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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Why in the hell are we doing air strikes when the mission is supposedly accomplished? If a home is suspected of sheltering insurgents...send TROOPS to it to verify it!!!


Apparently it was verified by a drone that insurgents were in fact in the house. They also had received intelligence on them. This is from the very same original article, but the author failed to mention it.



U.S. forces had received the information leading to the attack from multiple sources, including existing intelligence and direct observation at the time of the strike, Johnson said in the e-mail.

A U.S. military statement said that an unmanned U.S. drone detected three men digging a hole in a road in the area. Insurgents regularly bury bombs along roads in the area to target U.S. or Iraqi convoys. The three men were tracked to a building, which U.S. forces then hit with precision-guided munitions, the statement said.

Washington Post



[edit on 1/6/2006 by shots]




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
shots: I hope you realize that will be ignored. The people we are discussing this with will simply dissmiss it and move on to the next reason why the US is evil.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   


You obviously have a better grasp of warfare than the generals in charge.


Nope, just common sense. If we have control enough to hold national elections, there is NO justification for Urban Air Strikes. It doesn't take a general to figure this out...



Why would you risk the lives of soldiers when you can just use a bomb?


Oh, I don't know...to build trust and avoid wasting mommies, daddies, and kiddies in their jammies maybe???



What country wouldn’t chose to bomb over the possibility of soldiers be killed in close quarters combat?


One trying to win the hearts and minds of those they "liberated".



What if the intelligence is time sensitive and you got to act?


If you have control of the country, and the cooperation of the Iraqi forces, there should be no time difference between an air strike and investigation by local forces.



The point im trying to make is that you and I know nothing. For you to make a statement like you did implies that you know what you are talking about, when in fact you have no idea what you are talking about. War is a dirty business that does affect innocent civilians.


I wasn't aware you knew of my qualifications or knowledge of military tactics, political science, or middle eastern affairs. I think you'd be surprised at my experience in such things.



Why would you be disgusted by a country that does everything in its power to avoid hurting civilians?


Because we no longer seem to be doing that...not with this kind of tactic. Do police toss grenades into a house they THINK a fleeing suspect may have gone into? Of course not! This is EXACTLY what the US forces did in this case, and it is a wrong tactic, no matter HOW you try and justify it.

I originally supported the war. I was impressed with the steps taken initially to minimize civillian casualties...it was impressive, and unprecedented, but given the current state of affairs in Iraq, tactically we should NOT be doing air strikes in civilian areas for any reason short of a major insurgent presence, and this situation does not seem to justify that. It doesn't take a degree in political science or being a general to know this, it's good old-fashioned common sense....which is EXACTLY what the Iraqis are employing when they balance trusting the Americans, with planes still dropping bombs in cities while they hold elections....



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
shots: I hope you realize that will be ignored. The people we are discussing this with will simply dissmiss it and move on to the next reason why the US is evil.


And how does THIS advance the topic? Discuss the topic, not the members. I hope this is beginning to sink in.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   


Apparently it was verified by a drone that insurgents were in fact in the house. This paragraph is from the very same original article, but the author failed to mention it.


I wasn't aware digging a hole qualified one for an automatic death sentence without investigation....

*goes to throw away his shovel*....



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


I wasn't aware digging a hole qualified one for an automatic death sentence without investigation....


I might have tended to agree with you if there was only one source they were insurgents, but in this case the information came from several sources backed by intel and visual observation which made the house a legal target.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
And how does THIS advance the topic? Discuss the topic, not the members. I hope this is beginning to sink in.


Things are becoming a bit stale here don't ya think? Kinda lame that we can't post without in depth contemplation as to whether we are "advancing" the topic or not. Too bad instead of spell check, they don't have human check to make sure there are no emotions whatsoever contained in our discussions. Dronetek was pointing out that the fact the target was verified will not deter some from equating U.S. actions to deliberate targeting of civilians, I don't see how that's off the topic. He didn't say liberals or hippies or anything.


Oh well, back on topic, so as not to get another warn (hopefully), if there were three men seen digging a hole and they ran into a building, there would be no way to engage them other than an airstrike. I doubt there would be enough time to brief and mobilize ground forces before they slipped away. It's terrible anytime civilians are caught up in war.


[edit on 6-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Umm... Gazrok aren't you forgetting something? I’m referring to the fact that it is the insurgents who choose to fight and engage US forces from civilian centers and residential buildings. Now ask yourself, would civilian casualties be as high if the insurgents didn’t use civilians as shields?

Below is a good read for everyone.


Usually the weaker faction in a war tries to enforce urban warfare on the attacking force. This is due to several reasons:

A populated city is much harder to conquer than an open field. This is because an invading force must expend massive amounts of manpower to secure a myriad of structures without indiscriminately bombing them.

The urbanized city is much easier to defend because it has many tall buildings, narrow alleys and sewage tunnels. The buildings can provide excellent sniping posts while the alleys are ideal for planting booby traps.

International law prohibits the use of heavy firepower and indiscriminate bombing in civilian-populated settings. Thus, the party barricading in a city will not have to face warplanes, heavy artillery and massive tank assault if it faces an army that cares to operate in a legal manner.

"Media War": a war on urban terrain is bound to cause some civilian casualties and extreme damage to civilian property. Photos of dead civilians and ruined streets broadcast on TV make a strong impact in favor of the party barricading in the city and undermine the morale of the attacking force. (For example, the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the American forces, but was nevertheless seen as a defeat due to post-battle news coverage.)



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   


Umm... Gazrok aren't you forgetting something? I’m referring to the fact that it is the insurgents who choose to fight and engage US forces from civilian centers and residential buildings. Now ask yourself, would civilian casualties be as high if the insurgents didn’t use civilians as shields?


We can already all agree that the insurgent's tactics of human shields, kidnappings, abductions, etc. are monstrous...

However....that isn't really the point here. This isn't about finger pointing, it's about the legitimacy of the chosen tactics....

That does NOT mean that we are automatically then justified to commit atrocities ourselves, and this particular action, in my opinion, is such an atrocity. So, all of these separate intel sources....did we get any insurgents in addition to the family? Even if so, does that somehow justify killing 12 innocents to get 2 hole diggers?

Look, I've got zero sympathy for the insurgents, or their cause, or their tactics....but we are supposed to be holding ourselves to a higher standard, and in this case, we are woefully below that standard, and undeserving of standing on our high horse on this one....

In order to win this war, it will need to be fought smarter, quicker, and with more Iraqi cooperation, and that isn't going to happen when you bomb civilian areas after you have supposedly secured the country....especially when your target is one where ground troops would have been better to confirm the nature and then neutralize the target if needed.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GazrokWe can already all agree that the insurgent's tactics of human shields, kidnappings, abductions, etc. are monstrous...



based on the pages of back and forth banter here, everyone but Souljah admits to that.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GazrokWe can already all agree that the insurgent's tactics of human shields, kidnappings, abductions, etc. are monstrous...



But America's ability to kill helpless people is a lot worse, im not saying its only America that does it, But they do it the most.

America doesn't instill freedom when the whole world is scared incase they do something to upset them, its just another form of dictatorship, do it are way or we will make you. I think they could possably be the biggist threat to the world.


[edit on 6-1-2006 by picklewalsh]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
not sure what my comment has to do with what you are saying but allow me to add that america's "ability to kill helpless civilians" would be lessened if the insurgents were not hiding behind them, which was the point being made in the quote.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
not sure what my comment has to do with what you are saying


I do apologise i ment to take your quote out befor i posted it
, please accept my apologey it has been fixed.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Look, I've got zero sympathy for the insurgents, or their cause, or their tactics....but we are supposed to be holding ourselves to a higher standard, and in this case, we are woefully below that standard, and undeserving of standing on our high horse on this one....


If we are going to hold ourselves to a higher standard all the time, how are we ever going to win? We just won't.



In order to win this war, it will need to be fought smarter, quicker, and with more Iraqi cooperation, and that isn't going to happen when you bomb civilian areas after you have supposedly secured the country....especially when your target is one where ground troops would have been better to confirm the nature and then neutralize the target if needed.


The insurgents don't likely stay in one place very long. The Iraqi civilians who want peace are controlled by fear insurgents instill in them, maybe if they have a counter fear that allowing insurgents to take shelter in their buildings may result in large bombs raining down, perhaps the Iraqis that want peace will be more informative. If not, walking on egg shells will get us nowhere fast. We should just pull out if we have to fight on their terms.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
dammit, that's the second time someone has altered their post making my post appear to come from the inner dwellings of a deeply disturbed

ahhh, I see now.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh

America doesn't instill freedom when the whole world is scared incase they do something to upset them, its just another form of dictatorship, do it are way or we will make you. I think they could possably be the biggist threat to the world.


My problem with this is where is it our job to install freedom ANYWHERE? Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says we were to carry the flag of Freedom to the world?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Be VERY Careful when you talk about History of a Country you have No Idea of. I come from Slovenia and in the WWI our Boys Fought and Died in many numbers for some Foreign Imperialistic Causes. What Chemical Weapons you are talking about is Beyond me and a bunch of complete and utter Crap.

Your country was part of the autro hungarian empire, you cant deny this fact.
You where in an alliance WITH germany, who used chemical weapons, I miscalculated and believed your country now was once inside the german empire my mistake but your country did involve itself in invading another country because of "terrorists" I will add.


How exactly will you connect the Nazi killing of 3 Million people to MY People will be really Interesting to see.

Your country joined with the riech and helped in the execution of 3 million people, your country's religios leaders helped in thier capture.


Got any PROOF for your Accusations, or should I Trust your own Words?

Maps will show the above.


Sadly you are out of your Leage here Boy - if you wanna play this game, lets Accuse the United States of a Genocide from Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for Carpet Bombing German Civilian Population, shall we?

Fine, I dont represent the US, you want to bring up crimes on humanity?

England: Raped and slaughtered its own people , invaded, slaughtered and raped and ransacked scotland, ireland and wales.

Scotland: Much of the above but without the invading of other countries except from england.

UK: Genocide, Mass murder, use of chemical and biological weapons, assasination, etc, etc.



Now, I have read the replies by mods, admins and many general members to get back on topic, so let us do so.

We have all seen that bringing up past crimes helps not since everycountry is guilty of something.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

My problem with this is where is it our job to install freedom ANYWHERE? Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says we were to carry the flag of Freedom to the world?


Well guess what? The time for debate was 3 years ago! Now, we got to win the war, but the left making it awful damn hard.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

Thank you for reminding me of the Haliburton fiasco with the sex slave trade. I was actually putting together a thread on this. Unfortunately, this is a goverment contractor not the US goverment or it's military nor the US officials that are doing this. The crimes of one person or group cannot be credited to the goverment.


actually it was two of the biggest government contractors Dynacorp and Haliburton. And it was the US governent that didnt punish them at all for it, but instead made even more deals with them.



The bombing of the farm house that killed the family due to inaccurate information provided by ground forces as well as Iraqi police, does not add up to the US performing a terroritic act.


i wouldnt use the word terrorist attack either, but that again is only by my definition, but those people still died nevertheless.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   


If we are going to hold ourselves to a higher standard all the time, how are we ever going to win? We just won't.


If we had the support and cooperation of the Iraqi people....we certainly could win, and while not becoming monsters ourselves...

However, that support is hard to get when one second you're telling them mission accomplished, and the country now belongs to you....and the next second you're flying over a city and dropping a smart bomb on a house yet only managing to kill a family....

It's a bad tactic, whether you're going after insurgents, or trying to win hearts and minds....or both.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join