Civilians is war??

[Kobbot 401]

Dureing the whole war on terrorism that Bush has been running, the news has reported civilian deaths. These people in they eyes of the terroist are not Civillians, but suporters of their enemy. The terroist have even been know to use non combataints at a human shield to keep their opposition out.

Is there really a non combatet or civillian dureing war time?

[Commie-K]

Yes... a non-combatant would be one not participating in combat, which would be a civilian.

[Kobbot 401]

But civillians are being used to block routes that the cololition use to send in suplies. Terroris are useing civillian in a way that if person dies at the hands of a cololition soldier, the country of that soilder would be outradged at the inhumain act of killing a civilian.

[Commie-K]

Yes, this happens in all wars. But the person is not supporting either side, so they're a civilian, or neutral.

[vampyro_fire]

in war i believe that everyone is a casualtie even if ur not on the front lines u still run the risk of losing someone close to you sure u may not die or get hurt but the emotional part of war speakes for itself

[Kobbot 401]

Amen vampyro. Its not just the soilders famillies that suffer from each others deaths, its also the famillies that have to send there kids over to the war zone to replace the dead. Its just not right that because of one death, so meny have to suffer.

[Commie-K]

Its not just the soilders famillies that suffer from each others deaths, its also the famillies that have to send there kids over to the war zone to replace the dead.

Uh, the people being sent over to replace the dead are in the military too, so they're soldiers also.

But yeah, it's ok right? They're not dying in vain, they're dying for oil... I mean, They're dying so the "Iraqis can live." Seems pretty heroic doesn't it? I love how we just throw our troops away like they're nothing. I just feel bad that so many are dying due to capitalist greed. GO U.S.A.!

[life beyond life]

you use the word "terrorist" in place of Iraqi soldiers. how are they "terrorists" if they are defending their homeland against a military occupying force, who has proven to be hostile? check this out:


Total number of coalition military deaths between the start of war and June 16, 2004: 952 (836 U.S.)

Of those 952, the number killed after President George W. Bush declared “an end to major combat operations” on May 1, 2003: 693

Number of civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian workers killed: 50-90

Number of international media workers killed: 30

Iraqi civilians killed: 9,436 to 11,317

Iraqi civilians injured: 40,000 (est.)

Iraqi soldiers and insurgents killed prior to May 1, 2003: 4,895 to 6,370

although human life is invaluable, and our spirit is irreplacable, soldiers die. when you enlist in any military force, you are nearly signing a death contract. as harsh as this may sound, that is the ultimate occupational hazard. look at the figures above and one can only see the disproportionate number of human lives have been taken through this war. this war is not only unjust but its immoral, and US soldiers can never pretend to be the "moral victors", nor can their ignoramus president and his corrupt administration. can i get an amen? <_<

[Commie-K]

Good job, Life beyond life. I use that argument all the time. I HATE seeing the news "TOday, 950 soldiers have died" WHAT ABOUT THE 10,000+ INNOCENT IRAQIS WEVE KILLED? WHERES THE NEWS REPORT ON THAT?&#33;&#33; OK seriously, 952 deaths in a war that&#39;s lasted over a year? Is that not an indicator that Iraq is no challenge. WHile 952 deaths is alot, in wartime... it&#39;s nothing. God.. everytime I see a newsreport "two soldiers died today.." it gets me so pissed off. I love how we care only about our own soldiers. I love how our country doesn&#39;t give a fuck about Iraq. They act like since they live in Iraq they are automatically evil. There ARE Iraqi citizens who DO NOT support Saddam...

[Commie-K]

If any country can be an asshole, America is.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Commie&#045;[email protected] 28 2004, 05:28 PM
I HATE seeing the news "TOday, 950 soldiers have died" WHAT ABOUT THE 10,000+ INNOCENT IRAQIS WEVE KILLED? WHERES THE NEWS REPORT ON THAT?&#33;&#33;
Exactly. You hear reports of "Car bomb in [insert Iraqi city name here], 40 Iraqi civilians killed..." and nothing more is added.

But in that same news report, there was a segment on a mortar attack on an Australian base. They said that "noone was hurt, though a soldier did fall over" and they spent about two minutes wandering around the base that was attacked, and had some footage of the man that fell over being helped back up.

Also, on the Yank "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" that we get here in AU too, they have a silent section at the end where they show pictures of dead Americans with name, address, age, rank etc

I don&#39;t see pictures for the Iraqis that died. Suleiman the greengrocer from Mosul is just as human as Ted the imperialist hitman from Arkansas.

Pathetic.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 26 2004, 01:28 AM
Dureing the whole war on terrorism that Bush has been running, the news has reported civilian deaths. These people in they eyes of the terroist are not Civillians, but suporters of their enemy. The terroist have even been know to use non combataints at a human shield to keep their opposition out.

Is there really a non combatet or civillian dureing war time?
Just a minute, where have the Americans actually fought real terrorists?
Those attacking the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters.
Attacks on soldiers is not terrorism.
And to the question
"Is there really a non combatet or civillian dureing war time?"
As long as they don&#39;t carry arms, yes.


Also, on the Yank "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" that we get here in AU too, they have a silent section at the end where they show pictures of dead Americans with name, address, age, rank etc

I don&#39;t see pictures for the Iraqis that died. Suleiman the greengrocer from Mosul is just as human as Ted the imperialist hitman from Arkansas.

Pathetic.
I wish someone woud make a poster of all those killed in Iraq. When people see the sheer scale of the murder, they will soon change their mind.

[Kobbot 401]

The problem is that enemy forces use civillians as leverage aginst their opositions, expecielly when the oponent that they face is strongly aginst the deaths of inosent bystanders.

[DaCuBaN]

where have the Americans actually fought real terrorists?

Find me a real terrorist. I say you can&#39;t. It&#39;s simply a catch word used to incite hatred in our PC world... they can&#39;t legitimately call them &#39;sand-nazis&#39; or somesuch, so they give them the blanket term meaning &#39;one who causes terror&#39;

Personally, I&#39;d have thought the &#39;shock and awe&#39; to be far more effective at terrorising <_<

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 26 2004, 01:40 AM
But civillians are being used to block routes that the cololition use to send in suplies. Terroris are useing civillian in a way that if person dies at the hands of a cololition soldier, the country of that soilder would be outradged at the inhumain act of killing a civilian.
Yes, and that along with everything else you hear the US government say is true. Apparently terrorist use wedding parties to shield themselves on occasion too.

[h&s]

Personally, I&#39;d have thought the &#39;shock and awe&#39; to be far more effective at terrorising
Shock and Awe is terrorism.
According to the CIA

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


Doesn&#39;t "shock and awe" fit into that perfectly?
Shock and awe was desgned to influence an audience (the iraqi people) into supporting the coalition throug fear, or terror.
It was against non-combatant targets, so therefore it was terrorism.
The U&#036; incriminated themselves by telling us about shock and awe, but I doubt anyone will do anything about it. :angry:
As I always said;
"Shock + Awe = Illegal War"

[refuse_resist]

Shock and Awe was just another example of how the U.S. likes going into defensless nations and pounding them into submission, whether they like it or not. They basically do that to scare everyone since it&#39;s their way of telling them "You&#39;re either with us, or you&#39;re against us".

[Kobbot 401]

Heres a thought. Why, besides oil, are we in Iraq. Sadam dident fly 2 plans into our buildings, it was Bin Ladin, and thats fuckers from Sudi Arabia, not Afganistan??? Why are we letting so meny die? We dont even really know who now to blam for it.

[apathy maybe]

In the past wars have not included civilians. People have had sword fights in streets, while people have been trying to sell them stuff. It is only really from 1870-1871 (the Franco-Prussian war) and onwards that civilians started to become involved. (Even in the Franco-Prussian war they weren&#39;t really involved.

The biggest example after the above war was WW1. Total war. But the Boer War was a good example also. Every war that I can think of since then, has affected civilians.

[Kobbot 401]

I dont believe that there are civillians in war time since I learned that the USA droped the atomice wepons on Japenes cities that had no military force in the area. It was just a tatice used to make the Japenes more fearfull of the USA.

[Guerrilla22]

Also let it be known that every time some civillians are killed by uS forces, it is reported that insurgents were using them as human shields. The reality is during wars civillians will inevidebly get killed. All the bullshit on tv about "surgical strikes" is nonesense. Fact in the first gulf war all coalition bombs hit their intended target less than 25% of the time.