Awful news in Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date
  • #126
57
0
Russ. i still don't see any proof that the suicide bombers had the kids as their target.

In cnn says:

"The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

Now, i guess those who opened fire twice over the destroyed apc also saw the kids and the civilians around it, and they opened fire anyway, a complete disregard for civilian life in that attack to.

Again, there is no proof that the suicide bombers objective was to kill the kids, , we can also say that us marines was using kids as human shields. there is no proof of anything, so as far as i know, both are acts of terrorism, becouse maybe as the terrorist want to send a message that kids should not mix with us soldiers, us soldiers wanted to send a message that civilians should not be around destroyed apc....
 
  • #127
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Burnsys said:
Russ. i still don't see any proof that the suicide bombers had the kids as their target.
Proof? Is that what this is about - you want absolute proof before you believe anything done against the US was terrorism, but will make assumptions and backhand accusations about the US's motives? Forget proof: tell me what you believe. Do you believe the attack was intentionally timed based on the presence of the children? Do you believe that a suicide bomber would select a Humvee with children around it instead of any other of half a dozen higher value military vehicles in the same convoy? What you suggest does not make any sense.
Now, i guess those who opened fire twice over the destroyed apc also saw the kids and the civilians around it, and they opened fire anyway, a complete disregard for civilian life in that attack to.
You "guess"? You're willing to make a guess in this case but not in the other? WHY do you refuse to be consistent? In any case, even if what you just said were true, it still isn't terrorism. - Unless you want to post the definition of terrorism you're using that allows you to make such broad generalities....

And no, as a matter of fact, it is not likely that whoever destroyed the APC knew what sort of people were around it - he would have been too far away. But besides, even if both knew or both didn't, they are still different circumstances. One was a battle and the other wasn't.
Again, there is no proof that the suicide bombers objective was to kill the kids, , we can also say that us marines was using kids as human shields. there is no proof of anything, so as far as i know, both are acts of terrorism, becouse maybe as the terrorist want to send a message that kids should not mix with us soldiers, us soldiers wanted to send a message that civilians should not be around destroyed apc....
Well, I appreciate the acknowledgement that you just plain make this stuff up as you go along. You're making no attempt whatsoever to apply a consistent standard or even any logic at all and using any holes in any scenario to paint whatever picture seems good to you. But this is consistent with your approach to the issue: you believe whatever you want, no matter how implausible, that allows you to support terrorism without explicitly admitting it (perhaps even to yourself).
 
Last edited:
  • #128
russ_watters said:
Well, I appreciate the acknowledgement that you just plain make this stuff up as you go along.
Now if you'll just admit it, we can all sleep tonight.

The fact is that since it was an illegal war in contravention of Kellogg-Briand and not sanctioned by a UN majority makes anything you did there an act of terrorism.

Tell me Iraq wasn't about a) oil and b) an object lesson to all states the USA has a beef with. (Axis of Evil)
 
  • #129
17
0
it was an illegal war... not sanctioned by a UN majority
You know, the UN has only sanctioned three (3) wars since its foundation. The fact that a war is "illegal" is totally meaningless...
 
  • #130
Art
Art said:
BTW I appreciate your answering the question I posed. I am surprised by the silence emanating from those so quick to jump on the bandwagon to demand condemnation of attacks upon civilians from TSM.
As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?
The absence of comments apart from Hurkyl's suggests that the neocons demanding instant condemnation of terrorist atrocities committed by muslims do indeed have tunnel vision when confronted with atrocities in general.
 
  • #131
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
The Smoking Man said:
Now if you'll just admit it, we can all sleep tonight.
How can you say that with a straight face right before saying this?:
The fact is that since it was an illegal war in contravention of Kellogg-Briand and not sanctioned by a UN majority makes anything you did there an act of terrorism.
Please cite the specific definition of "terrorism" where that comes from. :rolleyes:
 
  • #132
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Art said:
The absence of comments apart from Hurkyl's suggests that the neocons demanding instant condemnation of terrorist atrocities committed by muslims do indeed have tunnel vision when confronted with atrocities in general.
You equated two acts that were not equal and then asked us to admit they were equal. Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6. :rolleyes:

The absence of replies to your intentional obfuscation (save for one that very correctly exposed it) should not be surprising.

late edit split to 2 posts because of reply...
 
Last edited:
  • #133
Art
russ_watters said:
You equated two acts that were not equal and then asked us to admit they were equal. Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6. :rolleyes:

The absence of replies to your intentional obfuscation should not be surprising.
I believe my post was crystal clear at least to those who actually wanted to understand it. There is certainly no obfuscation in my post. In fact I specifically requested that the situations be judged on known facts and suppositions be excluded. Now if you still believe the 2 incidents are not equatable please explain factually why not, as opposed to sarcastic comments such as
Yeah, sure: right after you admit that 5=6. :rolleyes:
Don't you think the use of inanities only serves to lower the tone of intelligent debate and makes it impossible to derive conlusions on topics, or is that your intent?
 
  • #134
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
I'll tell you what, though: if you can show, with a chart, that the two acts really were equivalent, and that they fit an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, then I'll concede that the act by the US was terrorism and condemn them equally. That's fair, right? Here, I'll even start it for you:

Incident A: US bombing of its own APC, killing some civilians.
Incident B: Bombing of a US Humvee, killing some civilians.

------------------------A-----------------------------B-------
Target of attack: US military vehicle.----Civilians surrounding a US military vehicle.

hmm, damn, already not the same. Perhaps you can do better...
 
  • #135
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Art said:
I believe my post was crystal clear at least to those who actually wanted to understand it. There is certainly no obfuscation in my post. In fact I specifically requested that the situations be judged on known facts and suppositions be excluded.
Great - then you won't mind actually walking us through the facts with a nice little chart to show how they're equal. You can't just say they are equal and call that an argument, then demand others prove you wrong (actually, I and Hurkyl already did show why you're wrong....) - that's burden of proof shifting. You must make your own arguments.

And actually, I'm not really sure what post you're referring to - the first I see on the subject (77)doesn't contain a question, only a thinly veiled insult.

edit: actually, it did have a question - "will you explain...?" Answer: No. it is up to you to make your point.
Now if you still believe the 2 incidents are not equatable please explain factually why not...
See above.
....as opposed to sarcastic comments such as Don't you think the use of inanities only serves to lower the tone of intelligent debate and makes it impossible to derive conlusions on topics, or is that your intent?
Pot:kettle, Art. The post of yours I responded to had two separate insults in it. If you want respect, act like you deserve it. You're in my house, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
  • #136
Art
russ_watters said:
Great - then you won't mind actually walking us through the facts with a nice little chart to show how they're equal. You can't just say they are equal and call that an argument, then demand others prove you wrong (actually, I and Hurkyl already did show why you're wrong....) - that's burden of proof shifting. You must make your own arguments.
I have responded to Hurkyl's post and am awaiting his reply and I do not see anything in your response to refute my contentions in any factual way.

russ_watters said:
And actually, I'm not really sure what post you're referring to - the first I see on the subject doesn't contain a question, only a thinly veiled insult.
Insult??? to whom pray tell? :confused: My question btw was would those who aggressively challenged TSM to condemn the attrocity committed by the Iraqi suicide bomber show consistancy by themselves condemning the actions of the helicopter pilots and all other acts of savagery and murder. As for formulating charts, the limited word processing capabilities of this forum would make that task too difficult but I think I supplied enough information already in any case.
russ_watters said:
See above. Pot:kettle, Art. The post of yours I responded to had two separate insults in it.
Please advise what the 2 insults are as I take this charge seriously. If you continue to make unfounded accusations I will be forced to report your post.
russ_watters said:
If you want respect, act like you deserve it. You're in my house, not the other way around.
Are you saying I am not deserving of respect? Does this comment of yours not fall under the site definition of a personal attack? Also would you ellucidate on your comment "You're in my house" as I am unsure what you mean by this.
 
  • #137
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Now you are refusing to look at the facts and that the incident was OUTSIDE of Bahgdad by 30 miles with no legitimate target in the area.
Emphasis mine. Is that a fact? When did you present this fact? Or are you assuming that, because it's a residential area, that there is not a legitimate target in the area?

Do you hold insurgent activities to the same standard? Do you consider any bombing that occurs in a residential area illegitimate? (Even if a coalition convoy is passing through?)


I'm sorry ... dropping a bunker buster in a residential area outside of Bahgdad isn't terrorism?
No, it's not. Unless civilians were the target of the bombing, of course.

Technically, even that's not enough to classify the event as terrorism, but it's the major component that you, Art, and others consistently ignore, so ATM I don't consider it worth bringing up the other details.


==== begin of response to Art ====

On the inequality we agree but based on the actual facts available, the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation (ref the 2 passes over the vehicle) as opposed to the unproven intent of the suicide bomber to kill civilians.
Your sentence is missing an essential phrase: you assert the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation to do what?

By the way, the form of your argument suggests that you believe the bombing was not a premeditated act. Are you suggesting that the bomber spontaneously decided to blow something up, and just happened to have a car full of explosives nearby, and just happened to spot an American humvee?


Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.


Originally Posted by Hurkyl
Ok, let me try it more bluntly: killing yourself while performing a condemnable act does not make it any less condemnable.
In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker.
No, you most certainly have not. Let me remind you, from post #72:

I will add for the record I find both actions utterly despicable with the US attack if anything slightly more so for two reasons.
First it was cowardly; the murderers who fired the missiles and cannon fire were never in any danger themselves while they committed their carnage whereas at least the suicide bomber sacrificed his own life
But I'm content that you have changed your tune on this point.


(P.S. since we're tossing around labels for their connotation, consider that a suicide bombing is an extreme act of cowardice: one does not have to live with the consequences of the action)


As I posed before is it possible for people here to be fair minded enough to condemn all acts of savagery and murder irrelevant of the flag the perpetrators commit them under?
Yes. I would like to make a counter-question: is it possible for people here to consider the intent behind an action, before leaping to the conclusion that it is an "act of savagery and murder"? (Recall that intent is part of the very definition of murder!)
 
Last edited:
  • #138
russ_watters said:
How can you say that with a straight face right before saying this?: Please cite the specific definition of "terrorism" where that comes from. :rolleyes:
LOL

Why YOU Russ ...

America decalred war illegally and invaded a sovereign nation.

All people killed as a result of that act are deemed to have been killed by terrorists who struck at civillian targets which is what ALL OF IRAQ WAS!

America is guilty of exactly what Japan was guilty of doing.

In fact, Japan uses almost exectly the same words on the brochures at the disputed Tokyo Shrine ... 'We were just trying to 'liberate' Asia from Western influence'.

An information booklet produced by the shrine puts it all in context. "Some 1,068 people, who were wrongly accused as war criminals by the Allied court, were enshrined here," the pamphlet says. "War is a really tragic thing, but it was necessary in order for us to protect the independence of Japan and to prosper together with Asian neighbours."
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s763517.htm

When that excuse was used the last time, 14 Class A war criminals lost their lives because of 'crimes against peace'.
 
  • #139
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Do you really think a passage from information booklet in a shrine is sufficient justification to equate the Japanese invasions in WWII with the American invasion in Iraq? :confused:

I didn't realize the Japanese invasions (or even Germany's invasions!) were acts of terrorism anyways, so this weak analogy doesn't even support your assertions.
 
  • #140
Art
Hurkyl said:
Your sentence is missing an essential phrase: you assert the US attack was worse due to their proven premeditation to do what?
To press ahead with their attack on a low value military target despite knowing there would be civilian casualties. BTW You have not given any reason why they used missiles to destroy the target and then opened fire with cannon?

Hurkyl said:
By the way, the form of your argument suggests that you believe the bombing was not a premeditated act. Are you suggesting that the bomber spontaneously decided to blow something up, and just happened to have a car full of explosives nearby, and just happened to spot an American humvee?
Of course the attack on the US convoy was intended and premeditated in that a car had been stuffed full of explosives ready to take advantage should an opportunity arise. I was under the impression it was you who thought it was purely coincidental that a convoy happened to be on the spot when the bomber launched his attack against a group of civilians.

Hurkyl said:
Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.
You are incorrect I have already addressed this point
It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire.

Hurkyl said:
No, you most certainly have not. Let me remind you, from post #72:

But I'm content that you have changed your tune on this point.

(P.S. since we're tossing around labels for their connotation, consider that a suicide bombing is an extreme act of cowardice: one does not have to live with the consequences of the action)
I haven't changed my tune one iota. I stand by what I said. Both actions are despicable derived from twisted ideals with the US slightly worse based on the facts available for the aforementioned reasons. As for what constitutes bravery and cowardice I notice you didn't answer my question so I'll repeat it. "Do you think the US helicopter pilots would have pressed home their attack if they knew it would result in their certain death?"

Hurkyl said:
Yes. I would like to make a counter-question: is it possible for people here to consider the intent behind an action, before leaping to the conclusion that it is an "act of savagery and murder"? (Recall that intent is part of the very definition of murder!)
Does your first word "Yes" signify you do condemn all acts of savagery and murder no matter who commits them? If so then we are at least on the right track.
As for your counter question based on what you have said above I presume you are suggesting that this 'benefit of the doubt as to intent' is only to be afforded to the US forces and not to insurgents fighting an army of occupation. :rolleyes:

In summary I now have the answer to my original question. It seems that the neocons are not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces thus relinquishing the high moral ground they were trying to preach from.
 
  • #141
Hurkyl said:
Do you really think a passage from information booklet in a shrine is sufficient justification to equate the Japanese invasions in WWII with the American invasion in Iraq? :confused:

I didn't realize the Japanese invasions (or even Germany's invasions!) were acts of terrorism anyways, so this weak analogy doesn't even support your assertions.
Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.

Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.

Bush broke the same laws as the Japanese when he went into Iraq.
 
  • #142
alexandra
Art said:
Also would you ellucidate on your comment "You're in my house" as I am unsure what you mean by this.
Yes, Russ - I, too, would like to know what you meant by this. I think your meaning may be important. Although I have some ideas about what I think you meant, I'd rather you state your meaning yourself (just in case I'm wrong).
 
  • #143
221
0
No, it's not. Unless civilians were the target of the bombing, of course.
The American Army needs to be held better accountable of its miss-fire, friendly fire, badly trainned fire, whatever you want to call it... The Brits had more friendly fire deaths in the first stages of the Iraq war from the US than from Sadams army... I remember seeing John Simpson, almost get blown up by US planes that attacked his convoy, and of course there was the friendly fire incident with the Italian report Giuliana Sgrena who was released from being a hostage and almost died, and nothing happened to the soliders... I can understand the situation however. Pointless war, foregin land, undertrainned and under equipt soliders trying to "beat" an enemy that is unbeatable using force (just like Veitnam). An enemy that would prefer to kill themselfs and take out a few of you than live under the US Flag, or a Flag condoned by the US... Would make me seriously nevous...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm

The Iraq war was a Bad idea...
 
Last edited:
  • #144
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
You have not given any reason why they used missiles to destroy the target and then opened fire with cannon?
For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?


I was under the impression it was you who thought it was purely coincidental that a convoy happened to be on the spot when the bomber launched his attack against a group of civilians.
Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.


Hurkyl said:
Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.
You are incorrect I have already addressed this point
Art said:
It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire.
Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?


I haven't changed my tune one iota.
So you were lying when you said the following?

Art said:
In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker.

Does your first word "Yes" signify you do condemn all acts of savagery and murder no matter who commits them?
I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.

As for your counter question based on what you have said above I presume you are suggesting that this 'benefit of the doubt as to intent' is only to be afforded to the US forces and not to insurgents fighting an army of occupation.
Then you presume wrongly.


It seems that the neocons are not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces thus relinquishing the high moral ground they were trying to preach from.
Why do you think that neocons are preaching, and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?


==== End of response to Art ====


Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.
I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.


Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.
The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.
 
  • #145
Art
Hurkyl said:
For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3652174.stm




Hurkyl said:
Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.
By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda. Now what was that you said about giving the benefit of the doubt re intent?



Hurkyl said:
Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?
The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion. Comes under the innocent until proven guilty maxim.

Hurkyl said:
So you were lying when you said the following?
Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.

Hurkyl said:
I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.
You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military. It appears you only have a problem when you realise that doing so will tar each side with the same brush.

Hurkyl said:
Then you presume wrongly.
I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.


Hurkyl said:
Why do you think that neocons are preaching
I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.
Hurkyl said:
and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?
Uh! because they haven't?????


Hurkyl said:
I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.
I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?
 
  • #146
Hurkyl said:
I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.

The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.
Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

Class A Crimes were and are reserved for the heads of state and are referred to as 'crimes against peace'.

I will think that you will also find that even Godwin's law is waved when the actual data involved is identical because we do have this nagging little thing in law which states precidence.

If you actually look at the testimony of the Tokyo trials, you will find that the 14 were executed for using false statements to insite their population into an illegal war. "Crimes against Peace"

A simple viewing of the Downing Street Memo and what it lays out for the creation of this war IS proof of that complicity on the part of the American and British Governments.

Don't you understand that?

The wording of the 'excuses' being almost identical is just an eerie and scary coincidence. :surprised
 
  • #147
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda.
No, I mean by all the reports I have read, and everyone who has discussed the issue without taking a "But how can we possibly know what he was thinking?" attitude.


The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion.
There are two primary pieces of evidence supporting this assertion. (Which wasn't mine, but given what I know, I support it)

First off, there is motive: civilians in the area were beginning to become friendly with the coalition troops.

Secondly, there is the act itself. What I've read suggests not only that the coalition vehicles had been in the area for a while, but they even formed stationary targets, giving plenty of opportunity for a strike.


This (or any other crime, incidentally) could certainly be explained away by an amazing string of coincidences, but I'm asking if there's cause for reasonable doubt.


Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.
I don't think I acted wrongly: report my post and bring in a third party if you want.

You've said the US act was worse, then in no uncertain terms you said you viewed them equally, then, in no uncertain terms, you said you found the US act worse. I repeat my query: were you lying when you made one of these statements?


You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military
I don't?


I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.
It does?


I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.
Who is? Could you give examples?


Uh! because they haven't?????
Who hasn't? And why does that mean they're not prepared to do so?


I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?
That assumes that it will happen, doesn't it?


=== End of response to Art ===

Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

...

Don't you understand that?
You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.
 
  • #148
Art
Here's an interesting new report by a US-UK non-gov't group on deaths of civilians in Iraq which runs contra to the US gov't propaganda in relation to insurgents prime targets being civilians;

Over 8,000 Iraqis killed in ’03 attack: NGO releases survey

BAGHDAD, July 19: US-led forces, guerillas and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians, police, and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by a US-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths in the two years surveyed to March 2005 were in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq’s 25 million people live, according to media reports monitored by Iraq Body Count.

Of the total, nearly 37 per cent were killed by US-led forces, the group said.

The survey found that almost a third of civilian deaths – over 8,000 people – occurred during the invasion itself, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when US-led forces carried out their ‘shock and awe’ bombing campaign on Baghdad.

In the first year after the invasion, around 6,000 civilians were killed, a number that nearly doubled in the second year, indicating a general increase in violence. The group said deaths caused by insurgents and criminals had risen steadily.

US-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths, with criminals a close second at 36 per cent, while guerillas accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 per cent.
Note the 9.5% includes police and recruits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm http://www.iraqdaily.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
Hurkyl said:
You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.
You seem to miss the point that there is but one crime above all others that has been comitted and that all other crimes are moot points.

Once you rule out the war itself as being legal, all other actions beyond that point are illegal when they are performed to support the initial crime.

That crime was originally penned as The Kellogg-Briand Pact and later re-stated in the Charter of the UN.

It was used to prosecute the Class A Criminals of WWII and has not been repealed.
 

Related Threads on Awful news in Iraq

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
15K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
77
Views
6K
Top