US Air Strike Kills Iraqi Family of 12

Originally posted by Crakeur
Souljah, do you have any the comparison between suicide bombing at a funeral (or mosque or military convoy handing out food to children) and the precision bombings?

You know whats the Problem?

That the Majority of the People of the West are not exactly Living in a Real World as it is. We (in the West) have actually NO IDEA what really goes on in Iraq. Those are only our Opinions, based upon the News and Information that we received through the Media we have aceess to, and which have also acess AND INFLUENCE on us.

And America has Constructed within 50 years an Immense and Powerful Hyperreality - which is in Definition,

A world that is more 'Real' than Real, and where those inhabiting it are obsessed with timelessness, perfection, and objectification of the self.

Jean Baudrillard

Furthermore, authenticity has been replaced by copy (thus reality is replaced by a substitute), and nothing is "real," though those engaged in the illusion are incapable of seeing it. Instead of having experiences, people observe Spectacles, via real or metaphorical control screens. Instead of the real, we have Simulation and Simulacra.

America was engaged in an illusion that it was fighting, much as the mind engages with a video game, where the experience tricks the consciousness into believing it is an active participant in something that is not happening.

One could imagine, with relation to this claim, that the American soldier often fought solely within the system of military technology, to the degree that the war's "culture imprint" remains that of friendly fire created by faulty machinery, and a lack of actual face-to-face combat.

So, whats really going on here?

Young American Men and Women on the Ground of Iraq, fighting their Phantom Terrorists in a Desert Land far away from Home. And that is the Solution - to Bomb a House with Suspected Terrorists. That is the Video Game Solution to the Problem. To solve it Via a Command Screen, if you know what I Mean. To surround the House with Heavy Equipment and Marines and then Drop a 1000-pound bomb straight from the Sky, ofcourse filled with Depleted Uranium for better Penetration and Demolition Effects.

Who is Playing a Game and who is Living "Desert of the Real"?

One of these two events, which you used to ask me a Question, was actually a Advertisment for a Military Corporation - the other one, was an Outcry of a Society Engulfed in Civil War.

The video screen-mediated concept of the precision strike became an advertisement for American technological dominance, which makes it possible to view the war as, in part, an advertisement for military hardware.

Can you Spot the Difference?

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The fact that this is news at all is a sign of how far we've come in avoiding civilian casualties through better technologies.

What do the Smart Bombs help, if the People remain to be Dumb?

Not Much.

You just give an Ape a new Technology - but it is still an APE, this time with a Smart Bomb.

So now American soldiers are dumb apes? I'm sorry but you have the intelligence of a klu klux klan member. Someone calls you are you argument and instead of putting forth a well thought out reply, you just call Americans dumb and move on. You are a troll and nothing else.

In reply to Soulja and everyone else pissing about House 2 House...

Why don't the US Ground Troops clean the House with Terrorist Suspects with Soldiers in what was once called a House 2 House Combat - but they rather Level the House with 1000 pound bomb, thus eliminating every Evidence that those people were really Terrorists, since they are all Dead and Burried under what it used to be their House.

Let me ask you.. you get inteligence that there are terrorists (or whatever the hell the call them nowdays) held up in a house. Do you a) send 30 or so of your soldiers to do a house 2 house search, or b) send a single F-16 with one pilot and bomb the house.

Choice A)

How the hell do you "identify a terrorist / insurgent"????? Can you??? So what makes you think that a house 2 house search would yield different results? The only difference between choice a and choice b is who dies. What if there were terrorists in there... they play like they are civilians all the while one of them throws a switch and boom.. 30 soldiers dead including the people in the house. Better outcome?

Choice B)

You bomb the house and it was determined that women and children were inside. How do you think that pilot feels? Do you think he's slapping his buddys on the back saying "woo hoo we killed them sum bitches?" I highly doubt it.

I'm so sick of seeing people say crap like "Oh you THE US think this and do that..."... I got some news for you.. do you think the tens of thousands of US Soldiers that are over there fighting and dying WANT to be there? I doubt it.. they were TOLD to be there... you wanna hate someone... dont blame the US.. blame the government that SENT those troops there. I AM the US.. i DO NOT agree with this war. So stop blatantly saying the "US wants this and that"... its utter crap. I didnt send a single soldier there.. i didnt fire a single round there...

Oh and PS- Soulja is correct about Sadam. The CIA was helping him long before he took control of the Ba'ath party. After he took power the also helped him extensivly in the Iran-Iraq war.


Derek

PS- Sorry for the rant but sometimes I read stuff on here that really pisses me off...

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Crakeur
Souljah, do you have any the comparison between suicide bombing at a funeral (or mosque or military convoy handing out food to children) and the precision bombings?

You know whats the Problem?

yes, your refusal to directly answer my question.

it is wrong for the military to use precision bombing to minimize collateral damage when their intel tells them that a house is being used by insurgents and yet it is ok for these insurgents to strap bombs on themselves and kill 36 and wound another 40 mourners at a funeral.

A. agree?
B. disagree?
C. repulsed by the behavior of both sides?
D. long winded anti-US rhetoric which neither confirms or denies your opinion on the above statement.

Originally posted by Crakeur
it is wrong for the military to use precision bombing to minimize collateral damage when their intel tells them that a house is being used by insurgents and yet it is ok for these insurgents to strap bombs on themselves and kill 36 and wound another 40 mourners at a funeral.

Stop acting like you Really Care for these People.

Thats the Chicken-Hawk Solution. The only Reason that that Precision Bombing is taking place is to minimize the Number of Coalition Casualties, BUT Increasing the number of Civilan Casualties.

I guess for you it is Better when US Bombs a Wedding Party that is A-OKEY and According to the Military Manual that is an,

a) Error
b) Mistake
c) Collateral Damage

But NEVER an Act of Terrorism

[edit on 4/1/06 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Crakeur
it is wrong for the military to use precision bombing to minimize collateral damage when their intel tells them that a house is being used by insurgents and yet it is ok for these insurgents to strap bombs on themselves and kill 36 and wound another 40 mourners at a funeral.

Stop acting like you Really Care for these People.

Thats the Chicken-Hawk Solution. The only Reason that that Precision Bombing is taking place is to minimize the Number of Coalition Casualties, BUT Increasing the number of Civilan Casualties.

I guess for you it is Better when US Bombs a Wedding Party that is A-OKEY and According to the Military Manual that is an,

a) Error
b) Mistake
c) Colateral Damage

But NEVER an Act of Terrorism

[edit on 4/1/06 by Souljah]

answer D, nonsensical rhetoric.

don't bother linking al jazeera and don't bring up wedding bombings unless you want to talk about the ones committed by the terrorists.

yet again you will find one side at fault and you will not even address the other side for doing far worse.

my point has been made.

peace

Souljah the Coalition's actions can in no way be called terrorist.

For that to exist they must have a political ideal to push forward, and for that exist they must quelch or disprove all other parties.

Note: The Coalition has done none of the above.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Souljah the Coalition's actions can in no way be called terrorist.

For that to exist they must have a political ideal to push forward, and for that exist they must quelch or disprove all other parties.

Note: The Coalition has done none of the above.

The coalition has installed there own government and try to force it to use western idea`s and are allowing the turks to wipe out the kurds (sorry pkk) in the north.


seems like terrorism (by your definition) to me

Originally posted by Harlequin
The coalition has installed there own government and try to force it to use western idea`s and are allowing the turks to wipe out the kurds (sorry pkk) in the north.


seems like terrorism (by your definition) to me

Yes they done the above before setting up a vote system BUT by a democracy (which is btw not just a western ideal) they elected thier own government.

Also are you saying that turkey is now killing kurds, inside iraq?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by C0le
The problem with you Anti-War Liberals is that you cant see the differance between Intensional, and Unintensional

The trouble with you Pro-War Neo-Cons, is you can't spell intentional, or unintentional.

Dubya Bush, is that you?

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by devilwasp
Souljah the Coalition's actions can in no way be called terrorist.

For that to exist they must have a political ideal to push forward, and for that exist they must quelch or disprove all other parties.

Note: The Coalition has done none of the above.

The coalition has installed there own government and try to force it to use western idea`s and are allowing the turks to wipe out the kurds (sorry pkk) in the north.

seems like terrorism (by your definition) to me

Harlequin, you got a link to go with that? Or is it your opinion? The government was freely elected in Iraq, people went to the polls, even more in this third one. Dont say the coalition "installed" the government, when as all the media showed those people going into the polls and casting their ballots. I wont make an assertion about whether you presented your statment as fact or your opinion, but I will leave it to you to answer that questoin.

Originally posted by Implosion

The trouble with you Pro-War Neo-Cons, is you can't spell intentional, or unintentional.

Dubya Bush, is that you?

Why not worry less about making a point about the spelling of a word (when you know what they mean) and worry more about making a point about something substantial?

Keep it on topic, please.

Originally posted by Crakeur


don't bother linking al jazeera and don't bring up wedding bombings unless you want to talk about the ones committed by the terrorists.


peace

Exactly the double standard the world has put up with for long enough from the USA. Its ok for you to bomb the hell out of Falluja, but 9/11 happens and its the worse day in history. Total hypocrisy.

If USA really did give a crap for the people of Iraq they would not of fired MILLIONS of depleted uranium rounds, which will cause cancer for decades to come to anyone in the area. Or maybe they wouldnt bomb every water/power station they come across for the dam hell of out. I know its wrong, but i hope one day some of you experience war in your own towns, maybe then you wouldnt be so callous to people who you nothing about.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by HiddenReality]

[edit on 4-1-2006 by HiddenReality]

*Edited censor circumvention. If spelling the entire word is offensive, then omit that word from your post*

[edit on 4-1-2006 by dbates]

So you gonna asnwer my questoin or not Harlequin?

ludaChris


quite simple really - the majority of the peoples in iraq are sunni - and yet they have virtually no voice in the new government - but the minority shia alliance (yes alliance) are running the place.


As for teh turks - please read up on some threads here about the deal being made with them

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Crakeur
it is wrong for the military to use precision bombing to minimize collateral damage when their intel tells them that a house is being used by insurgents and yet it is ok for these insurgents to strap bombs on themselves and kill 36 and wound another 40 mourners at a funeral.

Stop acting like you Really Care for these People.

Thats the Chicken-Hawk Solution. The only Reason that that Precision Bombing is taking place is to minimize the Number of Coalition Casualties, BUT Increasing the number of Civilan Casualties.

I guess for you it is Better when US Bombs a Wedding Party that is A-OKEY and According to the Military Manual that is an,

a) Error
b) Mistake
c) Collateral Damage

But NEVER an Act of Terrorism

[edit on 4/1/06 by Souljah]

we accidently bomb one wedding, and you compare that to the daily bombing of funerals, weddings, schools and mosques by these terrorists?

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by devilwasp
Souljah the Coalition's actions can in no way be called terrorist.

For that to exist they must have a political ideal to push forward, and for that exist they must quelch or disprove all other parties.

Note: The Coalition has done none of the above.

The coalition has installed there own government and try to force it to use western idea`s and are allowing the turks to wipe out the kurds (sorry pkk) in the north.


seems like terrorism (by your definition) to me

Allowing people to live free is a western idea? Exactly how did we force people to risk their lives to vote? Maybe you could explain that to me please.

Harlequin: For someone who acts like he knows everything, you sure are lacking in your Iraq facts. Shiites are the majority, not the sunis. The Sunis basiclly turned shiites in to second class citizens while they lived like normal people.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Dronetek]

The longest shot made by a sniper was reported recently. A US sniper killed an insurgent who had just shot an American soldier, FROM THE WINDOW OF A HOSPITAL. But somehow the fact that he was shooting from a hospital is going to be ok, since he was shooting at Americans, right? But GOD HELP the US if they had bombed that hospital, considering that the second he started shooting from it, it lost its protected status.

Ummm no Shiites are the majority in Iraq, you might be confused with the fact that Sadaam, who was a sunni, ruled the country during his reign, and it was Sunni's that ruled the country though they are the minority. As shown here in the CIA world factbook.Iraqi Population
Scroll down to the part about religoin

It is called the ''''fog of war", and in it accidents happen. Oh, and by the by, if we're into moral equivilents, which is least moral by your standards Souljah, an accidently placed bomb which tragically kills a family (yes that's bad), or a suicide bomber who targets a school full of children, or a mosque full of people worshipping peacefully, and kills 30 or more people. One a tragic accident, the other a malicious, evil DELIBERATE act of murder. Hmm?

I just want to see Souljah even acknowledge the evil acts of the insurgents, it seems most here are willing to admit that it's bad when the U.S. accidentally kills civilians, but any time he's asked to comment on his thoughts regarding insurgents attacking soldiers when they're passing out candy to kids or something of the like, he seems to respond with "the U.S. does this or that". Are the insurgents justified in deliberately attacking civilians to achieve there goals Souljah?