It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hearts and Minds ~ America Bombs Eight Bridges Over Iraq´s Euphrates River

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

BAGHDAD - US-led forces have bombed eight bridges on the Euphrates River in western Iraq to stop insurgents using them, US military spokesman Major General Rick Lynch said Thursday.

"We have been taking out portions of bridges with precision strikes," he told a news conference.

Of 12 bridges between the Syrian border and Ramadi, 110 kilometres (65 miles) west Baghdad, "four remain under control of the coalition forces and Iraqi forces after precision strikes on the others," he said.

"One of the vulnerabilities of this insurgency is freedom of movement," he added.

Continued....

www.turkishpress.com...


In an attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis the occupational forces bombed eight bridges over the Euphrates River.

Thousands are now out of work, and tens of thousand more cannot travel to see family, and friends.

But now those dirty, nasty insurgents will not be able to run to-and-fro across the bridges as they are well known to do.

Regardless of the fact that this will likely create even more insurgents America went ahead and did it anyway.

Even though it is a warcrime....




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   


Even though it is a warcrime....


How is it a warcrime? Not that I think it was a very good idea, seeing as they are supposed to be rebuilding the infrastructure! But then, I suppose Haliburton won't be able to win contracts if things aren't destroyed first!



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Destroying bridges is a War crime?

Well hell. I support that crime if it stops the mindless idiots killing innocent people.

But then again, the insurgents only attack the coalition, don't they?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



Even though it is a warcrime....


How is it a warcrime? Not that I think it was a very good idea, seeing as they are supposed to be rebuilding the infrastructure! But then, I suppose Haliburton won't be able to win contracts if things aren't destroyed first!


Destruction of the bridges was not 'rendered absolutely necessary' by supposition that insurgents were walking across them.


Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Source


America is a signatory and therefore bound by contract to not destroy public or private property in Iraq unless it is absolutely necessary.

You could easily rationalize other violation with these actions, but that single one is clear enough....

[edit on 7-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Destroying bridges is a War crime?

Well hell. I support that crime if it stops the mindless idiots killing innocent people.

But then again, the insurgents only attack the coalition, don't they?


actually, they have been targeting civilians, and even children...havent you been watching the news (and it doesnt matter which news source on this matter)?



The killing of civilians by insurgents is not incidental, however, but forms part of an overall strategy. This includes:

· Punishing individuals - drivers, contractors, translators, etc - for collaboration, with the aim of discouraging others from taking on this kind of work.

· Punishing members of religious or ethnic communities, either because they are thought to be co-operating with foreign forces or - in the case of the Kurds and the Shia - because of their influence within Iraq.


from this source:

www.guardian.co.uk...

but i could list many more.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Destroying bridges is a War crime?

Well hell. I support that crime if it stops the mindless idiots killing innocent people.

But then again, the insurgents only attack the coalition, don't they?


How do you suppose to tell the difference between Insugents, and everyone else, and how do you suppose blowing up bridges is going to stop the killing?

If anything this will make it worse by further enraging the population against our warcrimes.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
then i guess blowing up insurgents cars and other vehicles would be war crimes as well.
u got to be realistic in prevent terrorists from entering or trying to get away from a battlefield. i guess wen an enemy is inside a building we should not destroy it for it may be a warcrime.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

actually, they have been targeting civilians, and even children...havent you been watching the news (and it doesnt matter which news source on this matter)?


Are you implying that because some supposed insurgents have killed civilians in Iraq that makes it OK for us to Bomb Bridges???

I fail to see the relation.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

actually, they have been targeting civilians, and even children...havent you been watching the news (and it doesnt matter which news source on this matter)?


Are you implying that because some supposed insurgents have killed civilians in Iraq that makes it OK for us to Bomb Bridges???

I fail to see the relation.


hey Fellow ATS Member....did i mention anything of the kind? did you actually READ my post? i quoted bikereddie's comments that civilians arent being targeted and responded to that ONLY. nothing in my post mentions bridges except his qoute that i requoted....try actually READING before you slam somebody else's post next time!

[edit on 7-10-2005 by snafu7700]

Please do not refer to other ATS Members in a disparaging manner.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
then i guess blowing up insurgents cars and other vehicles would be war crimes as well.
u got to be realistic in prevent terrorists from entering or trying to get away from a battlefield. i guess wen an enemy is inside a building we should not destroy it for it may be a warcrime.


If a threat from persons, or property makes it necessary to destroy it then it is arguable that the destruction was not a war crime.

It was not absolutely necessary to destroy the bridges.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

It was not absolutely necessary to destroy the bridges.


well since u aint over there then u cant see wats necessary or not can u? u dink its goin to be a nice war where people fire at each other with paint balls or laser and no property is destroyed or an innocent person is killed? u do not know wats necessary can u?


Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


absolutely necessary as it say, sooooo in the view of the military commanders who see the bridges destruction to save the troops or to kill the enemy by isolating them. military operations included.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing over whether or not this is a war crime. War crimes, schmore chimes. Who even knows anymore?

This is actually much bigger given how many years "major combat operations" have been "accomplished." This is a clear signal of a significant and desperate change in strategy not overlooked by numerous military analyses I've been reading.

This is big indeed. But you're mostly sniffing up the wrong tree.

I'm reluctant to draw the anaolgy, but when you start doing things like defoliating a country to protect it (think Agent Orange) you're officially losing. This isn't exactly the same thing at all, but it is DRASTIC and on shaky ground not only from a defensible action, but from public perception as well.

It's not in the US media (yet as far as I know) for a reason. They don't want this out. As bad as it looks to Iraqis, it looks horrible to a US looking for any signs of progress.

This aint progress.

"Freedom of movement" hinders a free Iraq? Nobody is going to buy the spin required to sell this. Nobody.

This is it. Point of no return. You can laugh at the word quagmire all you want, but this makes it official. Quagmire.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ArchAngel

actually, they have been targeting civilians, and even children...havent you been watching the news (and it doesnt matter which news source on this matter)?


Are you implying that because some supposed insurgents have killed civilians in Iraq that makes it OK for us to Bomb Bridges???

I fail to see the relation.


hey Fellow ATS Member....did i mention anything of the kind? did you actually READ my post? i quoted bikereddie's comments that civilians arent being targeted and responded to that ONLY. nothing in my post mentions bridges except his qoute that i requoted....try actually READING before you slam somebody else's post next time!

[edit on 7-10-2005 by snafu7700]

Please do not refer to other ATS Members in a disparaging manner.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]


i feel as though i should make an apology to archangel.....my original post (that the mods censored) was rather rude toward archangel....i should have been a little less vulgur in my post.....but i still stand by my convictions...he should have actually READ my post before bashing me.

sorry again for my uncalled for outburst.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Question,

Where does the report says that the operation was a heart and minds mission, or was that sarcasm.

Comment, How can you accuse them of warcrimes of hitting a military target in a time of war? Also , it is not a warcrime if it not deemed necessary by military operations, how is that a warcrime?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Destruction of the bridges was not 'rendered absolutely necessary' by supposition that insurgents were walking across them.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
America is a signatory and therefore bound by contract to not destroy public or private property in Iraq unless it is absolutely necessary.

You could easily rationalize other violation with these actions, but that single one is clear enough....


if used for movement of arms and fighters into a militant hot spot, it most certainly is a necessary military objective to destroy bridges, you misconstrue what "rendered absolutely necessary" means.

it implies that if theres a military objective in such destruction, its a valid military action.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by namehere]

[edit on 7-10-2005 by namehere]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Actually this has been in the news, it was on NBC.
Now ArchAngel, since you’re not on the battle field and don't know the situation, you shouldn't rush to conclusions about what is necessary or not. Every time the US sweeps into a town or city the insurgents flee, when the US leaves they return again. If we partially destroy the means by which they infiltrate (bridges) we can hider their progress and movement.

P.S. I’m sure the US would have won more harts and minds if these murderers returned and started blowing up civilians again.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
P.S. I’m sure the US would have won more harts and minds if these murderers returned and started blowing up civilians again.

Youd be suprised mate. murderers and theifs become heroes and kings in less than day thanks to rumors and takl, if they played with the right stringes at the right level they coud and would and already do use propaganda as an effective weapon.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Not to the majority of Iraq, because, of course, they have declared war on the majority of Iraq which is Shia.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Strange thing to do, blow those bridges. Bridges have historicaly been positions that due to their importance both strategicaly and tacticaly have been important assets to take and hold, Arnhem, Pegasus bridge etc.
If you control the bridge you control who comes and goes across the bridge giving an important advatage.
The only thing i can think of is that either the bridges had become untenable, which is worrying in its self or that the coalition does not have the resources to police the bridges which again, if true, worrying.
We shouldnt underestimate the importance of blowing these bridges, smacks of desparation to me.

Upon reading the press release again it begins to make sence, if only four bridges are still existing then all traffic will have to go over them, making it easier for the US to police the traffic that comes over it. If you forget about all the other stuff for one minuite, it makes sence militarily.




[edit on 7-10-2005 by Janus]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Well the mess that the Bush administration has done in Iraq calling it a "Liberation" is now the battler ground for his "War on TerrorSSSSS" experimentation.

He said that he most win one way or anther, Right?

And Iraq after all is more valuable to the oil industry for its land not his people.

So don't worry Its plenty of tax payer money to rebuild Iraq every time is destroyed.

We are paying for it after all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join