The moment we do not look at the real political issues and start talking about "them" and "us" and "terrorists" and "civilized", we desensitize the masses to atrocities.
A bomb on a house is a tool by coward soldiers to save their own lives. In WWII, the value ratio was 1:5 or so between the life of a US soldier and the lives of civilians (divide Hiroshima/Nagasaki civilian casualties by number of expected US troop casualties on Okinawa and other islands on their way to Tokyo using conventional warfare). By the Vietnam war the ratio was 1:10 (estimate of decisions taken to drop napalm on villages). During and after Gulf War I, it was more like 1:20, and now it is 1:50.
Here is how you calculate the ratio: how many soldiers is a commander willing to risk in hand-to-hand combat versus dropping bombs. For example, if 1000 US marines attack a city of 200,000, the commander can expect 50% casualties among his soldiers if they go in street-by-street. By dropping phosphorus and bombs to "soften" up the city before entering, he reduces the casualty percentage to 10%. So, he saves 400 US Marine casualties by bombing first. The bombing of the city kills about 1,000, wounds another 5,000, about an equal number are imprisoned, resulting in loss of income and displacement. Hospitals and farms and fresh water are ruined. In all, disrupting, killing and maiming 20,000 civilians to save 400 US soldier lives is acceptable.
Our intellectuals are silent. History will judge them. If you do not have the balls to fight the enemy without risking civilians - do it - else stay home.
If not, there is zero difference between the aims and means of terrorists and the US army - zero.
Akber said: "If you do not have the balls to fight the enemy without risking civilians - do it - else stay home.
If not, there is zero difference between the aims and means of terrorists and the US army - zero."
Very well said.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
[Image]Take a good look at the dead Iraqi child in that image and tell me which god you think will forgive US for this.
How many more lifeless children must be wrapped in bloody blankets before Americans feel the pain that others feel and demand that their military leave the land they invaded for its OIL? U.S. forces bombed a house during a raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, killing 11 people - mostly women and children. . .
The U.S. military acknowledged the raid and said it captured one insurgent.ONE 'insurgent?' How many of your children would you trade for one 'insurgent?' Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which flattened the house and killed the 11 people inside.
An AP reporter at the scene in the rural Isahaqi area said the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows killed.
Eleven bodies, wrapped in blankets, were driven in the back of three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 45 miles to the north, relatives said.
Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives. The victims were covered in dust with bits of rubble in their hair.So much for the "man, two women and a child" that the military said were killed."The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," Ahmed Khalaf said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
The U.S. military said it was targeting and captured an individual suspected of supporting foreign fighters for the al-Qaida in Iraq terror network.'Suspected' of 'supporting?' This is what's seriously presented as a justification for bombing a house to smithereens, indiscriminately killing everyone inside? "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists."--George W. Bush Is this what you support in the name of OIL? If not, then do something about it.
--------------------- UPDATE: Believe it or not, the whole story is one hundred times worse than the initial report.Major Ali Ahmed of the Ishaqi police said U.S. forces had landed on the roof of the house in the early hours and shot the 11 occupants, including the five children.
"After they left the house they blew it up," he said.
Another policeman, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said autopsies had been carried out at Tikrit hospital and found "all the victims had gunshot wounds to the head".
The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed, Hussein said. Police had found spent American-issue cartridges in the rubble.
"It's a clear and perfect crime without any doubt," he said.
Police in Salahaddin province, a heartland of the Sunni Arab insurgency and the home region of Saddam Hussein, have frequently criticised U.S. military tactics in the area.
Police officers said the U.S. military had asked for a meeting with local tribal leaders. The Joint Co-ordination Centre in Tikrit which coordinates between U.S. and Iraqi security forces said later the meeting would happen on Friday.
Ishaqi's town administrator, Rasheed Shather, said the town was shocked: "Everyone went to the funeral. We want the Americans to give us an explanation for this horrible crime."
Photographs of the funeral showed men crying as five children, who all looked under the age of five, were wrapped in blankets and then lined up in a row. One man who described himself as a relative said one was just seven months old.
"They killed these innocent children. Are these considered terrorists? Is a seven-month-old child a terrorist?" he said angrily, speaking close to the remains of the house.
Local teacher Faeq Nsaef was also outraged: ""An entire family was killed. It's a barbarian act."God have mercy.
5 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formYes, they found one "insurgent" and no doubt created ten more.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
This makes me wanna cry.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
I cried and then I got very, very angry.
the corporate criminals running our government and managing our so-called defense must go.
when and how remains to be seen.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The moment we do not look at the real political issues and start talking about "them" and "us" and "terrorists" and "civilized", we desensitize the masses to atrocities.
A bomb on a house is a tool by coward soldiers to save their own lives. In WWII, the value ratio was 1:5 or so between the life of a US soldier and the lives of civilians (divide Hiroshima/Nagasaki civilian casualties by number of expected US troop casualties on Okinawa and other islands on their way to Tokyo using conventional warfare). By the Vietnam war the ratio was 1:10 (estimate of decisions taken to drop napalm on villages). During and after Gulf War I, it was more like 1:20, and now it is 1:50.
Here is how you calculate the ratio: how many soldiers is a commander willing to risk in hand-to-hand combat versus dropping bombs. For example, if 1000 US marines attack a city of 200,000, the commander can expect 50% casualties among his soldiers if they go in street-by-street. By dropping phosphorus and bombs to "soften" up the city before entering, he reduces the casualty percentage to 10%. So, he saves 400 US Marine casualties by bombing first. The bombing of the city kills about 1,000, wounds another 5,000, about an equal number are imprisoned, resulting in loss of income and displacement. Hospitals and farms and fresh water are ruined. In all, disrupting, killing and maiming 20,000 civilians to save 400 US soldier lives is acceptable.
Our intellectuals are silent. History will judge them. If you do not have the balls to fight the enemy without risking civilians - do it - else stay home.
If not, there is zero difference between the aims and means of terrorists and the US army - zero.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Akber said: "If you do not have the balls to fight the enemy without risking civilians - do it - else stay home.
If not, there is zero difference between the aims and means of terrorists and the US army - zero."
Very well said.
Thursday, March 16, 2006