It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:03 PM
Reply to BlueRaja

Why do you love Bush soo much? What has he given you? Free petrol for your car for the rest of your life?

The US does use cluster bombs and also gives them to Israel which has lead to thousands of civilians deaths.

The US does kill many civilians when they go on a bombing raids ‘suspected targets’ Opps civilians killed.

Afghanistan is a perfect example where the US indiscriminately bombed civilian areas.

Some points on 'War On Terror'

-Saudi Arabia where major terrorist leaders come from and major terrorist funding --- -comes from is BEST friends with the US.
-9/11 full of BS
-Illegal wars
-‘War On Terror’ has increased the terrorist population
-Oil tankers making their runs for FREE
-Pakistan (nuclear power) is filled with terrorists and on the brink of civil war but no one concentrates on the situation.
-Afghanistan situation getting worse.
-Pak Afghan border filled with terrorists but no one cares.

Let me ask you again how realistic the civilian deaths will be in a country where US has lost 4000 troops keeping in mind the ‘civil war’?

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:24 PM
What I question are the locations that cluster bombs have been used. None of the stories that you've linked to, have said that the US has dropped cluster bombs in the middle of a city. They just say that there's a greater chance of civilians being hurt by the submunitions than by other types of ordinance. The numbers of submunitions have also been mentioned, but again the context has to be given as to the locations. Even the total casualties known to have been caused, has been alluded to, but in nowhere near the numbers you have tried to imply. If Johns Hopkins uses poor methodology, then I would say yes their credibility is in question on that issue(with regards to the total Iraqi casualty figures). As I have said before- in order to have the numbers they and others have claimed, the attacks would have to occur in areas of high population density(i.e. cities). If 800 Iraqis were killed every day in attacks(that would mean many more were wounded), where are they now? It'd be impossible for anyone to not notice that amount or size of attacks, and the media would be nearby. I guarantee the media wouldn't keep quiet about that amount of violence, MSM or not. Even Fox News would report that kind of carnage.

Now getting back to cluster bombs- here's a little bit of info on submunitions.

"Submunitions are used to destroy an enemy in place (impact) or to slow or prevent enemy movement away from or through an area (area denial). Impact submunitions go off when they hit the ground. Area-denial submunitions, including FASCAM, have a limited active life and self-destruct after their active life has expired."

Modern production submunitions have a 90 day lifespan(or less). They don't present a persistent threat after that time(unlike previous generations with high dud rates), so unless a mob of civilians wanders through an area where they've been used semi-recently, you're not gonna see a lot of casualties.

"A growing trend in the design of submunition-based weapons is the smart submunition, which uses guidance circuitry to locate and attack particular targets, usually armored vehicles. Recent weapons of this type include the U.S. CBU-97 sensor-fused weapon, first used in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

The U.S. military was aware of the threat cluster munitions posed and was determined to minimize them. Col. Lyle Cayce, an Army judge advocate general (JAG), led a team of 14 lawyers providing advice on the battlefield to the 3rd Infantry Division on the use of cluster munitions, as well as other weapons, during its 21-day, 450-mile drive north from Kuwait to Baghdad. The goal was to ensure that U.S. forces complied with international humanitarian law, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. "No other army in the world does that," Cayce says. "We value the rule of law."

"The Geneva Conventions hold that when choosing which targets to hit and which weapons to use, armies must make sure they do not "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" and ensure that the harm to civilians does not outweigh the military advantages.

U.S. forces relied on sophisticated radar to pinpoint the sources of Iraqi fire, then cross-checked them against a computerized list of about 10,000 sensitive sites, such as mosques and schools. Cayce and the other lawyers looked at potential targets and advised U.S. commanders whether the military benefits of using specific weapons against those targets justified the risks to civilians.

Cayce gave advice 512 times during the war, usually in cases involving cluster munitions. Most involved sites outside populated areas. Cayce estimates he dealt with only 25 to 30 "controversial missions." For example: He approved a strike against an Iraqi artillery battery in a soccer field next to a mosque because it was firing on the 3rd Infantry Division's artillery headquarters.

By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY
Iraqi armor that took cover in such date palm groves as this one in Yusifiyah was bombed by U.S. forces.

The choices could be agonizing. He says he asked himself, "How many Americans do I have to let get killed before I take out that (Iraqi) weapons system?" Ten to 15 times, Cayce advised commanders against firing on a target; they never overruled him. Five times, in fact, they decided against using cluster munitions even after he gave them the go-ahead because they believed the risk to civilians was too great. "We didn't just shoot there willy-nilly," he says. "It was the enemy who was putting his civilians at risk. ... They put their artillery right in town. Now who's at fault there?"

Rather than call upon their artillery to hit a target with cluster munitions, U.S. ground forces preferred either to use other weapons, such as M-16 rifles or tank rounds, or to summon the Air Force to hit Iraqi targets from the sky with precision bombs. "Cluster munitions were the last choice, not the first," Cayce says."

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by kangjia57

It's not that I love Bush so much that I turn off my brain, but when I see unfair or dishonest criticisms, I will point them out. Does he make mistakes, you betcha. Is he the next Hitler, hell no.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:27 PM
And here's some more from the source disputed:

One valuable source is the national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, published last year in The Lancet which used well-established survey methods that have been proven accurate in conflict zones from Kosovo to the Congo. (Interviewers actually inspected death certificates in an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi households surveyed.)

Carried out by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health and Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, it estimated 655,000 "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war." The study also found that, from March 2003 through June 2006, 13% of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is accurate, this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds up to last June.

There are also indications that the air war has taken an especially grievous toll on Iraqi children. Figures provided by The Lancet study's authors suggest that 50% of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age in that same period were due to coalition air strikes. These findings are echoed by Conservation Center of Environment & Reserves' statistics, indicating that no fewer of 25 of the 59 Iraqis on their partial list of those killed by air strikes during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah were children.


and this poll, shown to be reliable within the range stated in several other conflicts.

and don't forget this:

"We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655 000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2·5% of the population in the study area. About 601 000 of these excess deaths were due to violent causes. Our estimate of the post-invasion crude mortality rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate, which... constitutes a humanitarian emergency." (Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts, 'Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey,'

The scientists estimate that the most probable number of excess deaths is 654,965. They also estimate, with 95 per cent certainty, that the actual number lies between 392,979 and 942,636.


Trying to cloud the issue will not work - the articles posted clearly state civilian deaths in civilian area's - stop wriggling and admit you're wrong.

End of story.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by budski

So you're saying that no other scientists believe contrary information to be more accurate, or are they all in agreement on this? Again, this is a case of you picking sources you like vs. me picking my sources to believe.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

my cited sources cover the full range, from the BBC to The Lancet, to John Hopkins - if you dispute the sources or doubt the reliability of such respected journals and institutes then you really have a problem.

Tooth fairy anyone?

You have been proven wrong on every count yet still try to cloud the issue.

Every single source cited has put the body count in the hundreds of thousands except for your source IBC - which gets its info from news stories, when everyone knows that there is more cover-ups going on in this war and more incidents NOT being reported in this war than any other war involving western nations in living memory.

If you want to be a victim of propaganda, that's your affair - don't expect those of us with our eyes open to buy into it.

Is your motto "Deny Everything" rather than deny ignorance?

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by budski

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.
[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

Well, I don't know. I can tell you about USAF targetting and what we do and don't bomb in Iraq. Is that an anecdote?

I'm not getting my info from a website, or from someone that might have heard something from a friends friend. I'm getting it from what I've seen while I was there.

The US doesn't intentionally bomb civilian targets. And I've said that until I was blue in the face. Problem is, some of the people on ATS that only know about the war thru what they've seen on youtube.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by jerico65

Anecdotes are still not evidence - they might be to you, if you've seen things, but how can a person who does not know you possibly quantify the reliability?

Neither are opinions evidence.

Perhaps they don't aim specifically for civilians, but if you target civilian area's, which has been shown to be true, then civilian casualties are going to result from that - that's common sense.

Enemy positions in civilian area's are not a valid target according to the geneva convention.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by budski

This is from LOAC about targeting personnel:

Targeting Personnel. The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited. Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. Judge advocate, intelligence, and operations personnel play a critical role in determining the propriety of a target and the choice of weapon to be used under the particular circumstances known to the commander when planning an attack.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by jerico65

Look, I don't care.

My point has been proved time and time again, and it doesn't matter what the plan is - the first casualty of any conflict is the plan.

There have been many thousands of civilian casualties in civilian area's that were targetted contrary to the geneva convention which both the UK and US signed up to.

It's also an illegal war,which means that the commander in chief of the armed forces is guilty of mass murder if not genocide.

How many times do I have to say the same thing?

The relevant information has been posted throughout this thread - try reading it.
If that's possible with blinkers on.

[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by budski

LOAC, the Law of Armed Conflict, also known as the Law of War, is something that's agreed upon by everyone, and works hand in hand with the Geneva Convention. It protects everyone; soldiers, civilians, and people that might get caught up in a war (some third party).

I know you don't care. Big deal. Go back to learning about war thru youtube, prison planet, and your Xbox. You wanted something more than just stories from people. You got it, and it doesn't fit into your plan. Sorry about that, Gus.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by jerico65

I know what LOAC is - the problem is it's about as applicable to this discussion as bush's insistence that iran is a threat to world piece - i.e. not at all.

@ xbox, youtube etc - I haven't got one, don't use utube for serious reports, or anything except comedy.

I think you may be under the impression that you are talking to some kid in high school - well, you're not, and I'd thank you not to insult me.

And for your info I too have been in the forces albeit only the TA, and the one major thing I learned was that ordinary troops know very little outside of their immediate orders and objectives.

My sources are varied, respected and true - the problem is that all the gung-ho john wayne lovers here don't like hearing the truth.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by budski

How is the Law of Armed Conflict not applicable? You have repeatedly responded to others saying that X target isn't valid or is off limits, when the Law specifically says otherwise. All it says is that there must be sufficient military necessity to offset the potential risks, and that proportional force be used.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:12 PM
When dirt bag terrorist use civilians as cover by placing kassams beside buildings or on top of them what do you think is going to happen? Its war and the Islamic radicals are the enemy. They want me to convert to Islam so I will help convert their soul to hell given the choice. Radical Islam is evil and the educated civilized world will stomp out this problem.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Sky watcher]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:16 PM
Well I suppose you feel we should just sit down with them and negociate some type of truce?

By pandering to them and allowing them the opportunity to even be in the same room with US will inflate their ego's even more.
The thing is these people do not even care to know the meaning of peace.

Why is it that all the conflicts in the world involve the so called Religion of Peace?

It is people like you that are playing into the hands of the enemy with your terrorist sympathizing comments, but I guess useful idiots will be useful idiots.

As recent events have shown they don't want any semblance of Democracy.
It would probably be easier to domesticate a wild animal than it would be to even try to civilize them people.

You are being intellectualy-irresponsible by claiming this is Bush's doing.
The truth is these people declared war on US long before Bush became Prez, about the time he was pickin' his nose at Texas Rangers Stadium.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Alxandro]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by BlueRaja

I already posted info on both of those. At least a few of cluster bombs being used in Iraq. Iraqi civilians scared of our cluster bombs was another.

As far as the illegal war, I post 2 articles on the UN Secretary General who called our war illegal. We are part of the UN and according to the UN we are in an illegal war.

America used to stand for principles. You didn't search and seize without a warrant. The warrant had to have evidence behind it. You couldn't just make up a reason, serve a warrant, and invade.

Somehow that all seems lost, at home and abroad. You see no problem with the fact that we were lied to.

Did we go for WMD? Obviously not. Did we go for nation building? I'd say not, considering Bush ran on the phrase "No nation building". Did we go to catch them darn terrorists? Of course not. Or else we'd have gone to Saudia Arabia. Or even tried to catch Usama. But we didnt.

They don't care about Usama and they don't care about the terrorists. They care about making money off of the war and getting a strong hold in the middle east.

And you dont care.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Right, but when our men serving rape the women who are fighting with them (not to mention the rape then gets covered up), I dont see you posting and making a big deal about it.

I love our country as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the truth just because of "patriotism". Muslims don't hate our freedom, they hate us constantly bombing them and occupying them. If we'd just leave them alone, mind our business, and put that $500billion to work at home... we'd be doing much better.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by budski

Anecdotes are NOT evidence.
[edit on 16/1/2008 by budski]

Well, I don't know. I can tell you about USAF targetting and what we do and don't bomb in Iraq. Is that an anecdote?

I'm not getting my info from a website, or from someone that might have heard something from a friends friend. I'm getting it from what I've seen while I was there.

The US doesn't intentionally bomb civilian targets. And I've said that until I was blue in the face. Problem is, some of the people on ATS that only know about the war thru what they've seen on youtube.

Your wrong my friend,from the 1st day of this disgusting war your killing machine has targeted civillians.Your pathetic leader Bush tryed to kill Saddam when he was eating in a bagdad restraunt(incidently this act also shows Bush is not a man of his word-he gave saddm 24 hours to leave and then bombs him before that!)
He knew damm well others would be killed,but gave the go ahead.Disgusting lil druggy

So there you go sunshine.right since day one your corrupt war machine has targeted civies,and missed the main target!

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by GT100FV

They are side issues brought up by another member.

Once again for those who can't be bothere to read the whole thread

The war is illegal

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:29 AM
There are two countries in the world that classify Hisbullah as a terrorist organization; the US, on the behest of Israel, and Israel. Associated with this classification is a rhetoric that solicits consensus from the decision makers in the US government and amongst the American population which ultimately propagates the agenda pushed by Israel.

Unfortunately, the person who seems to have been the most indoctrinated is President Bush who proceeds to preach his dogma uncritically to his hosts in the Middle East. They have not been adequately primed with the relevant key words and phrases and know the reality of Israel's activities and are consequently stunned by Bush's 'weird' comments.

Further, Hisbullah is not a hidden cabal of terrorists as the pro Israeli media relentlessly repeat. They are a popular people's resistance in the Lebanon to Israeli geopolitical ambitions and present themselves in full view of propping and attacking Israeli forces.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in