Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera

[Calax]

~Di, your saying that it's ok for the us military to attack civilian targets if the targets have some military value, right?

 

 

Well look at it this way, the terrorists might be attacking the schools because the gym is being used as a staging area, they attacked a bridge to deny the army the ability to cross that bridge. Ultimatly what your side of the arguement is from what I can tell is that we are better because we publicly justify our attacks.

 

At least that's what I got from it.

[Commissar]

~Di, your saying that it's ok for the us military to attack civilian targets if the targets have some military value, right?

 

 

Well look at it this way, the terrorists might be attacking the schools because the gym is being used as a staging area, they attacked a bridge to deny the army the ability to cross that bridge. Ultimatly what your side of the arguement is from what I can tell is that we are better because we publicly justify our attacks.

 

At least that's what  I got from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you were right, I'd agree with you.

 

That's not the way terrorists fight. They don't attack bridges, unless there are plenty of people on them. They don't attack a gym, unless there are people in it. They're not looking to take objectives or destroy our ability to conduct a war, because they're very well aware that they cannot accomplish that goal. They'll attack our soldiers, but they'll also attack anyone they think might make us decide to throw in the towel. It's called unconventional, asymmetric warfare for a reason.

[~Di]

~Di, your saying that it's ok for the us military to attack civilian targets if the targets have some military value, right?

 

 

Well look at it this way, the terrorists might be attacking the schools because the gym is being used as a staging area, they attacked a bridge to deny the army the ability to cross that bridge. Ultimatly what your side of the arguement is from what I can tell is that we are better because we publicly justify our attacks.

 

At least that's what  I got from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was not what I wrote, and that was not what I said. You may want to reread my post without trying to spin the words into an ulterior meaning.

 

I shall repeat the crux of my post:

 

Point Number One: "... it is totally disingenuous to try to brush off the deliberate targeting of civilians, including children, in markets, schools, hospitals, etc., for mass murder simply to instill terror in the population, or compare it with civilians who die in legitimate (although I know the word "legitimate" can be beaten to death in any context) military targets during the course of war. "

 

This means exactly what it says. I cannot state it more simplistically.

 

Point Number Two: " ...anyone who pretends that civilian deaths caused by the destruction of legitimate military targets is on a par with the terrorist who targets and deliberately dismembers several dozen school children seriously needs a reality check."

 

This basically means that anyone who justifies a group of terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them, who deliberately murder en mass non-combatant civilians in non-military arenas like schools, hospitals, markets, or on city streets, or who video themselves sawing the living heads off of screaming civilian aid workers simply to cause panic, terror and chaos and who pretends that deliberate civilian slaughter is on a par with collateral damage done when legitimate military targets are attacked during wartime has a freaking screw loose.

 

Is my position more clear now?

Edited November 30, 2005 by ~Di

[SteveThaiBinh]

On the one hand, we have the targetting of civilians with the intention of killing civilians, something we would all condemn. On the other hand, we have the targetting of enemy combatants, which results in the accidental deaths of civilians, something some find acceptable (though regrettable), and some find unacceptable. In between, we have a greyer area, of targetting enemy combatants while knowing full well that there are civilians in the way who will be killed by this action. Their deaths can hardly be called accidental, however much the military may regret them. But is this closer to the first example, or to the second?

[Judge Hades]

I understand what you are saying ~Di, but in some cultures they see no difference between military and non-military. They see one enemy, one set of people. It doesn't matter if one wears a uniform or not.

[Reveilled]

On the one hand, we have the targetting of civilians with the intention of killing civilians, something we would all condemn.  On the other hand, we have the targetting of enemy combatants, which results in the accidental deaths of civilians, something some find acceptable (though regrettable), and some find unacceptable.  In between, we have a greyer area, of targetting enemy combatants while knowing full well that there are civilians in the way who will be killed by this action.  Their deaths can hardly be called accidental, however much the military may regret them.  But is this closer to the first example, or to the second?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it would depend on the target itself. A munitions factory is crewed by civilians, but I would say that attacking one leans far closer to the second example than, say, targeting a news agency (even if it is a state-run outfit broadcasting nothing but propaganda). Something like the Firebombing of Dresden would fall squarely into Category One, regardless of whether facilities in the city were legitimate military targets.

 

There's some point where the level of civilian casualties becomes so high that it becomes impossible to justify by saying merely that their deaths were not intended. But I couldn't say what that threshold is.

[Commissar]

On the one hand, we have the targetting of civilians with the intention of killing civilians, something we would all condemn.  On the other hand, we have the targetting of enemy combatants, which results in the accidental deaths of civilians, something some find acceptable (though regrettable), and some find unacceptable.  In between, we have a greyer area, of targetting enemy combatants while knowing full well that there are civilians in the way who will be killed by this action.  Their deaths can hardly be called accidental, however much the military may regret them.  But is this closer to the first example, or to the second?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wholly depends on the context, as others have said. Looking at it from the most common perspective, that of the small unit, it very often comes down to survival. If insurgents are employing civvie screens, and literally shooting over the shoulder of a woman carrying a baby, who's volunteered to act as a shield, many of the moralists around this joint would insist that our unfortunate fireteam/squad/platoon/whatever get shredded, since shooting back would knowingly result in a civilian's death.

 

Hiroshima. Nagasaki. There's no doubt that those two bombs ended the war with Japan, which likely would've involved a massive invasion, from which many more deaths could theoretically have come. Does that justify it? I don't know. I'm glad as hell I wasn't the one who had to make such decisions - though as they tell us around here, winners want the ball.

 

Maybe it's an occupational hazard, but I err on the side of our guys. I'm very well aware that the American track record is far from perfect - I've pointed it out myself several times - and I've repeatedly stated that we need to fight as cleanly as possible at all times, but I really don't understand the mentality that actively delights in latching onto any shred of wrongdoing and screeching as loud as possible about it. Not to be pompous, but a lot of it really does stem from the given individual not having a clue in hell as to what they're talking about.

 

Edit: And I just read via the AP that the peace activist group that had four of its members kidnapped by terrorists on Saturday blames, you guessed it, not the terrorists, but rather the coalition for initiating the war in the first place and forcing them to go...you know, act for peace, in the region.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Commissar

[SteveThaiBinh]

There's some point where the level of civilian casualties becomes so high that it becomes impossible to justify by saying merely that their deaths were not intended.  But I couldn't say what that threshold is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me either, at least not without doing some serious research on the issue. I do get the feeling that the 'coalition' in Iraq has put its threshold somewhere lower than I would.

If insurgents are employing civvie screens, and literally shooting over the shoulder of a woman carrying a baby, who's volunteered to act as a shield, many of the moralists around this joint would insist that our unfortunate fireteam/squad/platoon/whatever get shredded, since shooting back would knowingly result in a civilian's death.

First of all, I don't think many people would blame the squad for firing in self defense. I might blame the commanders for sending the squad into a situation if they knew it was likely that civilians would be killed, but not the squad itself. The problem is that not all situations are as clear cut as the one you mention.

...and I've repeatedly stated that we need to fight as cleanly as possible at all times, but I really don't understand the mentality that actively delights in latching onto any shred of wrongdoing and screeching as loud as possible about it.

Is it so surprising that we hold our own soldiers to a higher standard than the terrorists? Also, there's a case that people are either edging toward or actively trying to build, and these incidents are important for that. It is that a combination of the wrongdoing that we hear of, plus the general lack of capability to pacify Iraq effectively, add up to our making matters worse by being there. We are told that we need to stay in Iraq long enough to finish the job, but if our troops are actually preventing the job from being done, then we need to withdraw them completely. In the past, I've believed that we should stay and at least try to fix the things we broke, but now I suspect that the sooner we leave, the better.

Edit: And I just read via the AP that the peace activist group that had four of its members kidnapped by terrorists on Saturday blames, you guessed it, not the terrorists, but rather the coalition for initiating the war in the first place and forcing them to go...you know, act for peace, in the region.

If some of my workers had been taken hostage, I would be doing everything in my power to show that they are anti-war and anti-US, in order to increase their chances of being released. Most likely it won't work, as it didn't with Margaret Hassan, as the insurgents do not distinguish between military or civilians, westerners or Iraqis, but it's worth a try.

Edited November 30, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[taks]

First of all, I don't think many people would blame the squad for firing in self defense.

yes, a lot of people would and do, though they are pretty extreme.

 

The problem is that not all situations are as clear cut as the one you mention.

which goes both ways. it's very easy to sit back and armchair quarterback as we do in here (or anywhere not being shot at). it's easy to say "they had another options" when you don't have a gun pointed in your direction. put any of us on the front line, in the real situation, and our opinions may be changed rather quickly. life or death decisions made over a good night's sleep are much different than those made the instant the guy standing next to you drops from a bullet to the brain.

 

Is it so surprising that we hold our own soldiers to a higher standard than the terrorists?

nope, we must. there are limits, as war is hell and putting too high of a standard on troops may risk more lives anyway.

 

taks

[Commissar]

First of all, I don't think many people would blame the squad for firing in self defense.  I might blame the commanders for sending the squad into a situation if they knew it was likely that civilians would be killed, but not the squad itself.  The problem is that not all situations are as clear cut as the one you mention.

That has happened and will continue to happen on regular patrols. They use any cover they can get that they think will make us pause and consider. You can "blame the commander" all you want, but it doesn't really work like that. Rarely are you ever in a position where there's not the potential for civilians to get hurt. The insurgents and terrorists love populated areas, because they know they can often turn it into a win-win situation.

 

Is it so surprising that we hold our own soldiers to a higher standard than the terrorists?  Also, there's a case that people are either edging toward or actively trying to build, and these incidents are important for that.  It is that a combination of the wrongdoing that we hear of, plus the general lack of capability to pacify Iraq effectively, add up to our making matters worse by being there.  We are told that we need to stay in Iraq long enough to finish the job, but if our troops are actually preventing the job from being done, then we need to withdraw them completely.  In the past, I've believed that we should stay and at least try to fix the things we broke, but now I suspect that the sooner we leave, the better.

I realize I made a mistake in my earlier statement, and now I'm in something of a pickle as to how to clarify. Essentially, a lot of first reports out are just plain wrong, and people can misinterpret things pretty badly if they don't know what they're talking about, or if they're simply looking for something to scream over. Most often, both are true. I've said earlier that we do indeed need to do it better and cleaner, and that I don't buy the argument that we can afford to do bad things just because the insurgents or terrorists are doing worse. On the other hand, some people simply delight far too much in attempting to paint a picture of the US occupation as given to wanton slaughter.

 

The troops aren't preventing the job from getting done. There aren't any undecideds in Iraq any longer, if there ever really were. The people who like us, like us, and the people who hate us aren't going to stop hating us no matter how many flowers peace activists shove down rifle barrels. That's the way it is.

If some of my workers had been taken hostage, I would be doing everything in my power to show that they are anti-war and anti-US, in order to increase their chances of being released.  Most likely it won't work, as it didn't with Margaret Hassan, as the insurgents do not distinguish between military or civilians, westerners or Iraqis, but it's worth a try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's fine, except they didn't need to be there in the first place. A peace tour through Iraq is, quite honestly, one of the dumbest things I could think of if I was trying. Furthermore, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines don't get the same luxury of being able to denounce the occupation if they get captured, and they are in fact obliged to be there. These idiots put themselves in a bad situation, got precisely what just about anyone with a functioning brain cell would have predicted, and are now attempting to both score points and get their people back in a rather cowardly way.

[Hildegard]

That's fine, except they didn't need to be there in the first place.  A peace tour through Iraq is, quite honestly, one of the dumbest things I could think of if I was trying.  Furthermore, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines don't get the same luxury of being able to denounce the occupation if they get captured, and they are in fact obliged to be there.  These idiots put themselves in a bad situation, got precisely what just about anyone with a functioning brain cell would have predicted, and are now attempting to both score points and get their people back in a rather cowardly way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are foreigners in Iraq that are privately contracted by the Coalition forces or by the Iraqi provisional goverment through their companies or in some cases individually....sure it's a risk going to Iraq, but hey, with the paychecks they offer many would rethink this and some would take the chance and go with it - their life their choice.

 

When it comes to humanitarians and other aid workers that go to Iraq, I'm sorry but I wouldn't call them idiots, if they really wonna help the Iraqi people through their work so let them, I'm pretty sure they understand the risk given the fact of numerous kidnappings we see on TV, it may seem dumb, but when you look at it it's also a very brave thing to do. Again it's their life their choice.

 

When it comes to the method of retrieving them if kidnapped, heck if I knew there was a slightless chance they're going to be released if they or I claim they're against the ocupation, anti-Israely or anti-US etc. I would do so, cowardly or not. Although I would say so any given day "

 

 

 

Goodbye everybody....tomorrow morning I'm leaving and turning a completely new page in my life, if you never again hear from me I wish you all the luck, health and happiness in your life.

 

 

See you all in an other lifetime

Edited November 30, 2005 by Hildegard

[Judge Hades]

Eh?

[Surreptishus]

He's going to prison.

[Judge Hades]

What?!?!?!

[SteveThaiBinh]

The troops aren't preventing the job from getting done.  There aren't any undecideds in Iraq any longer, if there ever really were.  The people who like us, like us, and the people who hate us aren't going to stop hating us no matter how many flowers peace activists shove down rifle barrels.  That's the way it is. 

It seems that people who like us are rather thin on the ground: Link. Do you think all the 82% of people who are 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops are active in the insurgency? Of course not. There are many complex opinions and many shades of grey. The world doesn't divide neatly into 'with us or against us'.

 

Hildegard hinted that he might be leaving a few days ago. Who know what the reason may be? Whatever it is, I wish you luck.

Edited December 1, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[Commissar]

The troops aren't preventing the job from getting done.  There aren't any undecideds in Iraq any longer, if there ever really were.  The people who like us, like us, and the people who hate us aren't going to stop hating us no matter how many flowers peace activists shove down rifle barrels.  That's the way it is. 

It seems that people who like us are rather thin on the ground: Link. Do you think all the 82% of people who are 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops are active in the insurgency? Of course not. There are many complex opinions and many shades of grey. The world doesn't divide neatly into 'with us or against us'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote of me suggesting that everyone who doesn't like us or doesn't want us there is involved in the insurgency or terrorist acts.

 

What I'm saying is that without any - and I mean zero, none - allegations of misconduct or things going wrong on the ground, those people would still not want us there. None of them would go, "Well, gee, the coalition pulled off the impossible: they performed sustained and large-scale military operations without a single accident or mistake, or even misconduct by any of over a quarter of a million people. I suppose that I am now in favor of their occupation of my country because of this."

[SteveThaiBinh]

What I'm saying is that without any - and I mean zero, none - allegations of misconduct or things going wrong on the ground, those people would still not want us there.  None of them would go, "Well, gee, the coalition pulled off the impossible: they performed sustained and large-scale military operations without a single accident or mistake, or even misconduct by any of over a quarter of a million people.  I suppose that I am now in favor of their occupation of my country because of this."

So Iraqi hearts and minds were unwinnable from the outset? Perhaps. You're suggesting that Iraqi public opinion neither affects nor is affected by the success of coalition troops in creating security for Iraqi civilians? I just want to check that's what you're saying before I respond if I can.

[Commissar]

What I'm saying is that without any - and I mean zero, none - allegations of misconduct or things going wrong on the ground, those people would still not want us there.  None of them would go, "Well, gee, the coalition pulled off the impossible: they performed sustained and large-scale military operations without a single accident or mistake, or even misconduct by any of over a quarter of a million people.  I suppose that I am now in favor of their occupation of my country because of this."

So Iraqi hearts and minds were unwinnable from the outset? Perhaps. You're suggesting that Iraqi public opinion neither affects nor is affected by the success of coalition troops in creating security for Iraqi civilians? I just want to check that's what you're saying before I respond if I can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I'm saying that in the absence of things like the Abu Ghraib pictures and unfortunate civilian casualties, the people who truly hate the coalition and want it gone now would not have changed that opinion.

[SteveThaiBinh]

No, I'm saying that in the absence of things like the Abu Ghraib pictures and unfortunate civilian casualties, the people who truly hate the coalition and want it gone now would not have changed that opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I get it now. So what I'd say in response is that civilian casualties and Abu Ghraib have probably swelled the ranks of those who hate the coalition and are willing to oppose it actively. I can't offer any evidence for this, however I believe I've heard a senior British security person say on TV that recruitment for the IRA always used to go up whenever there was a shooting of a civilian by the police or British soldiers. Can't source it, though. So I agree that we started with a core of haters who were never going to be converted to another view.

[Commissar]

No, I'm saying that in the absence of things like the Abu Ghraib pictures and unfortunate civilian casualties, the people who truly hate the coalition and want it gone now would not have changed that opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I get it now. So what I'd say in response is that civilian casualties and Abu Ghraib have probably swelled the ranks of those who hate the coalition and are willing to oppose it actively. I can't offer any evidence for this, however I believe I've heard a senior British security person say on TV that recruitment for the IRA always used to go up whenever there was a shooting of a civilian by the police or British soldiers. Can't source it, though. So I agree that we started with a core of haters who were never going to be converted to another view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely.

 

On the other hand, it's incredibly naive to assume that all of these incidents were preventable. Abu Ghraib was; 'everyday' civilian casualties are certainly not. Taks pointed out earlier that Monday morning quarterbacking it from the States is a whole different story from being downrange and having to make truly unimaginable decisions at a moment's notice, well aware that if it's wrong, your career's over, you've killed an innocent, or, worst of all, you'll be writing a letter.

[Weiser_Cain]

I'd like to bomb a lot of places but I don't go around telling everybody... wait a min.

[Walsingham]

I'd like to bomb a lot of places but I don't go around telling everybody... wait a min.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Judge Hades]

I want to blow up Boone, my home town. That place really sucked. Doesn't any one have a spare nuclear missile that I can use?

[Gabrielle]

I want to blow up Boone, my home town.  That place really sucked.  Doesn't any one have a spare nuclear missile that I can use?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a few but prefer to use them on the Middle East.

[Commissar]

I'm surprised nobody's gone nutty over the whole military-planting-news-stories-in-Iraqi-papers thing yet.