News Did an Apache Helicopter Fire on Civilians in Baghdad?

[Adam]

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.

I know we aren't all opposed to it. We have a few users here who, in their desperation to prop up their patriotic faith, are actually suggesting the civilians deserved it.

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?

Some of the dead are children. Do you wish to suggest they were Evil Terror Kids or something?

 

[Artman]

Some of the dead are children. Do you wish to suggest they were Evil Terror Kids or something?

No not evil.

I am reminded of the lady who sued a store because she tripped over a child crawling on the floor. The child was hers.

Kids do what they are shown. I blame the parents for those children being there.

 

[russ_watters]

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

No one is saying anything of the sort. And besides, you know that the civilians themselves were the target. You're not quite lying here, but you're close. Either way, this is intentionally deceptive.

Their home town.

Now you're changing wording and changing the situation - those people didn't die because the fight was in their home town, they died because they left their homes to participate in the battle. Again, not quite a lie, but intentionally deceptive.

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

Since we know you know this to be factually wrong (since it has now been pointed out to you), this is now a lie. In case you missed it before, the flights were timed specificaly for a condition of high occupancy in both the planes and the bulidings. Stop lying.

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?

Why don't you find some actual quotes from me instead of putting words in my mouth. Again, intentionally deceptive diversion.

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.

Again, factually inaccurate, and, I can only conclude, an intentional lie. You of course know that virtually everyone who died was above the crashes and everyone who lived below.

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

According only to you and without substantiation (but backed with plenty of lies).

In light of all these deceptions/lies, that's it for me in this thread. Adam, you've shown your true colors quite clearly here. When your thoughtless rhetoric is contradicted with real arguments and exposed, you respond with bluster, diversion, deception, and lies. The further back into a corner you get, the further over the line you go.

 

[studentx]

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

Could you show me where there were kids in the Najaf battle?

 

[Adam]

And besides, you know that the civilians themselves were the target.

I know that the excuse was that the US troops were aiming for the military vehicle in the middle of a bunch of civilians. Given the interviews I've seen and read with US troops regarding their activities in Iraq, I have no reason to believe they were not deliberately aiming at the civilians. If you watch Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911, you'll see a lovely interview with a US soldier describing how friggin great it is to watch the Iraqi people burn and explode. After Desert Storm, I read an interview with one of the Apache pilots behind that "Highway Of Death" massacre; he described how, at the time, being young, patriotic, and stupid, he had blasted away at the civilians as though it was all a computer game, and had enjoyed every moment of it. Only later did the reality of the situation come clear to him. I certainly wish I had that interview with me now, for your educational benefit.

Now you're changing wording and changing the situation - those people didn't die because the fight was in their home town, they died because they left their homes to participate in the battle.

So, those civilians in their own town should remain indoors? It isn't their right to go out? And the little kids killed by that Apache were participating in the battle?

Since we know you know this to be factually wrong (since it has now been pointed out to you), this is now a lie. In case you missed it before, the flights were timed specificaly for a condition of high occupancy in both the planes and the bulidings. Stop lying.

You didn't show anything of the sort. Stop misusing and abusing the word "factually". The "fact" is, there were around 3,000 people there. Thus, at that time, there were around 3,000 people there. Simple, yes?

Why don't you find some actual quotes from me instead of putting words in my mouth. Again, intentionally deceptive diversion.

Why don't you answer the question?

Again, factually inaccurate, and, I can only conclude, an intentional lie. You of course know that virtually everyone who died was above the crashes and everyone who lived below.

I know there weren't 50,000 people in the building.

According only to you and without substantiation (but backed with plenty of lies).

What's this? You don't believe the word of the USA, British, Austrailan, and allied governments? They said such targets are valid military objectives. People here have also said it.

In light of all these deceptions/lies, that's it for me in this thread. Adam, you've shown your true colors quite clearly here. When your thoughtless rhetoric is contradicted with real arguments and exposed, you respond with bluster, diversion, deception, and lies. The further back into a corner you get, the further over the line you go.

Wow. Thoughtless ad hominems from a "mentor".

 

[Adam]

Could you show me where there were kids in the Najaf battle?

This is Najaf, which, according to studentx, was abandoned by the civilian population and now houses only foreign terrorists:

http://www.keralaonline.com/wallimage/spir_mus_wp/najaf.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/31/1062194761688.html
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index090103.html
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0308/gallery.najaf.bombing/4.gallery.najaf.reut.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/21/1058639726156.html


Ooh, here are some nasty looking terrorists:
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048962894035_2003/04/04/4n_Najaf,0.jpg
http://i-cias.com/e.o/ill/najaf03.jpg

 

[Monique]

Is there something in the air that is causing people to clash? Really, why is everyone argueing? Rather have a decent discussion or walk away from the issue.

 

[studentx]

1st pic: irrelevant, way before the battle with US and Iraqi police.
2nd pic: civilians killed in blast caused by insurgents/terrorists way before the battle with US and Iraqi police
3rd pic: Ayatollah killed by insurgents way before the battle with US and Iraqi police
4th pic: civilians killed by carbomb from insurgents way before the battle with US and Iraqi police.
5th pic: irrelevant, way before the battle with US and Iraqi police.
6th pic: irrelevant, way before the battle with US and Iraqi police.
7th pic: irrelevant, way before the battle with US and Iraqi police.

Truth is, Najaf WAS abandoned by the civilian population at the time the battle began, it was basically hijacked by foreign insurgents who didnt live in Najaf and they were asked to leave repeatedly by the civilian population.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sorry, wrong thread..

 

[plover]

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 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.

Again, factually inaccurate, and, I can only conclude, an intentional lie. You of course know that virtually everyone who died was above the crashes and everyone who lived below.

1. The figure of 50,000 is apparently accurate for the number of workers.
2. The fact that certain types of financial workers have a schedule tied to the opening bell at the stock exchange does not mean they all do. Plus not everyone who worked in the WTC worked in finance.
3. The figure of 150,000 is in the right ballpark for the daily number of visitors (one source says 200,000). Of course, this figure says nothing about the time distribution of visitors over a typical day.
4. The number of people killed in the collapse says little about the total number of people in the buildings at the time of impact as large numbers of people fled the buildings (and firemen entered).
5. Any stated intentions on the part of Al Qaeda members may or may not be propaganda, or (if found in documents made before the attack) may or may not have been viable in the final plan.

My conclusion is that not enough data has been supplied for a coherent argument either for or against the thesis that the crashes were timed for maximum occupancy. It doesn't seem like there could be an easy argument that the attack was timed to minimize loss of life, though again, we don't know how much choice they had in this matter after solving the airport logistics.

If I read something that seemed off the wall, I hope I'd question whether or not I understood the author's thinking (i.e. whether the most obvious meaning of their statement and the intended meaning of their statement actually coincide) before suggesting they must be lying...