US Kill Chidren/ Journalist / Workers / Civilians in Iraq

by Jim Fri May 23, 2008 16:44

There is no indication whatsoever that that people killed by the US military were murdered.
The US military say that a number of cars with suspected militants inside were attacked by a helicopter and the children who died were with the militants. An Iraqi policeman says the helicopter was attacked and it returned fire.

Do you have evidence that US helicopters are flying around deliberately killing civilians?
Is it just a few crews of US helicopters or all US helicopters who are doing this?
Is it official policy?
etc etc.

i.e. please provide proof.

by Bazooka Joe Fri May 23, 2008 17:40

The proof is that the children are dead and that the US military has admitted they did it. This proof is in the links I gave. All extra-judicial killing is murder and it may well be correctly argued that EVERY killing carried out by the US in Iraq is Murder since there is no basis in law for the US to be there or to kill/murder anyone there, whether they claim they are a 'terrorist' or not.

It is only the enormity of US war crimes in Iraq the seems to blind people to their existence with a shock and awe. Shooting at children, old people, workers and a school from a helicopter is murder no matter who does it and no matter what 'manifest destiny' they dream. But if you know of any imagined justification for such killing/murder I would be delighted to hear it so that I can better undrstand your cognitive deficit.

by The US Are the Terrorists Fri May 23, 2008 18:03

"We are the Terrorists" - former US Armyman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYfrO5A48vQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU&feature=related

US Military killing civilians in Iraq then laughing about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQunB7r96U

by Horace Rumpole Fri May 23, 2008 18:41

Jim argues that, "Murder means deliberate premeditated intentional killing" but this is not the case. There are many degrees of murder depending on the jurisdiction. Murder as a result of neglect or Manslaughter may be what the US will claim in this case where the civilians and children have been killed as a result of the helicopter crews neglect. A lesser example of this neglect would be a driver getting a murder conviction for killing someone as a result of careless driving.

On the broader issue of all deaths resulting from the illegal US invasion of Iraq it might also be the case that US and International Law will rule this Murder or Homicide for which the political leaders who ordered the invasion and resultant killings are personally and collectively responsible.

The illegal invasion and killings were undoubtedly wilful and intentional. It the US administration wishes to call the killing ''collateral damage'' it does not mean it is any less Murder/Homicide. After all the Serbs called their mass murder 'ethnic cleansing'. Under US law, killing more than two people or murdering on numerous occaisions is regarded as extremely grave murder and by that benchmark the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a result of a planned but illegal invasion is a monsterous crime of monumental proportions.

It is above all completely disgusting to argue terminology over the dead bodies of little children, killed while running from their homes in fear, as to whether it is murder, homicide or manslaughter. But all the arguments in support of the US invasion are equally disgusting, so we should not be surprised by the heartlessness of the US military and its apologists.

by notdumb Sat May 24, 2008 16:25

"We are the Terrorists" - former US Armyman" is a fake.

by Sceptic Mon May 26, 2008 17:39

“..all deaths resulting from the illegal US invasion of Iraq it might also be the case that US and International Law will rule this Murder or Homicide”

This is dissembling and wishful thinking. It “might be the case” but just as validity it might not be the case. The latter is more probable based on precedent. In fact there is no possibility that a US or other court of standing would so find and the matter is not before any court nor is it likely to be.

This is also the using loaded language to slant your text. The invasion was not just mounted by the US but by a coalition. It did not enjoy the renewed sanction of the UNSC. This does not mean however that it was illegal. It lacked full UN legitimacy. This is not synonymous with illegality.

You are also deliberately confusing deaths of opposing combatants and the accidental deaths of non combatants neither of which is in breach of the Geneva codes provided certain conditions are met. Also the term “collateral damage” has not been widely used since the 1960’s except by antiwar polemicists and not at all to my knowledge by this administration. It merely describes a feature of war which has always existed – it just did not get that name until the 1960s. For instance presumably the civilian bystanders killed during the 1916 Rising would be described as such by its promoters. One logically cannot be against the Iraq war because it might cause civilian casualties but ignore the same phenomena in the case of the Easter Rising. Otherwise one is saying that one aggress with certain wars but not others.

“Ethnic cleansing” is a totally different thing the differences being too obvious to point out. That is crude juxtaposition for propaganda purposes. You are also deliberately confusing the issue of homicide in domestic US law with deaths resulting from war. One may take a strict antiwar position but the difference but the difference between the two in law is clear, distinctive and has always existed. Generally it is a crime to kill or endanger life in civil society. However in certain circumstances a government prosecuting a war may lawfully cause causalities. That is elementary.

Going on about children being killed is just emotionalism unless you are against all wars or guerrilla or terrorists actions in all circumstances past or present or future. That is if you are a pacifist. If one is not a pacifist the fact that there will be innocent causalities is a reason why the conscientious must avoid wars except as a last resort and is the lesser evil.

by Mr Man Mon May 26, 2008 23:28

skeptic, I always enjoy reading your posts. Logical, emotionally unattached and based in reality.