The Massacre has begun!!

Once more collateral damage to civilians is being used for psychologic war purposes and sheer and outrageous anti-American propaganda. Ironically, it is being used by the Arabs whose leaders remorselessly and deliberately butcher thousands of civilians when they consider this being necessary.
When the U.S. and U.K. Armies liberated the Western Europe from Nazis, I believe, there were occasional casualties among civilians of the countries being liberated (I am not talking about German civilans that were deliberately killed in Dresden, I mean citizens of France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc., that were not considered being hostile countries by the Allies). They could be stroken by erroneous bullets, shells, bombs. Sometimes weapons miss the target, it happens even now, in the period of high technologies, and it surely happened before, 50+ years ago. Does this mean that U.S. and U.K. should stop the invasion into continental Europe in '40s and permit either Hitler to control it or Stalin to take over the whole continent after the Nazis were defeated?
Regarding differences between al Jezeera and U.S. journalists (even if the latter are "embedded"). The U.S. journalists may be not permitted to publicize all the information available, some facts that may contain military secrets may be concealed from the general public, but the things they do publicize are trustworthy. Arab journalism implies possibility of staging "facts" if this is helpful for the thing they define as "interests of the Arab nation". I remember an episode of Palestinians staging funeral of a teenager to make impression on the global public opinion and to strengthen their claim regarding "massacre in Jenin". Their lie was disclosed by the Israeli drone (that was confused by the stunts of this action to the fighter plane), and report about this appears on the CNN Web site:
IDF: Tape shows Palestinians faked funeral. There are, by the way, lots of Israeli Web sources on the same issue, but I avoid usage of these links for not being accused by Frolic & Co. in Zionist propaganda.

Welcome back Steissd. We're all happy that your call-up didn't portend missile attacks on Israeli cities. Now that the western desert is relatively secure, it might be difficult for Saddam to launch on Israel. That is a major accomplishment, and your release from active duty indicates an Israeli confidence that I'm pleased to see.

Could you keep us all informed of Israeli public opinion in the coming days?

The new tactics of the US Army=>The more Iraqi you kill the less have to be liberated!

American troops shot and killed seven Iraqi women and children yesterday when the van in which they were travelling failed to obey orders to halt at a checkpoint near the city of Najaf in southern Iraq.

Pentagon officials said the dead were among 13 women and children in the vehicle. Soldiers first fired warning shots into the air, and then into the engine of the van, but failed to bring it to a halt.

Initial reports indicate the soldiers responded in accordance with the rules of engagement to protect themselves. In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime, the soldiers exercised considerable restraint to avoid the unnecessary loss of life.

A Western journalist "embedded" with the US Army division involved in the incident gives a different version of events.

William Branigin of the Washington Post says the vehicle contained 15 people, of whom 10 were killed and two seriously injured.

He also reports that soldiers at the checkpoint failed to fire warning shots in time.

"You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" the paper quotes Captain Ronny Johnson as telling his platoon leader.

The platoon leader says he did fire warning shots, according to the paper.

Yes what is Israeli opinion steissed? Do I detect an anti-Arabic sentiment in your opinions?

steissd

That's a straw man argument http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm and more folks here ought to get clear on why this logical move is both stupid-making for the speaker and a waste of time for everyone else.

Neither I nor anyone else here hold an abhorrence for the deaths and mutilations of innocents in this war because of something broadcast on Sadaam TV of Francophone Public Radio. The arguments made against this war, by folks here, or in the State Department itself, or in policy journals, or in editorial pages have been educated and sophisticated arguments against this administration's decision and motives. That a similar statement might be made by an Iraqi or an Israeli is logically irrelevant.

frolic
Regarding the incident in which the civilians were killed.
In one of my posts the other day when the subject of suicide bombings was raised. I made the observation that this would lead to exactly what happened. There is no way for the soldier to know if the driver is not stopping because he doesn't understand or if he is a suicide bomber. A mistake can be fatal for either the driver or soldier. As long as these tactics are employed by the Iraqi's incidents such as this will occur.
There are two sides to every coin. I should add that if those alleged 4000 suicide bombers get into the fray you can rest assured that incidents such as this will multiply. Which I have no doubt is just what the Iraqi's want. It's great PR.

Indeed. Which is surely why Iraqi soldiers have been known to fire while under a flag of surrender.

When you defend your country, there are no rules of engagement. The only rule is kill as many invaders and stay alive.

Nowadays the US govt would call the Kamikaze pilots of the Japanese airforce terrorists and they would link the Vietcong to a global communist terrorist network.

Its kinda cheap to blame the Iraqi serviceman or members of the resistance for the recent victims. They did not invade a foreign country.

frolic's point is not easily avoided, I think. I'm a big fan of civilized conduct, even during war. And I do think that the US forces are playing according to a set of rules which others will not. But it is a completely open question what folks in Alabama might do in resistance to an invasion of, say, the Chinese army.

frolic
I hope you understand that the no rules of engagement rule pertains to both sides in a conflict. Therefore you shouldn't be so indignant when they are used against your side. Or am I mistaken.

Blatham wrote:

<But it is a completely open question what folks in Alabama might do in resistance to an invasion of, say, the Chinese army.>

You have a wonderful knack of skirting the rules with rhetorical questions. Oh I'm not criticizing ---just taking note and learning.

Blatham

That's a straw man argument http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm and more folks here ought to get clear on why this logical move is both stupid-making for the speaker and a waste of time for everyone else.

If everyone on this forum adhered to this rule the entire content would be reduced to a couple of pages IMHO

regarding rules of engagement-uniforms. one of the main reasons for the use of uniforms in war was to easily identify deserters so they could be shot in the act.

Exact my point!!!

Interesting point, dys.

The Death of Innocents
t wasn't supposed to be like this. The Bush administration had envisioned a different kind of invasion in Iraq, one that would flood the Arab world with pictures of American soldiers feeding hungry people and giving medical attention to sick children. Instead, billions around the globe are seeing and hearing reports that women and children were gunned down yesterday while riding in a civilian van at an American checkpoint.

This is just what the Iraqi commanders have in mind when they send soldiers disguised as noncombatants to fire on unsuspecting American troops. The killing of the soldiers is an incidental benefit. The real goal is to turn the Americans against Iraqi civilians and cause them to behave like a hostile occupying army rather than the friendly liberators we had envisioned.

It happens all the time when troops are fighting in areas full of civilians, mixed in with terrorist insurgents. The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was not the result of bad intentions, but of the fury of frightened young American men who were no longer able to distinguish between innocent civilians and hostile forces. The great hatreds between common people and military authority that existed for so long in Northern Ireland, and that exist now in the West Bank, have all been fanned by the same phenomenon. When troops wonder whether a man standing in his own doorway is harboring a sniper, or if a van full of women and children is a van full of suicide bombers, each side quickly learns to distrust, fear and finally hate the other.

Yesterday in southern Iraq, American soldiers fired into a van filled with women and children, killing seven. The van was approaching a military checkpoint near an area where a car bomb had recently exploded, killing four soldiers.

The authorities said that the van had ignored all the soldiers' attempts to bring it to a halt, and that the shooting had been justified. They promised to investigate.

Those reassurances are important to Americans but will mean very little in the Arab world, particularly if such scenes become routine. If that happens, the political war for Iraq could be lost even before the military one is won.

Well, it is a bit uneasy, since I am somewhat isolated from the Israeli civilians: I am in the Army now, and I only have a short leave home. But the Israeli media are even more complimentary toward the USA and its President than the media of the coalition members (I mean the mainstream sources and not pacifistic masochists or masochistic pacifists of Uri Avneri's and Noam Chomsky's ilk). Soldiers that belong to the same outfit with me, are also very pro-American (well, some of them have dual citizenship, e.g. Israeli and American or Israeli and Canadian).
Israelis are not in panic and majority ignores advises of the Civil Command to keep gas masks with them all the time. Well, if the PM Sharon has no gas mask with him when he appears on TV, why should the plain citizens keep it in close proximity?

Exactly. Arab leaders do not give much significance to the number of civilian casualties, and use them exclusively for PR purposes. It is an error to assess their mentality using Wesern criteria.

"After killing thousands and thousands of inncocent civilians its time to settle some deals with the media and journalists."

Not my words, but the thoughts of some lunatic tank commanders in the centre of Bagdad.

Let it be over soon.