No Child(ren) Left Behind in Iraq
When do the war crimes trials start?
When George Bush was thinking NCLB, I wonder if this is what he had in mind?
BAGHDAD - A U.S. attack killed 19 insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, northwest of the capital Thursday — one of the heaviest civilian death tolls in an American operation in recent months. The military said it was targeting senior leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq…
“After securing the area, the ground force assessed 15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,” the statement said. Two suspected al-Qaida members, a woman and three children were wounded, according to the military account.
The military said its troopers “were reviewing information from the scene (of Thursday’s attack) as well as assessing the level of damage involved.”
The statement also issued regret “that civilians are hurt or killed while Coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism.”
This isn’t war. This isn’t occupation. This isn’t rooting out terr’ists. This is flat out indiscriminate goddamn killing. This is evil incarnate. There isn’t anything “targeted” or “surgical” about it.
I’ve asked before - do Iraq insurgents carry ID cards identifying them as such? And do al-Qaida members (what’s the diff between them and insurgents anyway?) wear special “colors” like the Bloods and the Crips?
A war crimes trial is too lenient for the pack of neocon sewer rats that ginned up this oily little adventure. Anything else that I could say at this moment would probably garner me a visit from men in white coats (or dark suits and sunglasses). [/rant]
It is a fact that Iraq insurgents have killed innocent women and children and Bush calls them murderers and terrorists. However when George Bush kills innocent women and children it is just called “regrettable”. Bush/Cheney are terrorists and traitors to this country and should be tried as such.
You utterly failed reading comprehension. Let’s try this again:
“The military statement detailing Thursday’s air and ground assault said soldiers were acting on intelligence reports about an al-Qaida meeting in the Lake Tharthar region. The southern reaches of the big, man-made lake are about 50 miles northwest of the capital.”
This translates into U.S. forces acting on Iraqi civilian intelligence that “terr’ists,” as you call them, were in the area. This means that Iraqis saw terrorists doing something, and called it in.
“The American account said U.S. surveillance confirmed “activity consistent with the reports and supporting aircraft engaged the time-sensitive target.” The first air attack killed “four terrorists,” said the statement.”
Those of us who speak English as our primary language would note here that this indicates visual confirmation of actions at a specific site. Often, the denotation “time sensitive target” followed by an air strike is code for a VBIED targeted while it is being assembled. This is quite targeted, and quite surgical, two words you apparently don’t understand the meanings of. That terrorist forces were able to move afterward indicates fighter-bomber aircraft such as F-16s were likely used. If the air support had been a helicopter, tehy would have been abl eto engage any surviving terrorists with their cannon before they cold egress to another location.
“The military said it then tracked some of those who escaped the initial attack to a place south of Lake Tharthar. It said ground forces moved on the site and came under fire. Air support was called in.”
What? Let’s see that again:
“It said ground forces moved on the site and came under fire.“
Naw, it couldn’t be.
“…AND CAME UNDER FIRE.“
Wow. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that the surviving terrorists, after fleeing the scene where their compartriots were hit with a precision-guided bomb, hid in a nearby building, and started firing at American soldiers. But that couldn’t be, could it?
“…AND CAME UNDER FIRE.“
Well… maybe. But that simply doesn’t make sense, does it? al Qaeda and other brave warriors of the insurgency wouldn’t hide amid women and children and use them as human shields andd shoot from among them would they?
“”After securing the area, the ground force assessed 15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,” the statement said. Two suspected al-Qaida members, a woman and three children were wounded, according to the military account.”
15 armed terrorists were killed and two survivors were captured alive after hiding amid women and children. Who do you blame for the deaths of the children and women? Not the terrorists that knowingly hid among women and children and opened fire from their location, making them targets, but the soldiers that called in air support.
This is war. This is not indiscriminate. But there was evil involved. You’re just to wrapped up in your own hatred to recognize who the evil ones were here.
The men in white coats? You shouldn’t be afraid of them. Perhaps they can give you the medication and therapy you need to help distinguish reality from reality-based, and discern who the evil really is [for those of you who are unsure, the bomb-builders hiding behind women and children? Those are the bad guys].
But I’m sure you still support the troops right? Even as you wrongly accuse them of “flat out indiscriminate goddamn killing.”
Right.
Hey “Confederate Yankee,” shouldn’t your sorry ass be in Iraq fighting for “freedom” instead of munching Doritos and hacking away at the keyboard?
Chickenhawks fighting the “war on terror” from their sofa cushions… gotta love ‘em.
Hey Jon! Were you opposed to the apartheid regeime in South Africa? Why weren’t you there? What a hypocrite! Do you have any thoughts on the U.S. heath care system? Well, unless you’re a medical professional, you’ve no right to an opinion. Think abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Well, get out there and abort some fetuses, you ChikenLib! You’d think that after all this time, the left could come up with a better argument against the war than a silly ad hominem. But I guess that’s expecting too much from our intellectual betters