US army murders Reuters journalists and civilians

[TheKassi]

If you're finished with the sympathy plea for rapists and murderers

Again, why would rapists and murderers having their guts, metaphorically, ripped out have to be a bad thing? Is this an conflict of international idiom or are you just really committing yourself to a rediculas strawman?

[Alexia]

Again, why would rapists and murderers having their guts, metaphorically, ripped out have to be a bad thing?

Because they didn't even get the maximum sentence under law so attempting to claim that their guts were ripped out, metaphorically or otherwise, is simply ludicrous.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

Again, why would rapists and murderers having their guts, metaphorically, ripped out have to be a bad thing?

It's not.

It's also not a bad thing for them to literally have their guts ripped out.

[tramme]

If you're finished with the sympathy plea for rapists and murderers do you want to go back to the argument that if only governments didn't place their ministerial buildings in cities, insurgents and soldiers wore uniforms and formed ranks in open fields and never went with in 300m of a house there'd have been no civillian casualities in the Iraq war, because I think you're onto a winner there.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent of his original message. Either that, or you've created a straw man.

You used the rape and murder of a 14 year old civilain as an example of the US military directly causing civilian deaths. He countered that those atrocities were carried out by individuals who were not acting under the guidance or order of US military command, and who were subsequently tried and punished for their actions.

You then make the leap to him sympathizing with the condemned soldiers and take issue with the words he uses to imply that they were "punished" for their crimes. The word he used was irrelevant, as the point still remains: those INDIVIDUALS, acting OUTSIDE of military command (i.e., on their own), perpetrated said crime and were PUNISHED for what they had done. This not only is entirely different from the US Military carrying out the crimes themselves, but it also shows that the military and civilian courts sentenced those who were responsible for war crimes.

I fail to see how you don't understand the distinction.

[TerraPrime]

After WW2, the concept of total war and indiscriminate bombing of population centers was codified as a war crime. I very seriously doubt that the US would purposely desire to do this as a matter of course, and the proof is obvious: the US would have already done so in Afghanistan and Iraq (in either war) if it wasn't the case. From a military standpoint it would have been significantly easier to reduce the population and the urban areas to be fought over, especially in stronghold cities.

They haven't.

They haven't for 70 years. That doesn't mean the US record is sterling, but let's try and tone down the historical antecedents as examples of what the US is willing to do now, shall we?

You're missing part of the point.

TheKassi argued that there'd be no civilian casualties if the insurgents did not use civilians as shields. That is manifestedly not true, because the U.S. will strike at targets of military importance even if civilians are known to be present. Is this not true?

The difference is scale and precision. The U.S. has not stopped targeting locations of military importance on account of possible civilian deaths. That's why they call it collateral damages. It is not intended, but it will happen, even if the enemy had not been deliberately using civilians as shields. What the U.S. will not do nowadays is to use tactical nukes for regular conflicts. It does not mean that the U.S. has stopped targeting locations of military importance where the action may/can/will result in civilian deaths.

[TheKassi]

Because they didn't even get the maximum sentence under law so attempting to claim that their guts were ripped out, metaphorically or otherwise, is simply ludicrous.

Ninety and a hundred year sentences seems like enough to qualify for the above classification but if you disagree go for it. Semantics arguments do not however change the facts. The actions in question were not sponsored by our government, they were punished by our government with a solid century of prison time.

Thus to argue that it is an example of our government killing civilians is flatly obtuse.

You're missing part of the point.

TheKassi argued that there'd be no civilian casualties if the insurgents did not use civilians as shields. That is manifestedly not true, because the U.S. will strike at targets of military importance even if civilians are known to be present.

In order for you to have a point, the United States would have to have a willingness to target civilian areas absent military/governmental targets.

[Horza]

Fair enough, TheKassi. If you genuinely believe that the defendants deserve to die of exposure on two wooden beams or just be metaphorically eviscerated thats ok.

Now back to 'there'd be no civillian casualties if they just assembled out in the desert and let us strafe them'...

[Kalbear]

TheKassi argued that there'd be no civilian casualties if the insurgents did not use civilians as shields. That is manifestedly not true, because the U.S. will strike at targets of military importance even if civilians are known to be present. Is this not true?

It is, but using the argument that the US is willing to do so because they nuked cities 60 years ago is pretty ludicrous.

The difference is scale and precision. The U.S. has not stopped targeting locations of military importance on account of possible civilian deaths. That's why they call it collateral damages. It is not intended, but it will happen, even if the enemy had not been deliberately using civilians as shields. What the U.S. will not do nowadays is to use tactical nukes for regular conflicts. It does not mean that the U.S. has stopped targeting locations of military importance where the action may/can/will result in civilian deaths.

That's absolutely true, though they go to almost insane lengths to attempt to limit civilian casualties at times.

I'm not arguing that the US military policy currently has guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable risk when it comes to civilians. They absolutely do and it changes depending on the situation. But saying that the US is willing to commit wholesale slaughter of civilians and using the proof as a global war with hugely different moralities 70 years ago? That's an aburd argument. You might as well have said that because the US killed thousands via disease-ridden blankets, they'd be willing to engage in biological attack now.

[Relic]

The difference is scale and precision. The U.S. has not stopped targeting locations of military importance on account of possible civilian deaths. That's why they call it collateral damages. It is not intended, but it will happen, even if the enemy had not been deliberately using civilians as shields. What the U.S. will not do nowadays is to use tactical nukes for regular conflicts. It does not mean that the U.S. has stopped targeting locations of military importance where the action may/can/will result in civilian deaths.

Well that's only half of it, really. Don't forget to mention all the times where bombs did not fall where intended, or when targets were mistakenly identified as having military importance (a very common occurrence as those who bother to search a bit can easily find out).

US missiles have hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad and other civilian buildings, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and witnesses said.

The attacks, which occurred at 9:30am local time (4:30pm AEST) surprised motorists who had ventured out during a lull in the bombing.

A Reuters correspondent saw at least five burned-out and twisted cars parked in the middle of the road.

Witnesses said the drivers burned to death inside.

Residents said US planes raided the Mansour area, firing at least three missiles.

They hit the hospital, the nearby Baghdad trade centre complex and buildings housing the Pharmacist and Teachers' Unions.

The blast caused extensive damage in the hospital.

"There were air raids, some 25 people who work and live in the area were wounded, three of our Red Crescent staff were also wounded, we brought all the wounded in our ambulances to two hospitals," Red Crescent official Abdel-Hameed Salim said at Baghdad's al-Iskan hospital.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/04/03/823006.htm

[Yagathai]

I'm surprised nobody's commented on the flagrant misuse of the term "murder" in this context. Murder is a legal term, and in general a killing by soldiers during wartime isn't considered murder by default.

It might end up being adjudicated as murder, and that's fine, but right now... it's homicide, sure, but not necessarily murder.

[Stego]

Err...yes. In a warzone, a person grouped with others openly carrying a rocket launcher is pretty reasonably a combatant, and it's pretty reasonable to assume that ALL of them are. This isn't montessori school. Is there some other percentage of people carrying RPGs that would make you think 'oh no, they're just out to go hunting'?

Great post.

[Stego]

I'm surprised nobody's commented on the flagrant misuse of the term "murder" in this context. Murder is a legal term, and in general a killing by soldiers during wartime isn't considered murder by default.

It might end up being adjudicated as murder, and that's fine, but right now... it's homicide, sure, but not necessarily murder.

Inflammatory post titles FTW.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

In order for you to have a point, the United States would have to have a willingness to target civilian areas absent military/governmental targets.

Actually the bombing campaign against (for example) Tokyo, was almost exclusively against civilian areas. The US made the argument that small industries were based out of civilian homes (cottage industry) which provided supplies and such for larger scale industry (factories).

The firebombing campaign that followed destroyed the mostly wood and paper structures that were home to so many people. Were these legitimate targets? It's hard to say, on one hand they were providing a degree of support to the war effort, on the other hand they were populated almost exclusively by civilians. Did the US know that the civilians lived and worked in these areas? Definitely, that's why they were bombed in the first place.

Secondly, in Europe the Allies adopted the idea of "round the clock bombing" so as to never give the air defenses (or citizens) of Germany a rest from constant air attack. People would go to work, suffer through 1-2 raids during the day, then return home only to have their sleep cut short 1-2 times a night as the British indiscriminately bombed civilian areas. That sort of thing is OBVIOUSLY targeting a civilian populace, either through bombs themselves or through the side effects of bombing (air raid sirens, AA guns, near misses, late night trips to the bomb shelter). It was both psychological AND strategic, and it was effective. It was however, by no means, designed to protect civilians from the worst of the bombings.

[Horza]

I'm surprised nobody's commented on the flagrant misuse of the term "murder" in this context. Murder is a legal term, and in general a killing by soldiers during wartime isn't considered murder by default.

It might end up being adjudicated as murder, and that's fine, but right now... it's homicide, sure, but not necessarily murder.

Come on, would we have got this furious if the thread title was 'Wikileaks: Collateral Murder - A Symposium on War Media and the Sociocultural Resonance of US Military Culture' ? -_-

[TerraPrime]

In order for you to have a point, the United States would have to have a willingness to target civilian areas absent military/governmental targets.

No, that is not a necessary condition for my argument, which is that contrary to your claim, civilian deaths will result whether the opposition actively and knowingly use civilians as shields against attacks.

Think of the Pentagon. It's a military building for the expressed purpose of running this countries armed forces. It also contains hundreds of civilians working there. Does this mean that the U.S. is actively using civilians as shields? Or is the Pentagon a legitimate target for an aggressor? If it's a legitimate target, and they successfully bomb it, will there be civilian deaths?

[TheKassi]

I'm surprised nobody's commented on the flagrant misuse of the term "murder" in this context.

Why bother? Proving that an argument is semantically incorrect does nothing but force a small change in idiom.

Besides, the basic problem with being a semantics nazi is that words commonly have oodles of different definitions. I.E Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

No, that is not a necessary condition for my argument, which is that contrary to your claim, civilian deaths will result whether the opposition actively and knowingly use civilians as shields against attacks.

See the part of the post you snipped to make this argument:

America would be perfectly happy to pit uniformed forces against uniformed forces in designated areas far away from sleeping citizens

Unless you are willing to argue that America would object to engaging the individuals who wish to perpetuate this conflict some place where it need not worry about collateral damage, you really are not arguing against my point at all.

Intermingling with the civilian population benefits one side because it hamstrings the other. Silly to argue that the hamstrung side wouldn't be pleased to unleash.

[Kalbear]

Yes - and once again, military doctrine based on WW2 is not the same as military doctrine now.

[Yagathai]

Why bother? Proving that an argument is semantically incorrect does nothing but force a small change in idiom.

It makes all the difference in the world. The difference between "murder" and "killing" isn't the difference between "blue" and "azure". It's the difference between making a withdrawal from a bank and robbing it, or the difference between consensual sex and rape, or the difference between, you know, lawful killing and unlawful killing.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

Yes - and once again, military doctrine based on WW2 is not the same as military doctrine now.

Why? Because the US doesnt currently carpet bomb cities? That's because of politicians, not generals. If it were up to the military leadership to make the calls, they'd have plastered that place flatter than a sheet of paper already.

And believe you me, if the politicians decide that carpet bombing cities is a good idea at some point in the future, do you really think the US military leadership is going to say "Hey, no thats a bad idea sir."? Not bloody likely.

[Shryke]

Why? Because the US doesnt currently carpet bomb cities? That's because of politicians, not generals. If it were up to the military leadership to make the calls, they'd have plastered that place flatter than a sheet of paper already.

And believe you me, if the politicians decide that carpet bombing cities is a good idea at some point in the future, do you really think the US military leadership is going to say "Hey, no thats a bad idea sir."? Not bloody likely.

So you don't believe things change over time?

Damn son...