websman
Illogical Vulcan
- Joined
- 1 December 2005
- Posts
- 366
- Reactions
- 0
The American Indians do run most of the casinos now...
No doubt inspired by their north american brothers taking back the USA!
Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.
...
united states knowingly kills civilians
Recent example?
Other than part of a larger operation.
Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets.
...
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.
The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
Too late my spurious little Vulcan. Too late. Apparetnly 8% of the population has laid claim to 90% of the country. Read about it here ........... http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_native.html. ............ Eddie Mabo ... bloody legend!
HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in.if you agree entirely with the premise that the united states knowingly kills civilians, why did you need a recent example?
Off topic, but an interesting side note: over 25% of AFL players are indigenous, compared with aboriginals making up 8% of the total population.
HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in.
How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?
you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts...
united states knowingly kills civilians
...
Recent example?
Other than part of a larger operation.
kennas,
at the beginning of the invasion of iraq in 2003, you will recall that 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
(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)'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'
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,
that a bridge might be used by vehicles such as a civilian bus is a possibility, but that was an example of unintended consequences such as not to confuse with the knowingly killing civilians statement'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'
at the level from at least target planning up to and including the us sec of def, the us knowingly killed civilians, in the above example
this shows a definite chain of command for these occurences, minimising the likelihood, imo, that this is an aberration, a one-off
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, in the washington post, on march 30, 2003, in an article by rajiv chandrasekaran and william branigin, thusly,'disturbing new tactic', and in a centcom operation iraqi freedom briefing of 29 march 2003, by maj gen v renuart as follows,'us officials branded the blast as terrorism'
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,'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'
car bomb = terrorism'a terrorist can attack at any time at any place using any technique'
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,
so the us was possibly using car bombs in the invasion of iraq before the iraqis, let alone al-queda'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 ...'
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)
cheers
And here is why ....... http://www.clontarffootball.com
Programs setup SPECIFICALLY for indigenous people to fast track into AFL via football for learning. Positive discrimination at it's best.
Thanks for the references.reproduction of the post with references bold
you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts
cheers
Not sure about the 25% ruling of indigenous players in the AFL? (thanks prawn_86)
I think yuo'll find that the US even calls some recent attacks "unacceptable". - and indeed promised (yet again) to limit such screwups in the future.From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission.
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
The following suggests that the Taliban weren't hiding amongst the population on this occasion...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 ........
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. ... more than 100 civilians were killed in the May 3 bombing.
"Afghans have heard promises from the US before that they would take all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "But if the US is to have any credibility, this latest outrage needs to be the last of its kind. The Petraeus review should result in measures that genuinely minimize civilian loss of life."
Human Rights Watch said that the swift announcement of an investigation into the incident was welcome ...
During a visit to Washington by President Hamid Karzai on May 6, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her regret and sympathy about the bombing.
Other US officials have sought, though, to play down US responsibility for the casualties and instead to blame the Taliban for using civilians as human shields. But this contention is contradicted by most accounts villagers provided to Human Rights Watch and other human rights and government investigators.
A preliminary investigation by Human Rights Watch found that on the morning of May 3, a large Taliban force arrived in the village of Ganj Abad in Bala Baluk district. Large areas of Farah province, in unstable southwestern Afghanistan, are under insurgent control, including areas close to where the fighting took place.
Villagers told Human Rights Watch that the insurgents demanded a share of the villagers' poppy income and took up ambush positions. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that a firefight lasting several hours ensued between the Taliban and Afghan and US forces. A small number of bombs are reported to have been dropped by US forces, after which the fighting ended, in late afternoon. As many as six civilians may have been killed during the firefight.
According to several villagers and government officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch, large groups of Taliban fighters were seen withdrawing from the area. At around 8:30 p.m., US aircraft began bombing the village of Garani, close to Ganj Abad. Villagers say that it was during these bombings that most of the civilians were killed.
Kiwis would give us a run for our money.
Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
Take that anyway you like.
Does Capt America have two (2) things dropping down from his groin on either leg? Oh dear.Captain America vs Chopper Reid.
Post of the month.
LMAO
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?