We're Not Killing Iraqis

Cancel7

Banned
Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

If America ever finds out what an air war really is, God help them. But he won't. See, he just doesn't.

Looking Up
Normalizing Air War from Guernica to Arab Jabour
By Tom Engelhardt

A January 21st Los Angeles Times Iraq piece by Ned Parker and Saif Rasheed led with an inter-tribal suicide bombing at a gathering in Fallujah in which members of the pro-American Anbar Awakening Council were killed. ("Asked why one member of his Albu Issa tribe would kill another, Aftan compared it to school shootings that happen in the United States.") Twenty-six paragraphs later, the story ended this way:

"The U.S. military also said in a statement that it had dropped 19,000 pounds of explosives on the farmland of Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. The strikes targeted buried bombs and weapons caches.
"In the last 10 days, the military has dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of explosives on the area, which has been a gateway for Sunni militants into Baghdad."

And here's paragraph 22 of a 34-paragraph January 22nd story by Stephen Farrell of the New York Times:

"The threat from buried bombs was well known before the [Arab Jabour] operation. To help clear the ground, the military had dropped nearly 100,000 pounds of bombs to destroy weapons caches and I.E.D.'s."
Farrell led his piece with news that an American soldier had died in Arab Jabour from an IED that blew up "an MRAP, the new Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected armored vehicle that the American military is counting on to reduce casualties from roadside bombs in Iraq."

Note that both pieces started with bombing news -- in one case a suicide bombing that killed several Iraqis; in another a roadside bombing that killed an American soldier and wounded others. But the major bombing story of these last days -- those 100,000 pounds of explosives that U.S. planes dropped in a small area south of Baghdad -- simply dangled unexplained off the far end of the Los Angeles Times piece; while, in the New York Times, it was buried inside a single sentence.

Neither paper has (as far as I know) returned to the subject, though this is undoubtedly the most extensive use of air power in Iraq since the Bush administration's invasion of 2003 and probably represents a genuine shifting of American military strategy in that country. Despite, a few humdrum wire service pieces, no place else in the mainstream has bothered to cover the story adequately either.

For those who know something about the history of air power, which, since World War II, has been lodged at the heart of the American Way of War, that 100,000 figure might have rung a small bell.
On April 27, 1937, in the midst of the Spanish Civil War (a prelude to World War II), the planes of the German Condor Legion attacked the ancient Basque town of Guernica. They came in waves, first carpet bombing, then dropping thermite incendiaries. It was a market day and there may have been as many as 7,000-10,000 people, including refugees, in the town which was largely destroyed in the ensuing fire storm. More than 1,600 people may have died there (though some estimates are lower). The Germans reputedly dropped about 50 tons or 100,000 pounds of explosives on the town. In the seven decades between those two 100,000 figures lies a sad history of our age.

Arab Jabour, the Sunni farming community about 10 miles south of the Iraqi capital that was the target of the latest 100,000-pound barrage has recently been largely off-limits to American troops and their Iraqi allies. The American military now refers generically to all Sunni insurgents who resist them as "al Qaeda," so in situations like this it's hard to tell exactly who has held this territory.
At Guernica, as in Arab Jabour 71 years later, no reporters were present when the explosives rained down. In the Spanish situation, however, four reporters in the nearby city of Bilbao, including George Steer of the Times of London, promptly rushed to the scene of destruction. Steer's first piece for the Times (also printed in the New York Times) was headlined "The Tragedy of Guernica" and called the assault "unparalleled in military history." (Obviously, no such claims could be made for Arab Jabour today.) Steer made clear in his report that this had been an attack on a civilian population, essentially a terror bombing.
The self-evident barbarism of the event -- the first massively publicized bombing of a civilian population -- caused international horror. It was news across the planet. From it came perhaps the most famous painting of the last century, Picasso's Guernica, as well as innumerable novels, plays, poems, and other works of art.
As Ian Patterson writes in his book, Guernica and Total War:
"Many attacks since then, including the ones we have grown used to seeing in Iraq and the Middle East in recent years, have been on such a scale that Guernica's fate seems almost insignificant by comparison. But it's almost impossible to overestimate the outrage it caused in 1937… Accounts of the bombing were widely printed in the American press, and provoked a great deal of anger and indignation in most quarters…"
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174887
 
I noticed that all of the war supporters ignored this, as they continue to tap dance like monkeys on the other thread, making less and less sense with each post. (Tasini didn't run for President?, how stupid).

This is what you support if you vote for John McCain. You are murdering people.

Do we know that Obama will do better? No. But we can hope. He might. He says he will. I'd say it's probable. With McCain there is no hope.

That's all.

And with that, I really need a break from this stuff.

You guys, you don't even know what you are doing or that there could never be any excuse nor reason. Sometimes, I think that you deserve to be civillians in an air war, but you never will be, so it doesn't matter what you deserve.

It's pitiful you can't see without that.
 
I am suprised that WRL does not say that the bombs are just used for seismic searching for oil deposits.

I really have a hard time understanding why/how anyone can support this war.
They must have far more hatred and or fear in them than I have.
 
I'm just not understanding the republican talking point that our bombs and bullets only killed 15,000. Like that means something? Yay!

This civil war in iraq is directly bush's fault. The blood of hundreds of thousands is on his hands.
 
I noticed that all of the war supporters ignored this, as they continue to tap dance like monkeys on the other thread, making less and less sense with each post. (Tasini didn't run for President?, how stupid).

This is what you support if you vote for John McCain. You are murdering people.

Do we know that Obama will do better? No. But we can hope. He might. He says he will. I'd say it's probable. With McCain there is no hope.

That's all.

And with that, I really need a break from this stuff.

You guys, you don't even know what you are doing or that there could never be any excuse nor reason. Sometimes, I think that you deserve to be civillians in an air war, but you never will be, so it doesn't matter what you deserve.

It's pitiful you can't see without that.

Tell me Darla.... where does it say anything about civilians being killed other than the pathetic attempt at a comparison to WWII? It doesn't. It says they dropped the munitions on farm land to blow up buried bombs and weapons caches.

The author states that the story wasn't adequately covered and assumes that there must have been civilians killed because dropping similar payloads in WWII killed people. Lets all just ignore the difference in weapons from WWII and weapons of today. Lets just make believe that massive numbers of people must have died, because they were all standing on the buried bombs and weapons caches.

The reason I ignored this to begin with is that there is NO mention of anyone being killed. There are no fucking details yet you pretend this story somehow supports your fantasy of Bush bombing Iraqi kids.
 
Tell me Darla.... where does it say anything about civilians being killed other than the pathetic attempt at a comparison to WWII? It doesn't. It says they dropped the munitions on farm land to blow up buried bombs and weapons caches.

The author states that the story wasn't adequately covered and assumes that there must have been civilians killed because dropping similar payloads in WWII killed people. Lets all just ignore the difference in weapons from WWII and weapons of today. Lets just make believe that massive numbers of people must have died, because they were all standing on the buried bombs and weapons caches.

The reason I ignored this to begin with is that there is NO mention of anyone being killed. There are no fucking details yet you pretend this story somehow supports your fantasy of Bush bombing Iraqi kids.

For these liberials--it is all about emotion--not facts. There is 5 min you will never get back.
 
I don't know if you watched "Why we fight" ? But they have a stat in there that the first 50 bombing missions of OIF all missed their targets and something like 42 hit civilian populations. They showed the hospital after the bombing and there was not a single soldier brought in but there were lots of civilians and children so lets not pretend that our "Precision" munitiions are fool proof
 
I don't know if you watched "Why we fight" ? But they have a stat in there that the first 50 bombing missions of OIF all missed their targets and something like 42 hit civilian populations. They showed the hospital after the bombing and there was not a single soldier brought in but there were lots of civilians and children so lets not pretend that our "Precision" munitiions are fool proof

I saw that film--it was excellent. But lets get to some facts--where is the body count?
 
Tell me Darla.... where does it say anything about civilians being killed other than the pathetic attempt at a comparison to WWII? It doesn't. It says they dropped the munitions on farm land to blow up buried bombs and weapons caches.

The author states that the story wasn't adequately covered and assumes that there must have been civilians killed because dropping similar payloads in WWII killed people. Lets all just ignore the difference in weapons from WWII and weapons of today. Lets just make believe that massive numbers of people must have died, because they were all standing on the buried bombs and weapons caches.

The reason I ignored this to begin with is that there is NO mention of anyone being killed. There are no fucking details yet you pretend this story somehow supports your fantasy of Bush bombing Iraqi kids.

And how are people supposed to farm that farm land in the future ?
It will be just like nam little children getting maimed and killed by unexploded munitions for a couple of generations or so.
 
I don't know if you watched "Why we fight" ? But they have a stat in there that the first 50 bombing missions of OIF all missed their targets and something like 42 hit civilian populations. They showed the hospital after the bombing and there was not a single soldier brought in but there were lots of civilians and children so lets not pretend that our "Precision" munitiions are fool proof

I understand this. But the weapons of today are far more accurate than they were during WWII. Lets not pretend otherwise.

Let us also not forget that this article said the area bombed was farmland and not in a city. Let us also not forget that this article offered up NOTHING about any deaths from this bombing. It did however suggest that the coverage wasn't as good as the author wanted and led certain melodramatic individuals to infer that meant there were many civilians being killed and the deaths simply not reported.
 
And how are people supposed to farm that farm land in the future ?
It will be just like nam little children getting maimed and killed by unexploded munitions for a couple of generations or so.

Did you even bother to read the fucking article? Because those comments imply that you did not.

Why did they bomb that farmland US????? READ the damn thing before you make ignorant comments like that.
 
Tell me Darla.... where does it say anything about civilians being killed other than the pathetic attempt at a comparison to WWII? It doesn't. It says they dropped the munitions on farm land to blow up buried bombs and weapons caches.

The author states that the story wasn't adequately covered and assumes that there must have been civilians killed because dropping similar payloads in WWII killed people. Lets all just ignore the difference in weapons from WWII and weapons of today. Lets just make believe that massive numbers of people must have died, because they were all standing on the buried bombs and weapons caches.

The reason I ignored this to begin with is that there is NO mention of anyone being killed. There are no fucking details yet you pretend this story somehow supports your fantasy of Bush bombing Iraqi kids.


YOu are so stupid. The entire point of the piece is that NO news agency followed up on this, to report how many civilians were killed.

It's not a number that interests us frankly - Colin Powell. Might as well as been SF.

You are desperate to live in your fantasy world, and pretend that this kind of massive air power is falling on farm animals and deserted land. It's pathetic and so are you.

Enjoy your tax cuts. And whatever you do, don't look at the human beings who had to pay the price for them. Cover your eyes and call anyone who tries to show you, stupid. Make up false moral equivalence stories, pretend that I ever voted for Hillary, claim that I said that Democrats were "tricked' rant rave, and wave your arms.

And in the end - you still support a murderous policy.

Too bad you're not man enough to own it.
 
YOu are so stupid. The entire point of the piece is that NO news agency followed up on this, to report how many civilians were killed.

It's not a number that interests us frankly - Colin Powell. Might as well as been SF.

You are desperate to live in your fantasy world, and pretend that this kind of massive air power is falling on farm animals and deserted land. It's pathetic and so are you.

Enjoy your tax cuts. And whatever you do, don't look at the human beings who had to pay the price for them. Cover your eyes and call anyone who tries to show you, stupid. Make up false moral equivalence stories, pretend that I ever voted for Hillary, claim that I said that Democrats were "tricked' rant rave, and wave your arms.

And in the end - you still support a murderous policy.

Too bad you're not man enough to own it.


I am stupid for pointing out that it was idiotic to compare munitions from WWII to munitions of today?

To point out your author tried to compare the deaths 100k pounds caused in a city in WWII to what 100k pounds on farmland "may" have caused today?

To point out the very simple observation that there wasn't any follow up because their weren't any deaths?

YOU ASSUME that there were deaths because of the amount of bombs that were used. But you have no idea. YOU ASSUME that because there was no follow up it means no one cares about civilian deaths. Not for one second did you stop to think that the reason there were no deaths reported is because there were no deaths.

The author simply stated that over the course of a week 100k pounds of weapons had been dropped. Didn't mention if it was controlled.... did they clear the population so that they could bomb the weapons caches and buried munitions from a safe distance?

How do you know they didn't do this? You assume because they didn't write an article detailing every aspect of this that somehow equates it to " mass death of civilians and no one cares to tell us about it"


The only stupidity displayed on this thread has been by you and the other lemmings that have such a desperate desire to see the worst. You desperately want it to be a cover up or a lack of caring because it makes you feel better about yourself.... and it conveniently lets you play on your high horse and accuse others (like me) of "not caring".
 
I'm beginning to worry about myself--- all of you seem to feel so strongly about this, and I couldn't care less.

I don't know if that makes you all crazy or me crazy, but I really don't see the issue in enemy casualties.
 
I'm beginning to worry about myself--- all of you seem to feel so strongly about this, and I couldn't care less.

I don't know if that makes you all crazy or me crazy, but I really don't see the issue in enemy casualties.

I could care less about enemy casualties. It is the civilian casualties that most certainly do matter. Despite Darla's feeble attempt to paint the picture otherwise.

But I will not go running around pretending their are civilian deaths when there is no evidence to support such a claim. Nothing. Not one shred of evidence, yet she acts as though we were off deliberately killing babies and not caring.
 
Gonzo believes that civilians are the enemy, he has already stated that, it’s why I have him on IA. You on the other hand, need to desperately believe that civilians aren’t being killed, when any rational person understands that our air wars have been white washed, but that of course, people are being killed. I know it, deep down, you know it. Rant all you want SF.
 
Back
Top