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.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.
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/
...
united states knowingly kills civilians
...
Recent example?
Other than part of a larger operation.
(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'
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'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'
, 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'
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 ...'
.......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
Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets.Kennas I'm curious; In your opinion do you consider the above to constitute 'knowingly' killing civilians or not?
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.a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al
(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
Obviously tongue in cheek there kennas. Equally, I'm calling for the western youth to stop taking drugs and financing the Taliban.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.
- WHAM - winning hearts - in the plutonic sense
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.
The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
Oh, but we are superior!
Kiwis would give us a run for our money.Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.
Clarke would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
Take that anyway you like.
Kiwis would give us a run for our money.
Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
Take that anyway you like.
Prawn_86 said:That brought some unwanted images
Lucky I can't see any YouTubes 2020 might post up on this one.LOL
I'd pay to see that...
And pay for a shrink afterwards.
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?