The Latest Civilian Bombing by Americans

[clairobscur]

@xtisme

Why is that…and why hasn’t the OP (or anyone else I’m aware of) started an outraged thread about THAT?
Where is the outrage over the assasinations and attempted assassinations?
I’m saying there is a dual standard of JUDGEMENT on this BOARD,

There’s no double standart. There’s simply no point in debating such terrorist acts, because nobody on this board support Al Qaida’s actions. On the other hand, there’s actually a point on debatting these kind of attacks by the US, because obviously, people disagree on this topic.
On a second thought, there’s actually a double standart, which is, as I wrote above, that people generally expect the US to have higher standarts of behavior than said terrorists.

There is also a knee jerk denial of anything the military/US Government says (i.e. everything is a ‘lie’),

In my case, that would be because the statements made by the US administration have been highly unreliable during the recent years, were they weren’t just blatant lies. As a result, I’ve now more confidence in a testimony from a random Iraki interviewed by a random journalist than in anything which comes out of Washington, lately.

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.

Totally off base. Nobody defends these terrorist attacks, and that’s precisely the reason why there’s no debate on this topic, apart from some threads in the Pit. I didn’t try to excuse they act, just to show you that after all, they could follow the same logic in their statements : “there were ennemies there, and unfortunately civilians have been killed too in the attack”. You probably wouldn’t accept this reasonning from terrorists. Why would you accept it from the US government?

Look, its a war. You might not approve of the war, you might not thing the US should be there.

That’s irrelevant. Of course, if the US weren’t there, such things wouldn’t happen. But the US could be there and not target buildings with a “hammer” (your own words latter in your post), when civilians and children are present.

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.

Then, I don’t understand you. If you’re opposed to the presence of american troops, by what twist of logic can you support an action caused by this presence which result in the death of civilians? If you don’t support this occupation, I can’t understand how you can support the action taken as a result of something you dissaprove at the first place…

[quote]
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.
[/quote)

Except that it’s not that “surgical”. “Surgically” would have been special forces storming the building and make sure that no civilian present will be killed, like they do in hostage taking situations (which would also allow them to be sure that there’s actually someone hostile in the building, by the way). Bombing a building and killing all the people living there isn’t surgical by any threat of the imagination.

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.

Once again, you’re contradicting yourself. You were saying that the US forces made “surgical attacks” and now that they’re using a hammer.

And once again, if you dissaprove the presence of american troops, why would you want them to find any way to attack any place there???

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.

Indeed. And once again, if yuou dissaprove this war, why don’t you suport the “quit” option?

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.

It’s not a “crossfire”. It’s the deliberate destruction of a civilian building with the resulting death of people living there on suspicions that there might be terrorists there. Once again, comparing with your neighborhood is perfectly apropriate. There might be terrorists living in your neighborhood and hiding weapons in a house. Or the US might have sources saying so. Why then wouldn’t the same action (bombing the house) be appropriate in this war on terror? Wouodn’t these potential terrorists in yout neighborhood be at least as dangerous as the ones in Irak (actually they would be more so).
Concerning the UN : maybe. And I wouldn’t say anything different in this case. But it’s totally irrelevant, since it’s the US forces which bombed this building. As for Kerry, it’s irrelevant too, for the same reason. The moral value (or lack thereof) of an action isn’t dependant upon whom is commiting the action, generally speaking.

[Sam_Stone]

So, if this was in fact a terrorist safe-house, are you all in favor of this?

I find it amazing that you would accept the word of residents of Fallujah over the word of the U.S. military - especially since you have to know that the claim that they were civilians was going to be automatic. It’s the standard response to any bombing like this.

Remember the ‘massacre’ at Jenin, and the consternation it caused around here? In the end, it turned out the ‘massacre’ was pure propaganda, swallowed whole.

Fallujah is a hotbed of insurgent activity. The people are hostile to the coalition and the U.S. Why in the world would you accept their claims at face value? Especially when all the facts and logic are on the other side. Not too many civilian homes are so packed with weaponry that secondary explosions kick off for twenty minutes. The U.S. has no incentive to bomb civilians out of the blue. The military says it had multiple sources that this was a terrorist safe-house, and they even knew how many people were in the house when it was hit.

Until hard evidence comes out to the contrary, I will believe the U.S. military over some unnamed people in Fallujah who may in fact be the enemy. Apparently, many of you choose the opposite.

Just another example of bias in action. Negative news about Iraq gets instant acceptance and displays of outrage. Good news gets parsed with a microscope, or treated with contempt and an assumption that it must be false (“Putin says Saddam was going to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. Help me dismiss this.”)

[clairobscur]

@xtisme

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.

Actually, from my point of view, whether or not there were actually ordinance isn’t the central issue. The main problems for me is first the US acting on the basis of “infos” they got from “sources”, hence without certainty to actually target the ennemy (as opposed to, say, them being shot at from this building), and second choosing to bomb the building and kill all the people living inside. The kids most probably weren’t high-ranking members of Al Qaida. In my opinion, only extremely extremelly compelling reasons, an extremely dangerous threat, could justify such an action. A “suspected safehouse” is a long way from being such a justification in my book.

[bizzwire]

Kudos to you, Xtisme!!!

You nailed it.

All weaseling aside, Zagadka, answer the question: Where are your diatribes against all of the innocent women and children killed by AQ?

[David_Simmons]

@Sam Stone

So, if[bold added] this was in fact a terrorist safe-house, are you all in favor of this?

There’s that word again. I thought yhe US turned security of Falloujah over to the Iraqis. So why are we involved there at all?

I find it amazing that you would accept the word of residents of Fallujah over the word of the U.S. military -

This to me is a good reason we have to get rid of GW and his cabal at the earliest opportunity. They have brought the credibility of all parts of the US government into question with their loose use of words.

[elucidator]

Sam, your defense raises more questions than it rests.

You refer to the local informants as being unreliable. Being residents of resistant Fallujah, with all its bad Sunni-type people, they are inclined to make stuff up. You suggest that they would be telling wild tales of innocents massacred regardless of the true situation. As if the assault on Iwo Jima was Mongols sacking a convent.

And that’s as may be. But if it is, then doesn’t that pretty much suggest that the people of Fallujah are, in fact, subjected to occupation by a hostile force? Wouldn’t you expect at least some residents to be sympathetic, to come forward with information, to counter the falsehoods of others?

As well, please note the last quote in the OP’s link:

“Dr Fadhil al-Baddrani said … At least three women and five children were among the dead…”

Now the story doesn’t specify whom this fellow is, presumably someone whom the Guardian regards as knowledgeable. But is it your contention that he is lying as regards the bodies of the victims? Or perhaps the sinister Fallujites killed a few of thier own kids and scattered them about the site?

I think that unlikely, don’t you?

[clairobscur]

@xtisme

…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.

No, they didn’t attack the house in order to kill women and children, but they deliberatly killed women and children nonetheless, because they know the people in this house would likely be killed as a result of their action. No different from say, bombing a power plant because it’s useful to take it out in a war, with full knowledge that civilians (or even soldiers, is it that different?), if only the power plant workers, will be killed as a result. That’s always a choice, done with the knowledge of the consequences. So, once again, to make such a choice, one must have very compelling reason. Because one do chose to kill civilian in this case, even if it’s not the goal.

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.

Sorry, but that’s a stupid argument. Since it would have been totally pointless to destroy the whole neighborhood (no better result could be expected from doing so), it wouldn’t have even been arguable, but plainly a gratuitous evil action. You could as well have said : “they could have dropped an H-bombs over the whole country instead of just taking out the building”. The fact that they could do worse with no reason at all really isn’t any kind of excuse.

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.

Still puzzle me. If you were opposed to the war precisely for this reason, why aren’t you taking the opposite stance “look at these innocent people killed, as I expected! Why are we doing so? What are we doing there?”

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.

The facts we don’t know on these issues. But we know that the US administrations lied (precisely about the war in Irak, for instance), refused to disclose informations (about the “ennemy combattants” being held without any control, for instance) or hide it (about Abou Ghraib, for instance). Tell me why I should have any faith in these new statements? Once again, for me, a random Iraki has as much or probably more credibility than the US president, at this point.
And once again the facts found afterwards have no bearing anyway about what I said. Whether or not the US said the truth is irrelevant. They still flattened a building and killed children in order to destroy a suspected hideout.

[clairobscur]

@Sam Stone

So, if this was in fact a terrorist safe-house, are you all in favor of this?

I find it amazing that you would accept the word of residents of Fallujah over the word of the U.S. military - especially since you have to know that the claim that they were civilians was going to be automatic. It’s the standard response to any bombing like this.
")

And the standart explanation for a bombing which had such result is also that the place was a legitimate military target (for instance, the recent bombing of a house holding a marriage ceremony). It’s exactly as automatic an answer for the US military. So, what’s the difference?

[clairobscur]

@Sam Stone

So, if this was in fact a terrorist safe-house, are you all in favor of this?

Nope, as I already explained.

[Sam_Stone]

elucidator said:

Now the story doesn’t specify whom this fellow is, presumably someone whom the Guardian regards as knowledgeable. But is it your contention that he is lying as regards the bodies of the victims? Or perhaps the sinister Fallujites killed a few of thier own kids and scattered them about the site?

I think that unlikely, don’t you?

No, I think it’s quite possible that women and children were killed. Terrorists have wives and children too. But if you let that stop you from attacking them, you make it very hard to go after them at all.

Clairobscur said:

And the standart explanation for a bombing which had such result is also that the place was a legitimate military target (for instance, the recent bombing of a house holding a marriage ceremony). It’s exactly as automatic an answer for the US military. So, what’s the difference?

The difference is that one is the word of people who are quite likely sympathizers with the terrorists, and the other is the word of your own military.

It’s interesting that when discussions turn to whether Republicans more popular than Democrats when it comes to supporting the troops and protecting the country, the Democrats go, “That’s not true! We like the military just as much!”. But events like this cast doubt on that, don’t they? When you treat your own soldiers’ word as equivalent to the word of the enemy, it sure makes you wonder.

[elucidator]

Why beat around the bush, Sam? Why not just go ahead and say that we’re sinister and traitorous Quislings, eager to backstab our own soldiers. Why not make an argument you can be entirely ashamed of, rather than merely embarassed.

[pantom]

You know what, Sam? The military does what it’s told to do, and it would be downright dangerous for them to question those orders. There’s very specific exceptions in the Geneva Conventions, but for the most part, you do what you’re told.
The military, however, is ultimately under civilian control here in the US. Which means us citizens - you know, the civilians - have not just a right but an obligation to question those orders if we think they’re wrong.
It’s called democracy. You don’t like it, you can go somewhere that isn’t called Great Debates. We’re here to debate. Do it or leave.

[Sam_Stone]

Gee, sorry, Pantom. I thought by presenting an opposing viewpoint I WAS. Or is this forum called “Great Amen Corner”?

[pantom]

It was a veiled, not terribly subtle attempt at calling the questioners traitors, and you know it. I’m certainly not that dumb, and you’ve got another think coming if you think I am.

[Sam_Stone]

Traitors? The word never crossed my mind. I was thinking more along the lines of bias. You’ve decided this war was a horrible mistake. Therefore, you are biased against news that contradicts your established opinion, and predisposed to accept claims that support your opinion.

And of course, people who are for the war do the same thing on the other side. With luck, if both sides can debate civilly, the truth, which is no doubt somewhere in between both positions, will emerge.

That is, if you can resist calling your opponents names and telling them to get lost because you don’t want to hear what they have to say.

[kennybath]

This whole conversation is comical.

Yeah, a “civilian” bombing. They went in to bomb civilians.

They thought it was a safe house and had credible, in their opinion, information that it was. Why would they bomb it otherwise? Just for the hell of it?

As for “innocents” being killed, yeah, so what? How many “innocents” were killed in WWII when we’d level whole German blocks to get at one factory? Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. So by your standards we were “the same as Hitler” who also killed lots of innocent people.

So let’s see Al Queda deliberately kill people in order to inflict terror. We kill innocent people as an unfortunate byproduct (if they could have easily avoided it don’t you think they would have? Were they waiting until innocent people were around?) in order to get at a guy who cuts people’s heads off in a war. Now you may disagree with the war, but in a war, you’re allowed to try to kill bad guys.

The assumption is that your side is the good guys and the other side is the bad guys. You seem to think that we’re the bad guys and the other side isn’t necessarily good but probably not bad either. That’s fine (treasonous but for the sake of arguement let’s move on), but in a war you have to kill people on the other side, there’s no way around it, and if a few innocent people get killed, it won’t be the first time. So your argument that “we shouldn’t be killing them cause we’re really the bad guys, it’s their country” is stupid. Given that we’re at war we have to kill the other guys, it’s idiotic to expect anything less. Now you may think the war is idiotic, but that’s a different issue.

So given that we’re at war, we need to kill the other sides guys, even if we really are the “bad guys” and the head-cutters off are the good guys. “But that’s the same as the terrorists…I thought we were better than that!”. Simply an insane statement.

As for, we could have snuck up upon it and seen for ourselves and placed them under arrest. Yeah, why don’t you try that. Maybe they would have seen us coming and all ran away. Maybe we would have lost a lot of guys and still would have ended up blowing the place up anyway.

[Sam_Stone]

That’s why I thought it was telling that so many were ready to instantly accept the statements of some people who quite clearly have an axe to grind, while at the same time instantly dismissing the claim of the head of state of an allied country. It’s bias. You are just as susceptible to it as I am. You should recognize that, lest you become just another tiresome partisan hack who can’t be reasoned with.

[pantom]

from Sam Stone:

When you treat your own soldiers’ word as equivalent to the word of the enemy, it sure makes you wonder.

There’s only one possible meaning to that sentence. I certainly know what it is. Absent an apology, I’m not in the least interested in what you have to say.

[Sam_Stone]

It makes you wonder about your JUDGEMENT. Judgement affected by BIAS.

Stop making accusations, especially after I explained exactly what I meant.

[XT]

@clairobscur

Still puzzle me. If you were opposed to the war precisely for this reason, why aren’t you taking the opposite stance “look at these innocent people killed, as I expected! Why are we doing so? What are we doing there?”

@clairobscur

Then, I don’t understand you. If you’re opposed to the presence of american troops, by what twist of logic can you support an action caused by this presence which result in the death of civilians? If you don’t support this occupation, I can’t understand how you can support the action taken as a result of something you dissaprove at the first place…

Let me clear up your confusion then. I was thought (and still think) it was wrong for the the US to send forces to Iraq, and I still think it was a bad idea…America is not good at these kinds of wars, and unless there is a VERY good reason we should not ever engage in them. We don’t have the political unity to do them well, nor do we have the patients for them. Above all that, this Iraqi war is distracting us from what we should be doing…that is hunting down and eliminating terrorists in the most extreme ways.

The reality however is we ARE there now. Its like this…I didn’t vote for Bush. He’s still my president. Just like I’m not planning on voting for Kerry…but he’ll still be my president when/if he wins. I didn’t want the US to send forces to Iraq…its still my country though. If the government and the military of the US say something I’m not going to swollow their story hole…but I’m not going to knee jerk and call everything they say automatically a lie. I’m going to grant them conditional belief until the facts come out and keep an open mind…as they always do in a democracy that thinks that free speech is the highest form of human achievement.

My country decided to go to war in Iraq…and is currently involved in combat opperation in Iraq. Thats reality. I think its a mistake, but its the way it is. At this point, IMHO, it would be stupid to withdraw our troops from Iraq, to tuck tail and bolt…stupid for us, stupid for the Iraqis…just plain stupid. Its far too late for that now.

So, we are stuck with this war that I didn’t and don’t want. The best thing we can do is see it through now. That might involve another President and another Administration…but its still my country and we are in it now. And if we are in a war, then the reality is that civilians will die…its unavoidable. War is like that unfortunately. And if terrorists will shield themselves behind innocent women and children, it is THEY who are responsible for the deaths caused IMO.

Clearer now?

-XT