Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

[toomuchtime_]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

That's just crazy Ron Paul talk.

I disagree.

lol You said it so it has to be crazy Ron Paul talk.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Intentionally? Wrong answer, dumbass!

Someone pulled the trigger. Bombs don't decide to launch themselves --- dumbass.

So, you have irrefutable evidence that we intentionally bombed that train, bombed an embassy and a hospital?

Are you in the running for the "Biggest Moron" reality show?

No.. The "biggest moron" contest is between the guys who let those bombs loose on bad coordinates. In the case of the Chinese embassy -- they used the wrong map.. That's NEGLIGIENCE -- not an accident. Because our expectation is now that we can KILL from 4000 miles away and never risk a scratch. Makes us a bit sloppy in signing off on targets and ground support to VERIFY collateral issues.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are yammering about. Negligence still does not make it intentional you dip shit!

Ground support? Are you serious? Please find another topic. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief in this thread. Everything you post is dead wrong.

You saying that chasing a running battle in Afghan from satellite is SUFFICIENT to guarantee you wouldn't hit that Doctors without Borders hospital? Someone on the ground called IN that strike. And it was probably bad communications and time delay that caused the hospital to be hit.

You know better. That's why there were "boots on the ground" in Syria before anyone ACKNOWLEDGED "boots on the ground" in Syria. Because you cannot do close quarter urban targeting without reliable intel and spotting.

If you would remove your head from your hindquarters, the hospital was not intentionally targeted as a hospital, so the rest of your meaningless rant is irrelevant, just like you are quickly becoming to the discussion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

For a guy who couldn't remember that we bombed and starved Iraq for 10 years -- Admiral -- you shouldn't be questioning the facts I've given you..

As for whether hospitals, embassies, and commuter trains are "incidental" or negligence -- I'll stick with negligience in these 3 cases. You don't do hot pursuit with an AC 130 on 3 or 4 passes on a coordinate that SHOWS it's an internation relief organization hospital or bomb a Chinese Embassy without severe negligence.

Kunduz hospital attack: how a US military ‘mistake’ left 22 dead


The destruction appears to have been caused by a US AC-130 gunship aircraft circling in the darkness, loaded with 25mm and 40mm cannon, as well as a 105mm howitzer, the Washington Post reported.

On each pass, five times approximately every 15 minutes, the plane fired and hit the main hospital building “repeatedly and precisely”, MSF stated, indicating that the facility was targeted on purpose.

A charred room in the destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
A charred room in the destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz. Photograph: Najim Rahim/AP
Liu said MSF’s ability to work in some of the world’s most difficult conflict zones had been put at stake by the attack. “[Parties to a conflict] cannot target patients, medical facilities, ambulances, healthcare workers,” she said. “That’s the bottom line, that’s what the Geneva convention gives us, and we have been working on the understanding that people respect that. If somehow we decide this is somehow not respected any more, then we question everything after that.”

Advertisement

American forces should have known the hospital was protected. Four days prior to the attack, the charity reminded all parties, including the US military, of the exact GPS coordinates of the hospital.

I didn't remember? I stated that the bombings were radar and SAM missile sites. You denied that and said we were targeting civilians. I think you just need a crash course in reality. We did not starve anyone. Please go find a dark corner and play with yourself and see if you get anything out of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

And that brings up back to the OP topic. You said "NO ONE had better ideas on how to deal with Saddam's Iraq". Actually a handful of CONSISTENT leaders -- LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH, Ron Paul and others DID advocate that we let Saddam out of containment after pulverizing and killing Iraqis for over a decade. And my Libertarian Party for example who NEVER changed their principles or opinions on the matter. And then there were the French and Germans who calling for "normalization" 8 years into the containment and eventually left the "coalition". A LOT of folks had the CORRECT idea to let Saddam out of containment rather than pursuing the faulty and highly EXAGGERATED WMD fallacy.

Took a lot of guts to call for walking away from a TERRIBLE policy that went on FAR too long. And ole Dennis was right there all along.

Not like all those Dem/Rep heroes who voted consistently to CONTINUE that policy. And then expected the Iraqis to LOVE US when we triumphantly marched into Iraq. Who do blame most for this carnage? Bush Jr who AT LEAST did something to end that situation or the Dems who didn't have the guts to ACKNOWLEDGE the humanitarian crisis we created with the containment and the bombing and suggest we wind the containment down?

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

If Iran were as influential as you claim, why did the Iraqi government turn to the US to help them fight ISIS. Back in the 1960's Khomeini lived in Iraq and he tried to incite Shi'ites there against the Sunni government. The Iraqi Shi'ites complained and he was kicked out of Iraq. While the Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites do share a religion, the Iranians are not Arabs and they speak a different language and have a different culture and history from Iraqis. Iraqis do have a sense of nationalism.

Smell the coffee. The grand vision of promoting "democracy" in Iraq failed in Iraq. Leading to one of the largest "hybrid" corruptocracies in the ME. The answer to your question is -- Low Sunni voter turnout contributed to a Shia favorable central government. Which has DIS-unified Iraq and greatly increased Iran's influence and participation in providing "security" for the current regime...

Bullshit. Two thirds of the population is Shi'ite so the Shi'ites of course are the majority in the government. The US has a low voter turnout rate, so does that mean we aren't a democracy? Iraq has passed the ultimate test of a democracy when there was a peaceful transition of power as the result of an election. Your post is entirely bullshit. You are just another disgruntled Democrat who is bitter that Iraq has become a functioning democracy instead of he brutal dictatorship you favored.

.... " a functioning democracy" ????

If you ARE a functioning democracy, you don't have to worry about minority rights or minority persecution. Once the Shias figured out how to dominate the corrupt leadership and economy -- NOW there's a big issue over "minority protections" as it applies to jobs and income and status. Not really ruling as a "secular" government anymore.

If you think elections are the signs of a functioning democracy by themselves -- you're missing a lot of factors that count a lot more....

I'm not a Dem or a Repub. I've been working in 3rd party politics for about 20 years now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

Or perhaps it's the cowboys and injuns effect.

We're the good cowboys going around committing genocide, and you're the evil injuns defending your land from the invaders.

 

[flacaltenn]

Someone pulled the trigger. Bombs don't decide to launch themselves --- dumbass.

So, you have irrefutable evidence that we intentionally bombed that train, bombed an embassy and a hospital?

Are you in the running for the "Biggest Moron" reality show?

No.. The "biggest moron" contest is between the guys who let those bombs loose on bad coordinates. In the case of the Chinese embassy -- they used the wrong map.. That's NEGLIGIENCE -- not an accident. Because our expectation is now that we can KILL from 4000 miles away and never risk a scratch. Makes us a bit sloppy in signing off on targets and ground support to VERIFY collateral issues.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are yammering about. Negligence still does not make it intentional you dip shit!

Ground support? Are you serious? Please find another topic. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief in this thread. Everything you post is dead wrong.

You saying that chasing a running battle in Afghan from satellite is SUFFICIENT to guarantee you wouldn't hit that Doctors without Borders hospital? Someone on the ground called IN that strike. And it was probably bad communications and time delay that caused the hospital to be hit.

You know better. That's why there were "boots on the ground" in Syria before anyone ACKNOWLEDGED "boots on the ground" in Syria. Because you cannot do close quarter urban targeting without reliable intel and spotting.

If you would remove your head from your hindquarters, the hospital was not intentionally targeted as a hospital, so the rest of your meaningless rant is irrelevant, just like you are quickly becoming to the discussion.

Really? The hospital was not an INTENTIONAL target? Which run of the AC gunship was that? The FIRST run with guns blazing? Or the 4th one about an hour later? That's a very REPETITIVE mistake. Not like a sending a single cruise missile or smart bomb to the wrong place...

 

[toomuchtime_]

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

If Iran were as influential as you claim, why did the Iraqi government turn to the US to help them fight ISIS. Back in the 1960's Khomeini lived in Iraq and he tried to incite Shi'ites there against the Sunni government. The Iraqi Shi'ites complained and he was kicked out of Iraq. While the Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites do share a religion, the Iranians are not Arabs and they speak a different language and have a different culture and history from Iraqis. Iraqis do have a sense of nationalism.

Smell the coffee. The grand vision of promoting "democracy" in Iraq failed in Iraq. Leading to one of the largest "hybrid" corruptocracies in the ME. The answer to your question is -- Low Sunni voter turnout contributed to a Shia favorable central government. Which has DIS-unified Iraq and greatly increased Iran's influence and participation in providing "security" for the current regime...

Bullshit. Two thirds of the population is Shi'ite so the Shi'ites of course are the majority in the government. The US has a low voter turnout rate, so does that mean we aren't a democracy? Iraq has passed the ultimate test of a democracy when there was a peaceful transition of power as the result of an election. Your post is entirely bullshit. You are just another disgruntled Democrat who is bitter that Iraq has become a functioning democracy instead of he brutal dictatorship you favored.

.... " a functioning democracy" ????

If you ARE a functioning democracy, you don't have to worry about minority rights or minority persecution. Once the Shias figured out how to dominate the corrupt leadership and economy -- NOW there's a big issue over "minority protections" as it applies to jobs and income and status. Not really ruling as a "secular" government anymore.

If you think elections are the signs of a functioning democracy by themselves -- you're missing a lot of factors that count a lot more....

I'm not a Dem or a Repub. I've been working in 3rd party politics for about 20 years now.

Again, you are making no sense. When a democracy adds protections for minorities it is called a liberal democracy. Since when does protecting minority rights make it less of a democracy?

 

[Borillar]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

Tell that to the survivors of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

 

[Borillar]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

Tell that to the survivors of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Sorry Dschrute3, I somehow muffed my reply to shockedcanadian and my words are appearing as yours.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, you have irrefutable evidence that we intentionally bombed that train, bombed an embassy and a hospital?

Are you in the running for the "Biggest Moron" reality show?

No.. The "biggest moron" contest is between the guys who let those bombs loose on bad coordinates. In the case of the Chinese embassy -- they used the wrong map.. That's NEGLIGIENCE -- not an accident. Because our expectation is now that we can KILL from 4000 miles away and never risk a scratch. Makes us a bit sloppy in signing off on targets and ground support to VERIFY collateral issues.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are yammering about. Negligence still does not make it intentional you dip shit!

Ground support? Are you serious? Please find another topic. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief in this thread. Everything you post is dead wrong.

You saying that chasing a running battle in Afghan from satellite is SUFFICIENT to guarantee you wouldn't hit that Doctors without Borders hospital? Someone on the ground called IN that strike. And it was probably bad communications and time delay that caused the hospital to be hit.

You know better. That's why there were "boots on the ground" in Syria before anyone ACKNOWLEDGED "boots on the ground" in Syria. Because you cannot do close quarter urban targeting without reliable intel and spotting.

If you would remove your head from your hindquarters, the hospital was not intentionally targeted as a hospital, so the rest of your meaningless rant is irrelevant, just like you are quickly becoming to the discussion.

Really? The hospital was not an INTENTIONAL target? Which run of the AC gunship was that? The FIRST run with guns blazing? Or the 4th one about an hour later? That's a very REPETITIVE mistake. Not like a sending a single cruise missile or smart bomb to the wrong place...

Have you ever served in the military? If not, you have no basis of knowledge for how missions are undertaken and accomplished. You are pissing into the wind!

 

[Markle]

when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis.

Rendered a proven lie by this having been totally debunked many years ago. Next time, try the TRUTH. An unknown factor for Progressives.

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. The "biggest moron" contest is between the guys who let those bombs loose on bad coordinates. In the case of the Chinese embassy -- they used the wrong map.. That's NEGLIGIENCE -- not an accident. Because our expectation is now that we can KILL from 4000 miles away and never risk a scratch. Makes us a bit sloppy in signing off on targets and ground support to VERIFY collateral issues.

You have no fucking clue as to what you are yammering about. Negligence still does not make it intentional you dip shit!

Ground support? Are you serious? Please find another topic. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief in this thread. Everything you post is dead wrong.

You saying that chasing a running battle in Afghan from satellite is SUFFICIENT to guarantee you wouldn't hit that Doctors without Borders hospital? Someone on the ground called IN that strike. And it was probably bad communications and time delay that caused the hospital to be hit.

You know better. That's why there were "boots on the ground" in Syria before anyone ACKNOWLEDGED "boots on the ground" in Syria. Because you cannot do close quarter urban targeting without reliable intel and spotting.

If you would remove your head from your hindquarters, the hospital was not intentionally targeted as a hospital, so the rest of your meaningless rant is irrelevant, just like you are quickly becoming to the discussion.

Really? The hospital was not an INTENTIONAL target? Which run of the AC gunship was that? The FIRST run with guns blazing? Or the 4th one about an hour later? That's a very REPETITIVE mistake. Not like a sending a single cruise missile or smart bomb to the wrong place...

Have you ever served in the military? If not, you have no basis of knowledge for how missions are undertaken and accomplished. You are pissing into the wind!

Didn't serve in the military. But I was involved in the systems for Intel gathering and reconnaissance. One of those guys who did the real time analysis and appraisals. So I know what info is AVAILABLE to making those decisions.. I've seen more hot zones from the signals and imaging aspect than most people who were in the military.

 

[Markle]

The saddest thing is, Obama and Hillary Clinton were well aware that 'Allies' like Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming ISIS in Syria. But they did nothing. It's a bloody mess over there. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. It's time.

ISIS and Russia rushed in to occupy the vacuum left by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama when he pulled all our troops out of Iran. That was against the advice of his military advisors. President Obama, if he did not bring about the existence of ISIS, he certainly provided them with a fertile country to grow and prosper.

So tell us, how did that vacuum left by President Obama work out?

 

[busybee01]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

The reason is simple. We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties. The fact is that Bush left a stable Iraq. If Obama had done what Bush had done, things would be different. It is the terrorists who are extending the war. Better to fight them over there than here.

Saudi Arabia and Israel both recognize the danger in Syria. It is not Syria itself but Iran that is using Syria as a building block to a Persian Empire that if successful would lead to Iran backed attacks against the US. The fact is that Syria launched the attack. Obviously our intelligence sources proved that Syria launched the gas attack. Also Russia's ridiculous explanation is further proof that Syria did it.

 

[busybee01]

I thought everyone by now understood that these evil jihadists use human shields all the time. Unfortunately we are the ones responsible for the rise of ISIS and Jabhat al Nusra (AQ in Syria).

Al Nusra was holding the citizens of Aleppo hostage and civilians did die when the Russians and the Syrian armies try to free Syria's citizens while every nutbar like McCain was screaming that Assad had no right to free his citizens.

I'd like to think that if Detroit was being held by ISIS that my bloody government wouldn't listen to the McCains of the world and that the US military would try to free its citizens.

Sheesh, this shouldn't be rocket science.

The saddest thing is, Obama and Hillary Clinton were well aware that 'Allies' like Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming ISIS in Syria. But they did nothing. It's a bloody mess over there. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. It's time.

Not certain if you know it but right from the get go Obama's CIA was assisting in the funnelling of $$$$ and weapons to the so called rebels but they were relying on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to deliver the goods.

I mean what could possibly go wrong...you know...like the weapons and the cash ending up in jihadists hands.

Check the date. The west was complicit in attempting to depose Assad and put the MB in charge. Those swell guys that like killing everyone who isn't hardline Sunni.

C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.
The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.

More at link:

C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Rebels

Initially the Syrian opposition was ordinary Syrians wanting freedom. We should have provided weapons then. By not doing so, we created a vacuum that terrorists filled. By the time we seriously considered providing arms it was much more difficult to tell who was who. The original Syrian opposition got hammered by both sides. Assad on 1 hand and terrorists on the other hand.

 

[Markle]

Oh Waco rings a bell. Gassing vs burning citizens alive really doesn't count as far as the victims go. The victims all end up dead.

Interesting, it is not easy to find a far left Progressive stating that President Bill Clinton and then United States Attorney General Janet Reno killed the victims intentionally. Thank you!

 

[busybee01]

But you can't do that research to prove me wrong......LOL

Your Government is no 'Angel' my friend. It's hardly above abusing its own Citizens. Just do some basic research, it won't take you too long to realize your Government has committed awful crimes against its People.

Again kid, when did any US President Gas American kids......................................

You may stop masturbating at any time

Oh Waco rings a bell. Gassing vs burning citizens alive really doesn't count as far as the victims go. The victims all end up dead.

The people at Waco killed themselves as they could have left at any time....................They chose to die for their leader, because they were all nuts. This is not gassing innocent children

Wrong, your Government burnt fellow Americans to death. The fires were not started by the inhabitants of the compound. That was a despicable Government lie. They slaughtered those women & children. It could have been handled much differently. But the US Government chose massacre.

The fact is that the government did make a mistake however they did not set out to kill them. They did not bomb the compound in Waco. They used tear gas which set up a chain of unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Markle]

Wrong, your Government burnt fellow Americans to death. The fires were not started by the inhabitants of the compound. That was a despicable Government lie. They slaughtered those women & children. It could have been handled much differently. But the US Government chose massacre.

Why don't you point out that it was President Bill Clinton, Democrat and Attorney General Janet Reno who made that decision.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

I'm sure that's a comfort to their families but they're still DEAD, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who killed them they are still DEAD. The are no less DEAD because they were killed as "collateral damage" in an American raid or if they were killed by Assad. It is no less horrible for their friends and loved ones.

No one has ever said "I am so glad Ahmed was killed by the Americans and not by the Russians".

Americans are now killing more civilians in Syria than ISIS, Assad or the Russians. How is this a good thing?

 

[busybee01]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

I'm sure that's a comfort to their families but they're still DEAD, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who killed them they are still DEAD. The are no less DEAD because they were killed as "collateral damage" in an American raid or if they were killed by Assad. It is no less horrible for their friends and loved ones.

No one has ever said "I am so glad Ahmed was killed by the Americans and not by the Russians".

Americans are now killing more civilians in Syria than ISIS, Assad or the Russians. How is this a good thing?

That is so much bullshit. Speak out against Assad or Putin publicly and you wind up in jail. Political opponents are killed. Yet you give these thugs the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you get out. If this was Syria or Russia you would be jailed at best for your post. At worst you would be lined up against a wall and shot.