When you read reports like this, you gasp, even though you know they may be exaggerated or even pure propaganda. But then when you read this, your mind focuses again on the greater reality.
Collateral Damage
October 17, 2005 - 7:47 am
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I guess they’re tired of the “it’s a wedding party” excuse.
Of course, they’re propaganda! The doctors in Fallujah made the same accusations.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/813419D5-CC95-4505-9367-05140111C618.htm
Ramadi huh?
from the initial voting results as reported by the AP:
ANBAR (Ramadi):
Figures only from the area of the city of Fallujah. Turnout in other parts of Anbar province believed to be minimal, and results not known.
Wanna bet that doctor is a Baathist?
Regretably, warfare is not a neat, clean, sanitary operation and more regretably sometimes innocent people are caught in the crossfire.
During my Viet Nam days we used indiscriminate weapons such as napalm, cluster bombs and mini-guns on area targets; and yes, it created more civilian deaths than anyone was happy about.
For better or for worse, warfare as practiced primarily by the US and IDF has become more and more precise. Some think that is a good thing, some do not (the argument being the more “sanitary” warfare becomes, the more its true horror is less visible). This war is remarkable for the lack of civilian deaths.
The question to me about the Ramadi bombing is this: Were terrorists killed? and if so, why were they taking refuge with civilians? Are these terrorists so callous they put non-combatants at risk? We already know the answer to that question.
Does it make me a bad person if I did not gasp ?
Ramadi is LONG overdue for a MASS clean-up. It is the WORST built-up area in Iraq at this moment in time. 5 US troops were blown up there on Saturday by an IED that no-one saw being planted.
Every time a location is targetted, the same thing happens. “No terrorists here. It was just women and children”. Those women and children sure do seem to congregate at exactly the places the air-strikes hit.
Every day the residents of Ramadi collude either willingly or un-willingly with the people who think nothing of setting off car bombs in MARKETS full of poor souls just trying to get by.
The people of Ramadi will not be won over by ‘carrots’; they are held in thrall by the dual forces of Islamist/Baathist terror and Sunni Arab Supremicism. Only ‘sticks’ can break the back of the ‘resistance’ there; otherwise you are throwing the ‘carrots’ down a sink-hole.
If the US does not clean out Ramadi, what will happen to it when the Iraqi Government actually becomes fully operational. Not this year or next but perhaps in 5 years?
Now that would be ‘collateral damage’.
Roger:
The concern over the fairness of Saddam’s trial is absurd. “Oh, but the result is going to be guilty no matter what, this means the trial is not fair.” The reason Saddam is going to be found guilty is because he had the tendency to commit many of his crimes on tape and then he would openly brag in public about what he had done. The day he took over the Baath party he called a party meeting and pointed out dozens of individuals, walked them out of the building, and had them shot, without a trial. This was day one of his regime. He filmed it! His first day of holding office contained enough murders to guarantee a death penalty result in most states in America. His history is known. He was not shy about his God given right to kill and torture who he wanted to. One can argue about the exact number but the number of murdered Muslims that Saddam is responsible for is so high that the fact that he will be found guilty is not the sign of an unfair trial, it is the sign that the Iraqi’s still have brains and heart and a sense of decency and justice, even after decades of abuse at the hands of Saddam. I see no disconnect between the idea that I am sure he is going to get a fair trial and I am also sure that he is going to hang from a tree until he is dead.
Kevin Peters
I see no disconnect between the idea that I am sure he is going to get a fair trial and I am also sure that he is going to hang from a tree until he is dead.–Kevin P
I don’t think they use trees in Iraq.Perhaps palms are not really suitable.
However if I recall they used to employ lamposts in Baghdad to display the culprits for citizens to view. At this point in time, I’m sure we won’t be seeing that particular spectacle, but should the “Z” man be apprehended intact, I’m sure it would make me a BAD person if I confessed that I would probably pay to see his appointment with one of those Baghdad fixtures.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Kevin:
The American legal profession has lost sight of their role in the judicial process. Criminal defense attorneys no longer view their job as insuring that the constitutional rights of the guilty are protected but instead believe that their role is to secure a not guilty verdict. This has not always been the case. Clarence Darrow’s objective in the Leopold and Loeb case was not to get them off, it was to prevent their execution. Darrow, unlike say a Johnny Cochrane, would find it morally repugnant to let an obviously guilty man escape justice.
I was discussing the recent strike against terrorists in Ramadi and the alleged collateral damage (ever noticed alleged is never used when our government is the accused?) on another online venue. Neither administration critics nor supporters mentioned the overriding context of recent civilian deaths in this war: everyday jihadists deliberately target peaceful civilians in a terrorist attack. Everyday! As RogerA points out by world standards and historical standards we reduce collateral damage to a minimum. And we never deliberately target civilians.
The jihadists have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to such an extent that even jihadi leadership has noticed that this tactic has backfired. And, of course, we are helping the Iraqi people fight these foreign jihadists – Islamo-fascists who want nothing more than to institute an oppressive Sunni theocracy.
The recent election is proof that the Iraqi people have chosen our way of life over that of the Jihadist/Baathist tyranny. It’s a day we can be proud of.
Jerry
The purpose of a defense attorney is to get his or her client off. Sometimes all that can be done is to lessen the penalty, as in Leopold and Loeb. but that is a strategic choice. You are not supposed to knowingly put on purjured testimony, but you are also not supposed to pull your punches. The right to a defense that is 100 percent in your camp is basic to our understanding of due process.
Gasp?
Hardly.
Frown?
Sure.
Was it an intelligence screwup leading to the wrong targets getting hit, or is this doctor lying through his teeth.
The former is certainly possible; the latter happens all the time.
I think the previous exchange has succinctly exposed the reason the legal profession is held in such low esteem. Their job is to get the guilty off?
Fine, but I am not going to shed any tears when their family members are murdered or assaulted by the same criminals they worked so hard to unleash on society.
Paleokaus:
Clarence Darrow would disagree with you on Leopold and Loeb. He was pretty up front that he thought they were guilty. The issue was the death penalty. If the choice was only between the death penalty and a not guilty verdict then he would go for the not guilty. It wasn’t a binary option so he was satisfied with the lessor sentence.
In general, you are under the sway of the modern legal ethic. The purpose of legal representation is due process. Due process does not equal an acquital. It is ensuring that the rules are followed.
Jerry
I don’t know what you do for a living, but can you imagine telling your employer/client that you are not trying to succeed for them, just to follow the correct minimal procedure?
Everyone else is trying to put your client away, often including the judge. Your job is to get him or her off if possible. That doesn’t mean you think your client is innocent, it means you require the state to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course strategically, you can also decide to concede guilt and fight over the degree or the punishment.
The two discussions run parallel. From the link to shrinkwrapped comes the comment that the left has always valued abstract ideals over real people. Yes, and abstract justice over real justice, too. To many in the antiwar movement, if America cannot prevent all civilian casualties, then the whole operation is clearly evil and must be abandoned. Then too, they believe if Saddam’s trial cannot end in an acquital then it is too deeply flawed to continue at all.
Insisting on perfect justice means you will get no justice. In a fallen world, all human endeavors are tradeoffs. In a cloudy and ambiguous situation, the best you might get is a 51-49 trade — still worth it, really.
The moral advantage in Iraq far exceeds 51-49. Just because we cannot reach 100% does not mean that we should shun 90% justice. It’s about the best any nation has ever done.