Shocking news: the U.S. hit a MILITARY target!!!

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
I know, a lot of you enjoy posting pictures of purported (or real) civilians slaughtered purposefully by the coalition (everyone knows the coalition is doing this on purpose and that civilians never die in any other combat) and gleefully post topics concerning such incidents, apparently hoping this will dissuade people from supporting the war.

Well, I'm ecstatic to report that apparently, based on current information, it looks like 2 coalition F-15E Strike Eagles were targeting a crowded marketplace full of peaceful civilians in Basra and, damn it, the shitty 'dumb' munitions strayed badly off-target and slammed instead into a building full of about 200
paramilitaries (known as "Saddam's Fedayeen"). More astonishing is that the munitions were accidentally fitted with delayed fuses to allow them to penetrate into the heart of a building before exploding, which apparently and regrettably sent these peace-loving freedom fighters to their deaths. One would think the aircraft would have been instead carrying cluster bombs to inflict massive casualties on the open-air market - I don't know what the f-u-c-k the military planners were thinking.

A final note of interest not reported officially yet - Al Jazeera is reporting a scrawled and cryptic message was inscribed on one of the fins of the bombs found in the heaped, smoking wreckage and is seeking help in interpreting it's meaning: "Kilroy Was Here".

icon_smile.gif


==============================================

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — U.S. warplanes firing laser-guided missiles destroyed a two-story building where some 200 Iraqi paramilitary fighters were believed to be meeting Friday in the besieged Iraqi city of Basra, the U.S. military said.

Central Command said it had no information on what happened to the building's occupants after the attack, which targeted the Saddam Hussein loyalists who British officials say have clamped down on a restive population in Basra.

Earlier Friday, the paramilitaries -- known as "Saddam's Fedayeen" -- fired mortars and machine guns on about 1,000 Iraqi civilians trying to leave the southern city, British military officials and witnesses said.

British forces surround the city -- Iraq's second-largest, with a population of 1.3 million -- and want to open the way for badly needed humanitarian aid. But they have yet to move in, facing what would likely by tough street-by-street resistance from the militiamen.

Friday night's airstrike went after what Central Command called "an emerging target." The pair of F-15E Strike Eagles fired laser-guided munitions fitted with delayed fuses -- meaning they penetrated the building before detonating to minimize the external blast effect. The Central Command statement said a church 300 yards from the two-story building was undamaged.

The statement did not say how it was known that 200 paramilitaries were holding a meeting.

Significant numbers of civilians have reportedly been coming out of Basra every day for the past few days to get food aid from points outside the city and then returning, a senior British defense official said.

That scenario appeared to have happened again Friday, but Iraqi paramilitary forces opened fire on people to block them from leaving, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Britain's 7th Armored Brigade apparently tried to fire back, but stopped out of fear that civilians would be wounded, said Lt. Cmdr. Emma Thomas, a spokeswoman for British forces in the Persian Gulf. As a result, the civilians retreated into Basra in trucks, she said.

An initial group of about 1,000 people made it out safely, fleeing to the west of Basra, and they were being cared for by British forces, who gave them food, water and medical attention, Thomas said.

She said the firing started when a second group of about the same size tried to flee the city.

"Here perhaps are the first pieces of evidence of Iraqi people trying to break free from the Baath party regime and the militia," Col. Chris Vernon, a British military spokesman in southern Iraq, told Sky News Television. "And clearly the militia don't want that. They want to keep their population in there, and they fired on them to force them back in."

British pool reports described Iraqi forces with mortars mounted in pickup trucks firing on the fleeing civilians, sending some running back into Basra. Panicked women and children scattered on a bridge over a canal and down its embankments to avoid machine-gun fire, the reports said.

One Iraqi woman badly wounded by shrapnel was carried into a British vehicle that whisked her off for treatment.

"The local regime in the city is still using fear as its principal instrument to keep the population in line," said one British commander, Maj. Lindsay MacDuff, in a pool report.

"We stopped one guy at a roadblock the other day who told us if we didn't let him escape to the south, either he or his family would be killed. We had to turn him back for security and safety reasons. The next time we spotted him, he was carrying a Kalashnikov in the opposition front line," MacDuff said.

"We can only hope the message gets through that we are here to offer them a lifeline."

On at least three separate occasions, British units and coalition aircraft have fired on Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles that have streamed out of the city. At least 14 tanks heading south out of Basra were destroyed Thursday, British officials said.

Air Marshal Brian Burridge, the top British commander in the Gulf, said Saddam's paramilitary forces in Basra were forcing regular army troops to fight, threatening to kill them or to harm their families.

The British also say they are coming to the defense of Shiite Muslims who they say rose up in the streets against Saddam's Sunni Muslim regime on Tuesday. Iraq has denied there was an uprising.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
283
Tokens
What an explosion eh!, the whole building blown to "kingdomkum", and no civilians reported dead. Lets' hope for continued success.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
This is because we SHOULD be concerned about civilian deaths.

The war supporters comments of " It Happens", "WE Didnt do it on purpose", or "Maybe it wasnt us (YEAH RIGHT)" do not make the victims any less dead.


You can rationalize it all you want, this will create more innocent civilian deaths than 9/11 did. And we act like that was the greatest crime ever committed. I heard that if Al Queda had waited another 2 hours, there could have been 10,000 killed on 9/11. So I guess they are great humanitarians as well.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
Danny: I'm not raionalizing anything - civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of military action. Reality. What I AM doing is saying go ahead, post all the civilian incidents you feel like, all of the pictures, it won't change my feelings one iota since I know we are not targeting them.

Please let that one sink in - I am aware of the deaths that can occur, and I'm consciously saying that it is regrettable, must be minimized, but that it is a part of war and will not stop me from supporting this war, because I think it is a necessary war.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
Sorry but that sounds real cold.


You know there are going to be civilian deaths, but its OK because you percieve that you will realize a greater benefit than cost incurred.

The problem with this is that YOU are getting the benefit, while all the COSTS are being incurred by innocent Iraqi citizens.

Would you take the same stance if the position were switched ? Of course not. Would it be justified if Saddam had the superior military for him to come and blow up the U.S., then sit back and say " I know there has to be innocent Deaths. I am sorry for that, but in reality I dont care because Iraq will be a safer place, and have cheaper gas prices" Therefore, the loss of the innocent lives are justified.


It is funny to me that you just called Al Queda "Murdering Bastards", while supporting us doing the same thing.

The 3000 people that Al Queda killed are no more dead than the 50,000+ people we have killed in our bombings around the world.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
Jazz, with all due respect you are way off. This is not a necessary war, it was very much preventable.
Bush's "Crude" Crew made the decision well before diplomacy and that's a fact.

_________________________
Sure could use a trim
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
Well Said, DannyMay.

And do you think if America was invaded at Florida and the troops were marching on Chicago, that anyone would really give a shit if a bunch of guys in Tennessee pretended to surrender and then slaughtered some of the invading troops?

Hell, after the war they'd be heroes and there would be a Spielberg movie about the whole incident.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of military action.

Do you know what this means? It means that the civilian deaths on 9/11 were a "regrettable consequence" of US foreign policy.
 
right on radio

--------------------------------

25 to life because you couldn't controll your anger
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
as to Danny's comments: you see them as cold, I see them as reality. According to your logic, regardless of how justified a war or conflict is, one cannot fight it because of civilian casualties. If that's your belief, fine - it is not mine.

radio: your post is a real work of art. It is blissfully free of these facts ...

.... there was no prior warning from the high-spirited young Al Quedas, being manipulated by cynical old men in safety, of this attack

.... the men, women and children who died in the planes and in the WTC were not unintentional victims of an errant bomb by a force trying everything they could do to avoid such deaths - they WERE the primary target

.... any attempt to compare the two as you have shows a disconnection between the two, as if the US deserved the WTC attacks - I don't think you mean that, it came out becuase you were attempting to establish parallels with my statement that don't exist - so I completely repudiate your claim


By the way, you people may wish to consider what Tony Blair just announced as reported by Fox News - apparently Saddam or whoever's in charge has sacked the general in charge of the Baghdad Air Defenses - the alleged reason is for his failure to properly target the surface-to-air missiles, at least one of which is now suspected of having missed its target and impacted in the market yesterday. This is not a fact yet, just something to consider. Of course the natural argument to roll off some tongues will be that it would have never happened if there had never been a war, blah blah blah blah blah

Final point: why is it 'my side' that's stuffed full of propaganda, as opposed to yours? Whomever mentioned that crap about 'young men dying for old men' ought to apply it to the terrorists and suicide bombers too, though of course then it's unfair to point that out.
icon_rolleyes.gif
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
Jazz,

I was quoting you. So, if it lacks veracity or facts it is because you were the origin...
icon_biggrin.gif


and to this:

>.... the men, women and children who died in the planes and in the WTC were not unintentional victims of an errant bomb by a force trying everything they could do to avoid such deaths - they WERE the primary target

I say, BS...you don't know that. There is no evidence of that. What we do know is that the WTC and the Pentagon were chosen to attack the financial and military symbols that america represents abroad. It's amazing to me that you cannot see this from an impartial viewpoint so long after the event.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
543
Tokens
Fox News Report?....blah blah blah...

I won't believe that the missle came from Iraq's own air defense, untill they admit to it on Iraq TV.

icon_wink.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
radio: I didn't dispute the quote, I stand 100% by it, it's your attempted interpretation of it using pretzel logic that I don't.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
I watched Fox News last night while falling asleep. Two of the things in the bar on the bottom of the screen: (bold is my emphasis)

"US airstrike takes out 200 Iraqi loyalists in Basra"

"Homicide bomber kills 5 Americans at military checkpoint."

No bias there, no sir.
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
>.... the men, women and children who died in the planes and in the WTC were not unintentional victims of an errant bomb by a force trying everything they could do to avoid such deaths - they WERE the primary target

quote from radio: "I say, BS...you don't know that. There is no evidence of that. What we do know is that the WTC and the Pentagon were chosen to attack the financial and military symbols that america represents abroad. It's amazing to me that you cannot see this from an impartial viewpoint so long after the event."

I literally don't believe what you just said, that there was no proof that they targeted civilians. Seriously, unless I misinterpret this, you are claiming that hijacking 4 civilian airliners, killing civilians on board and crashing 2 of them into the WTC which is full of civilians was NOT THEIR PRIMARY TARGET?

I've seen some stuff from you, radio, but if I interpret this correctly I've lost all respect for your posts.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
I am NOT saying that these innocent people deserved this. Not at all.

Just as the innocents in Iraq do not deserve this war...
 

Andersen celebrates his 39-yard NFC Championship w
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,789
Tokens
Do not mention pretzel logic to GW Bush ! LOL
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
By the way, what the hell is up with this "homicide bomber" talk anyhow? It doesn't even accurately describe the crime.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,854
Tokens
radio: read that quote again - I guess I'll have to explain it - Al Queda did not go through the UN for 12 years, give over 4 months notice, drop millions of leaflets over NYC warning civilians to keep indoors and out of harm's way, did not use precision munitions in an attempt to spare civilian life but rather used America's own civilian aircraft to take it, etc. etc. etc.

Their purpose was terror and to do so they struck at civilians. I could care less than you can imagine what you think they were 'symbolically' trying to say.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,165
Messages
13,564,790
Members
100,753
Latest member
aw8vietnam
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com