http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=117531
I’m not sure what the debate here is, but as soon as Milum explains what his is about, I’m sure something will come up.
One beheaded American invader > 22 Iraqi farmers. I see now, what great humanitarians Milum and Starving Artist are.
Zag, I don’t know what you seek to debate here. If there is an “up” side to this, I cannot imagine what it might be. It’s as if Osama bin Laden were writing our marching orders, with the determination to recruit as many enemies as can possibly be harvested.
Is there some sort of invisible mental force field surrounding Iraq, so that every person we send there instantly loses thier marbles?
From CNN
Do you have any indications that it WASN’T a safehouse, you are you just assuming that the administration is lieing? And if it was a safehouse, and there were weapons and amunition stored there (secondary explosions and all that…or do ‘farmers’ generally stockpile weapons too?), then are you saying that the US still shouldn’t have gone after it because the terrorist might have been using women and children as human shields?
I don’t know whether or not this was another screw up. There simply isn’t enough evidence one way or the other. But you are jumping to conclusions here IMO.
BTW, where was your outrage directed at Al-Zarqawi in the last few weeks with all the car bombings. From your own article:
And thats ONE bombing which arbitrarily killed 35 and wounded 145…deliberately, not on accident. I must have missed your pithy OP on that one. Or do we have a dual standard here? Its ok for Al-Zarqawi to DELIBERATELY kill people via car bomb, etc, but its horrible for the US to accidentally kill people ‘innocent civilians’ when its going after what it thought (and might very well have been) terrorist safe houses?? Why is that? Cause the US is supposed to be the ‘good guys’? Or are we supposed to be omnisient gods or something, never fucking up or making a mistake? Or is it your contention that we deliberately went after these women and children directly?
-XT
Until Pentagon claims are independently verified, I just assume that everything that Rumsfeld says is a lie. Based on previous experience, is this unreasonable?
This isn’t exactly on the subject, but these incidents and the cases of friendly fire call into question, at leat for me, the thing that is being discussed in connection with the 911 inquirely. Under what conditions will pilots be ordered to shoot down a civilian airliner?
Don’t you see? It’s ok when we do this sort of stuff, because we’re Americans and America is special and can do no wrong.
It´s different because we don´t get to see the faces of those 22 people as they die.
In any case, i think that this belongs to the pit, YMMV.
If this does, Milum’s thread goes with it. :-p
Fine by me. 
Two answers on that :
-First, if I remember correctly, the bombing you’re refering to, if I remember correctly targetted a recruitment center for the Iraki army. So, the terrorists could say as well that their target was as valid as the american one (suspected terrorists vs people in the process of joining the ennemy), and the civilians killed mere “collateral damage”.
-Second, if you’re happy with the US having the same level of standarts than terrorists (which is exactly what you’re doing by comparing the two attacks), then fine. But “not worst than Al Qaida” isn’t exactly was is expected from western democracies.
And concerning the “how would you know that it wasn’t really a terrorist safehouse”? Maybe it was, but shouldn’t the burden of the proof belong to the people who bomb the building and kill people (including children) in the process than the other way around? If the US army bombed your neighbor’s house killing everybody inside, and stated that there were terrorists in the house according to their sources, would you accept this as a valid justification? Would you said to infuriated people “are you sure there weren’t actually terrorists in the house?” After all, if it’s a “global war on terror”, there’s no reason to act differently in your neighborhood than in some remote country…
Actually, yes, there are reasons why you might want to act differently in Iraq than in my neighborhood.
As far as the burden of proof, perhaps the twenty minutes of secondary explosions from illegally stored ammunition might be some indication that this was not as innocent a site as the anti-US fanatics would have us believe.
But, of course, we may never know for certain. And therefore those on one side will assume that the US is deliberately targetting civilians, and those on the other will assume it was what the military said it was.
Regards,
Shodan
It was for Iraqi Security Forces, not necessarily the Army. And its BOMBINGS, not a single bombing…as in a series of such things. Do you know (or care) how many innocent civilians (men, women and children) have been killed in such attacks? No? Why is that…and why hasn’t the OP (or anyone else I’m aware of) started an outraged thread about THAT?
Sure, the terrorists can use excuses if they please…I expect it in fact. However, the civilians weren’t ‘collateral damage’ no matter how you stretch it…they were part of the target. It was intentional, just like the Subway in Spain and the twin towers in New York, etc etc. Its all part of the tactics of terror.
Who said the same standards? All I said was, where is the outrage about AQ and the arbitrary car bombings that have been going on for quite a while now. Where is the outrage over the assasinations and attempted assassinations?
I’m saying there is a dual standard of JUDGEMENT on this BOARD, not that AQ is comparable to the US as far as standards of conduct goes…anyone even attempting to make such a statement is out of touch with reality if they are comparing the US’s actions with those of AQ. There is also a knee jerk denial of anything the military/US Government says (i.e. everything is a ‘lie’), where as there is a seeming pass for any brutality the terrorists do and say…because they are right and just I suppose, or they are the underdog, or maybe just the fact that they aren’t the US…I have no idea. As if all those things excuse them, whereas nothing the US does could possibly be excused…must be evil or by design.
Look, its a war. You might not approve of the war, you might not thing the US should be there. I don’t personally approve of the war OR think the US should be there. But they didn’t ask my opinion before this stupid invasion, and the reality is we ARE there…and so are the terrorists and insurgents. There are also civilians there as well, who are caught in the cross-fire. The terrorists blow shit up, attack the US, Iraqi military and civilians alike…and the US responds by trying to surgically attack back. But you CAN’T surgically attack people who cloak themselves in the native population and use them (as well as religious symbols like mosques and such) as a shield…especially when your ‘surgical’ instrument is the US Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines…i.e. your ‘surgical’ instrument is a hammer.
When you attack people that shield themselves with women and children and innocent civilians, the reality is some will die. So, your choices are to quit and give in to the terrorists, or fight and try and minimize the suffering and death. Guess what…if the UN was in charge there and chose to continue the fight, civilians will STILL die when they are caught in the crossfire…unless the UN chooses to give up of course and bolt for home. My guess we’ll see this same kind of thing happen when Kerry is President (which I think is nearly a forgone conclusion at this point)…the only difference is that we won’t see these kinds of threads then.
-XT
This is the standard on this board.
Anyone who fights back against the US’s invasion of their country is a “terrorist” who obviously “shields themselves with women and children.” Never mind that it is us flying overhead and bombarding their neighborhoods, from which they fight desperately outmatched. Nevermind that, they are terrorist attackers.
We picked this war. It is too late to sit back and cry about people fighting back and (no shit) using “unfair tactics.” What the hell did you expect to happen, them to greet us with open arms and flowers? Oh… right.
Tell me, what, exactly, has our military done to deserve being taken at its word when it says “there were ordinace explosions for 20 minutes afterwards”?
And you know what? You’re god damn right there is a dual standard of judgement on this board.
The “terrorists” or whatever you call them, we expect it from. They’re the bad guys, right? When they do something evil, well, that’s what they do.
When WE f* up, yes, it is more upsetting, because we’re the good guys, or so we claim. Every day, every f* up, every incident, we slide more and more to be the bad guys. We give them more and more justification.
It isn’t out of love for the Iraqis or hatred for America that we hold America to a higher standard. We hold America to a higher standard because we love America, and seeing its name be dragged in the dirt and compared to scum of the earth terrorists depresses us.
Never mind that al-Zarqawi and most of his gang are no more from Iraq than you are? Never mind that they could give two shits about the Iraqi people, right…they are fighting for their freedom, er, or something…right?
Ya, I call them ‘terrorists’…because they ARE terrorists. THey are certainly using terrorist tactics, they are definitely part of a ‘terrorist’ organization. Well, MOST of us thing AQ is a ‘terrorist’ organization. Perhaps you think they are freedom fighters?
You seem to think that AQ is there at the behest of the Iraqi people…or something. Do you have any evidence of this, as I’ve never seen any. The majority of the Iraqi’s are sitting this one out from everything I’ve seen…and its doing them absolutely no good. To be fair to them, its a devil or the deep blue sea situation for them, with the US on one side and AQ/other foreign fighters/home grown insurgents/ex Baathist holdovers on the other. I’d say they are fucked no matter what they do at this point.
Who is crying about them fighting back? Are you on drugs or something?? What I pointed out was the bias on this board. Hell, look at this tread alone. Whats the majority position on ANY of these threads? America bad, terrorists…well, not good, but lets just give them a pass and a hand wave and get back to bashing the US.
What did I expect to happen? Well, since you asked, I expected a shit storm to happen. I’m actually surprised that the actual fighting has been as mild as it has been. I EXPECTED the majority of Iraqis to rise up and pick a side…with the majority picking an anti-US position. That simply hasn’t happened, nor is it happening…the majority of the fighters are not even Iraqi from what I’ve seen, but fighters from other nations coming in simply because thats where the Americans are, and thats who they want to kill.
In other words I figured we’d have a general IRAQI rebellion going on. Thats one of the reasons I didn’t want the US to go into Iraq…it simply wasn’t worth it for us to get bogged down in such a situation or tie up such a large percentage of our military simply to get rid of Saddam.
What have they done to NOT deserve being at least taken seriously instead of a knee jerk ‘They are LIEING’ from everything they say? And conversely, what have the ‘terrorists’ or ‘freedom fighters’ done exactly to get a pass on everything THEY say?
As to who said the “there were ordinace explosions for 20 minutes afterwards” I have no more idea than you do…and no more idea as to how accurate it might or might not be. But then, I have no idea of the accuracy of the ‘facts’ stated in your Mail and Guardian article either…nor do YOU have any either. We only have what data is provided us. I’m just pointing out the jerking knees, thats all…personally I’m reserving judgement until I know a bit more. YOU were the one rushing off to start this OP bro…
-XT
And this is why wars should be started only for the most grave and imminent threats. Innocents get killed by both sides in war.
GW wanted war and exaggerated what knowledge our intelligence did provide while inflating its reliability. The Congress failed to call him on it and assert its proper role in war making for fear of political fallout from a fearful public. A thoroughly shabby performance all around in my opinion.
And one for which we are paying dearly and will do so for years to come.
I don’t know if the ‘terrorists’ are bad guys or not…I’m not making that judgement call right now. Their ACTIONS certainly are beyond the pale, thats for sure. And thats my point. THATS the dual standard of judgement on this board.
Lets go through it real quick, using this situation you’ve brought up as the example. The US attacked that house because they felt that it was a safe house for terrorists…who we are currently engaged in a global war with. If it was a mistake or if they were right we don’t know…but what we DO know (or at least, what I consider to be resonable) is that they didn’t attack that house to deliberately kill women and children. Nor did they attack to cause GENERAL distruction and death in that neighborhood. Had they wanted to do that, I think a fuel/air bomb dropped about 500 yards over the neighborhood would have been pretty effective. Or, they could have dropped cluster munitions over the neighborhood…bet THAT would have done a good job of taking out the terrorists AND putting the civilian population down as well.
Why? Earlier you said “What the hell did you expect to happen, them to greet us with open arms and flowers? Oh… right.” Well, the US is engaged in a war also…what they hell did YOU expect?? Its a fucking war. In war mistakes are made, shit happens. The US has rules and standards, but the people are just human, Zag…shit happens, mistakes are made.
Even when no mistakes are made, people, even innocent people get hurt and killed. Welcome to reality. Again, its one of the reasons I didn’t want the US to GO to Iraq. Because its not worth the return of the US being dragged through the shit, which was inevitiably what was going to happen. Its what ALWAYS happens in such a situation.
And this is exactly my point…there is a dual standard. Its like people expect the US to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. Any mistake is leaped on like meat to a starving wolf. Even when NO mistakes are made, if bad things happen (i.e. innocents are killed) a harsh judgement is sent down. No matter what is said or claimed, the knee jerk reaction is “the US is lieing”. Don’t worry about waiting for the facts, let the mouth foam flow.
And yet, when we talk about the ‘terrorists’ we give them a pass on nearly any behavior. “Well, they are only ‘terrorists’ right? What can you expect? Those damn American’s though…!!!”
Ya, I see a dual standard here. One where America is held (deliberately) to an impossibly high standard while trying to fight a war, while the ‘terrorists’ are held to none at all…and in fact given a pass with a hand wave for good measure, reguardless of their actions. Reality though isn’t quite so black and white, with ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. Reality is messy.
-XT
Totally, 100% and unequivocally agree with you. And THATS why I didn’t want America involved in Iraq…there was no reason to justify dragging us through the shit that is war. There WAS reason in Afghanistan and I supported that, even though its the same shit dragging there as Iraq…but there it was justified IMO.
Agreed.
Unfortunately true. 
-XT
Xtisme, there is no trade-off here. The behavior of our enemies, regardless of how reprehensible, has no bearing whatsoever on our own standards of behavior. No matter how many times you point to thier atrocities, you are making a moot point.
But far more important than our opinion is the opinions of the Iraqi people, whose hearts and minds we are ostensibly trying to win over. So what do they see?
They see that we locate what we think is a “safe house”. Are we certain of that, so certain that mistakes are not made? Apparently not. Have we “scouted out” the territory to determine if there were non-combatants (i.e., women and children) in the vicinity. Well, if we did, it sure didn’t seem to matter much.
And finally - the air strike, what appears to be the preferred mode of American combat - the delivery of a whopping load of ordnance with the minimum possible risk to ourselves. A fair argument can be made that such is legitimate, that the lives of our soldiers are that valuable.
In all probabililty, raids like this do more damage to our cause, and put more of our soldiers in harm’s way, than any ten of these “safe houses” could.
But what they are bound to see is that America regards risk to American soldiers as unacceptable, in comparison to risking Iraqi women and children. In a hyper-macho culture, this makes us look like sniveling cowards. This both motivates and emboldens our enemies. Is there a worse plan? It already seems as though Osama bin Laden is choreographing our every move for maximum possible benefit to his cause.
I don’t know how it happened, but the second to last paragraph belongs at the end. Has someone been slipping exotic alkoloids in the hamster food again?