Two Bombings Wreak Carnage in Iraqi Capital

[Peter F]

You don't think the U.S. et al is willfully dropping bombs in areas where civilians are in Iraq and Afghanistan? You think they're doing it against their will?

As for the mourners taking "solace in the fact that the bombers meant well" -- !! If a serial killer were on the loose and the police opened fire into a crowd that the killer was amongst, and your loved one was in that crowd and was gunned down, would you be taking solace from the notion that the police "meant well??"

I certainly do think the USAF would/have dropped ordinance knowing full well that civilian casualties would probably be the result. But, you see, they hoped it wouldn't be the result. It's that 'hoping' or the realization that 'oops the target wasnt what we thought it was' that gives jbg and dogonportch that lift of morality that puts us above terrorists.

I agree with you though. Civilians killed through the application of Western firepower, even if the shooters hearts were in the right place, actually do far more harm to the cause of anti-terrorism than good. Its so detrimental to the cause, that western soldiers must even put thier own lives at risk to avoid civilian casualties - they must stand and die rather than cause civilian casualties.

The US is slowly coming around to this belief. For the first three years they shot first and asked questions later wich directly led to an increasingly violent insurgency in Iraq. They lost many allies as a result of thier willingness to expend ammunition to resolve uncertainty.

Canada, thanks be to god above, imposes far more fire discipline amongst its troops - thus the higher fatality rate of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

jbg and dogonportch regret civilian casualties but don't realize that causing civilian casualties is the worst possible thing we can do - worse even than a terrorist bomb going off. By miles.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Canada, thanks be to god above, imposes far more fire discipline amongst its troops - thus the higher fatality rate of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Thanks be to god above....and the fact that Canada doesn't have the resources to expend such ordnance on such a scale in the first place. Not from the air...land..or...sea.

Praise Allah!

[Peter F]

Thanks be to god above....and the fact that Canada doesn't have the resources to expend such ordnance on such a scale in the first place. Not from the air...land..or...sea.

Praise Allah!

...wich actually works in our favour in a counter-insurgency. An will work in your's too, albeit it is tempting to expend that ammo.

[bush_cheney2004]

...wich actually works in our favour in a counter-insurgency. An will work in your's too, albeit it is tempting to expend that ammo.

Actually, it depends on the situation. Fire and maneuver tactics often require the expenditure of ordnance in more than just a tempting manner to achieve objectives. Each layer of enemy contact and engagement brings risk and opportunity for all involved. Measure can be taken to minimize but not eliminate non-combatant casualties.

That's why they call it "war".

[Peter F]

Actually, it depends on the situation. Fire and maneuver tactics often require the expenditure of ordnance in more than just a tempting manner to achieve objectives. Each layer of enemy contact and engagement brings risk and opportunity for all involved. Measure can be taken to minimize but not eliminate non-combatant casualties.

That's why they call it "war".

Granted, it depend's on the situation.

[jbg]

jbg and dogonportch regret civilian casualties but don't realize that causing civilian casualties is the worst possible thing we can do - worse even than a terrorist bomb going off. By miles.

I challenge you. Why?

[Peter F]

I challenge you. Why?

course there's collateral damage from aerial bombing. It's not the wilful brutality of using a retarded person directly as a bomb

Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the target terrorists are destroyed. Terrorists are brutal because they wilfuly kill non-combatants. The west is not as brutal because we don't wilfully kill non-combatants.

The difference between us and them is willfull killing and non-willfull killing.

[jbg]

Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the target terrorists are destroyed. Terrorists are brutal because they wilfuly kill non-combatants. The west is not as brutal because we don't wilfully kill non-combatants.

The difference between us and them is willfull killing and non-willfull killing.

Peter F I have posted respectfully towards you but this is straining that ability. Terrorists don't even try to kill combatants; they aim at helpless "soft targets" In the attack which is the subject of the OP both the target and the vehicles of the attack were random non-combatants.

There were no Israelis, Westerners or members of the Bush family at the market. Who in your view deserved to die there?

[Peter F]

Peter F I have posted respectfully towards you but this is straining that ability. Terrorists don't even try to kill combatants; they aim at helpless "soft targets" In the attack which is the subject of the OP both the target and the vehicles of the attack were random non-combatants.

There were no Israelis, Westerners or members of the Bush family at the market. Who in your view deserved to die there?

The folks who triggered the devices deserved to die - no one else. Terrorists are brutal callous useless bastards. Kill them all.

Have I ever disagreed with you on that point?

[White Doors]

Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the target terrorists are destroyed. Terrorists are brutal because they wilfuly kill non-combatants. The west is not as brutal because we don't wilfully kill non-combatants.

The difference between us and them is willfull killing and non-willfull killing.

It's the difference between murder and accidental death.

You do know the difference don't you?

Our whole western legal system does.

[Peter F]

It's the difference between murder and accidental death.

You do know the difference don't you?

Our whole western legal system does.

Agreed. However, sometimes its not accidental. But considered acceptable risk.