News Legitimate targets of resistance?

[quetzalcoatl9]

for that matter I don't remember hearing of George Washington being tried for treason by the British after the American insurrection of 1770 - 1783

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

 

[Burnsys]

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

And you can't even compare the insurgents in irak fighting againts the more powerfull army in the wordl and against missiles that came from the sky at night

 

[Art]

Ah, but George Washington did not lose the war, so that argument really does not apply. Had George Washington lost the Revolutionary War, then he most certainly would have had to answer for the insurgency to a Pro-British gov. in America.

If you had taken the time to read what I wrote you would see that what you say is precisely the point I was making. It's the victor who gets to decide who was right and who was wrong. Good to see you agreeing with me for once.

 

[Art]

Of course, it would be absurd to even compare George Washington to the current insurgents in Iraq, since he was actually fighting a real war, not stuffing bombs in garbage cans to blow up civilians, IRA-style.

A real war? Meaning what? George Washington led a rebel army against his lawful government to seize power. You do realize it wasn't America vs Britain. In fact many americans were loyalists and fought with Britain (100,000 had to flee the country after the war ended) whilst France still smarting from the 7 years war which they had lost to England helped the rebels.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

A real war? Meaning what? George Washington led a rebel army against his lawful government to seize power. You do realize it wasn't America vs Britain. In fact many americans were loyalists and fought with Britain (100,000 had to flee the country after the war ended) whilst France still smarting from the 7 years war which they had lost to England helped the rebels.

Yes, that is all true. And, without the support of the French it is unlikely that the Revolutionary War would have turned out in the USA's favor.

By "real war" I guess I meant things like:

a) a large group of people assembling
b) the use of things like guns, cannons, etc.
c) an actual command structure, however loose it may be

a single person dropping a home-made bomb in a garbage can to kill 12 civilians is not exactly "real war", to me at least.

 

[Art]

a single person dropping a home-made bomb in a garbage can to kill 12 civilians is not exactly "real war", to me at least.

? Did anyone say it was
I don't see why you think it is absurd to compare GW with one or more of the insurgency groups in Iraq. As acknowledged by Rumsfeld some of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting a 'clean' war against an occupying army and a government they do not recognise.

 

[russ_watters]

And you can't even compare the insurgents in irak fighting againts the more powerfull army in the wordl and against missiles that came from the sky at night

In 1776, the British army was the most powerful army in the world. And while the US did use what were at the time unconventional tactics (they invented guerilla warfare), they never, ever targeted civilians as the so-called "insurgents" regularly do.

 

[russ_watters]

If you had taken the time to read what I wrote you would see that what you say is precisely the point I was making. It's the victor who gets to decide who was right and who was wrong.

While practically that's true, why not try and examine the situation objectively? You are, after all, the one who claims to have no biases.

 

[russ_watters]

Which Russ if you check back on my posts has been the point I have consistantly made. The act of firing at invading troops does not a terrorist make. Good to see you have now come round to agree with me on this.

As long as you agree that there are a considerable number of terrorists that we are fighting, we're fine.

Again if you read what I have written I referred to individual acts as possibly constituting terrorism. For example if you flatten an apartment block with 500 lb bombs because you suspect (or even know) there is an insurgent inside, resulting in the deaths of civilians then to my mind this falls into the realm of reckless disregard of civilian life.

Well, what is in your mind is not in the rules of war, nor does it fit the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that the US has gone to lengths utterly unprecidented in the history of warfare to protect Iraqi civilians. Also, under the law, its the "insurgents" inside the apartment building who are responsible for those civilian deaths. Another example would be...

Another example would be the 500 civilians murdered when the US military targeted an air-raid shelter in Gulf War part 1.

I don't know what specific incident you are talking about, but in both gulf wars, Saddam used human shields - ie, he'd put communications centers under schools, hid tanks in residential neighborhoods, and AAA batteries on top of hospitals. Under the rules of war, it was he who had the reckless disregard for civilian casualties.

The US would never specifically target a purely civilian air-raid shelter.

To save you from having to 'think' about what I meant I have spelled it out quite clearly; that the same rules apply to all sides. If someone on this forum tried to justify the mass murder of civilians by suicide bombers (which you will note no-one has) I would take issue with them just as I take issue with people who try to justify excessive and/or mis-directed force when used by the US.

Nice to hear, but you aren't following your own rules. You are not the unbiased examiner you claim to be. But you did imply a high total civilian death toll. If that isn't what you meant, fine, but your writing style is what causes such misunderstandings: you like to imply things that you know aren't true.

 

[Art]

As long as you agree that there are a considerable number of terrorists that we are fighting, we're fine.

Good to see you have the courage of Rumsfeld's convictions.

I don't know what specific incident you are talking about, but in both gulf wars, Saddam used human shields - ie, he'd put communications centers under schools, hid tanks in residential neighborhoods, and AAA batteries on top of hospitals. Under the rules of war, it was he who had the reckless disregard for civilian casualties.

This is the incident I was referring to

(Independent, 14-2-91)
“The death of at least 400 civilians in a Baghdad air-raid shelter did not seem to have ruptured the political consensus on the war in either London or Washington… the consensus between the Labour front bench and the Government held firm… There were angry Tory protests when George Galloway… told the Foreign Secretary [Douglas Hurd]: ‘As you watched the television screen at lunchtime and saw the ribbons of women and children swept out of the air-raid shelter in Baghdad, some of the blood of these innocent civilians was on your hands. Will you stop bombing cities now?’

“As night fell… smoke still rose from the rubble, and about 5000 people… crowded the scene, looking for relatives and friends, as men beat on their chests… [and] women cried hysterically. Foreign journalists were allowed to inspect the site… No evidence of any military presence could be seen inside the wreckage…. Witnesses said the entrance to the shelter took direct hits from at least two missiles fired by allied warplanes at 4am [local time]. They said the first missile or bomb jammed the only escape route. The second strike, moments later, penetrated the 9ft-thick concrete roof and exploded inside the windowless shelter… Odnar Adnan, 17, said he was the only one in his family to escape alive; his three younger sisters, mother and father all died. He said “I was sleeping and suddenly I felt heat and\the blanket was burning. Moments later, I felt I was suffocating. I turned to try and touch my mother who was next to me but grabbed nothing but a piece of flesh”.

And this relates to a meeting in Baghdad between relatives of victims of 9/11 and relatives of the Baghdad attrocity

Pain suffused the acrid air of the cavernous Ameriyya shelter, which has been converted to a memorial. The interior, about 50 yards square, is blackened from the intense firestorm after the missile hit. Numerous black patterns are on the walls, abstract yet grotesque silhouettes formed when standing people were instantaneously incinerated against the concrete.

At the time of the attack, Pentagon officials refused to apologize and said the shelter had been used by the Iraqi military. However, a number of Western reporters and human rights groups concluded that the shelter been used exclusively for civilians during the weeks beforehand.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the incident I was referring to...

There isn't anything useful to this discussion there. It does not say anything relevant to your claim that the air-raid shelter (ie, the civilians in the air-raid shelter) was the target of the attack. That's a claim that requires substantiation. The second quote you provided, however, says that the military believed it was a military installation - which directly contradicts your assertion. Point being, if the military had known it was a strictly civilian installation, they would not have attacked it.

 

[Art]

There isn't anything useful to this discussion there. It does not say anything relevant to your claim that the air-raid shelter (ie, the civilians in the air-raid shelter) was the target of the attack. That's a claim that requires substantiation. The second quote you provided, however, says that the military believed it was a military installation - which directly contradicts your assertion.

Without doubt the air-raid shelter was the object of the attack (it was hit twice). As to the US 'believing' it to be a military target don't you think it's behoven on the military to ascertain the validity of a target rather than bomb it first and then watch the bodies being scraped up to see if their 'guess' was right? And don't you think at the very least an apology should be forthcoming from the US government rather than the usual "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" Bart Simpson type denial?
Obviously you don't find this sort of thing very shocking whereas most sane people find it not only shocking but disgusting which is where you and I differ.

 

[The Smoking Man]

There isn't anything useful to this discussion there. It does not say anything relevant to your claim that the air-raid shelter (ie, the civilians in the air-raid shelter) was the target of the attack. That's a claim that requires substantiation. The second quote you provided, however, says that the military believed it was a military installation - which directly contradicts your assertion. Point being, if the military had known it was a strictly civilian installation, they would not have attacked it.

Doesn't the technique of war ... the pre attack missiles used to block the exits prior to the use of the 'bunker buster' indicate that this was indeed NOT an accidental attack but a pre-meditated and executed precision attack?

There were also other incidents POST war that back this up.

I can refer you to the convoy of trucks taking sheep to Syria that was 'taken out' becasue they believed that Saddam 'may have been aboard'.

Now, I'm not sure of your philosophy on this but I do tend to get antsy when the USA claim's 'collateral damage'.

I always attempt to put myself into the position of the relatives of the killed and test what my reaction would be after one of these incidents.

I can tell you with all honesty that if you took out members of my family, Al Qieda would have a new member and not becasue I believed particularly in their ideology. I would see it as a way of striking back at murderers and as a way of getting the tools to do so.

 

[Hurkyl]

Obviously you don't find this sort of thing very shocking whereas most sane people find it not only shocking but disgusting which is where you and I differ.

I also do not find it shocking that targets can be misidentified.

The first problem is that this is war: the enemy is actively combatting your ability to gather information.

The second problem is scale: given enough opportunity, rare things will happen.

Doesn't the technique of war ... the pre attack missiles used to block the exits prior to the use of the 'bunker buster' indicate that this was indeed NOT an accidental attack but a pre-meditated and executed precision attack?

Yes. A pre-meditated and executed precision attack against what was "believed [to be] a military installation".

 

[russ_watters]

Without doubt the air-raid shelter was the object of the attack (it was hit twice). As to the US 'believing' it to be a military target don't you think it's behoven on the military to ascertain the validity of a target rather than bomb it first and then watch the bodies being scraped up to see if their 'guess' was right?

You're playing it both ways. Pick one: either the US intended to kill those civilians or it was a mistake.

And don't you think at the very least an apology should be forthcoming from the US government rather than the usual "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" Bart Simpson type denial?

That is irrelevant to the issue of what happened.

Obviously you don't find this sort of thing very shocking whereas most sane people find it not only shocking but disgusting which is where you and I differ.

Most sane people understand the moral difference between a mistake and an intentional act.

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't the technique of war ... the pre attack missiles used to block the exits prior to the use of the 'bunker buster' indicate that this was indeed NOT an accidental attack but a pre-meditated and executed precision attack?

Like Hurkyl said, yes - if it was believed that those were troops in the shelter, then the objective would have been to kill all of them. So that would be the most effective tactic.

There were also other incidents POST war that back this up.

That back what up?

I can refer you to the convoy of trucks taking sheep to Syria that was 'taken out' becasue they believed that Saddam 'may have been aboard'.

Are you implying that that wasn't a mistake and that the reason given was just a cover for purposeful murder? Any real proof of that?

Now, I'm not sure of your philosophy on this but I do tend to get antsy when the USA claim's 'collateral damage'.

My philosophy holds that it is imperative to minimize civilian casualties as best we can. So the conduct of the war fits that philosophy fine, given the fact that the US has made efforts unprecidented in the history of warfare to minimize civilian causalties in this conflict.

I always attempt to put myself into the position of the relatives of the killed and test what my reaction would be after one of these incidents.

After such an incident, the relatives will be utterly irrational. I don't see how its constructive to be irrational about it.

I can tell you with all honesty that if you took out members of my family, Al Qieda would have a new member and not becasue I believed particularly in their ideology. I would see it as a way of striking back at murderers and as a way of getting the tools to do so.

Good to know. Tell me: if a member of your family is killed in a car accident by, say, a German, would you seek retribution by indiscriminantly killing German citizens?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Like Hurkyl said, yes - if it was believed that those were troops in the shelter, then the objective would have been to kill all of them. So that would be the most effective tactic. That back what up? Are you implying that that wasn't a mistake and that the reason given was just a cover for purposeful murder? Any real proof of that?

The launching of an air strike on a convoy of trucks carrying sheep isn't enough for you? This was after hostilities and if you are taking 'unprecidented measures to minimize civillian casualties' you might be tempted to stop the convoy and inspect rather than scramble a fighter and take it out with rockets.

My philosophy holds that it is imperative to minimize civilian casualties as best we can. So the conduct of the war fits that philosophy fine, given the fact that the US has made efforts unprecidented in the history of warfare to minimize civilian causalties in this conflict.

You are thinking we are supposed to believe that ... why? Any real proof of that?

After such an incident, the relatives will be utterly irrational. I don't see how its constructive to be irrational about it.

LOL So you now point to the reasons of terrorism as somehow having root in the 'rational'? They should runn around slapping each other on both cheeks saying 'snap out of it and grow up'?

Tell me: if a member of your family is killed in a car accident by, say, a German, would you seek retribution by indiscriminantly killing German citizens?

Well, if they came to my country enmasse in specially fitted BMWs with cowcatchers on the front specifically designed to push the bodies out of the way so they didn't mess up the suspension of the car and then yelled "OOOPS" out the window each time they 'accidentally' hit a family member, YES, I might be tempted.

 

[Art]

You're playing it both ways. Pick one: either the US intended to kill those civilians or it was a mistake. That is irrelevant to the issue of what happened. Most sane people understand the moral difference between a mistake and an intentional act.

Your justifications for attrocites are pathetic.
You and Hurkyl have demonstrated admirably the reason why so many ordinary people in the world are taking up arms against the USA.

 

[russ_watters]

The launching of an air strike on a convoy of trucks carrying sheep isn't enough for you? This was after hostilities and if you are taking 'unprecidented measures to minimize civillian casualties' you might be tempted to stop the convoy and inspect rather than scramble a fighter and take it out with rockets.

Could you just please come out and say what you believe: do you believe that the US was intentionally killing civilians?

You are thinking we are supposed to believe that ... why? Any real proof of that?

Simple: because the civilian causalty rate in this war was the lowest for this type of conflict in the history of warfare. Take whatever the worst estimate you want. www.iraqbodycount.org for example, is an anti-US site that doesn't distinguish between civilians killed by the US and civilians killed by the terrorists. Its high-end estimate is about 26,000. The miltiary death toll is tougher but is certainly in the tens of thousands and possibly as much as 100,000. Pick any similar war of conquest in history and compare the raw numbers and rates: Korea, Vietnam -- WWII?

LOL So you now point to the reasons of terrorism as somehow having root in the 'rational'? They should runn around slapping each other on both cheeks saying 'snap out of it and grow up'?

Yes! In the civilized world, such behavior is simply unacceptable. But I was actually talking about you: You said you would choose to be irrational! That's even more absurd than the terrorists being irrational - at least they have an excuse.

Well, if they came to my country enmasse in specially fitted BMWs with cowcatchers on the front specifically designed to push the bodies out of the way so they didn't mess up the suspension of the car and then yelled "OOOPS" out the window each time they 'accidentally' hit a family member, YES, I might be tempted.

Ok, so you're saying you are of the belief that we are intentionally killing civilians? Speaking of evidence, do you have any evidence of that?

But hey, I'll even set that aside - let's assume murder: if a foreigner murders a family member of yours, would you start indiscriminantly killing people from that country? I can't think of a more archaic or barbaric way of thinking than the line of reasoning you are following.

 

[russ_watters]

Your justifications for attrocites are pathetic.

Art, make your point! Do you believe that or not! It is unbelievable that you would chastise me for holding an opinion when you refuse to even say what your opinion is!

Or maybe that's just it: by refusing to make points, much less defend them, maybe you're just demonstrating what TSM is saying is resonable: you are choosing to be irrational and you think that in the world we live in today that being irrational is acceptable.

 

[Art]

But hey, I'll even set that aside - let's assume murder: if a foreigner murders a family member of yours, would you start indiscriminantly killing people from that country? I can't think of a more archaic or barbaric way of thinking than the line of reasoning you are following.

I wish you'd pass that thought on to shrub. How many innocent deaths has he justified to date off the backs of the victims of 9/11?

 

[russ_watters]

I have said before that reasonable people can reasonably disagree and I try to operate on the assumption that people are reasonable until proven otherwise. I may have just found the first example of people who not only admit that they are unreasonable but actually are claiming that unreasonable is reasonable! This is the oddest thing I've ever seen in a discussion forum.

No, guys, though it may be understandable to be irrational in some instances, it is not ok and you should not make a conscious choice to be irrational.

 

[Art]

Art, make your point! Do you believe that or not! It is unbelievable that you would chastise me for holding an opinion when you refuse to even say what your opinion is!

Or maybe that's just it: by refusing to make points, much less defend them, maybe you're just demonstrating what TSM is saying is resonable: you are choosing to be irrational and you think that in the world we live in today that being irrational is acceptable.

As you missed it the first time I'll repeat my points for you in fact I'll even help you count them;

As to the US 'believing' it to be a military target (1) don't you think it's behoven on the military to ascertain the validity of a target rather than bomb it first and then watch the bodies being scraped up to see if their 'guess' was right? (2) And don't you think at the very least an apology should be forthcoming from the US government rather than the usual "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" Bart Simpson type denial?

(3) Your justifications for attrocites are pathetic.
(4) You and Hurkyl have demonstrated admirably the reason why so many ordinary people in the world are taking up arms against the USA.

There you go Russ 4 points you evidently missed.

 

[Art]

I have said before that reasonable people can reasonably disagree and I try to operate on the assumption that people are reasonable until proven otherwise. I may have just found the first example of people who not only admit that they are unreasonable but actually are claiming that unreasonable is reasonable! This is the oddest thing I've ever seen in a discussion forum.

No, guys, though it may be understandable to be irrational in some instances, it is not ok and you should not make a conscious choice to be irrational.

I presume from this you are not exercising your lack of reasonableness consciously then? But as your lack of reasonableness has been pointed out to you many times surely it would have registered on your conscious mind by now or are you unconsciously suppressing it on a subconscious level?

 

[russ_watters]

As you missed it the first time I'll repeat my points for you in fact I'll even help you count them;

There you go Russ 4 points you evidently missed.

All I'm asking for is a clarification, Art. "Points" 1 and 2 are questions, not statements. I think I can garner your actual opinion from the tone of the questions, but it'd be a lot simpler if you'd come right out and say what your opinion is, in statement form.

"Points" 3 and 4 are personal insults, not statements of your opinion of the issue itself.

edit: however, if you insist, I'll form them into statements on my own. From "point" 1 and other statements, I must infer that yout believe the US intentionally kills civilians. I'll even put it as a paraphrase: Art: 'The US intentionally kills civilians.' Is this a correct interpretation of your opinion?

 

[Burnsys]

All I'm asking for is a clarification, Art. "Points" 1 and 2 are questions, not statements. I think I can garner your actual opinion from the tone of the questions, but it'd be a lot simpler if you'd come right out and say what your opinion is, in statement form.

"Points" 3 and 4 are personal insults, not statements of your opinion of the issue itself.

edit: however, if you insist, I'll form them into statements on my own. From "point" 1 and other statements, I must infer that yout believe the US intentionally kills civilians. I'll even put it as a paraphrase: Art: 'The US intentionally kills civilians.' Is this a correct interpretation of your opinion?

I personaly think that us Intentionaly kill civilinas, may be it's not his priority, but when they are bombing, let's say the truks where they thougth saddam was traveling, or other targets, they know they are going to kill civilians (even if they are not the target) and they still do it. so YES, they kill civilians intentionaly.
You has been in the army so you should know, (and i am asking this to you)
When the army plans a city take over. or a bombing. do they calculate the estimated civilians casualties before starting the operations?

 

[russ_watters]

Art, I know you think you are being clever and by you condescending tone and insults, you probably think you're smarter than average here, but the real reason you aren't getting a lot of support is people here see right through you. This board leans pretty heavily to the left, so it says a lot when people come out of the woodwork to raise the BS flag on you.

Argument by inuendo is the most dishonest of your underhanded debate tactics because beyond just allowing you to avoid justifying your assertions, it allows you to even deny making them. That way you can spend all your time attacking other people and never actually make a point and prove it. You're really not fooling anyone, Art. That tactic is not as clever as you think it is. It is quite transparent.

 

[Art]

Art, I know you think you are being clever and by you condescending tone and insults, you probably think you're smarter than average here

smarter than average here? I have no idea nor any way of formulating an opinion on this. Smarter than you? Indubitably

but the real reason you aren't getting a lot of support is people here see right through you.

:zzz: Back to the 'my gang's bigger than your gang' childish rhetoric.

This board leans pretty heavily to the left

That rather depends on where you think the centre is.

so it says a lot when people come out of the woodwork to raise the BS flag on you.

Are you referring to yourself in the 3rd party plural here?

Argument by inuendo is the most dishonest of your underhanded debate tactics because beyond just allowing you to avoid justifying your assertions, it allows you to even deny making them. That way you can spend all your time attacking other people and never actually make a point and prove it.

That's hilarious. A personal attack on me disguised as a personal attack by me.

You're really not fooling anyone, Art. That tactic is not as clever as you think it is. It is quite transparent.

Very machiavellian Russ. However have you considered the possibility it's a lot simpler than that? and that I simply 'say what I mean and I mean what I say'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Your first reponse was:

Could you just please come out and say what you believe: do you believe that the US was intentionally killing civilians?

I keep pointing out to you that the US launched an air strike against a convoy of trucks carrying sheep after hostilities had ended. For a person who goes ahead and adds words and subtracts words from the remainer of my post to manipulate the outcome of my other conclusions, you seem particularly obstinate on this point. I have rarely seen sheep armed, have you?

Take whatever the worst estimate you want. www.iraqbodycount.org for example, is an anti-US site that doesn't distinguish between civilians killed by the US and civilians killed by the terrorists. Its high-end estimate is about 26,000. The miltiary death toll is tougher but is certainly in the tens of thousands and possibly as much as 100,000. Pick any similar war of conquest in history and compare the raw numbers and rates: Korea, Vietnam -- WWII?

Russ ... You REALLY do not want to play the numbers like that. The war went from March 20, 2003 until May 3, 2003. Do you really want to compare the numbers over a 45 day period to the numbers killed in ANY war in history?

March 2002

When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."

____________________________________________________________

A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."

____________________________________________________________

"When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.

When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values. When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror."

____________________________________________________________

Three British soldiers sent home after protesting at civilian deaths

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Three British soldiers in Iraq have been ordered home after objecting to the conduct of the war. It is understood they have been sent home for protesting that the war is killing innocent civilians.

The three soldiers - including a private and a technician - are from 16 Air Assault Brigade which is deployed in southern Iraq. Its task has been to protect oilfields.

___________________________________________________________

Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq

Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.

By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.

None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.

Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.

Though it is still too early for anything like a definitive estimate, the surveyors warn, preliminary reports from hospitals, morgues, mosques, and homes point to a level of civilian casualties far exceeding the Gulf War, when 3,500 civilians are thought to have died.

But I was actually talking about you: You said you would choose to be irrational! That's even more absurd than the terrorists being irrational - at least they have an excuse.

You are a scream. Where do the words "you said" and the remainder of the above sentence bear any relationship to what WAS said. How about leaving what 'I' said up to me. You want to QUOTE me then do so but do not be so juvinile as to say that I would CHOOSE to be irrational. I told you the result of what happens when you kill my family in front of me.

Oh, Nicely done. Are we supposed to bow in awe at how you whittled my actual words down to this:

if a foreigner murders a family member of yours, would you start indiscriminantly killing people from that country? I can't think of a more archaic or barbaric way of thinking than the line of reasoning you are following.

First you add words to what I say and then you start to subtract them from what I say. Why don't you just throw in a few extra paragraphs from Mein Kampf and demonize me completely and have done with it?

Then we get to this:

Yes! In the civilized world, such behavior is simply unacceptable.

Followed by:

That's even more absurd than the terrorists being irrational - at least they have an excuse.

Clarification please. Does this mean that the people of NYC were irrational in their reaction to 9/11 and that the terrorists 'had an excuse'.?

It was after all, this very sentiment that Bush used to take the momentum generated in Afghanistan and move the front completely to Iraq. The REST of the world WAS rational and saw through the lies and didn't follow you inot war.

Let's look at this 'Coalition of the Willing' for a moment.

Had the USA failed to use the 'irrationality' of the US people and congress to enter into Iraq and had follow legal procedures, just what would the outcome have been?

My estimates put the members of the 'Coalition of the Willing' at about 40 votes for invasion vs. 151 nay votes.

Are you telling me that this is now 'rational'?

Go ahead. Rationalize those numbers, please.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I especially love this technique, Russ:

Could you just please come out and say what you believe: do you believe that the US was intentionally killing civilians?

Followed in the same post by:

Ok, so you're saying you are of the belief that we are intentionally killing civilians? Speaking of evidence, do you have any evidence of that?

Is this a technique you have patented?

Is this a new form of debate that none of us have come across before?

How would you describe that, Russ, "Ask the question. Answer the Question. Then, criticize the answer."

I'm dumbfounded that you actually think you can get away with that.