Does the US military now kill indiscriminately--just to get at the bad guys these days?

Question

78 Afghani civilians were bombed out of existence by the US military when a group of civilians were attending a militia commander's funeral.

But the US claims that only FIVE amongst the dead were civilians.

So...what? The rest were...*insurgents* hiding amongst only 5 civilians?

Why does our military skew the numbers or water them down--when they start launching attacks at the civilian populace--in order to kill just a handful of insurgents?

This kind of warfare doesn't do us any good--if we keep targeting civilians like they don't matter. (Or as Bush calls them: 'Collateral damage'.)

All it's doing is making us look bad and making martyrs of the innocent--feeding into the hatred and distrust of foreign forces in the region.

Blaming the bad guys for killing all these civvies is just hypocritical. We should *know* better than to go after the civilian populace. We should *know* which one is the bad guys and which ones are the good.

After all, we're supposed to HAVE the most advanced military on Earth! We should be able to discern civilian population centers from the bad guys' hideouts.

And *if* they are hiding in the civilian population centers--we shouldn't just go, "that's okay. We'll take them out along with a score of innocents along the way--and then blame their deaths on the insurgents."

It's the same tactic the military has used countless times in Iraq to shield themselves from their own mistakes and absolve themselves of any culpable responsibility in end.

Yes, this is a war. BOTH were (and are) wars! But does it really win us any brownie points for obliterating innocent civilians alongside the enemy in the process?

Is this how future conflicts will be waged? Take out both the good guys and the bad guys in one fell swoop?

Makes me wonder how much we've forgotten about the rules of war. Even if the bad guys don't abide by them, we shouldn't simply go, "that's fine--neither will we."

We should try to do better and stop laying the blame of our gross military mistakes on an enemy that we can neither see or fight effectively.

Answer 1

There is a place called Gaza were Palestinians live Afghan where Afghans live Iraq= Iraqi's Iran= Iranians and there is a place called America were Americans live.

Who is in the wrong here is the question?

Answer 2

The enemy uses civilians for cover and keep them at arms length .

Why do you believe the NEWS MEDIA that's only purpose is to make money for their company's medium?? Controversy sells so that is what they will report twisted in the way They want it not truthfully

Vet-USAF

Answer 3

unfortunately sometimes it happens. but our rules of engagement in those countries is very strict. liberal media tries to do anything possible to make bush look bad. he's a tool but they tend to twist the story to make it sell.

Answer 4

Give suggestions then... what would you do to discern the enemy from civilians? got anything?

Answer 5

I didn't think Americas government were fussy who they killed I've seen them take whole streets out whilst aiming at one apparently terrorist filled building.

I am sure if the American military were targeted in their homes surrounded by their children they would indeed take offence. It seems double  standards would try to be justified by American Military personel whilst America can terrorise innocent families, but are in fact themselves terrorising the children and wives/mothers whose men/fathers who are only trying to protect their families.

Answer 6

i hate librals.....

Answer 7

LoL I recently dated a US Marine...no we are still teaching our soldiers to calmly subdue the enemy......I tell ya what....I'd rather shoot the bad guy and get court marshaled for it than have my guts blown all over where ever thank you!

Answer 8

No change there then.  

Answer 9

You don't know what you are talking about, at all.

Stop listening to the media and start talking to people IN the military.

Two OPPOSITES. Why? Because liberals, like you, are pu**ies that don't want war. Without war over there, the war would be over here.

What do you want? Us killing them, or them killing us, in our cities?

Start appreciating what the military is doing to keep you free. Look at the facts for now on, and stop thinking like a child.

Answer 10

Look, its WAR ok? They want us dead, we want them dead. How many civilians were in the twin towers? How many civilians have they themselves killed? Our military does what they can to contain the enemy and keep you safe from harm. You can't tell who wants to kill you, and who is just a passerby, and we don't have enough translators, nor the time to ask. We didn't force the enemy to embed itself among the population.  

Answer 11

What time does the internet cafe close on Saturdays in Gaza?

Answer 12

How many innocent civilians did "our troops" kill in Afghanistan supposedly to find and kill  Osama Bin Laden? How many innocent cililians did we kill in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction only to have Bush, Rice and Gonzales parody a oval office search for them?

The whole thing is a big joke to the elite and their military killing machine, just like 9/11. I can see Bush and company having a laugh fest over this one at their Bohemian Grove and Bilderberger parties. Yet their crimes go unimpeded, unpunished, unreported, and uncared about by millions of "patriotic" American sheeple.

Answer 13

What do you mean, BY NOW AND THESE DAYS????

Look the British Empire did it for years!!

We are professionals though!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar200...

Of course even some things are just too much for our boys!!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...

Well what can I say, war is war!

And this is an illegal war, so the illegal acts are to be expected!

And the aiding and abetting of such are also criminal acts!

Support is a form of Aiding and abetting!

Nice company I am in with some of the other answerers here then ;-))

EDIT you may find this interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/21...