Thread: 25 suspected insurgents killed

How can America justify the killing of 25 suspected insurgents in Iraq. They were killed in a bomging raid according to todays Yahoo news. How does a pilot define who's enemy and who's not flying thousands of feet above the ground ? Suspected insurgents must be the new excuse for killing civillians. A case of shoot now and ask later. I suppose it's better to kill 25 innocent civillians than allow 25 suspected insurgents get away. Why doesn't America just bomb every Iraqy on the basis they were suspected insurgents ? Problems in Iraq then solved.

Good job lads, keep up the good work!!!!

Yes, and as is common, many Iraqis in that neighborhood say many innocent civilians were killed. And this incident was reported. Think of how many other incidences on a smaller scale we don't even know about.

Everyone knew what would happen if they tried to fight a war in a city or a country that was both warring and non-warring people, same as Viet Nam, Actually same as in every war that has been fought in modern times.
No more "Battlefields" like in the American Civil war where the soldiers of both sides would meet on an open field and kill each other, then the winning side would go into the town if on the opposite sides territory and kill most everyone there, but the same happened in England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Everywhere there were civilized people.
Now the only difference since 1900 is just kill everyone on the other side of what is considered "The Front Lines".
So what is the big deal,, everyone knew what was going to happen, you might have a choice if you were fighting with war clubs, but they are using fire arms and high explosives.

There are no "front lines" as such and it isn't a war, either - supposedly a security operation to ensure peace and democracy.

What a laugh.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Everyone knew what would happen if they tried to fight a war in a city or a country that was both warring and non-warring people, same as Viet Nam, Actually same as in every war that has been fought in modern times.
No more "Battlefields" like in the American Civil war where the soldiers of both sides would meet on an open field and kill each other, then the winning side would go into the town if on the opposite sides territory and kill most everyone there, but the same happened in England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Everywhere there were civilized people.
Now the only difference since 1900 is just kill everyone on the other side of what is considered "The Front Lines".
So what is the big deal,, everyone knew what was going to happen, you might have a choice if you were fighting with war clubs, but they are using fire arms and high explosives.

It is not a war. That is just a word used by America to justify their actions. It's civil unrest. There are no armies facing each other. American military is not capable of policing civil unrest it's geared up for conventional warfare against people in uniforms and similar equipment.

Very true, but is not even a police action and is much worse than even I expected because of the Arabs, or Mesopotamians or what ever you wish to call them are staying banned together and will not separate themselves from what ever they would normally call enemy's, who ever were their suppressors before, so it is impossible to tell who to kill and who not to, and as long as they associate freely and live among each other there is going to be a lot of INNOCENT civilians killed.
Surely you did not think it would be any different did you??

Originally Posted by blackgang

Very true, but is not even a police action and is much worse than even I expected because of the Arabs, or Mesopotamians or what ever you wish to call them are staying banned together and will not separate themselves from what ever they would normally call enemy's, who ever were their suppressors before, so it is impossible to tell who to kill and who not to, and as long as they associate freely and live among each other there is going to be a lot of INNOCENT civilians killed.
Surely you did not think it would be any different did you??

The British accomplished it in many theatres around the world at sometime or other without civilian casualties to the extent the US implements. How often do you hear of civilian deaths, in Iraq, caused by other coalition forces ?

Originally Posted by blackgang

Surely you did not think it would be any different did you??

Bush, Rummy and the other invasion promoters did, apparently, when they sold the invasion to congress and the public..
Seems to have been beyond the foresight of these 'expert' strategists to see religious civil war coming with the strong secular ruler removed.