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.

 

US Air Strike Kills Iraqi Family of 12

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

The Bomb went off infront of POLICE RECRUITMENT CENTER in Iraqi town of Ramadi. The Explosion killed the Majority of Future Police Candidates, aged 20 to 35 Years, which have came to ENLIST in the Police Force.


Ah selective reading again and only concentrating on the police huh? That will not change the fact that the majority were civilians at a shrine, or attending funerals though will it. Nor will it change the fact that police officers are classified as civilians either.


Thursday's bombings came a day after insurgents killed 53 people, including 32 killed by a suicide attacker at a Shiite funeral east of Baqouba.

The blast near the Imam Hussein shrine in central Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad, killed 49 people and injured 52, said Karbala police Col. Razaq al-Taie.
(source is the same as I used above)




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SouljahThe Bomb went off infront of POLICE RECRUITMENT CENTER in Iraqi town of Ramadi. The Explosion killed the Majority of Future Police Candidates, aged 20 to 35 Years, which have came to ENLIST in the Police Force.



what about this one?

"The blast in Karbala, a Shiite holy city, killed 45 people and also wounded dozens more. It occurred Thursday morning in a pedestrian mall that runs between the Imam Hussien and Imam Abbas holy shrines, police spokesman Rahman Mishawi said."

www.cnn.com...


and these people were targeted by the insurgents for what reason exactly?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
i just dont know whats worse, killing people in a wedding or killing people in a funeral


(ducks the flying poo)



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
You don't kill the people you're ostensibly liberating, it's counterproductive.

If the intel is bad, that's understandable, but you don't bemoan bad intel and go right on bombing. You fix the intel before dropping bombs and killing people.

If you don't know who to bomb, you don't drop any. That should go without saying.

I would rather see 100 terrorists get away than see 1 innocent Iraqi die accidentally. Every innocent person killed creates exponentially more terrorists. It's a great idea if you're trying to perpetuate a war to drive an economy, but it's a terrible plan if your motivation is truly to liberate an oppressed people from tyranny.

I hope Iraqis can forgive individual Americans for our government, which is assuredly out of our control presently. But unfortunately, until Americans take back control of the government, we'll have to share the blame for incidents like this. We buy the weapons, we pay for the soldiers' training; our apathy has doomed innocent people who never in a million years could have hurt us in any way. That's unconscionable.

The real reason we're mucking about in Iraq is wholly financial. We're opening a market at the barrel of a gun. I don't think very many Americans would openly support such draconian measures. Remember, we're not just sacrificing Iraqi lives, we're sacrificing American ones too. That should help all those American Exceptionalists out there come to the same conclusion as us rational folks.


The profit margins of private corporations are not important enough to me to justify sacrificing our troops, nor are they important enough to justify killing innocent Iraqis. The whole debacle boggles my mind. We're doing the exact same thing we did in Vietnam. Another country has something the big boys here want, so the big boys here send the little guys to go kill the enemy, under whatever pretense is fashionable at the time.

This is a shameful war, and history will recognize that fact in hindsight, even if the majority of contemporary America remains blind to it.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Souljah,
Sorry to have raised your ire there

I use the words your heros since by every single thread that you have ever created or commented on, these insugents / terrorists or whatever they are called today can do no wrong. Even now, you are claiming that Iraqi civilians who are attempting to become civilian police now constitute a valid military target.
But any actions performed by the US even when it is humanitarian in nature (such as the recent evacuation to a US hospital of an Iraqi child for treatment) evil.
Notice that you ask why is it ok for the Us can classify a hospital as a valid military target. You even mention Falujah. I take it that you are refering to
Nazzal Emergency Hospital BBCNews
Take a read on the article. Notice that the hospital was destroyed yes as you say by the US forces, but you fail to include the information that militants loyal to top al-Qaeda suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are hiding there. You will also note that the news article makes no mention of any casualties there.
As per the Geneva conventions, Hosptials are indeed offlimits and cannot be considered targets. Unfotunately under Article 19 of the Geneva Conventions,



Article 19
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Notice that the hospital is being used as a hideout by Al-Zarqawi militants. This negates the safe status of the hospital as long as there has been adequete warning given. And before you ask, yes warning was given remember civilians were warned to evacuate the city. Also, US forces are now rebuilding the hospital and are also providing aid to the civilians in Falujah.
A home also can become a target when it has been identified as housing combatants. You know this.
As for bombing a wedding, I am assuming that you are refering to 7/1/2002 in Afghanistan Cnn
Where do you see the wedding as being a target? It was not. The bomb was accidently dropped after the aircraft had come under anti-aicraft fire.
No, dear Souljah, the US do not consider wedding parties as valid targets, the extremeists do. Just like they consider teachers who have the bad habit of teaching girls,
You dear Souljah are the one that lives in a Black and White World.
In your world, everything that the US does is evil and no good. In your Black and White world, these Islamic extremeists can do no wrong everything that they do, such as targeting schools, police recruiting stations, funerals for those that the extremeist have already killed. Those, are seen as valid targets by the extremeists.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Souljah despite your spin and hatred for US Forces this is a terrible accident and one that will no doubt happen in any war, to date there is no way to fight a casualty free war.


You know, it seems to me (and WestPoint I only quote you because it seems to be the concensus opinion), that everyone may be misinterpreting Souljah's discontent with the situation.

I dont think that he has a problem with the fact that there is potential for civilian casualty in war. This is something anyone who understands the war machine knows. I think what he may be MOST discontented with is the fact that its a war that SHOULDNT be happening, with civilian casualties that SHOULDNT be happening BECAUSE of the war that SHOULDNT be happening, a war with no results, in fact, even negative results...brought about to a country who the MAJORITY didnt want US Democratic liberation.

Im, quite sure, were you to ask Souljah face to face if he thinks in a legitimate war will there be civilian casualties and can they be avoided, the answers would be definitively yes and no, respectively.

Personally, I dont see Souljah as demonizing the US Armed forces, however, just poiting out the inconsistencies and extremely poor judgement of the administration who are GUIDING the US Armed forces to their current positions.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

The Target were Police Recruits, which Classify as Enemy Armed Forces to the Insurgency in Iraq.

So Basicly they were Aiming at a Valid Military Target.

What?
Police are not miliary targets nor are the armed forces!

If so then they would come under a military branch and instead of enforcing CIVIL law, they would inforce both CIVIL and MILITARY law.

The above is simply trying to paint civilians as military, sick and despicable



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
alpha, then how do you explain Souljah's reasoning that IRAQI police recruits are a military target for the insurgents? Can they be killed because, thanks to US military involvement, the old police and military had to be scrapped and new ones who, hopefully, won't torture and rape and pillage, need to be put into action?

If that's the case, then everything from this point on in Iraq is the fault of the US.

So, if ten or twenty or 100 years from now Iraq is a peaceful nation that is a major player in the region and a major part of the global economy, does the US get the credit?

doubt it.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Ah selective reading again and only concentrating on the police huh? That will not change the fact that the majority were civilians at a shrine, or attending funerals though will it. Nor will it change the fact that police officers are classified as civilians either.

We are talking about TWO Separate Events - one in Ramadi and one in Karbala.

So, tell me, whats that got to do with 12 Dead Civilans that US Warplanes killed?

[edit on 5/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nukunuku
i just dont know whats worse, killing people in a wedding or killing people in a funeral



Wow, that's a tough call. A wedding causes a man to lose his will to live anyway, so would killing him be such a bad thing, or would it be doing him a favor? At a funeral, it would be pretty convenient since the priest or cleric or whatever is already there, you can just dig a few more holes and kill two birds with one bomb. Yep, tough call.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Wow, that's a tough call. A wedding causes a man to lose his will to live anyway, so would killing him be such a bad thing, or would it be doing him a favor?


that's an awful thing to say. marriages are a wondrous union of two spirits and bring about the greatest

ok, my wife's gone. bombing a wedding would be killing the body, the marriage kills the soul



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
You dear Souljah are the one that lives in a Black and White World.
In your world, everything that the US does is evil and no good. In your Black and White world, these Islamic extremeists can do no wrong everything that they do, such as targeting schools, police recruiting stations, funerals for those that the extremeist have already killed. Those, are seen as valid targets by the extremeists.

I never Said that the Insurgents are doing Good when targetting schools, police, funerals, mosques, weddings and so on. Sadly that is the effect of the US Liberation of Iraq. That is the RESULT - a Bitter and Bloody Civil War, which is Raging on among the Religious Groups in Iraq. THEY are the ones fighting each other, because the Coalition Troops are unable to maintain and Enforece Security, even if that is their Mission as the Liberators.

But We do not see what is really going on - we only see the Simulation on our Command Screens, such as TV, computer Monitor and other means of Mass Media. Nothing that goes on in Iraq is Real to You and Me - it is all Virtual War, that is Observed via Screens, Images and Words. The only people, for which this war IS Real, are the ones on the streets of Iraq, the Iraqi People, the Iraqi Soldiers, the Iraqi Civilans and the Coalition Soldires. They experience War face to face.

So tell me, what is the Difference between the US Air Strikes on SUSPECTED Insurgents, that ended up with the Dead of 12 Civilans - and the recent attack on Shia Police Recruits?

Both are Acts of War.

And when you start seeing the Actions of US Forces withou the Patriotic Glasses on, you will see, that they are not so much Different - only the Weapon Technology they use is Different.

In the end, People are Dead - that's the Cost of War.

And when you will Admit, that US commits an act of TERRORISM by killing a Family of 12 - then maybe we can be on the same Frequency.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

We are talking about TWO Separate Events - one in Ramadi and one in Karbala.



I know they are two different events but that will not change the fact that innocent civilians were killed in both.


So, tell me, whats that got to do with 12 Dead Civilians that US Warplanes killed?


I posted it to show your hypocritical views. I knew you would to want to justify the killing of hundreds, by your buddies, yet think killing 12 is outrageous when Americans do it that's why.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Crakeur, 27jd,

How about we stay on topic...

There are other forums where you can discuss how much you dislike marriage. WoT is not one of them.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I posted it to show your hypocritical views. I knew you would to want to justify the killing of hundreds, by your buddies, yet think killing 12 is outrageous when Americans do it that's why.

Listen - they are not by Buddies, can you please cut that Bud-dy-CRAP?

Thank You.

And when You start to ACKNOWLEDGE that US Forces ALSO do acts of TERRORISM, then maybe we can talk.

Till then!




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SouljahAnd when you start seeing the Actions of US Forces withou the Patriotic Glasses on, you will see, that they are not so much Different - only the Weapon Technology they use is Different.


the targets are different.

us military targets include insurgents and their operating bases, hideouts, etc.
insurgents tagets include anything that will result in the largest number of casualties. schools, mosques, funerals, weddings, police recruitment offices, etc.

of the roughly 134 killed in Iraq (www.cnn.com...)
5 were US soldiers with Task Force Baghdad

so the other 129 killed were not US military. who the hell are the insurgents fighting?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Souljah



So tell me, what is the Difference between the US Air Strikes on SUSPECTED Insurgents, that ended up with the Dead of 12 Civilans - and the recent attack on Shia Police Recruits?

The difference is that the airstrike that killed the family was unintentional as your link and your first post states. The US air strike was derived from multiple sources that indicated that there were insurgents at the farm house. Whereas the insurgents are actually targeting the civilians.
Yes both end up with dead innocent civilians, the both are regretable and disheartening. War is hell. There is death on both sides both military as well as civilians. There has not been a war that did not have civilian casualties.

The actions that caused the deaths of this family cannot be construed to be acts of terrorism being commited by the US forces, no matter what dictionary that you use. There was information from ground forces as well as other sources that indicated that this was a valid target. The information was incorrect. Lets go after the ones that delivered the bogus information.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The difference is that the airstrike that killed the family was unintentional as your link and your first post states.

Does that Matter to the Dead Civilans?



The actions that caused the deaths of this family cannot be construed to be acts of terrorism being commited by the US forces, no matter what dictionary that you use. There was information from ground forces as well as other sources that indicated that this was a valid target. The information was incorrect. Lets go after the ones that delivered the bogus information.

You simply will NEVER admit that US Forces also Condone to Terrorism, and that their Military Operations in Iraq did infact break several International Laws and Conventions. You will never admit, that United States DOES use Terrorism, for Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak, but the Weapon of the STRONG. In your eyes the American Empire can never do anything wrong - if something happens, like the event in this topic, then it is Incorrect Information, Bad Intel, an Accident, a Mistake, and yet never an Act of Terrorism.

If Iranian Air Force would drop a 1000 pound bomb on some Innocent Civilans, that were Suspected American Sympathisers - would you say that they performed an act of Terrorism?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
Crakeur, 27jd,

How about we stay on topic...

There are other forums where you can discuss how much you dislike marriage. WoT is not one of them.


My apologies, I can't say I dislike marriage, I've never been. I just can't resist the urge to be a smartarse sometimes.



Originally posted by Souljah
I never Said that the Insurgents are doing Good when targetting schools, police, funerals, mosques, weddings and so on. Sadly that is the effect of the US Liberation of Iraq. That is the RESULT - a Bitter and Bloody Civil War, which is Raging on among the Religious Groups in Iraq. THEY are the ones fighting each other, because the Coalition Troops are unable to maintain and Enforece Security, even if that is their Mission as the Liberators.


You even blame the insurgents targeting innocent civilians deliberately on us? Instead of attacking their countrymen, maybe they should focus on attacking those they don't want in their country. If the police are raiding my house and I don't like it, could I shoot my brother and blame the police for it? Ridiculous.



[edit on 5-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Souljah,



You simply will NEVER admit that US Forces also Condone to Terrorism, and that their Military Operations in Iraq did infact break several International Laws and Conventions. You will never admit, that United States DOES use Terrorism, for Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak, but the Weapon of the STRONG. In your eyes the American Empire can never do anything wrong - if something happens, like the event in this topic, then it is Incorrect Information, Bad Intel, an Accident, a Mistake, and yet never an Act of Terrorism.

If one is using a very generalized definition then yes you could say that the US is commiting acts of terrorism. Please understand though under that same generalized definition of terrorism, what you expound on here on ATS can also be construed to be acts of terrorism.
Web Definitions of the Word Terrorism
As for Terrorism being the tool of the strong? Since when in history has that been the tool of only the strong. Throughout history, the use of terrorism has been used by both the weak and the strong. Let us not start to edit history please.

Show me where the US has ever condoned terrorism. Show me some examples of this. I am somewhat of a history buff and I am not aware of any instances throughout the US history where the goverment backed the use of terrorism by any of it's citizens / military or the use of terrorism by any other nation.
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence or the threat of such. This definately does not cover accidents of accidents that are caused by bad intel.
Can the insurgents say the same?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join