Arrogant Americans

[Sean K]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting the US targets civilians, just that it certainly doesn't seem to worry too much about collateral damage. After all, collateral damage is a part of war, and they're willing to fight one.

Every Australian Battle Group and Brigade has a Legal Officer posted to it to advise on its actions. I'm not sure about the US, but it would be at least the same. There is more done in making sure military action is 'legal' these days than ever. On our side anyway.

 

[glenn_r]

US Drone Strike Kills Eight Civilians in South Waziristan
Women, Children Killed in Series of Explosions Set Off by Air Strike
by Jason Ditz, April 19, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
Last Updated 4/19/09 7:15 PM EST

This morning, a US drone attacked an apparent militant hideout in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency, triggering a massive series of explosions which local residents eight civilians, including women and children, and injuring at least two others.

Reports on the attack are still not totally clear, with local police insisting first that no one was killed at all in the attack, which evidently started a fire which spread to two explosive-laden vehicles. Militants cordoned off the area, but it does not appear that any of them were present at the time of the attack.

The attack came just one day after the local Ahmedzai Wazir tribe managed to negotiate a ceasefire across the troubled agency. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the government forces in the agency agreed to stop attacks, and certain demands of the TTP, including the removal of checkpoints, were reportedly being considered. It is unclear what impact the US attack will have on this deal.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/19/us-drone-strike-kills-up-to-eight-in-south-waziristan/

Looks to me that if the militants and their explosive laden trucks were not there the civilians would be ok, it's so easy to blame the US.

 

[trainspotter]

Americanism. The word american was actually slang for "everything American." Dictionaries in the United States have adopted the term. Arrogant american remains slang for "people from the United States who think they and their ways are superior" to others. See ....... they even have a hat for them to wear as well.

 

[happytown]

...

united states knowingly kills civilians

...

Recent example?

Other than part of a larger operation.

kennas,

(prefaced with imo)

at the beginning of the invasion of iraq in 2003, after saddam refused to take up the us offer of freedom, by leaving iraq and going to a third country (safely as guaranteed by the us) shock and awe began

a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al

this involved, inter alia, cruise missile strikes on restaurants in the streets of baghdad where saddam was eating (according to intelligence)

targetting the leadership amongst a civilian population in this manner is where military necessity comes in to play (leadership targets were termed tst's - time sensitive targets [also included wmd and terrorists])

what kind of weapons to use in order to minimise civilian deaths etc to achieve the military objective of cutting the head off the snake

it was during these surgical strikes that the united states knowingly killed civilians, as but one example

in a 2003 internal briefing to journalists by lt gen t michael moseley (decribed as the chief allied war commander) and reported by michael r gordon in the new york times on july 20, 2003, in a story titled 'us attacked iraqi defences starting in 2002', an article which described an allied campaign to destroy iraqi radar sites and fibre optic communication sites prior to the march 2003 invasion, the article contained several bullet points descibed as 'among the disclosures provided in the internal briefings and in a later interview'

the one pertinent here, that the us knowingly kills civilians is repeated in its entirety

'air war commanders were required to obtain the approval of defense secretary donald l rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was thought likely to result in deaths of more than 30 civilians. more than 50 such strikes were proposed, and all of them were approved'

(in 'operation iraqi freedom - by the numbers', dated 30 april 2003, unclassifed report produced by uscentaf, there were reported a total of 50 tst's targetting leadership)

note here they are not talking about whether the airstrike is likely to kill civilians, they are talking about whether it likely to kill more than 30, ie they know it will kill civilians, just how many, further, no approval from rumsfeld was required for airstrikes likley to kill less than 30 civilians

that means at least 1,500 civilians (as far as the us was concerned at the time) were knowingly likely to be killed by us bombs (knowledge in advance of the boming, of civilian deaths)

this is not to be confused with unintended consequences of us bombing, as one of many examples, such as that discussed in a dod news briefing on march 24, 2003, where asd p a clarke and maj gen mcchrystal answered questions from the media about, inter alia,

'a coalition aircraft was dropping ordnance on a bridge 100 miles from the syrian border. after the bombs were released, a [civilian] bus came into the pilot's view, but to late to recall the weapons. the bombs struck the bridge and the bus. unintended casualties like this are regrettable'

that a bridge might be used by vehicles such as a civilian bus is a possibility that ought be considered during target planning, but that was an example of unintended consequences such as not to confuse with the knowingly killing civilians statement

at the level from at least target planning up to and including the us sec of def, the us knowingly kills civilians, in the above example

further, this shows a definite chain of command for these occurences, which potentially indicates regularity

the us knowingly kills civilians

another point of note emerging from the early days of the iraq invasion was the car bomb

the first non-us (WTF????) use of a car bomb in the invasion of iraq (which targetted a us military checkpoint and killed 4 us servicemen) was reported on 29 march 2003 in, inter alia, the new york times by patrick e tyler as a

'disturbing new tactic'

, in the washington post, on march 30, 2003, in an article by rajiv chandrasekaran and william branigin, thusly,

'us officials branded the blast as terrorism'

, and in a centcom operation iraqi freedom briefing of 29 march 2003, by maj gen v renuart as follows,

'first i guess i'd make a point that i'd ask where have we seen those kinds of events occuring before? and i think we'd all agree that all of them are associated with terrorist events'

in a march 30, 2003 ap article by john heilpren, titled 'rumsfeld defends pentagon's iraq war plan' rumsfeld is quoted as saying about the car bomb,

'a terrorist can attack at any time at any place using any technique'

car bomb = terrorism

in a washington post article by dana priest, dated 29 march, 2003 and titled 'us teams seek to kill iraqi elite', the following is written,

'us covert teams have been operating in urban areas in iraq trying to kill members of saddam hussein's inner circle, including baath party officials and special republican guard commanders, according to us and other knowledgeable officials. the covert teams, from the cia's paramilitary division and the military's special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled in setting house and car bombs. they have reportedly killed more than a handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. they have been in operation for at least one week ... cia officials declined to comment ... the covert killing teams are an example of what one source called the "real life [expletive] stuff" ... not all the explosions in baghdad captured by western television cameras are the result of aerial bombs and missiles, the source said, implying that some have been planted by the teams ...'

so the us was possibly using car bombs in the invasion of iraq before the iraqis, let alone al-queda

on the subject of military necessity, the sep 11 attack on the pentagon, may find favour under the laws of war (note, not the twin towers)

timmy your question is far more nuanced ... shortly

cheers

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc

 

[haunting]

FYI.

We Failed to Follow Bombing Rules: Pentagon

Afghanistan Civilian Deaths: US Military Un-Apologises

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

 

[Who Dares Wins]

.......note here they are not talking about whether the airstrike is likely to kill civilians, they are talking about whether it likely to kill more than 30, ie they know it will kill civilians, just how many, further, no approval from rumsfeld was required for airstrikes likley to kill less than 30 civilians

that means at least 1,500 civilians (as far as the us was concerned at the time) were knowingly likely to be killed by us bombs (knowledge in advance of the boming, of civilian deaths)


another quality post brought to you by happytown inc

Kennas I'm curious; In your opinion do you consider the above to constitute 'knowingly' killing civilians or not?

 

[Sean K]

Kennas I'm curious; In your opinion do you consider the above to constitute 'knowingly' killing civilians or not?

Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets.

I'm not defending the US, or Australia, for callatoral damage during these wars, I was comparing it to Al Qaeda, which was the point in the first place. We do as best we can to attack the enemy who often hides in civilian settings, (which is illegal in the laws of war) without killing civilians, but people get killed in war. It's happened in every war in history. What you are asking for is no war at all. Great. I'm sure that humans can stop figting against each other from right this minute. I'm calling on everyone to stop, right now. Done. Now we are living in peace for the rest of human existance.

 

[Sean K]

a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al

You're right, we shouldn't have tried to kill the leadership. Much better to just kill the non decision makers. You should apply to the Government to be a Defence analyst.

 

[2020hindsight]

Looks like there's room for improvement on the collateral damage side of the equation. A lot of valid criticism. (This article about Afghanistan):-
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies

(New York) - The review announced by Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, into the use of airstrikes by US forces in Afghanistan needs to produce fundamental changes to reduce civilian casualties, Human Rights Watch said today.

The announcement of the review followed a US bombing in Bala Baluk district of Farah province in western Afghanistan that caused massive civilian deaths and injuries. Investigations by the United Nations and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission are not yet complete, but the government of Afghanistan says that more than 100 civilians were killed in the May 3 bombing

The other thing is that it's equally likely to bolster the recruitment for the opposite side when you concentrate on "arm's length" attacks - bombing from the air (drones etc). Hence you could well be going backwards in the war. So much more respect for the likes of the SAS. So much more danger of course. (As the Brits have found out this month).

Massive fertilizer bombs (ammonium nitrate etc) the likes of Bali etc. sheesh.

In the end there's no alternative but to get amongst the people - WHAM - winning hearts - in the plutonic sense - which we're also trying to do of course.

What you are asking for is no war at all. Great. I'm sure that humans can stop figting against each other from right this minute. I'm calling on everyone to stop, right now. Done. Now we are living in peace for the rest of human existance.

Obviously tongue in cheek there kennas. Equally, I'm calling for the western youth to stop taking drugs and financing the Taliban.
PS caption to cartoon reads... "The man from the Mafia... he say YESSS!!"

Then again , the Brits used opium pretty effectively as a weapon a hundred and fifty odd years ago.

 

[2020hindsight]

weird thing is that until we attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban had the opium under control - very little grown. - not saying we shouldn't have attacked - just ironical - dopey you could say.

:topic
PS gotta feeling plutonic = "resembling pluto" = rocks etc
whereas I think I meant platonic = "resembling plato" lol.

- WHAM - winning hearts - in the plutonic sense

 

[websman]

Americanism. The word american was actually slang for "everything American." Dictionaries in the United States have adopted the term. Arrogant american remains slang for "people from the United States who think they and their ways are superior" to others. See ....... they even have a hat for them to wear as well.

Oh, but we are superior!

Now...That being said, let me repeat this warning....

Expect to see American troops invading Sydney harbor, tomorrow morning, at 0600 hours. Our plan is to take Sydney, by force, before continuing on to the Outback. Once we reach the Outback, we will be assisted by our allies, the Aboriginal Republican Army. That's right...You heard it here first...The Aboriginal Republican Army. Once we take Australia over, our plan is to establish the "Aboriginal Union of Australia". Get ready for it folks....The Aborigines are taking your country back by force...with the assistance of the U.S. Government

 

[websman]

The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

 

[dutchie]

The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

No doubt inspired by their north american brothers taking back the USA!

 

[wayneL]

Oh, but we are superior!

Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.

 

[Sean K]

Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.

Kiwis would give us a run for our money.

Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.

Take that anyway you like.

 

[prawn_86]

Clarke would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.

Take that anyway you like.

ROTFL!!! That brought some unwanted images

 

[trainspotter]

Clark would b!tchslap the spectacles off Herr Rudd in a knitting competition let alone a UFC brawl in the octagon. LOLOLOL

 

[wayneL]

Kiwis would give us a run for our money.

Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.

Take that anyway you like.

LOL

I'd pay to see that...

That brought some unwanted images

And pay for a shrink afterwards.

 

[Sean K]

LOL

I'd pay to see that...


And pay for a shrink afterwards.

Lucky I can't see any YouTubes 2020 might post up on this one.

 

[trainspotter]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ..... he might hear you.