Fox News *Awaits the lapse into rationalisation from the usual crowd* You might want to check out the attack on and closure of the main hospital as well, carried out officially - I kid you not - because the hospital was providing civilian casualty reports which were undermining propaganda efforts.
I just read the article. It states the reasoning is insurgents blend in with civilians so you don't want them getting away. Fuck dude, if it was the other way around (bad guys in charge) nobody would be allowed to escape. At least we cut the women and children slack. Sorry folks, but I was there (ANECDOTAL! DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!) and nobody gets actual combat missions accomplished while balancing trying to eliminate collatoral damage better than we do. You can't even IMAGINE the people we could/should have killed but did not, often putting ourselves at risk in the process. Wait, most Americans can imagine it because most of us personally know shitloads of military so we know how things really work, and how military people really are. It's a huge part of our culture and always will be since we are at the top of the food chain military power-wise.
Rick, The "disagrees" designation in my notation on your original message is an error. Please regard that as AGREED. (I thought I pushed the right button but apparently did not.)
Tough shit. Putting them all in the turkey shoot because of that is the very definition of indiscrimate. And I don't care if the bad guys (how the fuck you can continue to use this term without irony is beyond me) would have been worse. And yeah, I'll stick to documented facts, rather than your waffling justification about how humane you really are.
Your claim was: "all of the military aged males were forced to stay in Fallujah while the place was basically destroyed" The article backs up this part: "all of the military aged males were forced to stay in Fallujah" But speaks not at all to this part: "the place was basically destroyed" The way you phrased it makes it sound like you think that the men were basically barricaded in while the entire city was leveled, killing the men inside. There's nothing to back up such an extreme view.
Your own military called it "the heaviest urban combat since the Battle of Hue City in Vietnam." In the region of 70% of the buildings in the city were severly damaged or destroyed. I've already mentioned the attack on the hospital. Then there were incidents of shooting at ambulances. And using incendiary weapons. UN Report - discredited by its not being written by those commie internationalists and human rights people, natch. Whether that meets the criteria for "basically destroyed" or not, forcing those who were trying to flee to remain there while it was besieged was dispicable - the same as the attacks on funerals and rescue teams are. It should not be necessary to explain this to civilised people.
Of course I can. Am I expected to excuse (or join in the rationalisations for) the litany of massacres just because not all members of the serving military are cowardly murdering assbags?
Amazing. One day I've got the righties dog piling on me..another day I've got the lefties foaming at the mouth...I must be doing something right!
WTF? Maybe the heaviest urban combat America has been involved in. Have you been to Bosnia back in the 90's? I have (yes, means nothing since I'm part of the problem and not the cure) and when they level a city, they level a city! Were these ambulances hiding non-injured enemy forces? Just askin' And please explain/identify the "incendiary" weapons. Bic lighters and toilet paper? By the way any report from the U.N. can be taken with a grain of salt. U.N. forces stood by while the Serbs slaughtered Muslims in Srebenica. But I'm sure you knew that already.
The question that needs to be addressed where these drone strikes are concerned is what constructive purpose do they serve? The bombing of Baghdad commenced a progression of what most of the world regards as cynical war crimes, i.e., the avoidable killing of innocents. We had no legitimate need to bomb that city -- or to do any of the unnecessary and condemnable things we subsequently did in Iraq. While we watched what looked like a Coney Island fireworks display on tv the "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad killed and mutilated babies, not to mention mothers, sisters, brothers and other loved ones of innocent people who did absolutely nothing to us but who now have good cause to despise us and our Country and wish to see us suffer and burn. Whenever I think about that I can't help remembering with profound remorse that it wasn't long ago when America was respected and admired by most of the world and Americans were welcome almost everywhere. That no longer is true. Most Americans have become so desensitized by the effects of the constant flow of fantastic fiction pumped into their brains by television (see, The Medium Is The Message, by Marshal MacLuhan) they are detached from reality and are incapable of comprehending the pain their government is inflicting on countless innocents in the Middle East and the inevitable consequences which unavoidable will derive from it. In our mindless determination to kill "terrorists" we are repeatedly killing the innocent relatives and friends of people who once were indifferent towards us but now are passionately committed to our destruction.
So when we "bombed Baghdad" did we just cruise around dropping bombs willy-nilly or did we have pre-planned military targets as bombing objectives? When I was in the Air Force (as a bomb-loader BTW) every mission was planned out to the nth degree, because we had to set up all the bombs for specific purposes and detonation times. Also targets are programmed into video guided bombs well ahead of time. But I'm sure you knew that already. Maybe tactics have have changed somewhat - our doctrine back in the day was bombing military equipment concentrations rather than civilian apartment complexes. For some reason anti-aircraft sites were deemed more dangerous than playgrounds. WTF were we thinking back then?
It strikes me as pretty cynical for terrorist leaders who know they are targets to surround themselves with civilians, thereby putting them in harm's way.
That's because you don't have a clue about war. Try reading up on WWII and what the bombing missions were like then. With tech we've reduced civilian casualties by over 95%. Drone attacks allow us to kill the people trying to kill us without major combat ops against another country. Some innocents do get killed, and that is tragic. However, that has and always will be a part if war. It's at the minimum it's ever been thanks to the US efforts in that area.
I thought about that too....would you take your whole family to a funeral for people that you know are thought of as enemies by a hostile nation with advanced military technology? Maybe it's a cultural thing, and above my level of basic comprehension.
Actually it's specifically for causing outrage, both from people like Rick and from within Muslim populations they're hoping to recruit from.
Cut them a break. At least it wasn't another wedding celebration. Funerals instead of weddings. You've got to admit we're improving.
No. I didn't know that. All I can know about these issues is what I can learn from reliable sources. With respect to the topic issue, the BBC reports approximately 2,000 civilian deaths from the bombing of Baghdad, alone, which is quite a lot of civilian deaths considering we had no legitimate reason to bomb that city or to invade Iraq. The BBC further reports an approximate overall civilian body count in Iraq between 2003, when we invaded, through to 2007, when they stopped counting, as more than 35,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/baghdad_navigator/ Until I am informed otherwise by a more reliable news source than the BBC, I believe those numbers. The World Court in The Hague believes them, too, which is why they have indicted George W. Bush in absentia as a war criminal.
They have video of those scum bags grabbing random kids off the street to use as human shields just so Israeli (on the west bank) or US (every where else) forces think twice before killing them. If they don't strike then the tactic worked but if they do strike then que the outrage at the dead kid. Of course, they blame the anti-terrorists for the kid dying not the terrorists who kidnapped him and used him as a human shield. My take is you strike at them no matter what human shields they have as then the terrorists will learn kidnapping a kid off the street won't help so why bother? That will eventually save lives.
All they'll do is say "we noticed you didn't show up" then kill the guy in order to encourage more human shields to show up at the next funeral.
