been under threat in Fallujah but the US had telegraphed the attack and everybody had left. Speaking of left, I guess that's lefty logic. Soc. Quit lying. It's a handy way to get people to quit calling you a liar. Or show us an IQ test with your score at or below, oh, maybe twelve and we'll stop calling you a liar. Because then you'd be dumb enough to believe yourself. That's not lying. Anyway, show us "maximal" use of force. Explain why Fallujah is still there. Explain why Marines died fighting house to house in Fallujah. To call the "maximal" is a lie. Unless your IQ is under twelve, in which case it isn't. The deadliest conflict for civilians since Viet Nam? Well, surprise. Desert Storm was fought mostly in the desert. Hence the name, I suppose. People can always point to the likelihood Saddaam would have kept on killing people, not to mention colluded with terrorists to provide them with really nasty stuff. And if he doesn't kill, say, ten thousand in a given month, he'd have years to keep at it, if the lefties had their way. Anyway, lefties don't really care about dead civilians. They only care if the dead civilians can be used for political purposes. That's why the terrorists get a pass for suicide bombing, recently, a hospital. No way to use that against Bush.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#48)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Sailor. It's zero, if that will hobble US forces. Right? There is no upper limit if it's done in conjunction with an attack on US forces. Right? We got it.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    People can always point to the likelihood Saddam would have kept on killing people, not to mention colluded with terrorists to provide them with really nasty stuff.
    I think the likelihood would have been pretty low since 1.) he had no nasty stuff to provide them with and 2.) Bin Laden would have used any nasty stuff on Saddam just as soon as used it on us. Remember, Bin Laden denounced Saddam as a socialist infidel. Which sounds like something right out your wingnut playbook.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#50)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    it was a serious question; what is the death ratio you find acceptable. How many innocent civilians should die for each insurgent? I'll repeat the same request I'd pose to scott mcclellan, ANSWER THE QUESTION!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Aubrey: "First reports--to be further checked--had it that the terrorists were hiding, as usual, among civilians." Yeah. They were wearing their skin. Kill them all -- the pipelines must go through.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#52)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    RA - nice try at baiting but for you to call anyone a liar is ridiculous at best since you just make crap up all the time. How about pointing out exactly where i lied.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#53)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Ernesto - Okay, if that is your answer, we can put you down as having no strategy. (Throwing quotations during combat is a terrible ineffective method. But you are welcome to try it. Don't forget to read the terrorists their "rights" just before they saw your head off.) Waco? A terrible mistake by Janet Reno who was so concerned over appearing weak that she made a mistake that ended her political career. Unfornatuely others lost much, much, more. She should have resigned in disgrace. Ruby Rudge? It appears that some over zealous ATF types were trying to set up someone who didn't react the way they thought he would. A 100% miscarriage of justice. Now note that neither of these had any national terror threat, any potential for a large loss of life and the participants were all known and the situations very well defined. An excellent model for watchful waiting. Sorry for burning down your strawman. ;-) sailor writes:
    it was a serious question; what is the death ratio you find acceptable. How many innocent civilians should die for each insurgent?
    "should die?" None. Will die? Depends on how much the terrorists use them as shields, and on the "civilians" providing tips and other help in catching them. Which, of course, will cause the terrorists to kill some they catch doing that. This is, of course, a terrible Catch 22 for them. But no one ever said life was fair. Ernesto writes:
    Bin Laden would have used any nasty stuff on Saddam just as soon as used it on us.
    Ernie, then why did OBL do this?
    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Quote source.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Its real simple about Fallujah RA, although I know you will have to wait for the pop up book to come out. maybe you can get your mommy to explain it to you. The insurgents had weeks notice that Fallujah would be attacked. Not being stupid the majority left. None the less the US attacked with cluster munitions, napalm, and wide scale air attacks. They destroyed the sewage system the water system, occupied the hospital, destroyed the other clinic after saying they wouldn't, shot anyone who tried to escape including women. They refused to allow the red crescent in afterwards. Approximately 1/3 the houses were destroyed and another 1/3 were damaged. Months after the attack there is little running water, sewage is running down the street, etc. The use of napalm, or napalm like bombs is a war crime, the use of cluster munitions in a civilian zone is a war crime, attacking hospitals or clinics is a war crime, killing civilians indiscriminately is a war crime, refusing to let aid in is a war crime and collective punishment is a war crime. Other than that it was a "clean" operation.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#55)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    PPJ you know better than to quote the washington times.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Provide a secondary source. The WT just makes crap up. They are worse than fox

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#57)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Soc. Standard combat operation. Except, no massive artillery prep. No massive air bombardment. If you read the reports, you will read things like, an F18 dropped a thousand pound bomb on a...whatever. Or a five-hundred pound bomb. Not at all wide-area attacks. If the folks all left, how did any get killed? If the terrorists all left, how come our guys got killed? Your use of the language is strictly forbidden in Leviticus. Ambulances targeted? Crap. One incident, in which the journo riding in it said nobody got hit. How do you know you're targeted by a US sniper? You die. How does somebody in a vehicle know it's a US sniper, or somebody else, or a round coming from someplace else? Fact is, they don't. Especially do they not know the motivation of the person firing. That's all garbage. The reason you're a liar is that you know this yet say the opposite. And you do it for political purposes. That makes you a liar. Clear? We went from "napalm" to "napalm-like". Where did FAE--if that's what you're talking about--turn up as a war crime? If the civilians were gone, why is using a cluster bomb objectionable? If we were using maximal force, as you said, why is there a stone upon a stone in Fallujah, or anybody living, or any US troops dead in the fighting? You know the questions exist. You know the answer. But you say the opposite. That makes you a liar. Unless you have that IQ test handy.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Once again, no answers, just the bushco tactic about cherry picking one word ... next! Are there any admin supporters commenting on this site who will actually engage the subject? If so, please enter the debate, I'm so tired of pi$$ing in the kool-aid.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    RA - dumba@@ the insurgents left cant you even understand simple declarative sentences, why am i asking of course you can't

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    PPJ...not the quotes...it was the next to last post in the thread. And it was the 4th or 5th time I answered that same question from you. You have ADD or short term memory loss...or sumthin. Waco and Ruby Ridge were the same type of shoot first, sort it out later incidents as this one. You justify this event because they were "terrorists" but remember that David Koresh was a psychotic child molester and Randy Weaver was a violent racist. So why not shoot first and ask questions later?
    Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
    So you believe Bill Clinton, huh?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#61)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Soc. If the insurgents left, who was fighting our guys? Have you seen pictures of European towns in WW II after an Allied combined arms fight went through them? They were worse off than Fallujah. Was that a war crime? Shot at anybody that moved? Here's a real one. My father's platoon was moving through a Dutch town after midnight. As they passed a house, somebody jerked open the front door. A sergeant fired into the door. Turned out he killed a civilian. Was that "shooting anything that moves"? Was that a war crime? Can you prove that the Fallujah fight was any different? What about Fallujah was worse than a thousand towns in Europe in WW II? When you fight in a town, infrastructure gets destroyed. That was not a deliberate and unnecessary addition to the program. All of this you know. Pretending that the Fallujah fight was some kind of unique war crime is a lie. That's why I call you a liar.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    God you're a massive idiot. The original post said most, like I said you can't read. WWII is different or don't you understand that either. No of course not. I'm done with this idiotic crap. You can't debate someone who can comprehend simple sentences. Maybe you and GWB can get together andread a goat book together.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#63)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    SD
    PPJ you know better than to quote the washington times.
    It was also an AP story. Thanks for taking the bait. BTW - Fallujah got off cheap. How many US forces died to do something the locals should have done? I'd have bombed that place into a pile of rubble. Ernesto - Now I understand. I ask for a strategy and you provide quotations. Strategy, Ernie. STRATEGY. There is a difference. Too bad you don't know what it is. And what makes it sweet is that you are commenting on what the military should do. Wow. BTW - So because the children were being molested they were killed? Gesh. And Waco and Ruby Ridge was, as I demonstrated in my reply, nothing like the WOT. If you think so your reasoning ability is seriously impaired

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#64)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Soc. WW II was different. So? How does doing to a town in Europe more than what was done to Fallujah not be a war crime if what was done to Fallujah is a war crime. Can you explain the difference?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    I can, I can!!! WWII was a war declared by congress against an soverign nation that attacked us first. We didn't bomb German or Japanese cities after we occupied them. Next!!!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#66)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    BTW - Fallujah got off cheap. How many US forces died to do something the locals should have done? I'd have bombed that place into a pile of rubble.
    welcome to the party, your brownshirt is in the mail

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#67)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    I find it interesting that throughout this discussion there is an assumption that there were Taliban or Al Queda among the victims. Why? Because the Pentagon spokesman told us so. The Pentagon would never lie to us to cover their tails, would they? Yeah right. Tell that to Pat Tillman's family. There is a larger picture here. The Karzai government is the recognized government in Afghanistan, is it not? Was it not elected? Does not a government derive its powers from the consent of the governed? Who elected us rulers of Afghanistan? What right do we have to arrest, detain, abuse, and kill Afghani citizens? We are fighting for democracy, so long as these countries don't insist on the right of their people to life and liberty.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#68)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Soc was going to tell us why what happened to Dutch and Belgian towns during WW II was not a war crime although worse than what happened to Fallujah. When did we declare war on Belgium, Sailor? Soc was trying to make the case that the details of the carnage in Fallujah were uniquely awful. He's full of it, and a liar, too, if there's any difference.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#69)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    You are a horse's ass. I never said they were unique you said that as a way of trying to wiggle out of this. One lat time for your small brain. maybe if you took it out of your rear and gave it some air you would learn something. Your use of a straw man arguments is stupid beyond belief. Another thing that has changed since WWII is the Geneva conventions, but scum like you always ignore them. Most of the insurgents had left by the time of the attacks. Approximately 1/3 the citizens were left. Yet the US attacked as if the entire AQ was there without regards to civilians. I have listed the potential war crimes above, apparently you have not denied them, just tried to make them seem insignificant with irrelevant comparisons. So in your mind if there is a single insurgent hiding out among women and chilren the US is entitled to drop a 1000 lb bomb on the house killing everyone. And all this is occurring after "Mission Accomplished". And whats even more funny is how the admin went crazy invoking the Geneva conventions at the beginning of the war because captured US were paraded on TV. So go ahead with your straw man arguments and claims about what I said. Whether they were unique is irrelevant, what is relevant is that now here in 2005 what was supposed to be the greatest country on earth is using tactics formally associated with some of our greatest enemies and you are perfectly ok with that. But ultimately people like you and PPJ are fine with this because you consider all Muslims below Americans and possibly all humans and therefore not entitled to the protections that all humans should be entitled to. So if any one ever breaks into your house with a gun i hope the local police fire bomb your house to make sure they get him. Now obviously your ok with that. Its just a minor extension of the tactics you have been permoting. I knew the gene pool was shallow but this is ridiculous

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#70)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Sailor - Your problem is that you won't admit that the terrorists are a group of loosely organized people from various countries who share a common goal. Until you do that you will not be facing the reality of the problem, and you will never find a solution. Bush's strategy is simple, and about the only one that is available if you reject telling the nationstates who have people in the terrorist groups that you hold them responsible. And if they don't fix their problem you will declare war on them. Due to disparity in population, that would require nuclear weapons. Ernesto - No, I don't believe Bill, but this was an indictment by the JD. Guess they were lying, eh? BTW - Remember those terrorists that you said were the moral equivalent of the neo-cons? Turn on the TV. SD - The fact is that the terrorists operating in Iraq will have to be beaten by the Iraqi people, with our support. The less they do, the more we must. Sorry about that.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#71)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Soc. If it's not unique, what's your complaint? We attacked "as if". How do you know? How do you know what options were taken and what were not taken? Potential war crimes? If the US does it, it's a potential war crime. I did not address all of your list, just enough to show you're lying. As in, an ambulance targeted by snipers. How would anybody know? See? You're lying. I am not concerned, nor were you until you got trapped, with the dating of one or another of the GC. What, in objective terms, is different about what happened in Fallujah and to, say, Caen? Or St. Lo? Or Maastricht? Or Arnhem? And if those were not war crimes, and since less happened to Fallujah, why is Fallujah a war crime and they not? Also, is indiscriminate bombing of civilians a war crime if the terrorists do it? Never mind.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    And what makes it sweet is that you are commenting on what the military should do.
    PPJ...how did we get in this mess in the first place? We armed and funded Bin Laden. Great strategy...and you supported it. To quote you...Wow.
    BTW - So because the children were being molested they were killed? Gesh.
    The children were killed BY ACCIDENT when the camp was invaded. Perfect analogy to this event. Even you aren't too dense to see the irony in your above comment, I hope. Breaking news...more innocents die in London thanks to the Bush/Blair "War on Terror".

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    PPJ makes this comment,
    ...the terrorists operating in Iraq will have to be beaten by the Iraqi people, with our support.
    Those terrorists, insurgents, etc., were not operating in Iraq, until we went into Iraq. Illegally, I will add, and invaded and occupied a sovereign country.

    What gave the US the right to take Bush's "war on terror" to ANYONE'S country? With our support? Our "support" is why this country is being ravaged and demolished today.

    That statement is ridiculous on it's face!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#74)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Actually, Cheetah, the terrorists were operating in Iraq. But they were the government who, having dungeons and such like, not to mention acres and acres of space for mass graves, did not have to use car bombs on the Iraqi people. It's more difficult for them now, and I'm sure we all sympathize.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    RA, Sorry, that dog won't hunt!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#76)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    To push a metaphor, Cheetah, have you asked the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and tortured by the Saddaamite government if they think it's a different dog?

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    RA, Your response had nothing to do with what I said. Also, that was not the reason we were given for invading Iraq. Or for occupying Iraq.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#78)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    cheetah - Illegally? You know, the more you talk the less you display. Ernesto - I repeat, just in case the text on your screen was messed up. Waco and Ruby had absolutely no national terrorist implications. Both were localized events in which everyone involved was known. The situation was contained and we had control. 9/11 and the other attacks had national terrorist implications. All were events involving international players who we knew little about and had no on going control. If you can't see the difference Ernie, there is no hope for you. But I suspect you know the difference. So put the strawman up and wait under the bridge for another traveler to come by.

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    PPJ, Right back at ya'!

    Re: More Innocents Die (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    RA is the biggest idiot here. You cant follow a logical argument so you just make one up. No one ever said that attacks on civilians by terrorists weren't crimes. That in no way excuses the US. I would get mad at you calling me a liar except for you diminshed ability to reason and your proven track record of making stuff up to make an argument makes you inconsequential. I'm climbing out of the gutter and not bothering to argue with you as it it is pointless. As they say never argue with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing you to RA.

    More Innocents Die | 80 comments (80 topical)