Here's an article I came across while out reconnoitering, and just couldn't let it slide. Here is a link to the original article, which I have reproduced here, with comments:

October 26, 2007

Reducing US Casualties By Killing More Civilians
Home of the Brave?

By DAVE LINDORFF

Several years ago, I warned that as the Bush/Cheney administration sought to reduce politically problematic casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would resort to increased use of air attacks to combat the growing insurgency in Iraq and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

I also predicted that the result of this switch in tactics would lead to higher civilian casualties in those two countries.

I'm sorry, did I miss the link to the article in which this prediction occurred, or was it omitted, o prophet of casualty count? I searched and searched, until I filled up my barf bag reading your drivel, and I couldn't find said article. Or did you only warn your dog about it?

We're now seeing those results.

Again, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything - did my browser not load the chart, or something?

In the latest reports from Iraq,...

What reports? Casualty reports? Or did you mean the U.S. Assistance to Women in Iraq reports? If you mean Casualty reports, which ones? By whom? And where did all the links run off to?

...we had 15 women and children slain, mostly in their homes by rockets and bullets fired from helicopter and fixed-wing gunships which were allegedly in pursuit of some supposed "al Qaeda" fighters,...

Mostly? Allegedly? Supposed? Way to pin it down for clarity, chief. You got the number of women and children right on though, didn't ya?

...and as many as 17 civilians killed in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood when US forces called in air strikes after seeing a group of men they deemed to be hostile. Again those airstrikes ended up killing more civilians than alleged enemy fighters.

Oh, there's that damn ambiguity, again. Why were the "supposed 'al Qaeda'" men "deemed to be hostile?" Did they throw their Plumpy'nut at the horrible American invaders, or what?

The casual use of the term "air strikes" belies the horror of what is happening. It's one thing to call in airstrikes during a battle out in the desert or the mountains, where the enemy is isolated and readily identified. It's another to call in the bombers and gunships in the heart of a densly-populated(sic) city. Such tactics are guaranteed to kill innocent people in large numbers.

Yeah, you tell 'em. Deadly to civilians - just like your lack of references are deadly to your credibility.

In Afghanistan, meanwhile, where there is even less media coverage than in Iraq, the casual slaughter of innocents by American forces has become routine--so much so that even British officials are complaining.

Dammit, cough up a citation already!

...The US command simply "regrets" the "loss of innocent life," making it sound like the after-effects of a natural disaster, when it fact the killings are the predictable result of the cold calculus of mass murder by a technologically advanced military inflicted on an impoverished Third World country.

"...cold calculus of mass murder..." Cold kidney stone? I don't get it. Or maybe you meant the chilly mathematics of limits. I still don't get it. Perhaps you meant to say "calculations." I don't know. I'm confused now. And by the way, who impoverished the population before we even got there?

It is unacceptable to argue, as the Pentagon does all the time, that the enemy "uses civilians as shields." Maybe they do, but that's the reality, and the military has to accept it, not ignore it. If a gunman is holding a baby, you can't just shoot the baby and blame the gunman.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Maybe I'll just leave it up to you, fine reader, to make your own conclusions here.

In both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, the slaughter of civilians by US forces has been so outrageous that even their puppet leaders have been compelled to speak up, demanding that the US stop being so aggressive and indiscriminate.

Oh, a link, a link, my keyboard for a link! Who, sir, are you referencing? I wish I could read their words for myself - but then again, that would take all the excitement (incitement?) out of it now, wouldn't it?

The problem is, if the US stops using its gunships and its fighter-bombers to do its fighting, it will have to either quit and go home, or put more troops out on patrol, where they are vulnerable to attack. In fact, the Pentagon may not even have that option. Already, it has been reported that troops in Iraq have coined the term "search and avoid" for missions where they go out under orders, but then spend their time avoiding danger.

Right. Search and avoid. Like your references. And have you ever talked to a soldier in your sad, sad life? I can guarantee you that our fine men and women in uniform don't spend their time avoiding danger, sir.

What would one expect? The rank-and-file troops know that the war is lost in both countries, and that the American public doesn't support what they are doing anyhow, so who's going to want to die for that? You'd have to be a real chump to let yourself be killed just to provide political cover for a politically challenged president and vice president--especially a president and vice-president who famously ducked their own duty during the Vietnam War.

Yeah, our troops are chumps. And you received the Congressional Medal of Honor for outstanding journalism.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: [email protected]

And in striking contrast, I provide you with a link to Casualties in Iraq, in the News, a much more comprehensive account of the same subject.

-Mikhail

Mikhail, I take your point but the tenor of all these people is that they have found a conclusion and then will make up anything that they can to support it--they nearly redefine begging the question.

Also look at the name of his publisher: Common Courage Press. Note the preening smugness. Common is one of those words which make me distrust what it's naming. Others are public, defense (except our department of), federal, union, environmental, and people's.

<out of character>
With that clown's logic, all any enemy need do is pick up a kid, put a knife to it's throat, and simply force us out of every place on earth by walking up to us and we backing away. I know this clown would have really had a problem with the way we fought Germany in WWII, when we intentionally did kill civilians under the rationale that they went to work in the morning to build the weapons the Nazi's were using. Mikhail, you are far too polite... I could never use the word "sir" in reference to that flotsam.... "sir" is a term of respect.

I just had to look up this publisher with its oh-so-self-righteous name. Yet another rabble of moonbats who think they're providing a safe place for Bush-haters to express themselves, because let's face it, notwithstanding CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, BBC, Al-Jazeera and every publisher in NYC (did I forget anyone?) where else can these poor oppressed people go to make themselves heard?

https://www.commoncouragepress.com/

Small press that probably operates out of his mother's garage or basement.

Google search also turned up this oldie but goodie:

I'm Being Mugged By An Evil Bank!

Moonbats indeed, and stewing their their own resentment, which must chafe and I'm glad for it.

But, and this I blush to confess, I recently had a bad brush with two oil companies and oil companies have made me a lot of money. I own a title company in a place with lots of exploration and I also own some minerals that have been in the family for years and worth nothing except as a coyote toilet--until now. And these companies did everything that they possibly could to screw me to the wall, and I actually had to go to the big pooh-bah at the State of Texas to beat these bastards to stop it. I am NOT a socialist, I am NOT a progressive. But that one thing made me really think.

Lots of companies will screw you--Chase will, it if can. Nearly every stockbroker will, if he can. But the problem is the individual company, not the entire system. The problem with socialism is that the entire system is utterly flawed--when economic benefit is removed, all decisions are made politically and you know what that means. Also if you believe in Darwin, and I do, then it follows that anything that you cannot fire doesn't give a damn about you and you have no control over it. Just what sort of people prefer a system which, to be controlled, requires the insidious burrowing of politics instead of merely tearing up a credit card?

What sort of people prefer a protest instead of just firing the son of a bitch?

Drama queens, that's who. People who cannot sit alone in a room. People who are not complete in themselves.

Just more proof that with enough re-education, all lojik kan be suksussphully avoidid.

Mikhail T. Kalashnikov wrote: Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

I could make a lot of points about this article but I think this really sums it up rather well.


My attitude is that, without links or notations to corroborating evidence, this guy's article is an opinion piece. It's a presentation of personal notions or beliefs but nothing more.

This guy's an idiot and I don't believe what he writes for a simple reason: the new Counterinsurgency Manual written last year by a group led by Gen. Petraeus, before he was called to Iraq. One of the basic points of the book is that too much firepower actually does more harm than good in counterinsurgency, including too much airpower. This guy implies that the evil American infidels are using airstrikes and unlimited firepower for every little thing? I seriously doubt Gen. Petraeus would be going against HIS OWN BOOK.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Mikhail, I take your point but the tenor of all these people is that they have found a conclusion and then will make up anything that they can to support it--they nearly redefine begging the question.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of how all these guys operate, and if we all posted examples of their crap, this place would fill up in a day and a half. Normally I wouldn't even bother with it.

But with this one, like I said at the top, I just couldn't let it slide. The glaring lack of any citation really chapped my ass. Even if he had referenced another goofy moonbats' article that agreed with his point of view, I would've given him a pass. But no, he just throws this stuff out there, and expects us to eat it up with a spoon.

That's why I linked to the second article, so that it was demonstrated how blatantly absent the actual information is.

-Mikhail

These people's thinking is so subjective that they have tastes rather than ethics or standards. Thank god there are adults serious enough to keep us safe, despite their sneering.

with enough re-education, all lojik kan be suksussphully avoidid.

Houw vary truw Primeer

Why be logical when someone will protect you for it? After all, the entire thrust of the left is to unlink consequences from actions. And how much fun then to be the one who decides who pays for what. Slavery Mark II.

I always make others pay the consequences for my actions. Just look at my numerous insurance fraud schemes. They all work great, and others have to pay the rising insurance costs. I'm doing my part to help everyone see that private insurance companies are too expensive and need to be run by the government.

Of course. Do everything that you can to screw up private enterprise and talk about how good the government is--it's a lie of course but what of it? Bring down private means and then what's left? We are.