US air strike hits Iraqi family

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Several members of the same family, including women and children, have been killed in a US air strike that destroyed their home in northern Iraq.



There was confusion over the number of casualties, but local authorities in the town of Beiji, north of Tikrit, have confirmed at least six dead.

US forces said they acted after seeing three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb enter the house.

The raid has prompted anger among some local political leaders.

US military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson said the men, who ran into the house after digging a hole, were assesed as a threat to civilians and military forces.
"An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency.

"The individuals left the road site and were followed from the air to a nearby building. Coalition forces employed precision guided munitions on the structure."


But he did not confirm the number of casualties or whether a roadside bomb has been found.

Local police chief Colonel Sufyan Mustafa said he believed there were no anti-US insurgents present in the house.

"Even if there had been, why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?," he told the Reuters news agency.

'Historic crime'

Ghadban Nahd Hassan, 56, told AFP that 14 members of his family had been in the house when it was it bombed.

"I was with some friends in a small shop 100m away from the house when I heard the bombing at around 2130 (1830 GMT)," he said.

"I rushed over to see. My house was destroyed and there was smoke everywhere."

So far, the bodies of a nine-year-old boy, an 11-year-old girl, three women and three men have been found in the rubble, police said.

US forces frequently use air strikes in their battle against Iraqi insurgents, in an effort to minimise US casualties.

A local official of the biggest Sunni Arab political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, called for demonstrations.

"This is a historic crime and another catastrophe for the people of Baiji," he told Reuters.

"If there were gunmen or criminals in that house, is it right to blow up the whole family?"
Hussein al-Falluji, a lawyer and a national leader of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Accordance Front, said: "Once again the occupiers have shown their barbarism. They never learn from their mistakes... People's resentment is increasing."
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4577578.stm

I can see bombing a car or something, but a house? Why would you just blow up a house when you have no idea who else is in it? Its not like the people were currently a danger, as their weapon (which wasn't actually seen and possibly doesn't even exist) had already been planted.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4577578.stm

I can see bombing a car or something, but a house? Why would you just blow up a house when you have no idea who else is in it? Its not like the people were currently a danger, as their weapon (which wasn't actually seen and possibly doesn't even exist) had already been planted.[/QUOTE]
If they planted one I'm sure they would have planted more
 
[quote name='jlarlee']If they planted one I'm sure they would have planted more[/QUOTE]

No one said not to go after them, but isn't just automatically bombing a house going overboard? The option isn't "obliterate the area or let them go". You can't just do what is always the safest for the military when it will likely kill civilians, and especially when we are supposedly trying to work with Iraqi's and not just attack.
 
Get back to me when you're outraged, upset or concerned about tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by their own or the countless foreign nationals hoping to provoke outright civil war.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get back to me when you're outraged, upset or concerned about tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by their own or the countless foreign nationals hoping to provoke outright civil war.[/QUOTE]


arent we supposed to be the good guys? We sure are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis one death at a time.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get back to me when you're outraged, upset or concerned about tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by their own or the countless foreign nationals hoping to provoke outright civil war.[/QUOTE]

Aren't you one of those people who claims all muslims should express their outrage when other muslims commit violence in their name? Aren't I just doing the same here?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get back to me when you're outraged, upset or concerned about tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by their own or the countless foreign nationals hoping to provoke outright civil war.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
Why am I not surprised there's no outrage over this news....

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber killed 32 mourners and wounded dozens at a funeral for the nephew of a Shiite politician, one of several attacks Wednesday across Iraq that killed a total of 53 people — making it the deadliest day since the Dec. 15 elections.
Link

So where's your outrage?

C'mon, show condemnation. I double dog dare you.

Bombing a funeral? Why be surprised? These are the same people that bomb weddings. They'll bomb anything that moves.

Sorry, I'm not going to become outraged by collateral damage when there's true barbarity going on by opponents of the freely elected Iraqi government and U.S. forces.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why am I not surprised there's no outrage over this news....

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber killed 32 mourners and wounded dozens at a funeral for the nephew of a Shiite politician, one of several attacks Wednesday across Iraq that killed a total of 53 people — making it the deadliest day since the Dec. 15 elections.
Link

So where's your outrage?

C'mon, show condemnation. I double dog dare you.

Bombing a funeral? Why be surprised? These are the same people that bomb weddings. They'll bomb anything that moves.

Sorry, I'm not going to become outraged by collateral damage when there's true barbarity going on by opponents of the freely elected Iraqi government and U.S. forces.[/QUOTE]

As you have made very clear when discussing muslims, they should make every effort to show their disapproval of actions committed in their name. Thats exactly what I've done here. These actions are committed by the american military in the name of my country and americans.
 
I didn't realize soldiers were out their saying "GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH! ALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO AMERICA!" as they did their duty. You mean there's a devout American religon pledge that soldiers take and declare all they do they do in your name?

Sorry 'zo. Soldiers don't for a moment consider they're offending useless scum like you when tasked with missions in combat.

Unlike the funeral butchers who know doubt were shrieking "Allu Akbar!" while carrying out their murderous deeds.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're stating, for the record, that it was the goal of the U.S. military to purposely to kill an innocent family for America?[/QUOTE]

No, but they made a conscious decision to disregard civilian lives. Be it either lack of concern or stupidity, bombing a house when you don't know what else is in it, and when there are alternative means of hunting down those indifiduals, is unnacceptable. Especially when Iraqi homes tend to have more people living in them than u.s. ones (increasing the likelihood of civilians being there).

US forces said they acted after seeing three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb enter the house......

"An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency.
Click to expand...

Why don't they surround the building? That still leaves open the option to bomb it as a last resort, but not a first choice. They were not carrying bombs either, which would have meant immediate elimination was necessary.

Another part of the article mentions the u.s. said they were a threat to civilians (along with the military), well isn't bombing a house equal a threat to civilians in most cases?

I'm opposed to the methods the military used, the disregard for civilian lives shown. And since, as an american citizens, it was done in the name of america then it is my duty (according to statements you've made previously) to show my disgust at those methods. That is exactly what I'm doing.
 
Why risk American lives or casualties surrounding a house with a platoon of 36 Marines or soldiers, engaging in a possible firefight, encountering possible booby traps that may still result in innocents being killed by U.S. or terrorists rounds?

The same result was just as likely with ground troops as airborne attack.

This way you don't endager the lives or health of American personnel. Logical decision all the way around.

Bravo I say!

You're free to register your disgust just as you are free to display your continued willful ingnorance of military operations and perfect 20/20 hindsight.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No, but they made a conscious decision to disregard civilian lives. Be it either lack of concern or stupidity, bombing a house when you don't know what else is in it, and when there are alternative means of hunting down those indifiduals, is unnacceptable. Especially when Iraqi homes tend to have more people living in them than u.s. ones (increasing the likelihood of civilians being there).



Why don't they surround the building? That still leaves open the option to bomb it as a last resort, but not a first choice. They were not carrying bombs either, which would have meant immediate elimination was necessary.

Another part of the article mentions the u.s. said they were a threat to civilians (along with the military), well isn't bombing a house equal a threat to civilians in most cases?

I'm opposed to the methods the military used, the disregard for civilian lives shown. And since, as an american citizens, it was done in the name of america then it is my duty (according to statements you've made previously) to show my disgust at those methods. That is exactly what I'm doing.[/QUOTE]

AM, there are alternative methods to locating WMD's and taking out homicidal dictators as well. Since when is the US into doing things the right way?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why risk American lives or casualties surrounding a house with a platoon of 36 Marines or soldiers, engaging in a possible firefight, encountering possible booby traps that may still result in innocents being killed by U.S. or terrorists rounds?

The same result was just as likely with ground troops as airborne attack.

This way you don't endager the lives or health of American personnel. Logical decision all the way around.

Bravo I say!

You're free to register your disgust just as you are free to display your continued willful ingnorance of military operations and perfect 20/20 hindsight.[/QUOTE]

If they were being attacked then that is a reason to bomb the house. I place higher value on civilian lives than soldiers lives, but at least I can understand that. Your method basically says civilians are worthless when compared to a soldier, so they should take every precaution to protect american soldiers despite the dangers to civilians.

But if civilians were caught in the crossfire (and its not a given especially since the planting of the roadside bomb is even uncertain) then thats an unfortunate consequence, but one that you attempted to avoid. Bombing a house intends to wipe out everything in it, its still unfortunate if civilians are hit, but no attempt to avoid killing them was made.

There's also the other argument that disregard for civilians simply pisses people off more people (as the article states), which isn't what we want when we want iraqi's to cooperate with us by not fighting, laying down their arms or turning over insurgents. This makes it harder to protect our soldiers, leading to more soldiers being killed. So actions like this likely, indirectly, endanger more soldiers.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If they were being attacked then that is a reason to bomb the house. I place higher value on civilian lives than soldiers lives, but at least I can understand that. Your method basically says civilians are worthless when compared to a soldier, so they should take every precaution to protect american soldiers despite the dangers to civilians.

[/QUOTE]

Civillians harboring terrorist bombers aren't civillians, they are enemy combatants. And PAD's right, nobody here complains about these coward bombers when they kill dozens of Iraqi civillians everyday.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Civillians harboring terrorist bombers aren't civillians, they are enemy combatants. And PAD's right, nobody here complains about these coward bombers when they kill dozens of Iraqi civillians everyday.[/QUOTE]

Such reasoning led to the burning of Vietnamese villages by U.S. soldiers, actions that in no way helped and, indeed, actively harmed the war effort.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You've framed this just as you thought I would.

You don't value soldiers. At least you are proud to admit it.

Welcome to my signature.[/QUOTE]

By your reasoning, PAD, then you would have no trouble with Pittsburgh cops burning down your house with you in it, or bombing it, because they'd heard you had a cache of illegal weapons.

Because if they had to actually go into your house and arrest you, they would be risking their lives, after all....
 
Oh dennis, your logic is lacking as always....

I'm not taking potshots at cops, planting roadside bombs or making a roving WMD out of my SUV. The person(s) running into said building had done such things.

If only your reading comprehension were as complete as your lack of reasoning.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Civillians harboring terrorist bombers aren't civillians, they are enemy combatants. And PAD's right, nobody here complains about these coward bombers when they kill dozens of Iraqi civillians everyday.[/QUOTE]

They ran into a house. You do not know if the others had any idea of what was going on, or if they were coerced or forced into cooperating (ie. under threat). Also it doesn't even seem like they know whether the guys who ran into the house were even involved in any attempted attack.

You've framed this just as you thought I would.

You don't value soldiers. At least you are proud to admit it.

Welcome to my signature.
Click to expand...

:D

But its all a matter of degrees, I said I valued one more than the other, not that I didn't value one at all.

Soldiers should protect civilians. And, since we are supposedly working for the benefit of Iraq (and not attacking it) we should be protecting there civilians as well.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh dennis, your logic is lacking as always....

[/QUOTE]

lol, I didn't know he was capable of logical thought to begin with...


We really don't the details of this story, at least I haven't been able to find them. Until then I can only hope that the US is as accurate and relentless in their attacks against insurgents using this technology as the Israelis are.

Until the actual facts are known, if they are, then I'll side with the Americans instead of automatically condemning US action like some of the liberal ilk around here always seem to do...

Did I say some? I meant most.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh dennis, your logic is lacking as always....

I'm not taking potshots at cops, planting roadside bombs or making a roving WMD out of my SUV. The person(s) running into said building had done such things.

If only your reading comprehension were as complete as your lack of reasoning.[/QUOTE]

From the article:

US military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson said the men, who ran into the house after digging a hole, were assesed as a threat to civilians and military forces.
"An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency.


So what had they done, PAD? Dug a hole that MIGHT have been used to plant a bomb?

Again, back to my analogy: The ATF notices through records that you've purchased a large number of weapons that had been used in the past by others to conduct bank robberies or restaurant shoot-ups or what have you. Under your logic, that gives them the right to blow up your house with you in it, to make sure you're not a threat to others.

One final note: We're here to debate, not to insult. Every cheap shot you take at me only sullies your own argument, PAD. I'd suggest you hold off on the personal attacks and spend more time thinking about what you're saying.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You didn't say the ATF, you said the Pittsburgh police.

If you're going to argue from a position of weakness at least be consistent.[/QUOTE]

How does the ATF versus the Pittsburgh police make any difference in the basic point, PAD?

And if my point is so weak, how about addressing it rather than engaging in this sort of nitpicking?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']
Again, back to my analogy: The ATF notices through records that you've purchased a large number of weapons that had been used in the past by others to conduct bank robberies or restaurant shoot-ups or what have you. Under your logic, that gives them the right to blow up your house with you in it, to make sure you're not a threat to others.
[/QUOTE]

During a wartime operation? Yes.

We don't know ALL the details. There are many things in a millitary press conference we don't get to hear, especially when it involves tactics, methods of information gathering, and intelligence. We could have been tracking these men for a period of time and knew exactly what they were doing and known exactly who they were.
 
So you're saying they may have known they were terrorists and were just waiting to bomb then when they were home with their families?

Is it just me or isn't that worse?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you're saying they may have known they were terrorists and were just waiting to bomb then when they were home with their families?

Is it just me or isn't that worse?[/QUOTE]

Indeed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So you're saying they may have known they were terrorists and were just waiting to bomb then when they were home with their families?

Is it just me or isn't that worse?[/QUOTE]


No, you said that. I said the millitary may have had information or evidence that they were known. I said nothing about purposeful bombing of a family. Of course, you would assume the worst in any given situation involving the millitary, wouldn't you?

Why are you pre-programmed to conclude US forces act in error in all circumstances? Is it genetic, or just something in the water in Massachusetts? How in the hell did Romney get elected there, anyway...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, you said that. I said the millitary may have had information or evidence that they were known. I said nothing about purposeful bombing of a family. Of course, you would assume the worst in any given situation involving the millitary, wouldn't you?[/quote]

Well you're saying they may have had info gathered over a long time, known exactly who they were and what they were doing. I would assume that, if they had all that info, they would know they live with family members.

How in the hell did Romney get elected there, anyway...
Click to expand...

He pretended to be moderate. Considering some comments I've heard him say I don't think he likes us anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top