American war crimes.

If you say so

The reason why US did not resort to bombing the whole of Iraq back to medieval times was not because they had regard for civilian life, it was because they would fear a massive revolt from countries all around the globe.

Again your ignorance reaches a new level The combatants in iraq who were insurgents ie the Al Qaeda and the Taleban do not have a military uniform. They would dress in normal clothes even before they were labelled as terrorists.

Do you really expect the insurgents to come out in the open battlefield? They won't because they are cowards, they know that if they risk open battle, they would be outfought within seconds. Again your lack of military intellectual

The napalm bombing in vietnam by US was still relatively dangerous even without the lack of satellites, any idiot would know that bombs are dangerous even if they are dropped without satellite surveillance, not only that but in 1960s there used to be planes to specially scout the area before bombing.

If you are refering to the technologies the US now possess, look at their actions now, innocents killed in drone attacks

No it wasnt - USA is already the most hated nation in that region - but they ahve taken more precuation to minimise loss of civilian muslim life than any muslim combatant.



I was referring there to the bathist soldiers and police, as you were. Many of these also left iraqs armed forces to fight with the terrorists in plain clothes as the media discovered from prisoners taken by the US




This is what i had already said - they were cowards who used civilians as shields to survive. I know why they did it - i was pointing out to you how that makes things difficult for US soliders and how it leads to more civilian casualties.


Drones are also responsible for elimnating a string of the highest al quaeda and insurgent generals in iraq, yemen, paksitan, afganistan etc characters that hid in houses and caves and would have taken far longer and much more loss of life to hunt donw conventionally. SO overall they have done a good job . There are casualites because ar has casualites. But all the above proves the US has done everything to redcue civilian casualties and still get the jobs done. The opposite of what muslim combatants do.

US is the most hated nation in the region, but attacking innocents by bombing cities would lead to a bigger outrage which could have led to an all out war.

That's the point, the soldier in the original article himself said that they do not bother weeding out who the gunman are from the civilians, because they get away with it.

How do you know that all drone attacks or even most of them target insurgents?

I know that a string of "high value" insurgents have been targeted and killed by drones - you can google them - from all over the middle east and asia.
This is the brilliance of technology - where in the 60s the US had no clue of how to take out the viet kong leaders without massive loss of life on both sides - the US can pick off enemy leaders where ever they cower with surprising accuracy and minimum risk. Thats not to say there isnt some accidental strikes - this cannot be avoided in a war against terrorists. I still dont know waht your problem is with Drones, when IEDs have killied many times more- and yet you havent mentioned them once.

You do know that drones are a breach of international law right?

Do you even know how drones are run? They are controlled by someone sitting half the way across the globe, the targets are identified using thermal and satellite vision which is high in accurate to take out the small groups of insurgents targeted.
It is very easy to make mistakes and the US has made a lot of them

Bold- anyone see the contradiction?

Yes, drone attacks are a violation of international law. International law does not apply to the US, apparently.

You do know that drones are a breach of international law right?

Do you even know how drones are run? They are controlled by someone sitting half the way across the globe, the targets are identified using thermal and satellite vision which is high in accurate to take out the small groups of insurgents targeted.
It is very easy to make mistakes and the US has made a lot of them

I know far more about them than you do clearly.
Im much happier for the US to use them than to have scum like al-Wuhayshi and Ilyas Kashmiri still alive plotting more tens of thousands of murders. So in terms of numbers saved - drones have done their job .

Stealth drones were also used to co-ordinate the attack on Bin laden in apksitan, if you didnt know.

I find it just hilarious how much press and outrage this gets.

It's easy to forget those corpses pissed on are the corpses of people who behead and stone adulteresses, bomb civilian gatherings, kill teachers and destroy schools so girls cannot have an education, abduct, torture and behead aid workers and private contracters. Yeah. I didn't shed a tear for them.

Was it unproffesional? Yes. Should it have happened? No. Do I honestly care about the corpses of those people? Not one jot.

They look like farmers!!

The point is, there was NO DUE process. They picked random people and brutally murdered them before urinating on their corpse. So much for democracy and freedom eh? Where's our standards? Sound like a bunch of animals to me.

You sir, are a hypocrite and an armchair warrior. Your view on this matter is disgusting, but I guess it's easy when the 'enemy' has been dehumanised in your tiny brain. It's because of people like you that things like the Holocaust happen. You can so easily hate an entire group of loosely connected people in a blink of an eye.

You're right of course. The US Army don;t fight terrorists and insurjents, what they do is randomly kill civilians, that's their entire campaign strategy, how could I be so stupid.

What evidence have you that those people were innocent. And FYI, the Taliban tend to look like farmers, you see, they don't follow the Geneva convention or rules of war, they hide among civlians, women and children, they don't wear a uniform.

Tell me how I'm a hypocrite? I'm interested to know

Because if Westerners were indiscriminately killed, you'd have a problem with that. Xenophobe, racist whatever, at the heart that's all it is. We've heard of Abu Ghraib, of random people imprisoned in Guantanamo (many held with no charges and released after years of incarceration), of random kids stabbed in the street by British soldiers (google, it was in Guardian about month ago), and many other incidents, so yes people/civilians are randomly targeted. You are assuming they were armed militants (assuming they are guilty not innocent) because they're Muslim and brown skinned. No other reason.

. I have a problem with Muslims being randomly killed aswell.

Am I reading this right? Did you honestly mean that?

How witty.

Come off it. You spout garbage anway. Saying you "care" for muslims is pretty unnatural to you.

Your problem is that you are looking at morals relatively. The point is, urinating on someone is never right, whether they are dead or alive. Having the thoughts to urinate on someone is never right. The soldiers are bad people, or more correctly, they committed a morally wrong act.


There can be no excuse. It is always wrong to do that, and there can be no justification. The fact that terrorists are bad does not in any way negate the badness of urinating on someone.

The soldiers should face the full force of the law. All humans are human and while these terrorists may not be deserving of respect, they should still be accorded said respect, or morally the soldiers cannot claim any moral superiority.

They say, let those without sin be the first to throw stones. These soldiers most assuredly were not without sin, certainly no longer, and they should repent. I'm not religious, but my moral convictions are strong, and those soldiers have absolutely no defence.

I strongly dislike Islam. That doesn;t mean I support the random killing of Muslims. Grow up dear.

Come off it, chuck. Honestly, you don't give a fig leaf about some brownie that lives in a desert. Let's be honest. Your rantings are that of a typical drama queen.

I am sure at one point you stated in another thread, in relation to Muslim civilians being killed, essentially you implied, "well they're killing each other so why the outrage over this collateral damage incident"...(I might be wrong and hold my hands up at this if I am incorrect and I will apologise)

You need to grow up, dear.

That in itself is a problem - it's called moral relativism. Look it up dude.