Suicide bombers kill over 110 in Iraqi cities

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm intrigued over the lack of concern over the insurgency's atrocious military to civilian kill ratio.

Lack of concern by whom?

By Americans as a whole? If they believe the Bush Administration, everything is just fine with a few challenges.

Or perhaps the military which has failed to provided any sort of meaningful security since the US invaded the country? They do not appear to be overly concerned with the well being of civilians.

Or by the Iraqis, who appear to blame the violence on the US occupation?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm intrigued over the lack of concern over the insurgency's atrocious military to civilian kill ratio.

And how does that compare with the U.S. military's atrocious insurgent to civilian kill ratio?

[rmnunez]

how does that compare with the U.S. military's atrocious insurgent to civilian kill ratio?

Unfavourably, the 110 Iraqis killed were all civilians so the insurgency's civilian to military kill ratio would be worse than 110 to nothing. The US' most recent attack on terrorists or insurgents was in Afghanistan where 2 Al Qaeders were killed in a predator drone missile attack which killed 18 so their ratio would be 16 civilians killed for every 2 terrorists or insurgents (or about 8 to 1). I find the insurgency's civilian to military kill ratio deplorable, find frequent reference to their carbombings but few mention any military or even Iraqi police casualties, usually its a mosque, market or bunch of kids swarming over GIs giving out something.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Unfavourably, the 110 Iraqis killed were all civilians so the insurgency's civilian to military kill ratio would be worse than 110 to nothing. The US' most recent attack on terrorists or insurgents was in Afghanistan where 2 Al Qaeders were killed in a predator drone missile attack which killed 18 so their ratio would be 16 civilians killed for every 2 terrorists or insurgents (or about 8 to 1). I find the insurgency's civilian to military kill ratio deplorable, find frequent reference to their carbombings but few mention any military or even Iraqi police casualties, usually its a mosque, market or bunch of kids swarming over GIs giving out something.

You're only looking at one incident. Look at some of the other figures:

" 36 missing Iraqi police applicants found dead" http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/22/iraq.main/

"At least 280 Iraqi police have been killed since the fall of Baghdad in April, 2003."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0123/p06s01-woiq.html

And how about the recent attack in Pakistan by the U.S.? 18 dead civilians, possibly one or two insurgents, depending on what reports you choose to believe.

In any case, since the U.S. doesn't even keep track of how many civilians are killed in Iraq, true kill ratio figures are going to be hard to come by.

[rmnunez]

Zee, it would be interesting to compare these civilian to military kill ratios, but it is difficult more than just because the US doesn't have an accurate tally of the civilians they've killed. Part of the problem is determining what casualties count as civilian or military. Terrorists are not in the military, but would be legitimate targets (unlike civilians). Whether self-declared insurgents count as civilians may depend on what you think is a legitimate insurgency. The opposition in Iraq has targetted local law enforcement, I supose insurgency sympathizers would regard the police as a legitimate target and not civilians. Would members of the government, infrastructure repair crews, NGO charitable workers, UN envoys, their wives and children also be legitimate targets for the insurgency? It seems to me more often than not its a large crowd of devout Shia civilians in front of the mosque or at the market rather than a bunch of cops who are victimized. One difference worth noting is how civilian casualties seem more directly aimed at by insurgents than by Coalition military.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Zee, it would be interesting to compare these civilian to military kill ratios, but it is difficult more than just because the US doesn't have an accurate tally of the civilians they've killed. Part of the problem is determining what casualties count as civilian or military. Terrorists are not in the military, but would be legitimate targets (unlike civilians). Whether self-declared insurgents count as civilians may depend on what you think is a legitimate insurgency. The opposition in Iraq has targetted local law enforcement, I supose insurgency sympathizers would regard the police as a legitimate target and not civilians. Would members of the government, infrastructure repair crews, NGO charitable workers, UN envoys, their wives and children also be legitimate targets for the insurgency? It seems to me more often than not its a large crowd of devout Shia civilians in front of the mosque or at the market rather than a bunch of cops who are victimized. One difference worth noting is how civilian casualties seem more directly aimed at by insurgents than by Coalition military.

I'm sure that as far as the "insurgents" are concerned, anyone supporting the invasion and the set up of a puppet government is a legitimate target. Would it be much different if it was your country that had been invaded and occupied? The second priority of an "insurgency" would be to demonstrate that the invasion force is in no way in control of the country. The lack of ability to protect the areas that they have "captured" would go a long way towards undermining the credibility of an occupation force.

It's funny that those who dismiss civilian casualties of U.S. operations as "collateral" damage, or write them off as "hey, it's a war, these things happen", are the first to point out the inhumanity of the insurgents when innocents are killed by "terrorist" attacks.

[rmnunez]

those who dismiss civilian casualties of U.S. operations as "collateral" damage, or write them off as "hey, it's a war, these things happen", are the first to point out the inhumanity of the insurgents when innocents are killed by "terrorist" attacks.

Are there innocents killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq? If the insurgents deem anyone not sufficiently opposed to the government as the enemy, many people normally thought of as civilians would be legitimate targets. Figuring the police are the enemy makes sense to terrorists for 2 reasons; a) terrorism is criminal activity, and b) the police "supports" the government (which is the terrorist's enemy).

Would it be much different if it was your country that had been invaded and occupied?

This is why semantics are so important in this discussion. The question calls on us to draw conclusions on the reasonableness of insurgency conduct in Iraq. Would any of us find reprehensible conduct ascribed to insurgents in Iraq if they were our compatriots fighting a foreign occupying force in our own country? Personally I'd draw the line on these decapitations, but the rest seems 'reasonable'. However, its only reasonable if we are talking about an actual insurgency. Not all the non-Coalitioneer civilian casualties are victims of insurgency attacks, some fall to terrorists. Distinguishing between the insurgent and the terrorist is important. Targets for terrorists might include even insurgents if they posed a threat to continued terrorist activity.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: rmnunez Are there innocents killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq? If the insurgents deem anyone not sufficiently opposed to the government as the enemy, many people normally thought of as civilians would be legitimate targets. Figuring the police are the enemy makes sense to terrorists for 2 reasons; a) terrorism is criminal activity, and b) the police "supports" the government (which is the terrorist's enemy). This is why semantics are so important in this discussion. The question calls on us to draw conclusions on the reasonableness of insurgency conduct in Iraq. Would any of us find reprehensible conduct ascribed to insurgents in Iraq if they were our compatriots fighting a foreign occupying force in our own country? Personally I'd draw the line on these decapitations, but the rest seems 'reasonable'. However, its only reasonable if we are talking about an actual insurgency. Not all the non-Coalitioneer civilian casualties are victims of insurgency attacks, some fall to terrorists. Distinguishing between the insurgent and the terrorist is important. Targets for terrorists might include even insurgents if they posed a threat to continued terrorist activity.

Forget arguing with fellows like Zeebddee. He and his kind know with absolute surety that any efforts by the U.S. are imperialist in nature and reflect only the greedy self interest of this interfering government, as personified as the evil, lying George Bush.

Anyone striving to thwart those imperialist actions, no matter what methodology used, is inherently good.

They will brook no argument. Cede no point.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Forget arguing with fellows like Zeebddee. He and his kind know with absolute surety that any efforts by the U.S. are imperialist in nature and reflect only the greedy self interest of this interfering government, as personified as the evil, lying George Bush. Anyone striving to thwart those imperialist actions, no matter what methodology used, is inherently good. They will brook no argument. Cede no point.

Thank you for telling us what we know (with absolute surety even!). It seems to me though, that you've never been prevented from posting your arguments. And if we truly will "Cede no point", please tell us what point you have ceded, as I must have missed that.

[rmnunez]

Thwarting imperialism could be a good thing, depending on how we define imperialism. If by this we mean whatever the US does, thwarting might be an awful mistake. Consider how Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, something the US opposes. Nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly to countries under theocratic rule, is a very bad thing for the whole world, not just because the US opposes this should we figure a nuclear Iran is a good thing. Forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear efforts is a good thing, despite the US interest in so doing.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Thwarting imperialism could be a good thing, depending on how we define imperialism. If by this we mean whatever the US does, thwarting might be an awful mistake. Consider how Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, something the US opposes. Nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly to countries under theocratic rule, is a very bad thing for the whole world, not just because the US opposes this should we figure a nuclear Iran is a good thing. Forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear efforts is a good thing, despite the US interest in so doing.

I have no problem at all with us trying to limit Iran's access to nuclear weapons, but I think it's pretty stupid to expect any country to acquiesce to our demands when we continue to develop new ones of our own. Like many other subject areas, our nuclear weapon hypocrisy is right there in plain sight for every country to see. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan31.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb8.html

Look at the realities of the issue.... Iraq doesn't have nukes, North Korea does. Which country is paying the price of not having the means to protect itself?

[rmnunez]

Iraq doesn't have nukes, North Korea does. Which country is paying the price of not having the means to protect itself?

Most countries don't have nukes and aren't attacked either. Nor has being armed with nukes resulted in immunity from military attack.

Simple logic indicates nuclear power-balancing and stability will be more difficult as the number of players increases. Since the effects of a nuclear mistake will be felt globally it makes sense to do whatever we can as soon as possible to keep the variables low. The 'logic' of MAD can't be applied to either the DPRK or Iran, neither is a representative government, their top decision-makers are not accountable. Additionally, it is against international law for either DPRK or Iran to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. There is no sovereign right to nukes.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez ...it is against international law for either DPRK or Iran to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. There is no sovereign right to nukes.

Heh. The lawyer stumbles...
http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.org/Swo...he_Mirror.html

The thesis of this Article is that the United States' efforts to curtail the nuclear aspirations of North Korea and other States are hampered by the United States' unsupportable position that the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons are generally legal. Due to its legitimization of nuclear weapons and its support of the right of States broadly to withdraw from arms control agreements, the United States has largely deprived itself of law as a basis for opposing nuclear proliferation. North Korea, having previously espoused the unlawfulness of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons before the International Court of Justice ("ICJ"), now asserts that it is entitled to use and threaten to use such weapons in self-defense because of the United States' hostile actions and threats-- including the U.S. policy of preemptive strike, exemplified by the recent war in Iraq.

See, Nunez, if the US says it is within its right to threaten other nations with nukes, then the threat to use of nukes is not illegal. Or maybe you think the US is real special...

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Additionally, it is against international law for either DPRK or Iran to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. There is no sovereign right to nukes.

I find it ironic, though typical, that the U.S., having invaded two sovereign countries, used WP and DU in residential areas, "rendered" prisoners off to secret eastern European prisons, and denied Geneva protection rights to anyone it deems a "terrorist" now wants to use "international law" as a basis for forcing Iran to give up it's nuclear program. The arrogance and hypocrisy is simply stunning.

[rmnunez]

PH, the laws that forbid nuclear weapons proliferation apply differently depending on a sovereign's status. The 5 nuclear powers on the Security Council, as well as India, Pakistan and Israel, are not allowed to export the technology or ingredients to produce nuclear weapons. The rest of the world is forbidden from importing, exporting or even having the ingredients and technology. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was breached by France when it transfered nuclear technology to Israel. In a Cold War setting the US didn't push to prevent this proliferation to a friendly government by another ally, but Israel did breach international law in acquiring nukes. China breached the NNPT by transfering technology for nukes to India, Pakistan and North Korea. Now it appears North Korea has transfered some of this technology to Iran. I think this pattern of proliferation suggests North Korean and Iranian nuclear technology will also get exported. Who do you think is likely to import this technology from them and would the proliferation of military nuclear technology among such governments really make the world safer?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez PH, the laws that forbid nuclear weapons proliferation apply differently depending on a sovereign's status. The 5 nuclear powers on the Security Council, as well as India, Pakistan and Israel, are not allowed to export the technology or ingredients to produce nuclear weapons. The rest of the world is forbidden from importing, exporting or even having the ingredients and technology. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was breached by France when it transfered nuclear technology to Israel. In a Cold War setting the US didn't push to prevent this proliferation to a friendly government by another ally, but Israel did breach international law in acquiring nukes. China breached the NNPT by transfering technology for nukes to India, Pakistan and North Korea. Now it appears North Korea has transfered some of this technology to Iran. I think this pattern of proliferation suggests North Korean and Iranian nuclear technology will also get exported. Who do you think is likely to import this technology from them and would the proliferation of military nuclear technology among such governments really make the world safer?

What a crock.

" White House staff members, who are trying to prevent Iran from developing its own nuclear energy capacity and who refuse to take military action against Iran “off the table,” have conveniently forgotten that the United States was the midwife to the Iranian nuclear program 30 years ago."

"Every aspect of Iran’s current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976. Moreover, the only Iranian reactor currently about to become operative, the reactor in Bushire (also known as Bushehr), was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval, and cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium."

" American dissimulation on this point reveals some interesting motives on Washington’s part. Iran under the Shah was as much of a threat to its neighbors (including Iraq) as it might be said to be today. Its nuclear ambitions then could have been inflated and denigrated in exactly the same way they are being inflated and denigrated today, but the United States was blissfully unconcerned. The big difference is that Iran is now perceived to be a threat to Israel, and this fuels much of the threat of military action."

Do the powers that be in Washington really believe that everyone has forgotten what we are dealing with here??

" Indeed, whatever Iran did or didn’t do in the past, they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at present. Indeed, there would be no way to accuse them of anything if they had not been so compliant about responding to NNPT requests for information. The NNPT grants all signatories the right to pursue nuclear research for peaceful purposes of precisely the kind in which Iran is currently engaged."

The propaganda coming out of Washington these days makes the old Soviet Union look like the Mr. Rogers show. This administration truly has no shame.

" The mantra “Iran must not get nuclear weapons” has been repeated so often now that most people have come to believe that Iran has them or is getting them. This implication is completely unproven. The tragedy would be that in the end, U.S. hostility may goad Iran into a real nuclear weapons program."
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/a...&storyID=23324

[rmnunez]

Let the IAEA refer the matter to the Security Council, if they think cosy ties between the US and the Shah are as important or relevant as recent statements to erase Israel off the map this may moderate their resolution.