Well, a picture of this soldier, who goes out as a satan look-a-like, published in arabic/islamic countries does it´s work to recruit more idiots for Al Sarkawi.
[QUOTE For the record, My idea of keeping civillian casualties to minimum is not using artillery to bring down EVERY building you receive FIRE from.[/QUOTE] Why not...?
I have to think that if you are receiving fire from a building the odds are in your favor that there are no civilians in there. Why not try the "Noriega Attack" and just back up the trucks with the big speakers to drive 'em all nuts? 24 hours of blaring Barry Manilow should bring them to their knees.... Of course, I did propose the use of tactical battlefield nukes, but no one called me for my battle plan. Just as well, I guess....
Because our boys sometimes hit the building next to the one they meant to hit. Besides, under the rules of war, we're supposed to be making every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Which we're not doing. Keep that in mind. Our tactics are less moral than the non-foreign insurgents. That's a problem, strategically.
If I were part of the BS Politics Forum liberal cognoscenti, I'd snip out a part of your post about 4 sentences in and say something that was pithy at one point in time like "I stopped reading here". Our tactics are less moral than the non-foreign insurgents? WTF are you talking about?
From all accounts, it's the foreign fighters, not the Iraqi insurgents, who are using car bombs. If I'm wrong about that, forgive me. When you hit a town from the air, that's less moral than IEDs that are remotely exploded to blow up convoys of military men. I'm surprised I'm having to explain that.
Man, Allah is going to have to go into overdrive to scrape up a whole bunch of virgins after all this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1338749%2C00.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1100062800&en=d110d36686af29a5&ei=5070
You hit on a very important point. Be they "insurrgents" or "foreign fighters" they dress like civilians. They strike from hospitals, mosques, residences and out of crowds of legitimate civilians then melt back into the background. All the while our forces are easily identified by their clothing. Tough way to fight a war. Also makes it very hard to quantify claims of dead/wounded be they civilians or legitimate enemy.
Wit, you're defending the foreign fighters who have come into Iraq simply to attempt to destabilize the "new" Iraq? These guys could care less about the average Iraqi, they're just there to pick of a few of the "infidels" and destabilize the region. They came into this war because they wanted to, so whatever happens to them at this point is warranted. They wanna' die for the cause, here's their opportunity (of course they'll all try to sneak out with the civilians since they really don't want to stand and fight).
you have to be kidding me...you can't seriously believe what you just typed...these guys are f--king morons of the first order...THEY are the ones indiscrimanantly killing fellow muslims..I for one hope we send the lot of them to meet their 27 virgins asap....( you gotta be a real dumb ******** to believe that crap )
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
Saddam was the one doing the killing ...of his own people...you must be getting your info from CNN....otherwise known as Al Jazerra west...
Not to be nit-picking because I do not doubt there have been numerous civilian casualties. However, these 3 links all go to the same report. In fairness, one point that should be made is that identifying insurrgents fighters from civilians is very difficult as the fighters dress like civilians and mingle in with civilian populations. This tactic contributes significantly to the civilian death toll. While I regret the deaths of innocents as much as anyone, the high number of civilian casualties is largely the result of the tactics of "insurrgents." They have no qualms about hiding among the civilian population and striking from hospitals, mosques and the like. Also many of the civilians killed have been killed by their own bombs set off in very public places. I wish the insurrgent fighters had as much regard for their own people as many who post here.
All government estimates report no more than 20,000 insurgents in the country. Obviously, they make make up a very small percentage of the 100,000 dead. Like I said- believe in the war if you will- just accept the cost of 50,000 dead women and children while you're at it.
I don't believe it for a minute....but if it ends up saving the lives of 500,000 or 5 million....then its probabaly an unaviodable trade off...
dear lord, let us not dig up this old tired argument, shall we? It stunk before we invaded and it sure as sh!t stinks now. Of course if you are arguing that the consequences of us LOSING the war in Iraq could lead to this many deaths then, well, ok.
For those who died, it obviously doesn't matter who killed them. And I accept the fact that US forces probably did kill many or most of them. However, I do want to recognize that the tactics of the enemy, whoever you define them and however many there are, have contributed in a very large way to the high civilian death toll. Any person who calls themselves a solder, and hides in a church, or hospital or among a civilian population is not only a coward, but someone who proves they truly have little regard for human life. I am sure all US forces regret the fact that civilians have been killed. I wonder if the "foreign fighters" have the same concerns.
We killed more civilians than that in a month in World War II, specifically in the Pacific theatre. Do you decry the US bombings during that "conflict"?
Amen to that...if too many "gringo tex's" had been around then we would all be speaking german or japanese...