posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:33 AM
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
Yes, I read your post, but I fail to see how this makes murder OK.
And that's what it is, pure and simple murder
You think al'qaeda aren't laughing their collective behinds off as the US kills at the very least tens of thousands and at the worst, over a
Do you not think that this policy plays right into their hands?
Do you not think that the geneva convention has a spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law?
FACT - civilians are dying in vast numbers.
FACT - UK and mostly US policy is responsible.
YOU may want to excuse our leaders, and apologise for them.
I choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Murder by definition is a premeditated and unlawful killing of another. The US never intentionally targets civilians to be killed, therefore your
accusation of murder doesn't meet the standard of that definition. I have never once said that premeditated killing of innocents was okay. I do
understand that in combat, some innocents will be killed inadvertantly. This is not murder. A war's popularity has nothing to do with how one
defines a killing(i.e. killing in a popular war is justified, but killing in an unpopular war is murder). I understand your point of view, which is a
pacifist view(all killing is wrong and murder). That's not what the legal standard set by Treaties and the Law of Land Warfare has to say about it
though. The only time where an action would be called into question is if a disproportionate amount of force was used to subdue the enemy, resulting
in needless suffering by civilians. Military necessity is considered defensible so long as proportionality is used.
Now getting to the figures of Iraqis killed. I simply don't believe the 600,000-1 million plus figures. They weren't based upon hard evidence, or
scientifically arrived at. About 1000-1500 Iraqis were polled as to their opinions on how many people they thought had been killed, and then the
figure was multiplied by the sample size. This is completely anecdotal, and not based upon numbers of bodies in the streets, hospitals, etc.. or
health official claims. There was no measure to make sure that folks polled weren't including deaths that another of those polled was also
including. Additionally, since the US pays monetary reparations for civilian deaths, you have quite a bit of fraud going on, where Iraqis will claim
a relative was killed, to make some money(or they'll try to get paid mulitple times for the same death, throwing off the stats for totals).
The higher figures would require that 300,000 Iraqis per year were being killed/25,000 per month/800 per day. That level of violence just has not
been seen. There's no way that level of violence could've been hidden, because it would have to occur in areas of high population densities. This
means there'd be a lot of witnesses, and high likelihood of media on the scene to report. You'd also overload every hospital, in just a few days,
which would be impossible to miss.
Using your logic, I can see how you blame Bush/Blair. Nobody would've died if we weren't there, right? Well, it would've just been Saddam killing
them rather than us, so that's much better. The fact of the matter is that well over 95% of the civilian casualties are due to insurgent/terror
attacks, and they are solely to blame for that violence. The US takes great precaution(to include risk of friendly casualties) to prevent unnecessary
civilian casualties. The civilian populace has grown tired of that, and that's why you see them helping us against the insurgents now, as they know
who their real enemy is. The insurgents and terrorists are not freedom fighters for a noble cause. They are predatory criminal thugs seeking to hold
onto power and relevance.