BAGHDAD, Oct. 12 — The American military said on Friday that it was vigorously investigating a Thursday evening airstrike on a stronghold of insurgent leaders northwest of Baghdad that also killed nine children and six women.
2007-10-14 03:39:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Another STUPID question by Erudite.....Again 'E' I hope you contract HIV soon. You claim to have been in the military 'E'. What branch, what posts / bases / what MOS? Yep I'm getting my BS card ready to throw down because of the way in which your questions are worded. I really don't believe that you believe the stuff you're spewing out here.
2007-10-14 05:03:09 · answer #1 · answered by dee dee dee (mencia) 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
while you're talking reciprocal action, you're conscious that the jihadists kill prisoners by using reducing their heads off, no? in the event that they simply did waterboarding and sleep deprivation, that must be plenty extra humane than what they do now. additionally they do no longer provide their prisoners 3 food, residing quarters, their non secular e book of decision, scientific, or criminal help, like we do. They bodily beat and torture them and then kill them. And the US purely does this to a pair, no longer all, of the unlawful opponents (as defined by using Geneva) that have been captured and detained at Gitmo. they have not have been given any secure status. We did no longer do this to the Iraqi military that grow to be captured because of the fact they DID shop on with Geneva regulations. The equivalency / reciprocity perspective you're pushing falls flat whilst pitted against the fact of the region.
2016-12-18 07:17:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, your quote states that it was a "stronghold of insurgent leaders". Shouldn't you be asking yourself why the "so called leaders" have women and children with them in a war zone?
Should we put out a flyer stating that as long as you have a child or woman wrapped around you, you are safe? Erudite, the enemy could care less about their women and children. They use them in every way they can.
It would be kind of like having all our military bring their wife and kids along for patrol.
I'm still waiting for all the anti-america posters to start condeming the atrocities that the enemy are doing...wouldn't that be a change.
Please, please...let's hear from you on the bomb hidden in the toys and no american troops around for a target.
2007-10-14 04:07:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Waging War 101.
(This is not any army in particular, it is all armies:)
You vilify the enemy and glorify the troops.
And if the troops do anything immoral you investigate until the furor blows over.
And if it doesn't blow over you pick a scape goat and make an example of him or her.
And then go right back to vilify/glorify.
2007-10-14 07:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Bye for now... 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is a more than skewed opinion. If you are fighting a war would you hide among civilians to prosecute the war? If the civilians allow you to hide among them, then are they really non-combatants?
If the insurgents hide among complicit civilians, tough, they deserve more airstrikes. As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to do it. We should use more airstrikes.
Insurgent fighters are cowards and criminals, civilians who support them are idiots.
2007-10-14 07:44:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
vigorously investigating, their is your answer. Do you ever hear Al-Jazera reporting vigorous investigations into the death of children and women when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded market. There is no moral equivalence here. The US does not target civilians, they fight an enemy willing to conduct war behind the bodies of their own women and children.
2007-10-14 04:34:54 · answer #6 · answered by wiliemom 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
mnbvcxz
Has it right.
Those 15 may just as well had ak47's as well.
If they were so innocent they should have fled.
Why aren't you crying when the mosques are bombed or the market places
Did you take note that more than 5000 killings this year by muslims killing muslims... of course not..!!!
You choose to select American missions against the insurgents.. the killers and bomb builders and suicide nuts.
2007-10-14 04:05:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's the difference between collateral damage (an unfortunate unintended effect in the course of killing/capturing criminals that is painstakingly minimized by the US) and deliberately targeting civilians in order to instill terror or simply murder.
2007-10-14 04:35:45 · answer #8 · answered by scoot7 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is common practice for terrorist leaders to have women and children around them at almost all times as human shields, incase they do get killed there is still some information warfare benifit as you demonstrate perfectly.
Unlike a bomb in a market place that is specifically targeted at civilians, like the last one. They put it in a toy basket last week. Who do you plan on killing when you plant an IED in a toy basket? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/ts_nm/iraq_dc
The US planned on killing those insurgents. The insurgents planned on those 9 children and 6 women to die with them as well, because they know that is what the media will focus on.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-07/2007-07-13-voa6.cfm?CFID=144423814&CFTOKEN=93650544
2007-10-14 03:46:53 · answer #9 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Must really irritate you then, the news that the next day an Iraqi detonated a bomb hidden amongst toys in amongst a group of children, with no US troops around for you to blame!!
2007-10-14 04:02:35 · answer #10 · answered by conranger1 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋