Political Crossfire Forums

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
again, i could accept maybe hiding in a small populated area, but then if the u.s. kills a civilian trying to catch and / or kill this guy well its not thier fault but hiding in geneva conventions prtected areas is way out of line, and forces the u.s. to fight back in those areas, which leads to us pushing the rules in the geneva convetions, and poeple are screaming we fight unfair we are doing what the enemy is forcing us to do

You have got to be f***ing kidding. We have SWARMS of troops in the area. We control the whole nation with the military. We aren't FORCED to blow the hell out of a whole building when we locate an insurgent in there. The deaths caused by the US military in its attempts to track down insurgents are the US' fault. There is NO reason they HAD to blow the whole f***ing place to hell.

I have a question for you: suppose some criminals with guns invaded a house and held a family hostage in the US. Right now in the US, they would surround the building and send in the SWAT team to clear the building if negotiations failed. Should we instead, just bomb the building? Screw going in, just launch an FA/18 and blow the house up if it happens. Do you support this?

[The Newb]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
again, i could accept maybe hiding in a small populated area, but then if the u.s. kills a civilian trying to catch and / or kill this guy well its not thier fault but hiding in geneva conventions prtected areas is way out of line, and forces the u.s. to fight back in those areas, which leads to us pushing the rules in the geneva convetions, and poeple are screaming we fight unfair we are doing what the enemy is forcing us to do

You have got to be f***ing kidding. We have SWARMS of troops in the area. We control the whole nation with the military. We aren't FORCED to blow the hell out of a whole building when we locate an insurgent in there. The deaths caused by the US military in its attempts to track down insurgents are the US' fault. There is NO reason they HAD to blow the whole f***ing place to hell.

I have a question for you: suppose some criminals with guns invaded a house and held a family hostage in the US. Right now in the US, they would surround the building and send in the SWAT team to clear the building if negotiations failed. Should we instead, just bomb the building? Screw going in, just launch an FA/18 and blow the house up if it happens. Do you support this?

Quote: You have got to be f***ing kidding. We have SWARMS of troops in the area.

really 150,000 for an entire country is swarms? good god what next?

Quote: We aren't FORCED to blow the hell out of a whole building when we locate an insurgent in there.

that is not a rule as a matter of fact we normally do house to house captures on foot, we only bomb, blow up a building when it is very unsafe for troops to enter the area, since the hordes that you "think we have" can sometimes be out numbered 10-15 to 1 it does make since

Quote: The deaths caused by the US military in its attempts to track down insurgents are the US' fault. There is NO reason they HAD to blow the whole f***ing place to hell.

show me some proof of "non-military" targets that the us purposefully hit ( dont give me one that had insurgents hiding in them you know as well as i do that it makes it a military target ( i will provide proof through geneva convetions rules by request )

Quote: I have a question for you: suppose some criminals with guns invaded a house and held a family hostage in the US. Right now in the US, they would surround the building and send in the SWAT team to clear the building if negotiations failed. Should we instead, just bomb the building? Screw going in, just launch an FA/18 and blow the house up if it happens. Do you support this?

uh we do swat like captures daily and as a rule on foot no bombs or planes, we only use planes when it is unsafe for our soldiers to go there and a bombing run is needed


now i ask you, do the insurgents need to suicide bomb innocent lives, destroy our ambulances, shoot at those providing help ( doctors and medics on injured iraqis ), do they need to capture and torture civilians who are freindly to the u.s.? i have many more examples of atrocities committed by them, i will elaborate if this is not enough

the u.s. tries very hard to avoid civilian casualties, however the insurgents hold the very populas that they claim they are fighting for in contempt

[pikers]

ANZ2 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUScgipDYF0

Another video by a dumba$$ that thinks the world is a video game.

[asainspace]

ubikk wrote: An organization training snipers to pick-off US servicepersons in Iraq has released videos of their actions. The videos show the sniper surveiling the Americans, and then shooting them, and then driving off in their cars and getting away.



LINK TO VIDEOS at CNN

I have to guess that this is a carefully timed election stunt by the terrorists. The terrorists are playing dirty politics just like all the commercials I'm seeing on a regular basis now.

The vidoes are already having an effect, however.

Why do you only claim it to be an election stunt and not maybe the resistance action it probably was. And the last I can remember is all the pro-war lot saying that they were attacking each other and not in resistance to occupation.

This profoundly demonstrates four things:

One: you fail to mention the use by America of snipers in Iraq. "It is a war afterall".

Two: your government doe's not wish to talk about it, rather deflect and devalue the lives of those killed for "operational reasons".

Three: that Iraq is not only a sectarian conflict. There has and always was a resistance to US occupation of their homeland, whether you like it or not, justifiably, if we remember the invasion was unjustified in the first place and has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives, as well as the emmotional trauma sufferd every day, the destruction of infrastructure and civilian services and the financial cost which has hurt them the most and on a daily basis.

Four: your pathetic attempt to conceive this for the true picture it paints of the chaos and sadness that we have created in Iraq and somehow make it a reference to the election. It is a tradegy in action and the accountability is referred to in my second point.

Continue lapping up the crap and keep forgetting that an admission of failure is inevitable and some of us have been waiting for too long to see real justice dealt to those who planned and executed a genocide in Iraq. No one but the people of Iraq can solve this now, it should never have come to this, it is a devastating account of our own corruptability and I'm sick of hearing people like you care more for a shi**y election when both sides (Rep and Dems) are as guilty for Iraq as each other. The issue is why so many people are dead and how do we ensure we are never allowed to do this again.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: really 150,000 for an entire country is swarms? good god what next?

Yes, that is quite a bit considering the country is tiny (only 25 million people).


Quote: that is not a rule as a matter of fact we normally do house to house captures on foot, we only bomb, blow up a building when it is very unsafe for troops to enter the area, since the hordes that you "think we have" can sometimes be out numbered 10-15 to 1 it does make since


Oh please. If the troops we had in an area were outnumbered 15-1 by armed opposition, then we would have been pushed out of Iraq long ago.


Quote: show me some proof of "non-military" targets that the us purposefully hit ( dont give me one that had insurgents hiding in them you know as well as i do that it makes it a military target ( i will provide proof through geneva convetions rules by request )


I never said it was a non military target. I said they were very careless and knew damn well that targeting a military target with those weapons would cause the destruction of non-military people and property.


Quote: uh we do swat like captures daily and as a rule on foot no bombs or planes, we only use planes when it is unsafe for our soldiers to go there and a bombing run is needed


So? What makes SWAT so special that they can clear a building and the f***ing army can't?


Quote:
now i ask you, do the insurgents need to suicide bomb innocent lives, destroy our ambulances, shoot at those providing help ( doctors and medics on injured iraqis ), do they need to capture and torture civilians who are freindly to the u.s.? i have many more examples of atrocities committed by them, i will elaborate if this is not enough


What's your point? Are the atrocities committed by the insurgents justification for killing civilians? Explain how the CIVILIANS deserved getting the s**t blown out of them?


Quote: the u.s. tries very hard to avoid civilian casualties, however the insurgents hold the very populas that they claim they are fighting for in contempt

"tries very hard" my ass. Our method of dealing with them is comparable to using a f***ing nuke to demolish a doghouse.

And how does them holding the population in contempt mean s**t? Even IF the majority of the fighters DID consider the civilians their enemy, it wouldn't mean anything.

[asainspace]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I never said it was a non military target. I said they were very careless and knew damn well that targeting a military target with those weapons would cause the destruction of non-military people and property.

All we have to do is remind him of the number of people that are dead because of the US led invasion, and it was those invading forces that refused to do a body count, hence shedding responsibility and leaving NGO's to try to do the job for them.

The fact is, the US stupidly gave up it's right to any moral defence when it refused to give value to Iraqi life and record how people were killed. This devaluing of Iraqi innocents has spread to certain insurgents groups who wage sectarian conflict, both Sunni and Shiite. It is another case in the eyes of right and wrong that the wrong of killing innocents is not the preserve of insurgents only.

[The Newb]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: really 150,000 for an entire country is swarms? good god what next?

Yes, that is quite a bit considering the country is tiny (only 25 million people).


Quote: that is not a rule as a matter of fact we normally do house to house captures on foot, we only bomb, blow up a building when it is very unsafe for troops to enter the area, since the hordes that you "think we have" can sometimes be out numbered 10-15 to 1 it does make since


Oh please. If the troops we had in an area were outnumbered 15-1 by armed opposition, then we would have been pushed out of Iraq long ago.


Quote: show me some proof of "non-military" targets that the us purposefully hit ( dont give me one that had insurgents hiding in them you know as well as i do that it makes it a military target ( i will provide proof through geneva convetions rules by request )


I never said it was a non military target. I said they were very careless and knew damn well that targeting a military target with those weapons would cause the destruction of non-military people and property.


Quote: uh we do swat like captures daily and as a rule on foot no bombs or planes, we only use planes when it is unsafe for our soldiers to go there and a bombing run is needed


So? What makes SWAT so special that they can clear a building and the f***ing army can't?


Quote:
now i ask you, do the insurgents need to suicide bomb innocent lives, destroy our ambulances, shoot at those providing help ( doctors and medics on injured iraqis ), do they need to capture and torture civilians who are freindly to the u.s.? i have many more examples of atrocities committed by them, i will elaborate if this is not enough


What's your point? Are the atrocities committed by the insurgents justification for killing civilians? Explain how the CIVILIANS deserved getting the s**t blown out of them?


Quote: the u.s. tries very hard to avoid civilian casualties, however the insurgents hold the very populas that they claim they are fighting for in contempt

"tries very hard" my ass. Our method of dealing with them is comparable to using a f***ing nuke to demolish a doghouse.

And how does them holding the population in contempt mean s**t? Even IF the majority of the fighters DID consider the civilians their enemy, it wouldn't mean anything.

Quote: Yes, that is quite a bit considering the country is tiny (only 25 million people).

of those 150,00 how many are combatants? ill tell ya less than half....

Quote: Oh please. If the troops we had in an area were outnumbered 15-1 by armed opposition, then we would have been pushed out of Iraq long ago.

well for one i said some areas, such as where mousawi was hididng, i bet to take him we would have needed to send in oh maybe 6-700 troops a wild gun fight ( randomly ) killing civilians rather than a laser precise bomb

Quote: I never said it was a non military target. I said they were very careless and knew damn well that targeting a military target with those weapons would cause the destruction of non-military people and property.

well now if the enemy didnt hide amongst the civilians then we would nolt be forced to fight back amongst the civilians, and again very few of the civilians deaths were caused by us ( however many thousands were caused by the same people who claim that they want the iraqi free from u.s. oppression? )

Quote: What's your point? Are the atrocities committed by the insurgents justification for killing civilians? Explain how the CIVILIANS deserved getting the s**t blown out of them?

my point is that the majority of the bloodshed on the civilians was caused by insurgents not u.s. forces talk to them about life not us, hell most insurgents arent even targeting coalition troops, they specifically target civilians in an attempt to keep the civil unrest going

Quote: "tries very hard" my ass. Our method of dealing with them is comparable to using a f***ing nuke to demolish a doghouse.

would you have been happy if we did?


Quote: And how does them holding the population in contempt mean s**t? Even IF the majority of the fighters DID consider the civilians their enemy, it wouldn't mean anything

what gives the insurgents rights to kill civilians in a blood bath, and the u.s. gets condemed for a few accidental deaths?