[lit-ideas] Re: Civilian casualties in Iraq
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 02:53:06 EST
In a message dated 2/5/2006 11:46:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Blaming the US for the total is not justified in my view
because included are insurgent-caused killings and breakdowns in civil
order.
HI,
Okay, I'm very curious. If there are few (very few) civilians being killed
and we (ie USA) are rebuilding the infrastructure that we destroyed...
what are these airstrikes hitting? Who? Are they all out in the middle of
nowhere ... no other infrastructure to hit? That's an awful lot of bombing
to still be going on and not be touching anyone but insurgents...(though if
they are unmanned, how can the satellite pictures actually tell if the people
killed are really insurgents unless they are in the middle of nowhere...and
don't have women/children around them?
From the study of the IBC information (the study by Medialens is actually
being done more to study and look at how the media is doing the journalism it
purports to be doing rather than looking at governments...):
"In December 2005, Associated Press reported that the US Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps had âflown thousands of missions in support of US ground troops
in Iraq this fall with little attention back home, including attacks by
unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records
showâ. (â
Air Power Strikes Iraq Targets Daily,â Associated Press, December 20, 2005)
The aircraft included frontline attack planes. The number of airstrikes
increased in the weeks leading up to the December 2005 election, from a monthly
average of 25 in the first half of the year to more than 60 in September and
120 or more in October and November. The monthly number of air missions grew
from 1,111 in September to 1,492 in November.
And yet, when we checked, the first 18 pages of the IBC database, covering
the period between July 2005 and January 2006, contained just six references to
helicopter attacks and airstrikes killing civilians."
MB again:
This really bothers me when there is talk of doing the same sort of 'smart'
striking in Iran.
I do not see how the 'smart' strikes, etc. can do so with the amount of
bomb-like material that we are dropping. Seems like if we are really able to
'surgically' go in and get one building and not another--we'd better be very
careful. (not to mention--what happens in our neighborhoods if one building's
electrical wires are pulled down? etc. ) If the infrastructure there is
going to be destroyed--I simply do not see this as a very positive step
towards
winning the minds and hearts of those who ARE close to gravitating towards a
more reasonable/secular-but-not-anti-religious/more globally-minded way of
life/government.
No--please let's just hold the tension of the opposites for a little bit
longer until we can find another creative solution here...a couple of little
kids in Iran are going to become a medical researcher and discover the cure
for
what ails some of us...I'd rather make sure he and she get that chance... and
their school and home both need to remain intact...
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
remembering, too, the article from Eric on how our brains process
information which is contrary to what we want to believe...and always keeping
it in
mind these days...
Other related posts:
