News Did an Apache Helicopter Fire on Civilians in Baghdad?

[JohnDubYa]

Misguided human intervention in the form of an Apache helicopter firing a missile at you doesn't count as the "hand of evolution."

But the stupidity in willingly placing oneself in danger does.

There is a war going on. A military vehicle is burning. Lord knows how much live ammunition -- such as mortar shells --- could be inside. People around you are waving flags identifitying themselves as the enemy of the US. And you cannot see the stupidity in standing on top of the vehicle?

 

[Adam]

A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But Reuters reported that four civilians were killed, including an elderly woman when US soldiers opened fire for coming under rocket attack.

Tikrit police are convinced American soldiers -- though not locally based -- fired the fatal shots, but the U.S. military says it has no record that its troops were involved.

U.S. forces accidentally open fire on Iraqi police apparently involved in a high-speed car chase, killing at least eight Iraqis and a Jordanian hospital worker.

SIX children were crushed to death by a collapsing wall during an assault by US forces on a compound stuffed with weapons in eastern Afghanistan, an American military spokesman said today.

So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

HUTALA, AFGHANISTAN (Talon News) -- Hats and shoes littered a blood-stained field in a desolate Afghan village Sunday, a day after U.S. warplanes targeting a terror suspect mistakenly killed nine children.

The Associated Press (AP) reported that American officials offered their regrets Sunday and said they were "deeply saddened" by the deaths. While the Afghan government urged the U.S.-led coalition hunting Taliban and al Qaeda fighters to make sure such an accident is never repeated, the United Nations called for an investigation.

 

[Adam]

Dubya, if you blow up a building, and the building crushes the occupants, it's your fault.

Remember that wedding party in Afghanistan? And the wedding party in Iraq?

 

[Gza]

So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

I'm sure you've heard of something called cause and effect. If you shoot the wall and it falls on innocent civilians, you have in effect killed the civilians, ignoring the homicidal instincts of the wall of course.

 

[Adam]

I don't think he has.

 

[Artman]

As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.

In the case of the World Trade Center, there was no declared war. There is no comparison. What the people in the WTC did was daily routine, what the people in Iraq, hanging around the burning wreckage of a military vehicle, carrying enemy flags, was just plain stupid. I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.

 

[Adam]

Actually there was. Many groups had declared war against the USA. Including Osama Bin Laden. I posted part of his letter the other day. I have the whole thing here as a PDF file.

 

[devious_]

I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.

Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Here is your statement:

"A few more examples of US troops firing on innocent civilians in recent times:"

And you then cite as one of the examples a wall collapsing during a battle. Your habit of posting such links is disingenuous, especially since you never bothered to post the context. Did you really think no one would bother to read them?

A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Actually, that sounds like an urban legend. I have seen numerous stories about this incident, and the names and locations change each time.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

You can say that about any act of stupidity, for that matter. But I don't think it takes a lot of brains to stay off burning military vehicles.

As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target?

A closer analogy would be: If the civilians saw the World Trade Centers burning from two direct aircraft hits, should they willingly decide to enter the buildings? That is much closer to the level of stupidity displayed by the dead morons.

(Yes, firemen did enter the World Trade Centers, but for obvious reasons.)

Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

1. Anyone standing around or on top of a burning military vehicle is stupid (unless he has some legitimate reason, for which I cannot conjure).

2. Whether or not they are valid targets is still open to question. If some of the civilians, however, identified themselves as the enemy, then they become valid targets. (This may sound unfair, but remember it is the Iraqi resistance that has decided to fight in civilian clothes -- can't blame the US for that.)

3. Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.

One of the reasons soldiers should always fight in uniform is to prevent occurrences such as this from happening. Those innocent civilians that were killed can place the majority of the blame on the behavior of Iraqi resistance fighters (as well as their own stupidity).

 

[JohnDubYa]

Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.

No one tried and sentenced them. Their deaths were caused by numerous factors. If you really want to blame someone, blame the Iraqi resistance for its habit of trying to mingle with civilian populations, thus making it difficult to distinguish between the two. Accidents then are bound to happen.

In fact, I would bet that a large percentage of civilian deaths are caused by (1) armed militias placing civilians in harms way, (2) civilians that were not so innocent after all.

 

[Adam]

"A few more examples of US troops firing on innocent civilians in recent times:"

They targeted a civilian structure. Again.

Actually, that sounds like an urban legend. I have seen numerous stories about this incident, and the names and locations change each time.

Not really. Search for the name Derrick Richards.

http://www.seniormag.com/whitt/darwin.htm

A closer analogy would be: If the civilians saw the World Trade Centers burning from two direct aircraft hits, should they willingly decide to enter the buildings? That is much closer to the level of stupidity displayed by the dead morons.

It was a valid military target, according to your attempt at logic. Yes?

1. Anyone standing around or on top of a burning military vehicle is stupid (unless he has some legitimate reason, for which I cannot conjure).

My former Principle Warfare Officer aboard my ship was on a burning military vehicle. He directed other people, attempted to help others, et cetera.

2. Whether or not they are valid targets is still open to question. If some of the civilians, however, identified themselves as the enemy, then they become valid targets. (This may sound unfair, but remember it is the Iraqi resistance that has decided to fight in civilian clothes -- can't blame the US for that.)

You can, however, blame the USA for opening fire on innocent civilians. Which is what this is about.

3. Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.

They pulled the trigger, then somehow dashed around in front of the guns to be hit by the bullets?

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly how many different reports from different parts of the world do you need? How many must say that civilians were killed, including children? When does the civilian death toll cease being the fault of innocent civilians?

All of those reports are fine. None of them change the basic fact that those civilians chose to enter a battle.

Your comparisons to 9/11 are straw-man arguments, Adam.

Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.

Who said this was a punishment? Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.

 

[devious_]

Their deaths were caused by numerous factors.

According to you, they died because of their "stupid" actions.

 

[devious_]

Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.

Avoidable at the expense of their civil liberty.

And no, they did not forfeit that when they approached a destroyed military vehicle wearing whatever it is they wore.

 

[Adam]

All of those reports are fine. None of them change the basic fact that those civilians chose to enter a battle.

No they didn't. The battle came into their home.

Your comparisons to 9/11 are straw-man arguments, Adam. Who said this was a punishment? Their death was an avoidable accident caused by their own mistake.

How is it a straw man argument? It's a direct analogy.

Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley:
Target: Military asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

WTC attack:
Target: Economic asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

This is Dubya's explanation.

 

[Adam]

So far, the arguments for why it was perfectly fine and dandy to blow up a bunch of civilians seem to be:

1) It was there own fault for being in their own town.

2) It was their own fault for being ignorant of USA military procedures.

3) It was their own fault for celebrating in the streets after an invader's military asset was destroyed.

4) It was their own fault for standing where they stood when the USA military pulled the trigger.

Have I got them right? Just checking.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now I know we actually went to war with Iraq for non-compliance with UN resolutions. I'm sure there aren't any other countries out there that are breaking UN resolutions . But that's another thread.

Now what are you talking about? In your other post, you claimed about the lack of "authority." I showed you you were wrong. Whether the UN resolutions presented the US's case or if they were the justification itself (or a little bit of both) is immaterial here: the resolutions gave the US the authority to do what it did. With the massive anti-US bias in the UN, if there was anything to the claim that we didn't have the authority, it would have been raised in the UN.

If you're taking issue with the UN's refusal to back up its other resolutions with action, I'l agree with you! The UN needs to step up to the plate and fix places like Yugoslavia (the US led a NATO force after the UN declined to act) and Rwanda (the UN complained about the US using the "g" word because it compells them to act).

But yes, the failure of the UN to deal with people like Saddam and Milosevich is a topic for another thread.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley:
Target: Military asset.
Civilians present.
Asset attacked.
Civilians dead.

Civilians were not simply just "present." They willingly climbed aboard a burning military vehicle. Civilians should have enough common sense to know that such activity is dangerous.

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

To compare this situation with the World Trade Center is not even worth bothering. But if you really want to know...

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

This is Dubya's explanation.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even implied, anything of the sort.

 

[Adam]

.. the resolutions gave the US the authority to do what it did.

Incorrect.

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Note that the IAEA later declared their inspection process complete.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

1) The IAEA declared their inspection process complete.

2) Inspections by all agencies were actually allowed to continue.

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Iraq did make the required submission, which was intercepted by the USA, which then tore 8,000 pages out of it before anyone else could see it. http://www.sundayherald.com/30195 The USA then made its own copies, gave a few copies they claimed were unedited to UN Security Council members, and gave admittedly edited copies to other UN states.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Further breaches warranted not invasion of a UN member state, but a new report to the Security Council.

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

1) The IAEA declared their inspection process complete.

2) Inspections by all agencies were actually allowed to continue.

3) Interviews were conducted.

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

Blah, endorsing a letter.

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

This was all done, as reported by the IAEA.

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

As far as I know, Iraq complied fully withn this one as well. The only threat they made was against the USA when the USA was invading. Then Saddam said they would be fought in the streets and such.

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Also done.

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Iraq did its part, as reported by the IAEA. Not sure about every other member state.

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

Well, once again, Iraq complied with them and completed inspections.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Note: Failure to comply with points 4 or 11 would warrant not immediate invasion, but a decision to "convene immediately" to discuss harsher options.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

See paragraph 12. Breaches warrant a meeting.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Declaration of determination. Blah.

 

[Adam]

Civilians were not simply just "present." They willingly climbed aboard a burning military vehicle. Civilians should have enough common sense to know that such activity is dangerous.

Incorrect. There was a picture of one civilian on the vehicle. And many more near it on the ground. Thirteen people died, around sixty were injured, including women and children.

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

Difficult to do when the combatants bring the battle into your home. This is one of the many points you seem to keep missing.

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

Aren't they both valid military targets, in your opinion?

 

[devious_]

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

What battle would that be? It was a quick attack. By the time the chopper arrived, the battle was long over.

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

Stupidity is relative.

 

[member 5645]

What battle would that be? It was a quick attack. By the time the chopper arrived, the battle was long over.


Stupidity is relative.

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:

Witnesses said the fighting in Haifa Street - a notoriously volatile area hostile to the US occupation - started at 3am.

"We don't know whether it was the Americans or the Iraqis who started it," Abu Adil said. "Several mortars were fired at 7am and then a car bomb blew up the tank. After the tank exploded a helicopter started shooting at us. We all ran."

So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance?

 

[JohnDubYa]

But stupidity is relative, phatmonkey. :)

 

[russ_watters]

Avoidable at the expense of their civil liberty.

Civil liberty? What does that have to do with anything? Where does it say that you have a right to enter a battlefield and expect the opposite sides to stop the battle for you?

And no, they did not forfeit that when they approached a destroyed military vehicle wearing whatever it is they wore.

Its not a matter of what they were wearing. The battle was in progress, they entered it, and they got shot.

No they didn't. The battle came into their home.

Well, that may be true, but if so, they shouldn't have been cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle. There wouldn't have been a battle there that day if the terrorists hadn't started one and the civilians who mingled with the terrorists wouldn't have died if they had stayed in their homes. So I guess you're right - not all of the blame goes to the stupidity of the people killed - some is for the terrorists who started the battle in a civilian neighborhood in the first place.

It was a valid military target, according to your attempt at logic. Yes?

No, Adam, the WTC was not a valid military target and even if it were, its still a different situation than this. The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot. There was no such expectation for those in the WTC on 9/11.

How is it a straw man argument? It's a direct analogy.

Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley: [numbering added]
1. Target: Military asset.
2. Civilians present.
3. Asset attacked.
4. Civilians dead.

WTC attack:
1. Target: Economic asset.
2. Civilians present.
3. Asset attacked.
4. Civilians dead.

That's a strawman because its a mischaracterization (that's kinda the definition of a strawman).

1. The US was not in an open war on 9/11 and even if it were, intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war.

2. As I said above, there was no way those civilians in the WTC should have known (or even considered) that they could be attacked. In the battle in Iraq, the civilians chose to enter a battle already in progress. After the 1st WTC attack, people evacuated the area. The two events are so widely different, this is a transparent attempt to hijack the thread.

3. The battle was already in progress. You can't look at the firing on the Bradly in a vacuum (obviously, it wouldn't have even been there burning, had there not been a battle).

4. In the WTC, the civilians themselves were the target. In this incident, the Bradley (and the enemy soldiers around it that were firing at the helicopter) was the target. Again, they are so widely different as to make your point a transparent diversion.

 

[Artman]

Adam, if you want to compare the situation to those injured in the attack on 911 to the Pentagon, I might be willing to go there. THe workers at the Pentagon go each day knowing that they may be attacked. It is not stupid, it is their chosen profession, including the associated risk. Those who were climbing on and dancing near the burning Bradley did so knowing the associated risk, or they were stupid.

 

[studentx]

It indicates a great lack of respect for human life when you only post such stories when it involves americans.

Today, 59 Iraqis were killed but not by Americans.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Those who were climbing on and dancing near the burning Bradley did so knowing the associated risk, or they were stupid.

Both.

And I hardly think that those who worked in the Pentagon felt that their lives were in danger.

 

[Artman]

Both.

And I hardly think that those who worked in the Pentagon felt that their lives were in danger.

Probably not, but the building is somewhat fortified, and their are security measures in place to minimize danger. Still, it is a military target.

 

[Adam]

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:


So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance?

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

 

[Adam]

Well, that may be true, but if so, they shouldn't have been cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle.

Were they?

There wouldn't have been a battle there that day if the terrorists hadn't started one and the civilians who mingled with the terrorists wouldn't have died if they had stayed in their homes.

There wouldn't have been a battle had the US not invaded.

The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot.

In their homes?

There was no such expectation for those in the WTC on 9/11.

Obviously they should have expected it. Or are they just stupid too?

1. The US was not in an open war on 9/11 and

These people have been attacking the USA for ten years.

even if it were, intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war.

Thank you.

2. As I said above, there was no way those civilians in the WTC should have known (or even considered) that they could be attacked. In the battle in Iraq, the civilians chose to enter a battle already in progress. After the 1st WTC attack, people evacuated the area. The two events are so widely different, this is a transparent attempt to hijack the thread.

So on the one hand, you're saying the Iraqi civilians should all know that bombed out US military vehicles are valid military targets. And on the other hand, American civilians should not know that American financial and industrial mechanisms are valid military targets.

3. The battle was already in progress. You can't look at the firing on the Bradly in a vacuum (obviously, it wouldn't have even been there burning, had there not been a battle).

In their homes.

4. In the WTC, the civilians themselves were the target.

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

 

[Hurkyl]

The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot.


In their homes?

They weren't in their homes, they were crowded around a damaged military vehicle.


If there were military conflicts in my town, and I knew of a damaged enemy vehicle down the street, I would think it entirely unsafe to go and dance around it. I really don't understand your point at all.

2>And it was an incredibly skilled bombing. While it is obviously no consolation to those who have died, or have had family that died, this war dropped more bombs than the entire gulf war I in the first few days, with far fewer civilian casualties from.

This is the kind of thing I like to hear: comparative statistics. Virtually all the figures tossed around in these threads are presented in a vacuum, and are thus entirely meaningless, but one can learn something from this.

So, of course, I must ask if you have a reference to back up this statement.

 

[kat]

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

Commercial Airliners are civilian targets no matter how you twist and turn it.

 

[Evo]

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

If the civilians weren't the targets, why wouldn't they have struck on a Sunday?

It seems to me they wanted the towers full of civilians. They chose early morning flights because they would stand less risk of flight delays than later flights. They wanted to hit all at once. You saw what happened to the one delayed flight.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

As you all should know, aljazeera is banned by the Iraqi government. Maybe that's why they quoted from reuters for the above article. See the link Adam posted at the beginning of the thread if you don't know what I 'm talking about (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...3816BA7A5F0.htm )

What's interesting is that for aljazeera didn't quote the whole Reuters report, which can be found at:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581858&section=news

"Heavy fighting erupted in Haifa Street, a thoroughfare in central Baghdad notorious as a rebel stronghold. The crackle of gunfire echoed for several hours as U.S. tanks and tank-like Bradley fighting vehicles moved into the area."

This paragraph was missing. Look like the fighting didn't discourage the curious and jubilant crowd from "swarmed around it, cheering, throwing stones and waving the black and yellow sunburst banner of Iraq's most-feared terror organization" (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/9640817.htm )

or "Jubilant fighters, curiosity seekers and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several placed a black and yellow banner of Tawhid and Jihad in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-09-11-baghdad-fighting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

I don't know, but like a few of us said, it's would be wise to stay away from area where there are fighting instead of seeking it, especially when the vehicle was still burning; I'll even run away from a car in flame!

It's so convenient to blame the American and the Iraqi interim government for everything even though "the Tawhid and Jihad Group of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who Washington says is behind much Iraq unrest, claimed responsibility for the violence"; interesting...!


Note that the vehicle was burning when the crowd "celebrated"





http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581858&section=news

 

[Outcast]

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:


So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance?

Same people probably thought it was a a good time to come dance in the streets on 9-11 too.

 

[russ_watters]

Adam, if you want to compare the situation to those injured in the attack on 911 to the Pentagon, I might be willing to go there.

But he can't, as the Pentagon is a military installation full of military personnel and civilians working for the military. He'd be changing one major difference for another.

The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

Add that to the list of factual inaccuracies: As the first plane hit at 8:46 and most financial people start work at 8:00 or 8:30 (markets open at 9:00), the attacks were timed so the buildings would be at their fullest. Besides, you know that killing as many civilians as possible was the goal in 9/11: Bin Laden has said it himself.

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

Two more facutal inaccuracies: the APC was in the street, not inside a building (obviously), and the battle was in that street because the terrorists started it there.

Were they? [cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle]

Read your own links, Adam. It says quite explicitly that the terrorists started the battle, the area was a known terrorist hotbed, and many of the peopel around the tank were the very terrorists who participated in the battle to that point.

There wouldn't have been a battle had the US not invaded.

Poor attempt at diversion, Adam. You do, of course, know the difference between a battle and a war.

Obviously they should have expected it[9/11]. Or are they just stupid too?

Expected it based on what? No one was shooting at the building when they entered it that morning. Really, Adam, you're being transparently absurd here. Are you trying to be funny?

These people have been attacking the USA for ten years.

Thats true - terrorist attacks are something that are always a possibility. But that fact has nothing at all to do with the battle in Iraq (though the battle was started by Al Queda terrorists, it wasn't a terrorist attack) - unless, of course, you wish to argue that the same Al Queda terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of those in 9/11 were responsible for the civilan deaths in this incident. Tenuous, as the civilans in this incident chose to mingle with the terrorists, but I'll allow it...

Thank you.[re: intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war]

You're welcome - so you agree now that the two situations are different? Because if you wish to argue that the US helicopter intentionally targeted civilans, you're going to need some evidence (and some precident) to back that up.

So on the one hand, you're saying the Iraqi civilians should all know that bombed out US military vehicles are valid military targets. And on the other hand, American civilians should not know that American financial and industrial mechanisms are valid military targets.

Yes to the first part (it should be obvious to anyone using a little common sense - and btw, one of those articles does say some people fled at the sight of the helicopter), no to the second: financial institutions are not valid military targets and the WTC was not a shipyard or tank factory.

edit: more on financial institutions: I'm sure you will wish to make the comparison between what the terrorists are doing and the concept of total war from WWII. It doesn't apply: Al Queda is not looking for a military victory here and attacking the WTC was not calculated to prevent us from building more tanks. The goal of Al Queda is to not military victory, but civilan deaths and destroying our way of life.

 

[Adam]

They weren't in their homes, they were crowded around a damaged military vehicle.

Their home town.

 

[Adam]

Commercial Airliners are civilian targets no matter how you twist and turn it.

I agree. However, another user is trying to show that attacking civilians is acceptable if your objective is, in the end, a military target.

 

[Adam]

If the civilians weren't the targets, why wouldn't they have struck on a Sunday?

On the other hand, if they wanted to kill civilians, why go so early?

It seems to me they wanted the towers full of civilians. They chose early morning flights because they would stand less risk of flight delays than later flights. They wanted to hit all at once. You saw what happened to the one delayed flight.

Fair enough. Maybe so. Do delays happen so often there?

 

[Adam]

Same people probably thought it was a a good time to come dance in the streets on 9-11 too.

Almost. There were thousands of people standing around gawking.

 

[Adam]

But he can't, as the Pentagon is a military installation full of military personnel and civilians working for the military. He'd be changing one major difference for another.

You're trying to have it different ways yourself, Russ, as is Dubya. Is it acceptable to taregt civilians for the purposes of achieving military objectives? I've seen several people here claim it is. Example: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden... Are you now saying those acts were terrorism? Which is it?

Some here have said it was okay to bomb those cities and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because it was a valid military tactic. How is that different from the WTC attack?

Add that to the list of factual inaccuracies: As the first plane hit at 8:46 and most financial people start work at 8:00 or 8:30 (markets open at 9:00), the attacks were timed so the buildings would be at their fullest.

The WTC generally housed around 50,000 people during a working day, plus around 150,000 visitors. Most arrived after 9 AM. Clearly, since there were not 50,000 casualties, you are basically wrong when you say most of them started work there at 8:00 or 8:30 AM.

Besides, you know that killing as many civilians as possible was the goal in 9/11: Bin Laden has said it himself.

Can you show me this quote?

Two more facutal inaccuracies: the APC was in the street, not inside a building (obviously), and the battle was in that street because the terrorists started it there.

Terrorists flew USA military hardware and personnel to Iraq, invaded and bombed the hell out of them, then parked USA military APCs in the streets of their home towns? Wow. Tricky terrorists...

Expected it based on what?

Based on it clearly being a military target. According to some users here, at least.

You're welcome - so you agree now that the two situations are different?

No, you agreed with me that attacking civilians was against the rules of war. Thanks again for that.

 

[JohnDubYa]

On the other hand, if they wanted to kill civilians, why go so early?

Sheeez, Adam, look at what has happened to your argumentation. You are now claiming that the terrorists went out of their way to prevent civilian casualties. That is completely absurd. As Evo said, they could have brought down the towers on a Saturday or Sunday --- there would have been almost no one inside the towers --- if they really cared about human life. If there is one thing we should know about Al Quada, it is that they are impervious to human suffering.

 

[Adam]

I don't think they cared about lives at all. I think they were horrible scum. Just like the people who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Baghdad. Just like the soldiers who killed those innocent civilians in Iraq the other day.

However, since most people didn't start work there until after 9 AM, the idea that they were trying for maximum civilian deaths doesn't hold water.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I don't think they cared about lives at all. I think they were horrible scum. Just like the people who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Baghdad. Just like the soldiers who killed those innocent civilians in Iraq the other day.

I'm done with this *******.

 

[Adam]

It's not a typo. I was not referring to number 12 Baker Street. I was referring to all their homes.

 

[plover]

Doh!

It's not a typo. I was not referring to number 12 Baker Street. I was referring to all their homes.

I apologize. It's a pretty tangled thread—I thought you were reiterating the point you made in post #66, which I read as referring to the city or the country as their home, rather to an actual building. My mistake.

I fixed up the post. It should be accurate now...

EDIT:

Having now convinced myself that I'm not sure I was reading anyone correctly, I removed the post.

 

[studentx]

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

Actually in recent battles, Najaf in particular, most of the civilian population had left the city and it was occupied by foreign fighters, sleeping, looting and destroying homes without permission from the original habitants. Could you show me some proof that the iraqis dancing on the vehicle actually owned a house, let's say in a 50 mile radius?

 

[Artman]

Adam, I can see you are very opposed to the USA occupation of Iraq. I also feel that you are oppsed to violence and death against innocent people. I believe that we all are, whether you think that is the case or not.

What I want to know is, do you think that those persons celebrating around the damaged Bradley are truly innocent? Do you really think that they were just civilians walking past, innocently celebrating the invaders loss, or could they have been insurgent rebels in the act of creating a propaganda moment for the reporter when the helicopter showed up, or possibly the ones who bombed the vehicle, or possibly taken shots at the helicopter?

I am not asking you to say that they deserved to be shot. I just want to know if you can accept that they may not be completely what they are being made out to be.

 

[Adam]

Actually in recent battles, Najaf in particular, most of the civilian population had left the city and it was occupied by foreign fighters, sleeping, looting and destroying homes without permission from the original habitants. Could you show me some proof that the iraqis dancing on the vehicle actually owned a house, let's say in a 50 mile radius?

So all those little kids they show on the news are foreign terrorists?