american forces admit to committing mass murder of innocent iraqi family

[asim99]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html
U.S. says bomb hit wrong house in Iraq
Strike aimed at insurgents killed 6 family members

Thursday, January 5, 2006; Posted: 4:29 p.m. EST (21:29 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bomb that killed six civilians Monday near Baiji, Iraq, missed its target by 65 feet (20 meters) and hit the wrong home, military officials said.

The bomb, which was dropped by a U.S. fighter plane, was aimed at a building that three men entered after planting a roadside bomb as an unmanned surveillance plane watched from overhead, the officials said.

[anandwww]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html

title is a bit misleading..it was unintended. However the title gives an impression they did than knowingly.

Having said that US is know to do such blunders...they dont even know to aim :mad:

[Txiasaeia]

It was an accident. They apologised. Nothing to see here.

[asim99]

oops....we killed a family...sorry...move along...nothing to see here...

that's a pathetic reaction to a mass murder

[gilboman]

It was an accident. They apologised. Nothing to see here.

a drunk driver killing a pedestrian is an accident too

[Txiasaeia]

oops....we killed a family...sorry...move along...nothing to see here...

that's a pathetic reaction to a mass murder

Casualties of war are inevitable. A person with a more realistic perspective would be able to understand this, but your "pathetic" attempt at a rejoinder indicates that this thread was nothing more than an attempt to stir up negative emotions rather than as a serious attempt to discuss what's going on in the world today. Again, nothing to see here.

[afong56]

i wonder, since i believe this analogy is accurate, will the shooters in the boxing day massacre on yonge street be charged with murder, or manslaughter??? can we not equate them to the pilots? was it not an 'accident' that the young girl was killed (using the logic displayed in this thread)???

just curious.

btw, i do think that this thread was trolling by the op--i can be as critical of the u.s. as most, but even i thought this was a stretch. . .an obvious attempt to bait the knee-jerk u.s. sympathisers. . .

[poedua]

It was an accident. They apologised. Nothing to see here.

I agree ...a "self evident" news item ....yet again.

Same old.....same old.

[poedua]

Casualties of war are inevitable. A person with a more realistic perspective would be able to understand this, but your "pathetic" attempt at a rejoinder indicates that this thread was nothing more than an attempt to stir up negative emotions rather than as a serious attempt to discuss what's going on in the world today. Again, nothing to see here.

Bang on Txiasaeia...right on the mark .....it's simply trolling IMO.

If the US should face legitmate allegations of the pre-meditated mass murder of civilians...it should be with respect to Hiroshima or Dresden...whcih are more appropriate examples IMO.

But, if it's examples of the mass murder of civilians - specific to iraq - that needs to be examined - there seems to be more than a few Iraqi examples we could look at ............examples provided ......courtesy of everyone's friendly neighbourhood ( former ) dictator....Saddam ! :)

[poedua]

Your header claims the Americans made an admission of "mass murder".

Sorry asim99...I looked, by I couldn't find it in the article...where is there an American quote in the article in which they use the term "mass murder "?

I couldn't find it .

[asim99]

my goodness....conservatives trolls have raided this thread with their apologies...who'd have thunk it!

[asim99]

Your header claims the Americans made an admission of "mass murder".

Sorry asim99...I looked, by I couldn't find it in the article...where is there an American quote in the article in which they use the term "mass murder "?

I couldn't find it .

how many people should be killed to be called a mass murder? 3? 4?5? 20? 100? 1000? you seem to get riled up over semantics...to me murder of six qualifies to be called mass murder, may be your threshold is higher

[asim99]

I'm against the "war" and against killing Iraqis and I totally support the Iraqi people in their fight against the Americans, but I just don't see the point of the article posted here.

my point? i am outraged...
you should be thankful i did not post a thread with pictures of my cologne collection

[devious9191]

my goodness....conservatives trolls have raided this thread with their apologies...who'd have thunk it!

With the exception of TX, every poster in this thread seems to typically lean to the left by the contents of their posts.. maybe just not as extreme to the left as you? ;p

The topic of the thread is misleading, the article is ********, and maybe everyone is just getting tired of unfounded US bashing (although I find that hard to believe..)

[asim99]

With the exception of TX, every poster in this thread seems to typically lean to the left by the contents of their posts.. maybe just not as extreme to the left as you? ;p

The topic of the thread is misleading, the article is ********, and maybe everyone is just getting tired of unfounded US bashing (although I find that hard to believe..)

excuse me if i do not care for people who are not bothered by such a barbaric act....to me there is no difference between this and the barbaric beheadings of the western civilians by muslim terrorists...

most of these people are bothered and outraged more by the murder of a poor whited girl in toronto than that of an almost entire family elsewhere

[anandwww]

excuse me if i do not care for people who are not bothered by such a barbaric act....to me there is no difference between this and the barbaric beheadings of the western civilians by muslim terrorists...

the problem was not with your feelings. Its just that the article heading is misleading :|

[asim99]

the problem was not with your feelings. Its just that the article heading is misleading :|

its not misleading...it says what the news is about...its about mass murder of an innocent family, and the fact that americans admitted that they did it

[anandwww]

its not misleading...it says what the news is about...its about mass murder of an innocent family, and the fact that americans admitted that they did it

its murder in lay mans term. But for ppl in the army it is just an accident...well they are army men. This happens all over the word. And they admitted a mistake was commited not a murder... :(

[asim99]

As already raised, but where does it state any American officials admit guilt in the "mass murder of innocent iraqi family"?

do you really expect them to say that in so many words? i dont think so
they admitted that it was wrong target....the term 'wrong target' implying that this family was innocent

[anandwww]

We are with you, but civilian casualty is not a new thing in Iraq, and this is far from the last occurence. What should we do about it?


true.... 134 ppl killed in a day
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.main/index.html

so should a thread be started stating "Mass murder BY iraqis"...NOOOOOOOOOO the cause of all this the illegal war of US. >:(

PS: but yeah these insurgents should blow US marines rather than civilians..

[poedua]

true.... 134 ppl killed in a day
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.main/index.html

so should a thread be started stating "Mass murder BY iraqis"...NOOOOOOOOOO the cause of all this the illegal war of US. >:(

PS: but yeah these insurgents should blow US marines rather than civilians..

Care to guess how many Iraqi citizens Saddam is alleged to have killed during his "tenure "as President ?

[anandwww]

Care to guess how many Iraqi citizens Saddam is alleged to have killed during his "tenure "as President ?

can you imagine that the US still supported him when he was killing them :(
care to guess how many ppl US killed in vietnam?? :(
care to guess how many ppl are dying daily in Iraq now?? :(
care to guess how many ppl died coz of a decade of american sponsored sanctions in iraq:(
care to guess how many ppl died in afganistan coz of americans own enemity with USSR :(
care to guess how many ppl died in afganistan coz of the talibans who were left unattended after the russian defeat :(
care to guess how many billions US companies have made selling weapons to third world :(
care to guess how many lifes have been lost coz of this :(
care to guess how many iraqis are being humiliated in their own country by the american forces :(

[poedua]

can you imagine that the US still supported him when he was killing them :(
care to guess how many ppl US killed in vietnam?? :(
care to guess how many ppl are dying daily in Iraq now?? :(
care to guess how many ppl died coz of a decade of american sponsored sanctions in iraq:(
care to guess how many ppl died in afganistan coz of americans own enemity with USSR :(
care to guess how many ppl died in afganistan coz of the talibans who were left unattended after the russian defeat :(
care to guess how many billions US companies have made selling weapons to third world :(
care to guess how many lifes have been lost coz of this :(
care to guess how many iraqis are being humiliated in their own country by the american forces :(

Nice list :) Which of those are examples are of killing one's own citizens exactly ?

I get it.....you're offended by my insinuation Saddam targeted his own citizens .....like the Kurds ...for repression and murder.. That's fair.

Can't say I blame you...not too many leaders/armies will willfully murder it's own citizens with air strikes and chemical attacks

...mind you, there is Stalin of course and the genocide of 7 million citizens...but that was forced starvation OR the Cambodian repression by Pol Pot , but that was 2 million citizens dead from starvation, overwork and executions and then of course there was the genocide in Rwanda, but of course that is different too.....Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

Now has far as the US targetting it's own citizens for murder or genocide due to starvation or acts of aggression like our frinds Stalin and Pol Pot ......I can't find any numbers ...I'm sure you can however. Happen to have a year and a total ....how many million ? Mind you, I still think Stalin takes the prize at 7 million - that's a tuf number to beat, tho Hitler came close ( trouble was..... he killed everyone elses citizens too ! )

[poedua]

Less than the Chinese killed occupying Tibet?

Wait, where was the US Government to liberate them and free them from oppression!! :rolleyes:

How many did the Chinese kill ? Guess the Chinese were at the receiving end of it too, when it comes to mass murders at least...the 300,000 Chinese citizens / soldiers massacred by the Japanese at Nanking comes to mind.

[Piro21]

Asim, how exactly is this news? Innocent people have died because of attacks that have gone wrong in every war, ever since the dawn of mankind. I can't see anything that would have you so full of indignation other than the Americans admitted their error and apologized. Would you rather they just glossed it over?

[Piro21]

If you want a truly impressive body count, forget national leaders and turn to religion. The sheer amount of people who have died from some form of religious persecution, wars started by religion, or because they were 'savages' that needed to be 'civilized' would boggle the mind if we even had a way to count it all.

[poedua]

Let's solve killing with killing!

Too bad for all the people Saddam DIDN'T kill.. appears now Bush took up the job.

Anyway, how many Iraqi's has Saddam killed Poedua?

Way too much to cover...but let's start small...... and work our way up.

How about the al- Anfal Campaign for starters ???

...between 100,000 & 182,000 murdered...give or take 10,000 here and there ...round up or down as you like.



"By our estimate, in Anfal at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children, were killed out of hand between February and September 1988. Their deaths did not come in the heat of battle -- "collateral damage" in the military euphemism. Nor were they acts of aberration by individual commanders whose excesses passed unnoticed, or unpunished, by their superiors. Rather, these Kurds were systematically put to death in large numbers on the orders of the central government in Baghdad -- days, sometimes weeks, after being rounded-up in villages marked for destruction or else while fleeing from army assaults in "prohibited areas". "

http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALPRE.htm


From another source.....


"On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.)

Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)

Most recently, Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, has referred to "100,000 Kurdish men and boys machine-gunned to death during the 1988 Anfal genocide." (Roth, "Show Trials Are Not the Solution to Saddam's Heinous Reign", The Globe and Mail, 18 July 2003.)

http://www.chak.info/english/doc/anfalcampaign.htm

Real killing machine that Saddam ...wasn't he ?

...looks like the Americans aren't far behind eh ? ....assuming there is conclusive proof they are targetting civilians like our 'ol buddy Saddam did ! :)

[poedua]

oops....we killed a family...sorry...move along...nothing to see here...

that's a pathetic reaction to a mass murder

First off ...kudos to you asim99 !!! :)

......for finally recognizing CNN as a credible source of news on the Iraq war....along with al Jeezera.....obviously you wouldn't have sent along a CNN link if you felt otherwise.

Interesting isn't it.......

A. The US declares war on Iraq, and in the course of their war, they accidently kill innocent civilans ( 6 died ) using bombs / planes , and when killing innocent civilians is clearly stated as being against their policy, and they admit the act was a mistake - yet they're mass murderers.

B. The US declares war on Japan , and in the course of their war, they purposely target and kill innocent Japanese citizens ( thousands die ) using bombs , and when the targetting and killing of innocent civilians is clearly stated as being a part of their policy, and they admit the act was not a mistake - are they still mass murderers ??

C. The US declares war on terror , and in the course of their war, they accidently kill innocent Canadian soldeirs ( 4 die in friendly fire ) using bombs / planes , and when killing innocent civilians is clearly stated as being against their policy, and they admit the act was a mistake - are they still mass murderers?? ...or is it only 6 or more to be called "mass " ??

D. Hamas declares war on Israel , and in the course of their war, they purposely target and kill innocent Isreali citizens ( hundreds die ) using suicide bombers , and when the targetting and killing of innocent civilians is clearly stated as being a part of their policy - are they still mass murderers ??or "freedom fighters "??

E. al Queda declares war on the US , and in the course of their war, they purposely target and kill innocent US citizens ( thousands die ) using suicide bombs/ jets , and when the targetting and killing of innocent civilians is clearly stated as being a part of their policy - are they still mass murderers?? or "freedom fighters "??

[Txiasaeia]

If you want a truly impressive body count, forget national leaders and turn to religion. The sheer amount of people who have died from some form of religious persecution, wars started by religion, or because they were 'savages' that needed to be 'civilized' would boggle the mind if we even had a way to count it all.

70 million people killed by Mao Zedong. 20 million by Stalin. Both of these leaders of state were atheists. Casualties from Crusades is 1-9 million. 30 Years' War is about 7.5 million. Inquisition less than a million. I can guarantee you that the number of deaths caused by these two atheist leaders of state in the 20th century alone overshadows the deaths caused by religious conflicts throughout all of recorded history.

[Freak]

my goodness....conservatives trolls have raided this thread with their apologies...who'd have thunk it!
I'm not a Conservative...but 6 deaths equals "mass murder"...lol...it was accidental...and it's hardly "mass" event of any kind! Can anyone for once only state the facts and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions???? PLEASE? :confused:

Freak

[Freak]

70 million people killed by Mao Zedong. 20 million by Stalin. Both of these leaders of state were atheists. Casualties from Crusades is 1-9 million. 30 Years' War is about 7.5 million. Inquisition less than a million. I can guarantee you that the number of deaths caused by these two atheist leaders of state in the 20th century alone overshadows the deaths caused by religious conflicts throughout all of recorded history.
Seriously we shouldn't get into this again...By definition no deaths/murders should ever occur in the name of religion, even one should be a complete travesty. Somehow comparing millions of religious inflicted deaths to millions of Atheist inflicted deaths still appears to be a major black eye for religion in general. Whereas being an atheist is not a fraternatity...each person is unique except for the fact that we share one common belief. There is/are no God(s). :|

Freak

[lip1978]

I can't find a way to excuse the US for these accidents. They have the military superiority and therefore, the moral necessity to keep the number of missed bombs at 0.

[asim99]

I'm not a Conservative...but 6 deaths equals "mass murder"...lol...it was accidental...and it's hardly "mass" event of any kind! Can anyone for once only state the facts and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions???? PLEASE? :confused:

Freak

by your definition, many people on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder#Mass_murderers) can not be deemed as mass murderers...go ahead and edit that list, if you disagree

[Freak]

by your definition, many people on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder#Mass_murderers) can not be deemed as mass murderers...go ahead and edit that list, if you disagree
I went over the list quickly and most if not all of those instances/people would deem the term "mass" and it is appropriate in my opinion due to the "intent" involved. The problem I have is that who determines if a certain act is of the "mass" variety? I got this from the wikipedia page that you linked under "Mass murder in warfare"..."wrongful killing of large numbers of civilians..." What is "large"???

Freak

[Txiasaeia]

by your definition, many people on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder#Mass_murderers) can not be deemed as mass murderers...go ahead and edit that list, if you disagree

You're missing the point: the people on this list intended to murder innocent people. The Americans who killed this family did not intend to kill them. Notice the distinction, even, between "killer" and "murderer" - one implies intent, the other does not. You can't accidentally be a mass murderer.

Seriously we shouldn't get into this again...By definition no deaths/murders should ever occur in the name of religion, even one should be a complete travesty. Somehow comparing millions of religious inflicted deaths to millions of Atheist inflicted deaths still appears to be a major black eye for religion in general. Whereas being an atheist is not a fraternatity...each person is unique except for the fact that we share one common belief. There is/are no God(s).

One person killed in the name of God, as far as I'm concerned, is one too many. But my point was arguing against the idea that religious conflicts have killed more people than non-religious conflicts in history, which is bunk.

[poedua]

You're missing the point: the people on this list intended to murder innocent people. The Americans who killed this family did not intend to kill them. Notice the distinction, even, between "killer" and "murderer" - one implies intent, the other does not. You can't accidentally be a mass murderer..

Well said..the relevant issue IS intent.

Again, .......Hamas,....Osama & Co....etc..... are prime examples of groups trying to reach their goals by the means of an EXPRESSED INTENT to target and murder innocent civilians. Pure and simple.

[anandwww]

Nice list :) Which of those are examples are of killing one's own citizens exactly ?



so killing other countries citizens is great right?? why not propose hitler and bush for a nobel price

Now has far as the US targetting it's own citizens for murder or genocide due to starvation or acts of aggression like our frinds Stalin and Pol Pot ......

US has done this to a lot of ppl other than their own citizens. Wonder if that makes a bigggggggg difference.



Real killing machine that Saddam ...wasn't he ?


yeah the americans were supporting and allowing this killing machine for almost a decade before he turned against them


C. The US declares war on terror , and in the course of their war, they accidently kill innocent Canadian soldeirs ( 4 die in friendly fire ) using bombs / planes , and when killing innocent civilians is clearly stated as being against their policy, and they admit the act was a mistake - are they still mass murderers?? ...or is it only 6 or more to be called "mass " ??


It should read, US declares war on "american targetted terror". For eg. in kashmir alone more than a 1,00,000 have died because of terrorism sponsored by americas faithful ally. What has bush done nothing!!! Till 9/11 organisations that were killing ppl in kashmir were operating openly in US. This great american govt. did not feel the need to close them, coz they were not killing their citizens.!!!

Its just another selfish war waged by the americans with absolutely no intent to stop violence. all they want is oil

[Nemodigital]

I can't find a way to excuse the US for these accidents. They have the military superiority and therefore, the moral necessity to keep the number of missed bombs at 0.
The reason the house was bombed was because a remote drone aircraft noticed someone placing an IED and running into the house. While I think it would have been more prudent to investigate accidents do happen in war. The real 'mass murderers' are those that place those IEDs, those that set off suicide bombs that have killed the vast majority of civilians in this war. This thread is just the regular US bashing by a kid that has probably never even visited the middle east.

[anandwww]

The reason the house was bombed was because a remote drone aircraft noticed someone placing an IED and running into the house. While I think it would have been more prudent to investigate accidents do happen in war. The real 'mass murderers' are those that place those IEDs, those that set off suicide bombs that have killed the vast majority of civilians in this war. This thread is just the regular US bashing by a kid that has probably never even visited the middle east.


ahhh. Well if someone is gonna place an IED near a house in US, are the going to send bomb disposal squads or blast the entire area (may be in that case they will take the credit that they stopped the enemy bomb - neverthless in both cases lives would have been lost)

btw have you visited middle east?? do you know the problems there?? you look to me as a normal western kid whoes brain has been washed by western propoganda that started during the cold war period.

:confused:

[Nemodigital]

ahhh. Well if someone is gonna place an IED near a house in US, are the going to send bomb disposal squads or blast the entire area (may be in that case they will take the credit that they stopped the enemy bomb - neverthless in both cases lives would have been lost)

btw have you visited middle east?? do you know the problems there?? you look to me as a normal western kid whoes brain has been washed by western propoganda that started during the cold war period.

:confused:
As a matter of fact I did live in the middle east for 3 years and I want to see the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. At the same time I don't want to see Iraq handed over to the jihadists.

I am still waiting for someone to start a thread about the mass murder of over 100 civilians yesterday by the so called 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters'. Anyone???

[poedua]

As a matter of fact I did live in the middle east for 3 years and I want to see the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. At the same time I don't want to see Iraq handed over to the jihadists.

I am still waiting for someone to start a thread about the mass murder of over 100 civilians yesterday by the so called 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters'. Anyone???

Well said ! Right on the money Nemodigital.

The accidedntal killing of 6 innocent Iraqis warrants a thread accusing the US or "mass murder"...yet, " the mass murder of over 100 civilians yesterday by the so called 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters' " ....hardly a peep !

Seems if you're an Arab freedom fighter , you can get away with being called a "mass murderer "...or maybe "mass murder" under Arab insurgent sensibilites is somewhere way above 100 murders !

[poedua]

so killing other countries citizens is great right?? why not propose hitler and bush for a nobel price


Dodging the question.

No, it's just that the cute little list in you put your reply misssed the point by a country mile and didn't address leaders killing their own people. It's like you answered some other querstion entirely.

I simply wanted you to debate the point of leaders killing their own people - you didn't.



US has done this to a lot of ppl other than their own citizens. Wonder if that makes a bigggggggg difference.


Dodging the question again...again, when has the US targetted it's own citizens for mass murder or genocide ?




It should read, US declares war on "american targetted terror". For eg. in kashmir alone more than a 1,00,000 have died because of terrorism sponsored by americas faithful ally. What has bush done nothing!!! Till 9/11 organisations that were killing ppl in kashmir were operating openly in US. This great american govt. did not feel the need to close them, coz they were not killing their citizens.!!!

Its just another selfish war waged by the americans with absolutely no intent to stop violence. all they want is oil

Again, a nice rant - a style a a bit like the rehetoric of the G-man in Nazi Germany :) - but it has nothing to do with the initial premise of my argument , and the questions i put to you. ....that Saddam allegedly - based on human rights organisation reports - kiilled up to100,000 of his own people.

You countered by citing a nice little list of worldwide offences, when i simply asked you when the US has also kiilled up to100,000 of his own people by means of mass murder of genocide as Saddamn is accused of doing.

it would help if you could stay on topic....makes the debate a lot more coherent and on point :)

[jedijome]

Well said ! Right on the money Nemodigital.

The accidedntal killing of 6 innocent Iraqis warrants a thread accusing the US or "mass murder"...yet, " the mass murder of over 100 civilians yesterday by the so called 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters' " ....hardly a peep !

Seems if you're an Arab freedom fighter , you can get away with being called a "mass murderer "...or maybe "mass murder" under Arab insurgent sensibilites is somewhere way above 100 murders !

good point, i'm sure more people are killed in iraq daily by the insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/jihadists/crazed murderers (whatever) than by U.S. forces in the region. all these numbers that state 30,000 and 40,000 iraqi people have died during the war were probably mostly the victims of the so called freedom fighters. not to say the "coalition forces" are completely blame free of causing any deaths, but lets be honest when we are assigning blame at least.

As badly planned and ill thought out the u.s. plan was i doubt they go around killing and maiming innocent people intentionally. on the other hand the so called freedom fighters don't seem to have any through targetting recruits, mosques,markets, innocent aid workers who are there to help civilians or even children. yes the U.S. is very bad [/sarcasm]

asim99 stop being a troll.

[anandwww]

I am still waiting for someone to start a thread about the mass murder of over 100 civilians yesterday by the so called 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters'. Anyone???

Is starting a thread so difficult?? dont you know how to start one :confused:

I simply wanted you to debate the point of leaders killing their own people - you didn't.

Well saddam did do mistakes. He killed ppl to have his control on Iraq. And US to is directly or indirectly doing this (on other countries though) for the benefit of their own politicians(money) and ppl (oil)


Dodging the question again...again, when has the US targetted it's own citizens for mass murder or genocide ?

Well there is no dodging. Okay what is the big deal if iran or say osama drops a nuclear bomb in US..They are not doing it to their citizens right. WIll their actions be justified?? You trying to justify illegal US occupations and wars


good point, i'm sure more people are killed in iraq daily by the insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/jihadists/crazed murderers (whatever) than by U.S. forces in the region


Just one question what the hell are US troops doing. IF they are not capable of stopping this why the f*** did they attack them. If they are not capable of bringing democracy why did they bring anarchy...saddam with limited resources controlled and US is still trying hard. The US army is missionless there..

Having said I do belive that the insurgents should be targetting the occupation forcer rather their own brothers.!!! :mad:

[poedua]

good point, i'm sure more people are killed in iraq daily by the insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/jihadists/crazed murderers (whatever) than by U.S. forces in the region. all these numbers that state 30,000 and 40,000 iraqi people have died during the war were probably mostly the victims of the so called freedom fighters. not to say the "coalition forces" are completely blame free of causing any deaths, but lets be honest when we are assigning blame at least.

As badly planned and ill thought out the u.s. plan was i doubt they go around killing and maiming innocent people intentionally. on the other hand the so called freedom fighters don't seem to have any through targetting recruits, mosques,markets, innocent aid workers who are there to help civilians or even children. yes the U.S. is very bad [/sarcasm]

asim99 stop being a troll.

"asim99 stop being a troll ".......good call jedijome :)

[jedijome]

Just one question what the hell are US troops doing. IF they are not capable of stopping this why the f*** did they attack them. If they are not capable of bringing democracy why did they bring anarchy...saddam with limited resources controlled and US is still trying hard. The US army is missionless there..

Having said I do belive that the insurgents should be targetting the occupation forcer rather their own brothers.!!! :mad:


you mean you want the U.S. to completely subdue the population? kill anyone that looks like they might pose a threat or question their way of doing things? you want them to raze entire villages and communities because some people in that community might oppose their rule? saddam kept everyone in control because of his cruel and iron grip. you guys start moaning and crying like it's the end of the world when one family is accidentally killed in the pursuit of terrorsists, yes they're terrorsits (they were planting IED's which usually kill civilians, which is the definition of a terrorist).

if you have any questions about how good saddam was at keeping his population in check and why the american's aren't as effective go do a google or wikipedia search on "anfal campaign." here are some of the highlights


"The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:

a) mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

b) the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

c) the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned," "destroyed," "demolished" and "purified," as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas); Since 1975, some 4,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed by the Former Iraqi Regime.

d) By the most conservative estimates, 50,000 rural Kurds died during Anfal. Middle East Watch has documented three cases of mass executions in late 1988; in one of them, 180 people were put to death.

e) Army engineers even destroyed the large Kurdish town of Qala Dizeh (population 70,000) and declared its environs a "prohibited area," removing the last significant population center close to the Iranian border.
from wikipedia.

the only stupidity the u.s. can be accused of is waiting this long. i initially wasn't for invading and removing saddam but after looking into it more, grudgingly i accept that it might not have been such a bad step even though the way they went about it was wrong. the "freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorists" whatever the hell they are, should just give the process a chance, and if the U.S. doesn't leave or subjugates them like saddam did then they can carry out their war against their own people.

[anandwww]

you mean you want the U.S. to completely subdue the population? kill anyone that looks like they might pose a threat or question their way of doing things? you want them to raze entire villages and communities because some people in that community might oppose their rule? saddam kept everyone in control because of his cruel and iron grip. you guys start moaning and crying like it's the end of the world when one family is accidentally killed in the pursuit of terrorsists, yes they're terrorsits (they were planting IED's which usually kill civilians, which is the definition of a terrorist).

if you have any questions about how good saddam was at keeping his population in check and why the american's aren't as effective go do a google or wikipedia search on "anfal campaign." here are some of the highlights


from wikipedia.

the only stupidity the u.s. can be accused of is waiting this long. i initially wasn't for invading and removing saddam but after looking into it more, grudgingly i accept that it might not have been such a bad step even though the way they went about it was wrong. the "freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorists" whatever the hell they are, should just give the process a chance, and if the U.S. doesn't leave or subjugates them like saddam did then they can carry out their war against their own people.

JUST TO NOTE DURING THAT PERIOD IRAQ WAS A FRIEND AND ALLY OF US. US WAS A SILENT DUMBASS DURING THAT TIME...why are they making it an issue now??

Reg. your first question how did USA bring the katrina rioters to control?? did they raze villages?? :confused:

[poedua]

you mean you want the U.S. to completely subdue the population? kill anyone that looks like they might pose a threat or question their way of doing things? you want them to raze entire villages and communities because some people in that community might oppose their rule? saddam kept everyone in control because of his cruel and iron grip. you guys start moaning and crying like it's the end of the world when one family is accidentally killed in the pursuit of terrorsists, yes they're terrorsits (they were planting IED's which usually kill civilians, which is the definition of a terrorist).

if you have any questions about how good saddam was at keeping his population in check and why the american's aren't as effective go do a google or wikipedia search on "anfal campaign." here are some of the highlights


from wikipedia.

the only stupidity the u.s. can be accused of is waiting this long. i initially wasn't for invading and removing saddam but after looking into it more grudgingly i accept that it might not have been such a bad step even though the way they went about it was wrong. the "freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorists" whatever the hell they are, should just give the process a chance, and if the U.S. doesn't leave or subjugates them like saddam did then they can carry out their war against their own people.

Good post. Regarding your post....

"The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:

a) mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

b) the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

c) the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned," "destroyed," "demolished" and "purified," as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas); Since 1975, some 4,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed by the Former Iraqi Regime.

d) By the most conservative estimates, 50,000 rural Kurds died during Anfal. Middle East Watch has documented three cases of mass executions in late 1988; in one of them, 180 people were put to death.

e) Army engineers even destroyed the large Kurdish town of Qala Dizeh (population 70,000) and declared its environs a "prohibited area," removing the last significant population center close to the Iranian border.

I look at that litany or horror and persecution above and wonder a) why did the US allowed it to go on and b) has there been any other "official " head of state in the past 30 years as brutal toward his own citizens - as exemplified by mass murder and persecution - as Saddam as has been ? Perhaps Pol Pot - not sure if he was in a leadership position though, as the head of the government - and Rwanda was at theh hands of armed forces...both had higher death tolls of citizens.

[jedijome]

why because the u.s. at the time was too busy keeping an eye on Iran and the U.S.S.R. to really bother getting involved with internal affairs of Iraq. They were happily buying weapons, fighting iran and supposedly being good little friends. The U.S. backed what they thought was the lesser of two evils, at the time, and in retrospect they were probably right. 1987-1990 was a critical time for the world with the U.S.S.R. finally coming unglued causing a potentially volatile situation the world over.

i guess there were rumblings but no one really knew the extent of the genocide. it's all becoming really apparent now after everything is said and done. plus really the only people we should be blaming are ourselves, for not demanding more of our governments.

on another note, genocide happens all the time but if it doesn't affect our own self comfort we don't care. whats your point? you wan't the U.S. to get involved everytime something bad happens? why don't you blame other countries for not stepping up and doing something too? britian (the traditional colonial power), germany and the russians were just as pally with iraq at the time, why didn't they do anything? so were all the other arab nations around the region? why does the U.S. always get stuck with the blame? it's like finally someone in the whole goddamn world figures it out , they do the right thing but go about doing it the wrong way and maybe even for the wrong reasons but then they're villifed completely. yes the end doesn't justify the means but it sure as hell beats the status quo.

like martin luther once said "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." we're all just as guilty for this whole mess, yes even us canadians.

[anandwww]

why because the u.s. at the time was too busy keeping an eye on Iran and the U.S.S.R. to really bother getting involved with internal affairs of Iraq. They were happily buying weapons, fighting iran and supposedly being good little friends.

Really. Why do they poke their nose into internal iraqi affairs now?? coz iraq is no longer the faithful servant!!! And yeah the US did know the use of mustard gas against iran. They were happily enjoying it

i guess there were rumblings but no one really knew the extent of the genocide. it's all becoming really apparent now after everything is said and done. plus really the only people we should be blaming are ourselves, for not demanding more of our governments..

How do you think these will be unearthed now. Just coz some saddam hater has put it in wiki or in his website?? For sure either things are exaggerated or may be it was even worse.

on another note, genocide happens all the time but if it doesn't affect our own self comfort we don't care. whats your point? you wan't the U.S. to get involved everytime something bad happens? why don't you blame other countries for not stepping up and doing something too?.

No one wanted a war in Iraq now. Why did they go there?? REMEMBER THE MAIN MISSION WAS WMDS. Even now they were interested in their own security rather than the well being of the iraqis. TALIBAN WERE doing tortures (to a lesser extent) before 9/11. Did the world and US not know that taliban was spreading radical views and illtreating people. What did the US do?? Well in march or april that year a big taliban minister was in US to sign some oil deal.

britian (the traditional colonial power), germany and the russians were just as pally with iraq at the time, why didn't they do anything? so were all the other arab nations around the region? why does the U.S. always get stuck with the blame?.

Because these nations dont keep changing their loyalty. They are selfish but not as selfish as US

like martin luther once said "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." we're all just as guilty for this whole mess, yes even us canadians.

Yes US is prosporing on the blood and cries of the third world while the rest of the world is watching it happily...

[jedijome]

nothing you said made any sense at all, you're just getting emotional and arguing pointlessly.

this just went from a discussion to a pointless argument. have a nice weekend.

[anandwww]

nothing you said made any sense at all, you're just getting emotional and arguing pointlessly.

this just went from a discussion to a pointless argument. have a nice weekend.

nice weekend to you as well. Cant talk much to ppl who support selfish america in its illegal wars. No wonder bush and blair were reelected....

[poedua]

Yes US is prosporing on the blood and cries of the third world while the rest of the world is watching it happily...

Nice prose. :)

Your true calling is obviously writing propaganda

If i didn't know better...I'd swear you were related to Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf !!!!!

[asim99]

people who think this is not a mass murder are either deluding themselves or do not know better...or may be they are simply trolling here

dropping bombs over innocent civilians IS mass murder, more so when the cowards flying the planes know that the accuracy of their target is very suspect

the whole BS about intent is just that...pure BS...

the very fact that the targets are not precise when the bombs are being dropped on civilians, shows that the bombers do not care for the deaths of innocent civilians ('collateral damage')

it was a mass murder because the dumbass bombers and their bosses knew, or should have known, the inaccuracy of their bombing procedures...and how their mistakes can kill large number (yes, 6 people dead is a large number)

[asim99]

Nice prose. :)

Your true calling is obviously writing propaganda

If i didn't know better...I'd swear you were related to Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf !!!!!

you forgot to mention the propaganda and the ludicrous statements of rumsfeld and chenney about how they'll win the war easily...

[poedua]

you forgot to mention the propaganda and the ludicrous statements of rumsfeld and chenney about how they'll win the war easily...

I would have .....except ......he sounded more like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

And trust me.......nothing Rumsfeld and Cheney could have come up with ( they just made bad predictions proving how 'cluless ' they both are IMO ) could match the "gems " Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf came up with...this guy could have easily taught a course on propaganda - or the power of positive thinking at the very least ! :)

Like these "gems "he came up with as the US had surrounded Baghdad and pretty much taken over his country and Saddam was nowhere to be found ...



"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

"They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a hollywood movie. You do not believe them."

"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."

"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."


You gotta love him and "the glass is half full "guys like him ! :)

[poedua]

asim, arguing with us or name calling us does not help support your cause, it's merely dividing us further.

We understand what you are saying, we just don't agree with the manner in which you are presenting this event.

You are merely laying blame on the pilot, and we all feel that is inappropriate. From the pilots perspective it was purely an accident and I'm confident he/she will live with that guilt forever and surely wish he/she could undo that damage.

War is hell.

Perhaps he thinks those 2 jets that slammed in to the twin towers on 9/11 was just a genuine "accident in navigation " too, thus, not worthy of being labelled as a "mass murder "....perhaps the flights manuals should have been in Arabic and we could avoided the "accident " ? :)

asim99 - in all seriousness....I assume you agree that the 9/11 attack was in fact a "mass murder " ( using your definition ) of innocent civilians as well ?

[Txiasaeia]

the whole BS about intent is just that...pure BS...

Funny - that's exactly how I feel about this thread.

[asim99]

asim99 - in all seriousness....I assume you agree that the 9/11 attack was in fact a "mass murder " ( using your definition ) of innocent civilians as well ?

i highly doubt you are 'serious' in asking this question...of course, it was a mass murder

[asim99]

Funny - that's exactly how I feel about this thread.

stay away, then...see how easy that is ;)

[asim99]

You are merely laying blame on the pilot, and we all feel that is inappropriate. From the pilots perspective it was purely an accident and I'm confident he/she will live with that guilt forever and surely wish he/she could undo that damage.

War is hell.

i am blaming not just the pilot but the entire process that allows for bombing in cases where there any (regardless of how small it may be) chance of innocent people being murdered...

war may be hell..but why should it be so only for the miserable innocent civilians on the ground who are being bombed from the comfort of skies...

excuse me if i do not have any sympathy for the pilot, his cohorts, and his comand who commit mass murders like this

[Txiasaeia]

excuse me if i do not have any sympathy for the pilot, his cohorts, and his comand who commit mass murders like this

The problem is with your definition. The US forces do not admit to "mass murder" and the event wasn't "mass murder." End of story. Call it something else and this conversation might go forward, but as it is you're claiming that the US admitted to something which they patently and obviously did not. It's simply the wrong term, and gives the wrong connotations for this conversation.

[poedua]

i am blaming not just the pilot but the entire process that allows for bombing in cases where there any (regardless of how small it may be) chance of innocent people being murdered...

That's a fair enough assessment.

So, I take it you also condemn / blame the Iraqi insurgents and Hamas, where in both those cases, they have actually gone one step further than the Americans and removed the chance factor of killing innocent civilians and replaced it with a liklihood / certainty factor - since both the Iraqi insurgents and Hamas actually TARGET CIVILIANS as a matter of policy and strategy ???

Do you hold the same measure of disdain for "the entire process that allows" Hamas and the Iraq insurgents to contunue their campaign of "mass murder " against innocent civilians as you obviously hold for the Americans ??

Surely you would concede that Hamas and the Iraq insurgents are no better than the Americans when it comes to the disregard for the lives of innocent civilians during military campaigns ? And, that you " do not have any sympathy for " Hamas and the Iraq insurgents " who commit mass murders like this"

I just want to make surre this isn't some kind of "anti- american rant "you're on , but rather, you simply hate and have disdain the killing of innocent civilians - no matter who is behind it - Arabs included :)

[poedua]

Poedua, you missed the mark with your twin towers analogy. It's obvious to even children the difference between accidentally dropping a bomb in the wrong place, versus intentionally hijacking a commercial airliner with intentions of flying it into a skyscraper to cause murder and mayhem. Honestly I don't even know why I bothered responding to that.)

point well taken

a. it was meant to be sacracsm

b. it was a LAME example of intentional civilian mass murder ( of 3 thousand ) compared to the accidental mass murder ( of 6 ) ....quickest example i could come up with , but you make a valid a point , it probably wasn't a good one to illiustrate the point that civilian death is unacceptable anywhere...better effort ( and less exuberance ) needed next time ! :)

[poedua]

Well current estimates in Iraq are upwards of 100,000 civilians have died.

I would assume, they're all claimed to be "accidental" by coalition forces.

So:
Non-Iraqi terrorist killings (3000?) compared to Iraqi Citizens killed (100,000?)

I'm not totally sure why we're comparing 9/11 to the Iraq War.. but we are apparently.

I see your point.

My point is .....that i suspect it isn't the official policy of the US armed forces to intentionally TARGET civilians and civlian targets - as a matter of official US foreign public policy or as a matter of official US miltary strategy - and though i don't know this for sure - i doubt it is ( this is just my opinion ) ....and i actually believe the killing of the 6 was a genuine accident.

So when you say, "current estimates in Iraq are upwards of 100,000 civilians have died.", I can only assume the majority ( if 100,000 is a true number) is not intentional and not in accordance with normal US military tradition and standard practice )

What i DO know however,- for a certaintly - is that Hamas and al Queda and the Iraqi insurgents DO target civilians and civilian targets INTENTIONALLY - that is the distinction that I tried to illustrate.

I simply felt that if we condem the accidental killing of 6 civilians as a mass murder, the intentional killing of 100 civlians etc. yesterday in Iraq by insurgents is also mass murder and not the vengence of freedom fighters and should be worthy of equal or greater condemnation due to it's intent.

[poedua]

Well they have no hard numbers of deaths in Iraq. It's all estimates, though some say the real number is probably in excess of 100,000, more like 200,000.

I don't really know either (far less so than those who are coming up with these numbers).

But I'm against all killing, I don't see a point to it, it all becomes cyclical. "I am the killer of my fathers killers killer who killed my neighbour." It just doesn't end until someone makes it end.

My point is this war is entirely wrong, so yes, every non-combatant that is killed is truely horrific. Even a combatants death in my opinion is wrong.. it's not their fault they're trying to defend their country, I would do the same thing if America invaded Canada. I will stand up for my country and do what's necessary.

The war is wrong and always was. My main argument is that it's not really mass murder, that's just trying to spin this is the wrong way. Leave the neo-cons and Fox news to spin stories, we're better than that. It was an accidental bomb drop (presummably) by a person who also presumably would take that bomb back in a heartbeat and will forever hold in their memory that nightmare mistake.

Soldiers are there to do the job they were tricked into doing... look at vietnam, they go to war, then they come back and publicly oppose it. Heck even John Kerry who ran for president opposed the war he was in. At the time he was doing his job, but that should never have been his job.

The people who really control things should stop making such huge blunders and obligating good people to do horrific things they would never wish to do otherwise.

Bit of a succinct reply I'm afraid.

can't argue with any of what you've argued ......tend to be on-side with most of the points you brought up.....i'd hope most other sane people would feel the same way as well. :)

[batman321123]

accepting the fact they commited mass murder? yea. But i don't see why you're posting it. Everyone here knows that the US is killing a boatload of civilians every damn day. It's nothing new. Should we accept it and move on? I guess we have to, because there isn't much else we can do. What goes around comes around, and their day will come.

[poedua]

accepting the fact they commited mass murder? yea. But i don't see why you're posting it. Everyone here knows that the US is killing a boatload of civilians every damn day. It's nothing new. Should we accept it and move on? I guess we have to, because there isn't much else we can do. What goes around comes around, and their day will come.

Ditto for the insurgents and their targetting of innocent civilians - well said.

[stevethewheel]

accepting the fact they commited mass murder? yea. But i don't see why you're posting it. Everyone here knows that the US is killing a boatload of civilians every damn day. It's nothing new.


Yep they surpassed the number of US civilians killed in the 9/11 attacks before they even started the war in Iraq.

[poedua]

accepting the fact they commited mass murder? yea. But i don't see why you're posting it. Everyone here knows that the US is killing a boatload of civilians every damn day. .

How many is a "boatload of civilians " a day exactly ...more than 6 a day ?

Is the US " killing a boatload of civilians every damn day " being done by accident or intentionally ( i.e US troops and bombers are willfully and with forethougtht, targetting civlian targets and civilians for mass murder ) in your opinion ?

You weren't clear as top whether you thought the US mass murders of civilians was done by accident or done intentionally.

[poedua]

A boatload of civilians is the number of civilians a boat can hold. Perhaps more accurate would be to ask "What kind of boat?"

Anyway, considering the people who are DOING the killings aren't even sure how many they're killing, it would be even more difficult for us to even estimate the numbers.

In either case, it's a lot.. and by a lot I mean a boatload!

You can't have it both ways. Either you know the number or you don't IMO.

Seems to me that it people " aren't even sure how many they're killing, it would be even more difficult for us to even estimate the numbers "the number could be 6 a day, 10 a day .......or even 0 a day.
if you don't know ...you don't know.

In fact, if the US were intentionally ( or even accidentallly ) killing civilians by the boatload each day , I'm sure we'd be be hearing about it.

US misdeeds are just the sort to proaganda / policy fodder the Arabs are eagerly looking to report - let's face it al Jeezera reporters are crawling all over the war zone and they have countless informers watching every move the US makes in the battlefied.

If this wanton carnage of civilian life was going on as yoiu claim, it would be all over the front page news every day of al Jeezera, CNN, BBC etc. ...al Jezeera - more than anyone - wouldn't let it slip unnoticed .....not a chance.

Let's look for some hard numbers on excatly how many civilians the US are intentionally killing - just like the insurgents - and then the debate can take on some substance. Till then, it's just rhetoric and/ or propaganda IMO.

[poedua]

Yep they surpassed the number of US civilians killed in the 9/11 attacks before they even started the war in Iraq.

What's the number and from what time frame BEFORE the war ?

And are you referring to Iraqi civilians ?

[asim99]

And are you referring to Iraqi civilians ?

of course, he is...

[stevethewheel]

What's the number and from what time frame BEFORE the war ?

And are you referring to Iraqi civilians ?

No I am referring to Afghani civilians. Or maybe the US has finally done enough that we forget Al-Quaeda used Afghanistan, and the link to Iraq was, uh, well, buffed up some for PR purposes.

Maybe we all just skim over the whole Afghanistan attacks given the focus on Iraq, it's a lot more news-sexy with the deck of cards; WMD's (or lack of); enemies that are combatants and not soldiers, so no Geneva convention for them; a war that was not declared and not called a war by the warriors, etc etc etc.

I don't have the data handy anymore, but the math was that in Afghanistan alone there were as many civilians killed post 9/11 as US civilians killed on 9/11. So in terms of eye-for-an-eye that score was long settled.

All civilians killed in Iraq by forces controlled, directed, influenced etc. by the US post 9/11 would just add on top of that.

[poedua]

No I am referring to Afghani civilians. Or maybe the US has finally done enough that we forget Al-Quaeda used Afghanistan, and the link to Iraq was, uh, well, buffed up some for PR purposes.

Maybe we all just skim over the whole Afghanistan attacks given the focus on Iraq, it's a lot more news-sexy with the deck of cards; WMD's (or lack of); enemies that are combatants and not soldiers, so no Geneva convention for them; a war that was not declared and not called a war by the warriors, etc etc etc.

I don't have the data handy anymore, but the math was that in Afghanistan alone there were as many civilians killed post 9/11 as US civilians killed on 9/11. So in terms of eye-for-an-eye that score was long settled.

All civilians killed in Iraq by forces controlled, directed, influenced etc. by the US post 9/11 would just add on top of that.

Were the Afghan civilians intentionally targetted for for mass murder by the US as best you can recall ? If so, there must have been an al Jeezera article somewhere that picked up on it - as we all know, al Jeezera is among the most objective ( eastern - maybe CNN for the west - as suggested by the OP link ) source on reporting US misdeeds and war crimes in the Middle East - they certainly wouldn't have missed these atrocities & so I'd suggest al Jeezera may have the hard data to back up your accusations

Were the intentionallyt argetted as part of US official policy to target and murder civilians as you can best recall - when I say intentionally, I mean as in the same way Hamas and the Iraqi insurgents intentionally target civilians for mass murder - OR were civiiians being killed accidentally - do you recall ?

Shame you couldn't recall your source or any hard data with links, makes it dificult to make a valid charge of intentionally killing Afghan civilians against those US killers .......just based on your memory alone.

It would also be interesting to follow-up and see how many innocent civilians have the been the deliberate target of murder by Iraqi insurgents and Hamas as well...would be good to know what the benchmark is that the US is being compared to :)

Remember, unsubstantiated charges are suspect at best....just look at the US and the bold faced lies and progaganda they spewed out about WMD - all wild accusations that were unsubtantiated - and yet they led to the very bloodsed that is related to this OP.

[stevethewheel]

Shame you couldn't recall your source or any hard data with links, makes it dificult to make a valid charge of intentionally killing Afghan civilians against those US killers .......just based on your memory alone.


Yeah I get what you are trying to say. Dunno how much you see me post. Decide whether or not you trust me, or look it up for yourself and show me the light. IIRC I first heard it on the CBC radio, then read about it later.

As well I did NOT say that the US intentionally targetted civilians, and I did NOT say that I ever heard that accusation from a reputable source.

Following the tone of your post we should also be asking this question...just to be objective...

Did the 9/11 attacks even target civilians? Perhaps the targets were only the buildings, the jetliners merely explosive materials and the civilians were really collateral damage. As I recall (again, asking for your trust on my recollection) Osama Bin Laden was surprised (and overjoyed) that the entire buildings fell down...he did not expect that would happen. So maybe they are a not such a bad bunch of fellas, and we need to follow the same standard with the US results.

-edit- ok maybe the attitude toward my post is coming from the thread title. Once I got reading the thread I forgot about the "intentional" part. I will say that whatever the real US policy is, they have been ineffective at protecting civilians from harm caused by US attacks. What I said about the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan stands, but not the context of intentional.

[Ojam]

Criminal law isn't my main interest, but doesn't murder imply something that was pre-meditated (mens rea), so if that was to be labeled in such a way shouldn't it be called Man Slaughter?

[Txiasaeia]

Criminal law isn't my main interest, but doesn't murder imply something that was pre-meditated (mens rea), so if that was to be labeled in such a way shouldn't it be called Man Slaughter?

Yes, you're absolutely right. "Murder" implies intent, end of story.

[stevethewheel]

Wow. The OP sure read a lot into the original story to get to this thread title.

It's a lot different situation than this infamous and horrible action by US troops (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html)