Clipmarks
Sign Up  Install  Learn More  Login 
blueridgefollowshare
11
10-28-2008 1:06 AM
607 views
blueridge says:
1. invading a foreign country, 2. kill ratio 1:8, as usual, more civilians than alleged "terrorist", 3 of which were innocent children! Is this an acceptable kill ratio to be consider moral and just?

Was this:

a) "Collateral damage", entirely justified
b) gross negligence and murder
c) unjust attack and invasion, violating all rules of just warfare and "rules of engagement" (unarmed civilians)
d) b and c

Consider that this was done with soldiers, not a spy drone, which had to have sited the children in their gun sights for at least a moment, and were firing with gross negligence at anything that moved. Can they tell the difference between children and men? Can they tell the difference between unarmed men (civilians) and combatants? Or is it "just kill them all" because we are afraid, even though we are armed to the teeth? THIS WAS A SLAUGHTER.

This was murder and invasion, and done without permission or notice to Syria, which the neocons want war with.
4 Comments   | Add a Comment
10-28-2008 1:22 AM
blueridge
An unnamed U.S. official privy to the attack said U.S. soldiers killed Abu Ghadiyah, Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq responsible from smuggling foreign fighters, weapons and money into Iraq.
Wouldn't it be better to capture him, get valuable information from him, make an example of him? Just killing him of course just leaves the official story with no questions asked, and the allegation of "Al Qaeda leader in Iraq" sticks. Dead men don't talk. But in wars of the past such men were captured (he was clearly outmanned here) and interrogated.

We here occasional stories like this propaganda, that Al Qaeda's "number one" or "number two" are killed (over and over again), all of whic...
read more»
10-30-2008 6:42 AM
blueridge
Europe, France, and now even Iraq has condemned this unjust raid:

Iraq's government rebuked Washington yesterday for launching a military raid into neighbouring Syria from Iraqi soil...In a brief public comment more than 24 hours after the special forces strike, an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said Baghdad rejected raids on its neighbours and did not want to be used as a launch pad.

"The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries,"
10-30-2008 8:24 AM
tabsey
Not making friends. Even more clear why one of Bush's early moves was to discredit the UN. Less criticism for acts such as these that he knew he would agree to (only because he couldn't think them up himself)
10-31-2008 7:09 AM
blueridge
Syria responded, "eye for eye" next time:

27 Oct 2008 Syria has warned the United States of retaliatory measures if Washington launches another incursion into the country's territories. "We would defend our territories" if the US repeats such a "criminal and terrorist aggression" against Syria, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said on Monday
Of course this is precisely the scenario the neocons want, they've been itching to expand war to Syria per their blueprint for a "new middle east".
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
New from the makers of Clipmarks:  Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!

OK