babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home

This topic has been transferred to this forum: the middle east.  
next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » air raid carnage

   
Author Topic: air raid carnage
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 15 March 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for the confusion with my previous attempt at posting. When I realized the link was too long, I tried to remove it.

These are terrible photos of a US air raid north of Baghdad. Scroll down to the thumbnail which indicates 'Iraqis killed in alleged air raid'

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/Product.aspx?p=1&e=0&pg=1&am=-1


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 March 2006 04:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Horrible, white rabbit. But at least you have helped us to register this horror. For the time being, I don't see what more we can do, but it is important that North Americans stare at that.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 March 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl and I can agree that it is important for us to look at the images of the carnage done in our name (as legal allies of America) even if we can do nothing about it. I couldn't easily find the specific pictures referenced, but I suspect I have seen many similar. In any case, if I want to stimulate my imagination to encompass the sheer bloody horror and depravity of what the war on terror has led to, I think of my nine month old grandaughter who I held in my arms today and think her a casualty of an attack in Baghdad, Kabul or Tel Aviv and I activate emotional neuronal channels that no photograph ever could.

Must we develop a typography, an atlas, a compendium of evil? Must we study subtle nuances and manifestations of its expression and adopt a more pro-active attitude (like our troops in Afghanistan)? We must continue to oppose the illegal American wars in Iraq and elsewhere and especially oppose the bone-headed strategies and world views that underlie them. We must support Canadian troops in a combat role in Afghanistan because what they are doing is internationally legal and supported by a strong plurality of Afghanis who need our support.

Is it ok to kill 10 probably-guilty people to save the lives of 100 innocents? This is the kind of question some on the left are avoiding.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 09:21 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure why the thread where I had just posted this story was closed (since I didn't see the story in any other thread), but here is a much more detailed exposé by Time Magazine of an alleged revenge slaughter of 15 Iraqi villagers last November by U.S. Marines:

One morning in Haditha


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 20 March 2006 10:04 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'm not sure why the thread where I had just posted this story was closed (since I didn't see the story in any other thread), but here is a much more detailed exposé by Time Magazine of an alleged revenge slaughter of 15 Iraqi villagers last November by U.S. Marines:

One morning in Haditha


Oh Christ here it is. This war's My Lai.

And again, Americans learn nothing over the years except how to forget:

quote:
The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians. Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force--Iraq, told TIME the involvement of the NCIS does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves."

Absolute bullshit. Going house to house (if true) to kill civilians is NEVER justified by any rules of engagement. This is a typical attitude of US military (and I've often heard this from cops as well) toward "collateral damage."

Hate to say it, but I reserve judgement on the NCIS for now. I don't trust anyone over there to do a honest investigation.

And once more, although it pains me to say it, just like Lt. Calley and his boys, the sympathies of the average American will lie with the troops in question, not the faceless "others" who were slaughtered.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 20 March 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post
Just as happened on returning from Vietnam, the medical problems of the military personnel include various mental dysfunctions. Not surprising. I don't doubt that guilt plays quite a role.

Unless they are sub-human, or totally bought the Bush lies, viewing up close the results of their bomb attacks must make these flyers feel like scum - and doubly-so as the truth of having been complicit in a war crime emerges.


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 20 March 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it ok to kill 10 probably-guilty people to save the lives of 100 innocents? This is the kind of question some on the left are avoiding.

Probably guilty. Nice. Who determines their probable guilt? The soldiers who are doing the killing. Fuck rule-of-law, a hunch is good enough for the death penalty.

That six-month old would probably have grown up to be a terrorist, so it's okay that the marines smashed his skull in now. Nits make lice, remember? All part of the preemtive war on terror, fight 'em when they're babies so you won't have to fight 'em when they're big.


How about 100,000 probably guilty people to save the lives of 100 innocents? How about killing 10 probably-guilty people, and knowingly killing 100 definitely-innocent people as collateral damage to save 10 heavily-armed Marines who are raiding the place? How's that calculus working? This is the kind of question the right avoid because it leads to cognative dissonance. Easier to just keep chanting "support the troops" than to actually face up to their complicity. And right on cue:

quote:
We must support Canadian troops in a combat role in Afghanistan because what they are doing is internationally legal and supported by a strong plurality of Afghanis who need our support.

Are you saying Canadian troops should take a combat role against the US military to protect Afghaniis from their murderous rampages? I thought not. Now that's a mission with which I would agree. So why are Canadians in Afghanistan again?

In fact, it's a matter of time before we'll read about Canadians doing similar things to the probably-guilty scumbags in Afghanistan. But rest assured, when those Afghan families are bound and shot in the head by nice young Canadian boys who play hockey and rrroll up the rrrim to win, it'll all be a perfectly legal massacre.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 20 March 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This isn't exactly My Lai, but it's a massacre nonetheless. The Time article is generous to say the least. These stories need to be picked up by the mainstream media.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 20 March 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was going to start another thread to post my question/comment but hoping it's not thread drift I wish to ask the question here how the CBC picked the number of "upward to 70,000 Iraqis killed" (Sunday Night News 10 pm March 19) when the Lancet estimated up to 100,000.

The Lancet has been criticised for its methodology but IMO it's not up to the CBC to decide what the truth is but to present publicly available data. (They didn't endorse the 70,000 figure either but said 'according to some'. Well, 'according to some' it's 100,000. Fuck the CBC!)

They did see fit, however, to give extensive coverage to suspected war criminals (according to the rules laid down by the Nuremberg trials) Bush and Cheney.

I'm disgusted with the CBC and ask myself have I been totally naive in those years in the past when I put a lot of trust into CBC News. Or has the CBC changed.

Sorry if this is thread drift.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 21 March 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As people seem somewhat confused, please note that this thread began as a response to images of this incident in Isahaqi, Iraq:

U.S. raid wipes out family home

The images

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 23 March 2006 12:56 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some articles discussing the Lancet report:

Stats, Nov 10, 2004: Counting Iraq's Dead mentions several areas of imprecision and notes the large number of non-violent deaths caused by the war:

quote:
...The real message behind the numbers outside Falluja is that the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths associated with this war are not directly due to military action. Reduced medical care, the stress associated with major changes, worsened infrastructure, and impediments to getting to hospitals can all contribute substantially to an increased death toll...

medialens, Sept 5, 2005: Burying the Lancet about some of the reporting and misconceptions and quotes from one of the authors:
quote:
... “Finally, there are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based.

“The key issues are supported by all the estimates that attribute deaths to the various causes: violence is way up post-invasion and the Coalition is responsible for many times more deaths than are the insurgents. The exact number is less important that these two indisputable facts which helps us to understand why things are going badly and how to fix them.


Note the Part 2 link at the bottom of Part 1.

Andrew Cockburn at Counterpunch Jan 9, 2006; a statistician recalculates the data without a Gaussian distortion:

quote:
...Sprey's results make it clear that the most cautious estimate possible for the Iraqi excess deaths caused by the US invasion is far higher than the 8,000 figure imposed on the Johns Hopkins team by the fascist bell curve. (The eugenicists of the 1920s were much enamored of Gaussian methodology.) The upper bounds indicate a reasonable possibility of much higher excess deaths than the 194,000 excess deaths (95 per cent confidence) offered in the study published in the Lancet.

Of course the survey on which all these figures are based was conducted fifteen months ago. Assuming the rate of death has proceeded at the same pace since the study was carried out, Sprey calculates that deaths inflicted to date as a direct result of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq could be, at best estimate, 183,000, with an upper 95 per cent confidence boundary of 511,000...


[Edit; I found these links through a discussion at HNN: click on comments and scroll down to the thread that starts "Vietnam war? by Gene Williams (March 19, 2006 at 11:46 AM)" There are some interesting comments but also some really annoying ones by the usual rightwing Bush supporters.]

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This can also go in the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca