"jps" wrote in message

Ex post facto reports of civilian casualties must of necessity be
looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

Whew, that's a pretty sick perspective. What do you think the time
limit should be on dead children?

We spend thousands of man hours looking for a pretty girl in N. Dakota
and don't blink an eye when 9 kids and then another 6 are killed by
mistake.

It just doesn't matter as much when they're brown, does it?

I know it is always convenient for you to try to play a race card in
political arguments, thinking you can preempt the moral high ground, but you
really ought to be careful. When a miserable little **** makes an insulting
and presumptuous statement like yours, you have no idea of the background of
the person to whom you're directing your remarks. Suffice it to say that
you simply don't know what you're talking about.

But that's really not the point of the original post. There have been
numerous documented cases in several countries in the mid-east of
governments using their own people, including children, as human shields.
When these people get killed, news outlets, including American sources, are
more than willing to blast the story ad nauseam, with little or no reference
to the fact that these people were likely placed in harm's way by their own
government, by force. There have been cases in both Iraq wars wherein there
were civilian casualties resulting from explosions with which US tactical
operations had no connection. In virtually all these cases there was video
feed available within minutes from al Jazeera or al Arabiya of injured
children being rushed to hospitals, blood soaked, wailing adults, etc.
Injuries and deaths very real and very tragic, but no one, including US news
sources, asks how the local Arab news crews happened to be in exactly the
right spot so quickly, and no one, including US news sources, gives any
credence to the US Forces' statements that this was not a result of their
operations.

History has shown, for the benefit of those who care to pay attention, that
these governments and military forces will create their own "collateral
damage" for consumption by the ever-gluttonous international news agencies.
Anyone who *does not* look upon these reports with at least some initial
skepticism is being naive in the extreme.

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

Ex post facto reports of civilian casualties must of necessity be
looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

Whew, that's a pretty sick perspective. What do you think the time
limit should be on dead children?

We spend thousands of man hours looking for a pretty girl in N. Dakota
and don't blink an eye when 9 kids and then another 6 are killed by
mistake.

It just doesn't matter as much when they're brown, does it?

I know it is always convenient for you to try to play a race card in
political arguments, thinking you can preempt the moral high ground, but you
really ought to be careful.

About what? Looking out for innocent people who have nothing to do with
the horrific acts of an asshole?

Would we, in this country, decide that 15 kids were an acceptable number
of collateral damage if we needed to terminate someone? Has that ever
been the case in a McDonald's rampage or somebody going postal on a
Wednesday afternoon in Bum****, America?

Are you going to foist the "everything's fair in war" crap on me now?
Truth is, they knew that asshole was surrounded by kids and they took
him out anyway. Not surgically but with a nice big-assed bomb. It's
the same thick headed American attitude we have about training kids to
go and be military police in Iraq. They don't know **** about the
language, the culture, what's acceptable, what's not. Brute force is
all we care about.

When a miserable little **** makes an insulting
and presumptuous statement like yours, you have no idea of the background of
the person to whom you're directing your remarks. Suffice it to say that
you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Killing little children is an act of barbarism the type of which we
would expect from a ruthless ******* like Saddam. You're okay playing
by his rules?

But that's really not the point of the original post. There have been
numerous documented cases in several countries in the mid-east of
governments using their own people, including children, as human shields.

That makes it okay.

When these people get killed, news outlets, including American sources, are
more than willing to blast the story ad nauseam, with little or no reference
to the fact that these people were likely placed in harm's way by their own
government, by force. There have been cases in both Iraq wars wherein there
were civilian casualties resulting from explosions with which US tactical
operations had no connection. In virtually all these cases there was video
feed available within minutes from al Jazeera or al Arabiya of injured
children being rushed to hospitals, blood soaked, wailing adults, etc.
Injuries and deaths very real and very tragic, but no one, including US news
sources, asks how the local Arab news crews happened to be in exactly the
right spot so quickly, and no one, including US news sources, gives any
credence to the US Forces' statements that this was not a result of their
operations.

Nice sidestep. We were talking about a specific incident, not a random
occurrence where Arab television just happened to be there.

History has shown, for the benefit of those who care to pay attention, that
these governments and military forces will create their own "collateral
damage" for consumption by the ever-gluttonous international news agencies.
Anyone who *does not* look upon these reports with at least some initial
skepticism is being naive in the extreme.

Good disinformation there John. You keep eatin' that crapola and
spewing it out. Have a bucket of KFC "Atkins Weight Loss Diet" Chicken
with extra lard and no carbohydrates and a large sugar free coke when
you're sittin' down to watch some Arab-manipulated killing of children.
They just don't value life nearly as much over there anyway. Not like
us White Folk.

jps

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:9N2Cb.7842

..... News reports of dead children -
those must be in my imagination.

Not at all, the report are real, and tragic. What is under-reported is
the fact that the target terrorists were successfully hit, target
venues were vetted in advance as clear of civilians, attack pilots saw
no children in the target area (in the one case that involved an open
field), and that the "placement" of civilian casualties is commonplace
in that part of the world, since they know full well that CNN will run
the story over and over and over. Ex post facto reports of civilian
casualties must of necessity be looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

I think my rantings are well-placed. You attempted to decrement the
validity of Doug's complaint of dead children by citing the fact that
these vermin use children as shields.

My point is: we would treat a perp who's thought responsible for
violence or murder in the states as hostile and ready for death by any
SWAT team. We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

If the kids are brown and half-way around the world it just doesn't
matter as much.

So much for our moral superiority.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:24:45 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:9N2Cb.7842

..... News reports of dead children -
those must be in my imagination.

Not at all, the report are real, and tragic. What is under-reported is
the fact that the target terrorists were successfully hit, target
venues were vetted in advance as clear of civilians, attack pilots saw
no children in the target area (in the one case that involved an open
field), and that the "placement" of civilian casualties is commonplace
in that part of the world, since they know full well that CNN will run
the story over and over and over. Ex post facto reports of civilian
casualties must of necessity be looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

I think my rantings are well-placed. You attempted to decrement the
validity of Doug's complaint of dead children by citing the fact that
these vermin use children as shields.

My point is: we would treat a perp who's thought responsible for
violence or murder in the states as hostile and ready for death by any
SWAT team. We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

If the kids are brown and half-way around the world it just doesn't
matter as much.

So much for our moral superiority.

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

In article ,
88 says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"jps" wrote in message

....We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

And I believe the same principle applies in Iraq. If we know.