oh shit

oh shit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> oh shit (3/24/2017 3:25:36 PM)
this is NOT good news, for ANYONE. BREAKING NEWS Up to 200 civilians were reported killed by recent American airstrikes in Mosul, Iraq. The military says it’s investigating. Friday, March 24, 2017 6:08 PM EDT The American-led military coalition in Iraq said Friday that it was investigating reports that scores of civilians — perhaps as many as 200, residents said — had been killed in recent American airstrikes in Mosul, the northern Iraqi city at the center of an offensive to drive out the Islamic State. If confirmed, the series of airstrikes would rank among the highest civilian tolls in an American air mission since the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003. Read more » https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/world/middleeast/us-iraq-mosul-investigation-airstrike-civilian-deaths.html?emc=edit_na_20170324&nl=breaking-news&nlid=69606674&ref=cta well this has slapped me out of my reverie, sadly. damn what a slap

MrRodgers -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 4:44:47 PM)
Seems now that with all of our air capabilities, the US continues to try to bomb its way to victory. Inevitably, that leads to far too many deaths of innocents.

JeffBC -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 4:48:46 PM)
This is hardly news. Civilian casualties have been on a steady climb for 8 years now culminating in near doubling by the end of Obama's 2nd term. We dropped 26000 bombs on them last year. Whatever casualties there are are almost certainly under-reported and casualty figures don't reflect the incidental deaths like refugees. All in all it's just another day of America bombing the Mideast into rubble in order to control the petro-dollar and support Israel. What is news is how the media treats these things. When we do it it's a tragedy. When the Russians do it it's a massacre. Of course, the real truth is that it's war crimes all the way around but... yanno... being a war criminal is the new cool thing nowadays. http://caucus99percent.com/content/not-all-civilians-are-equal-mosul-vs-aleppo In general, Americans really don't care about slaughtering civilians in job lots. After all, we do it to "liberate" them. I'll bet the folks in this neighborhood are happy they've been liberated. [image]http://i.imgur.com/stLRHcT.png[/image]

Lucylastic -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 5:06:37 PM)
Im sorry where have I ever claimed it had never been an issue before this report? I havent, I havent ignored it either. But the last sentence of the paragraph is important, If the numbers are indeed true. quote: If confirmed, the series of airstrikes would rank among the highest civilian tolls in an American air mission since the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003. which of course is way before 2008(Bush) and during Obama. I neither used a political side or politician in the OP. This is bad for america, its bad for morale, its bad for politicians, its bad for terror "radicalisation, Its bad for the future. now , if you want to blame it on obama, go ahead. But as you opened it up, political blame it is.. TRUMPS regime now. his decision, his job, his numbers in two months of his reign. [8D]

stef -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 5:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC In general, Americans really don't care about slaughtering civilians in job lots. In general, bullshit. Come on Jeff, you're better than this.

vincentML -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:00:37 PM)
quote: If confirmed, the series of airstrikes would rank among the highest civilian tolls in an American air mission since the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003. This is not new, Lucy. The monstrous toll of human deaths from our incursions into Iraq has been hiding in plain sight. The Iraq Body Count has nearly 120,000 civilian deaths on its rolls from 2003 to 2011. Another source claims 1.4 million. Whichever the correct number, the cost of "liberty" in Iraq has been awful. Unfortunately, our major media chose not to expose the number.

jlf1961 -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:03:58 PM)
Actually, stef, the percentage of civilian casualties, or collateral damage is figured on the value of the target. It is an accepted fact that with any kind of air or missile strike there will be collateral damage. The idea that the age of smart bombs eliminates that is nothing more than fluff given to the news media to feed the people so they dont get upset at the fact it happens. If the target has a high enough strategic value, then 200 or even 2000 is acceptable. Consider the number of civilians killed during the airstrikes of both gulf wars. Hell consider the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the coalition occupation, the number exceeded 250K. And the theory of acceptable civilian casualties is not new. Another part of the collateral damage acceptability cost is, how many ground troops would die in trying to take the objective? We are talking house to house, room to room fighting in a city. Speaking as a grunt, let the flyboys blast the fuck out of the place if it means a better chance of me or guys like me going home walking and not in a body bag. Because at the end of the day, that is about the only way that ISIS is going to be stopped, because house to house, room to room is expensive. Very fucking expensive, and a grenade tossed in the window makes no distinction between unarmed and armed, and I would and did in my time, and the guys who are serving now will in a heartbeat... and it is usually 2 or more grenades.

Kirata -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The American-led military coalition in Iraq said Friday that it was investigating reports that scores of civilians — perhaps as many as 200, residents said — had been killed in recent American airstrikes in Mosul, the northern Iraqi city at the center of an offensive to drive out the Islamic State... Iraqi officers, though, say they know exactly what happened: Maj. Gen. Maan al-Saadi, a commander of the Iraqi special forces, said that the civilian deaths were a result of a coalition airstrike that his men had called in, to take out snipers on the roofs of three houses in a neighborhood called Mosul Jidideh. General Saadi said the [Iraqi] special forces were unaware that the houses’ basements were filled with civilians. K.

jlf1961 -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The American-led military coalition in Iraq said Friday that it was investigating reports that scores of civilians — perhaps as many as 200, residents said — had been killed in recent American airstrikes in Mosul, the northern Iraqi city at the center of an offensive to drive out the Islamic State... Iraqi officers, though, say they know exactly what happened: Maj. Gen. Maan al-Saadi, a commander of the Iraqi special forces, said that the civilian deaths were a result of a coalition airstrike that his men had called in, to take out snipers on the roofs of three houses in a neighborhood called Mosul Jidideh. General Saadi said the [Iraqi] special forces were unaware that the houses’ basements were filled with civilians. K. In that case it was either fly boys or arty. Either way it was going to be messy.

Lucylastic -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:14:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If confirmed, the series of airstrikes would rank among the highest civilian tolls in an American air mission since the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003. This is not new, Lucy. The monstrous toll of human deaths from our incursions into Iraq has been hiding in plain sight. The Iraq Body Count has nearly 120,000 civilian deaths on its rolls from 2003 to 2011. Another source claims 1.4 million. Whichever the correct number, the cost of "liberty" in Iraq has been awful. Unfortunately, our major media chose not to expose the number. That was the quote from the link, Im just hedging it repeating , because this specific report is new. and the figures havent been verified yet:)

BoscoX -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 6:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The American-led military coalition in Iraq said Friday that it was investigating reports that scores of civilians — perhaps as many as 200, residents said — had been killed in recent American airstrikes in Mosul, the northern Iraqi city at the center of an offensive to drive out the Islamic State... Iraqi officers, though, say they know exactly what happened: Maj. Gen. Maan al-Saadi, a commander of the Iraqi special forces, said that the civilian deaths were a result of a coalition airstrike that his men had called in, to take out snipers on the roofs of three houses in a neighborhood called Mosul Jidideh. General Saadi said the [Iraqi] special forces were unaware that the houses’ basements were filled with civilians. K. Pretty obvious what happened, going by that and the history of ISIS's behavior

stef -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 7:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, stef, the percentage of civilian casualties, or collateral damage is figured on the value of the target. What??? Are you using spent lithium hydroxide canisters from the Apollo program in your doomsday bunker to filter out carbon monoxide? What does this have to do with my post?

thompsonx -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 7:45:43 PM)
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, stef, the percentage of civilian casualties, or collateral damage is figured on the value of the target. It is an accepted fact that with any kind of air or missile strike there will be collateral damage. The idea that the age of smart bombs eliminates that is nothing more than fluff given to the news media to feed the people so they dont get upset at the fact it happens. If the target has a high enough strategic value, then 200 or even 2000 is acceptable. Consider the number of civilians killed during the airstrikes of both gulf wars. Hell consider the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the coalition occupation, the number exceeded 250K. And the theory of acceptable civilian casualties is not new. Another part of the collateral damage acceptability cost is, how many ground troops would die in trying to take the objective? We are talking house to house, room to room fighting in a city. Speaking as a grunt, let the flyboys blast the fuck out of the place if it means a better chance of me or guys like me going home walking and not in a body bag. Because at the end of the day, that is about the only way that ISIS is going to be stopped, because house to house, room to room is expensive. Very fucking expensive, and a grenade tossed in the window makes no distinction between unarmed and armed, and I would and did in my time, and the guys who are serving now will in a heartbeat... and it is usually 2 or more grenades. What is it that makes a "grunts" life more valuable than a non combatant?

vincentML -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 7:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If confirmed, the series of airstrikes would rank among the highest civilian tolls in an American air mission since the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003. This is not new, Lucy. The monstrous toll of human deaths from our incursions into Iraq has been hiding in plain sight. The Iraq Body Count has nearly 120,000 civilian deaths on its rolls from 2003 to 2011. Another source claims 1.4 million. Whichever the correct number, the cost of "liberty" in Iraq has been awful. Unfortunately, our major media chose not to expose the number. That was the quote from the link, Im just hedging it repeating , because this specific report is new. and the figures havent been verified yet:) I quite understand your point, Lucy. I just wished to flesh out the background. Our news sources have not discussed the larger dimensions of the tragedy, of the blood penalty paid by the Iraqi people as fall out from our so called "shock and awe" and from our allegedly precision weapons. Bush and Cheney are guilty in my mind of major war crimes. The best I can say of O is that he reduced by many fold the body count. I applaud his reluctance to wage full throttle war on ISIS and whatever the latest fashionable phony threat to our nation.

thompsonx -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 7:56:28 PM)
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, stef, the percentage of civilian casualties, or collateral damage is figured on the value of the target. Cite please It is an accepted fact that with any kind of air or missile strike there will be collateral damage. Cite please If the target has a high enough strategic value, then 200 or even 2000 is acceptable. Cite please And the theory of acceptable civilian casualties is not new. Cite please Another part of the collateral damage acceptability cost is, how many ground troops would die in trying to take the objective? Kill them all let god sort them out? We are talking house to house, room to room fighting in a city. Speaking as a grunt, let the flyboys blast the fuck out of the place if it means a better chance of me or guys like me going home walking and not in a body bag. That is what grunts do...that is why we get the corner office (the view up front is unobstructed) and the big bux (combat pay) Because at the end of the day, that is about the only way that ISIS is going to be stopped, because house to house, room to room is expensive. Not to non combatants Very fucking expensive, and a grenade tossed in the window makes no distinction between unarmed and armed, and I would and did in my time, When was that? and the guys who are serving now will in a heartbeat... The ucmj calls that murder

JeffBC -> RE: oh shit (3/24/2017 11:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic But as you opened it up, political blame it is.. TRUMPS regime now. his decision, his job, his numbers in two months of his reign. Hmmm... if you think I was laying political blame on some politician you are incorrect. I blame you and me and the rest of the American electorate. I've taken steps to rectify my earlier errors. It was too long in coming. I hope for the sake of human survival that others start doing the same. quote: ORIGINAL: Stef In general, bullshit. Come on Jeff, you're better than this. Really? Can you support your case? So far, our little adventures in the Mideast are wracking up body bags on a par with some of history's most brutal regimes. Yet the discussion in America is not whether we should, perhaps, stop slaughtering people. Rather, it's a question of who we should slaughter and using what means. Something like 95% of the voting electorate voted for war. That seems pretty conclusive to me. I'll go you one further. Who cares about the 200 people who were also slaughtered in that same week? Who cared when we have previously bombed hospitals and other similar "targets"? Sure, we had a bad night that night but it was only a slightly bigger wave than most in the expanse of the ocean. The only possible excuse is that they don't really know or understand what the US is doing abroad. And honestly, after millions of body bags that excuse wears thin. Much like climate science, the only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats like to wring their hands piously. I suppose, in thinking about it, that there's probably a stronger anti-war sentiment among the independents who, at last count, are nearly as big as Republicans and Democrats combined. But their voice is meaningless in American politics. I'd have been more accurate to say that Republicans and Democrats don't care.

jlf1961 -> RE: oh shit (3/25/2017 2:38:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC In general, Americans really don't care about slaughtering civilians in job lots. In general, bullshit. Come on Jeff, you're better than this.

jlf1961 -> RE: oh shit (3/25/2017 2:53:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, stef, the percentage of civilian casualties, or collateral damage is figured on the value of the target. What??? Are you using spent lithium hydroxide canisters from the Apollo program in your doomsday bunker to filter out carbon monoxide? What does this have to do with my post? quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC In general, Americans really don't care about slaughtering civilians in job lots. In general, bullshit. Come on Jeff, you're better than this. Your response to JeffBC indicated that you did not believe his post about Americans not caring about slaughtering civilians. My response to you was to indicate he is correct. The American military does not care about the deaths of civilians when there is a target of value. In this case, the air strike was to neutralize snipers, and the commander who called in the strike had no knowledge that civilians were in the basements of the buildings in question. Even if he had, I doubt he had much in the way of options to neutralize the snipers.

Lucylastic -> RE: oh shit (3/25/2017 4:25:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC <snip> I blame you and me and the rest of the American electorate. Im not an american voter[;)]

Politesub53 -> RE: oh shit (3/25/2017 5:19:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Iraqi officers, though, say they know exactly what happened: Maj. Gen. Maan al-Saadi, a commander of the Iraqi special forces, said that the civilian deaths were a result of a coalition airstrike that his men had called in, to take out snipers on the roofs of three houses in a neighborhood called Mosul Jidideh. General Saadi said the [Iraqi] special forces were unaware that the houses’ basements were filled with civilians. K. FR But I wanted to address the topic in Kiratas quote No one believes that houses in Iraq or Syrias largest towns and cities are empty. The notion Iraqi Special Forces thought this, despite having been fighting in the city for months is laughable. Most likely they didnt give a toss because most of Mosuls population is Sunni. So the Sunni Shia divide rolls ever onwards. As an incidental, the recent raid in Yemen were a member of Seal Team Six was sadly killed, allso killed innocent civillians who were anti IS/AQ. The villagers thought IS/AQ were attacking them and fought back, the Seals called in air strikes and another Muslim village was blown to fuck.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875