Air attack kills 6 children

[DivideBYZero]

Link

Probably cluster bombs

 

[no0b]

"In this incident, if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars, in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: no0b
"In this incident, if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars, in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.

That could describe the whole country.

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: no0b
"In this incident, if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars, in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.

That could describe the whole country.

It could describe alot of places.

 

[Witling]

No0b, and the people who followed. Note that the military spokesman said "If." That is quite different from saying that the children did surround themselves with weapons. The history of intelligence behind raids hasn't been stellar. It now appears that at the site where 9 children were killed, Mortimer the Bad, had left quite some time ago. Then there's the story of where we bombed the wedding party. Afghanis are not above ratting out someone with whom they want to get even (which of us is above that?).

 

[JackStorm]

Would be nice if more focus was put on verifying the intel that lead to these events. It's almost like the military has problems multitasking now that they're in Iraq. Personaly, I'd love it if the people working with the intel the US gets from Afganistan were given more priority and support. But hey, the party is in Iraq now. And ironicly so is al qaeda (but keep in mind they started flooding in AFTER hussein lost control of Iraq).

 

[Witling]

Second bite. I ranted about "if," but there is a great deal of thought put into press releases so that they don't come back to bite you. If the military spokesperson had said, "The children were surrounded by weapons." then some reporter could check it out -- and that has happened a couple of times to the administration's embarrassment. When you say, "If the children were surrounded . . . ." Who can argue with that? Incidentally, less this be considered an attack on the Bush administration, I think that all administrations work pretty much the same when it comes to CYA. Please pay careful attention to the nuances of the press release. I assure, the person who is releasing it does.

 

[miguel]

Whit, you might be reading too much into it. I've read the article linked and other articles by other news agencies and the full quote is:

"We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them," Hilferty said.

"But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences."

It doesn't seem to me that they were trying to be clever with the words. It seems that they were just stating that civilians are in a compound used by a terrorist, filled with thousands of weapons, ammo and explosives, then they (the us military) are not completely reponsible. Note that he said "not completely" which indicates partial responsibility.

Also, not really sure if this can be classified as a "press release" in the same way that Ari Fliescher (or whomever replaced him) issues press releases.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There's only one good thing about terrorists . . . at least when they kill innocent people they don't bother with the caveats.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There's only one good thing about terrorists . . . at least when they kill innocent people they don't bother with the caveats.

That's pretty crass, BBD. Did you forget the smiley face?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.

At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well that's 6 less individuaols that will grow up to be Terrorists

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.

At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.

This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse. It can't see the difference between a mud hut filled with bearded maniacs armed with RPG's and dynamite vests (and who cowardly hide amongst the populace...yes there I go with that cowardice again), and folks in a coffee shop.

BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.

At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.

This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse. It can't see the difference between a mud hut filled with bearded maniacs armed with RPG's and dynamite vests (and who cowardly hide amongst the populace...yes there I go with that cowardice again), and folks in a coffee shop.

BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago...

So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?

The terrorists would gladly take an American child and sodomize him/her with an RPG and then launch it. Yes, they do kill children with glee. The American military does not.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?

The terrorists would gladly take an American child and sodomize him/her with an RPG and then launch it. Yes, they do kill children with glee. The American military does not.

Wow it seems like you have intimate knowledge of what the terrorist feel...or that you are some kind of sick Pedophile!!

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?

The terrorists would gladly take an American child and sodomize him/her with an RPG and then launch it. Yes, they do kill children with glee. The American military does not.

Wow it seems like you have intimate knowledge of what the terrorist feel...or that you are some kind of sick Pedophile!!

I don't understand you. I was trying to give a shocking statement to emphasize a point. Why would turn the topic to my direction?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.

At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.

This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse. It can't see the difference between a mud hut filled with bearded maniacs armed with RPG's and dynamite vests (and who cowardly hide amongst the populace...yes there I go with that cowardice again), and folks in a coffee shop.

BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago...

So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?

Thanks for illustrating man of my points on so many levels
1) You don't see the distinction
2) You classify the US millitary as the same as terrorists (take note veterans, but I'm sure RedDawn supports the troops

)
3) When unable to address a point, a short attempt at a smarmy remark is always preferred to exploring the issue.

 

[sandorski]

Often you have to wonder who is an "Armchair" General. Us, discussing strategy, or the Military lobbing missiles/bombs at targets that someimes turn out to be civilian. I appreciate that no one wants to die or send someone to die, but it seems to me that if you want to do something right you need Infantry to a least confirm the target.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Often you have to wonder who is an "Armchair" General. Us, discussing strategy, or the Military lobbing missiles/bombs at targets that someimes turn out to be civilian. I appreciate that no one wants to die or send someone to die, but it seems to me that if you want to do something right you need Infantry to a least confirm the target.

Unless you are a military strategist, your being an "Armchair General," as you say, is about as useful as a dog pretending to be a cat. It's amusing as hell, but doesn't provide any insight on cats.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: sandorski
Often you have to wonder who is an "Armchair" General. Us, discussing strategy, or the Military lobbing missiles/bombs at targets that someimes turn out to be civilian. I appreciate that no one wants to die or send someone to die, but it seems to me that if you want to do something right you need Infantry to a least confirm the target.

Unless you are a military strategist, your being an "Armchair General," as you say, is about as useful as a dog pretending to be a cat. It's amusing as hell, but doesn't provide any insight on cats.

Ya, I know the difference, just emphasizing a point. 😉

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse.

What a pile of horse poo! Valiant people throughout history have fought aggression and oppression . . . stood against evil . . . and done so without purposefully or unintentionally killing innocents. Saddam rose in the ranks of the Ba'athist regime b/c he was ruthless AND effective. Pinochet rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Sudharto rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Marcos rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Noriega rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. What do these people have in common other than being lowlifes? They all found support within the US government . . . but of course we supported their effective leadership not necessarily the ruthlessness.

On the more germane issue, I come from a Christian tradition. Outside of the Southern Baptist most Christians believe in the first definition of repent b/c what's the point of saying you have done wrong (and feel remorse) but continue the same activity?! The abundance of moral turpitude in those that kill (and celebrate) their victories pollutes all societies. As a reasonable person I can acknowledge the clear necessity (under certain circumstances) to kill in self-defense. I can even buy the argument that pre-emption (under certain circumstances) is the best solution. Unfortunately, the kill-first ask-questions-later crowd doesn't really use calculus based on such reasoned morality. We use AC-130s, cruise missiles, JDAMs, and soon (Robust Earth Penetrators) not b/c they are the only options but b/c they are convenient and effective. By design they greatly increase the risk of collateral damage . . . otherwise known as killing, maiming innocents. One alternative is good old hand-to-hand but that won't work b/c 1) there's likely more THEM than US and 2) the transfer tubes would accumulate quickly.

BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago

Terrorists blow up a disco frequented by soldiers . . . US drops a JDAM on a restaurant b/c Saddam might be there . . . uh . . . yeah I would say those are similar tactics . . . with morally equivalent results. Unfortunately . . . well actually I mean fortunately but that's difficult for me to say, we cannot ask the suicide bomber whether they feel remorse over killing innocent people. On the otherhand, our elected (and unelected officials) will have news conference; announce that innocent people were killed (only when asked explicitly) . . . and then do it again . . . and again . . . and again. I don't doubt that the vast majority of soldiers abhor the notion of killing innocent people. Unfortunately, the people making the decisions don't abhor it enough to stop giving such orders.

 

[dmcowen674]

I didn't read the thread replies but saw the News report. Why didn't the reporters ask what the Hell a bunch of kids were hanging around a munitions cache? Sorry, you have kids situated all over weapons they are going to be Collateral Damage and blame the Enemy not the Messenger.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How many civilians work or visit the Pentagon that have nothing to do with the military? Do you really know how close you might live to one of these?

 

[preslove]

The US military has, unfortunately, killed with absolutely no respect for human rights. Every culture that seeks to dominate another for some silly justification, whether it be for some made up god like Allah, or some "scientific" ideology like Marxism, or for some nebulous, culturally defined (and therefor slanted) notion of "freedom," is going to kill alot of their "enemies." The problem, though, is that the @$$holes who are our REAL ENEMIES, are the people creating the silly justifications for killing innocent people.

peace

p.s. linky