MountainPro said:
You can't tell the difference between an insurgent and a civillian. I agree. Thats not what the report was about, its the very fact that these people died at the hands of the coalotion forces, the people who were supposed to be protecting them that is the shocking point being made. Its the method of execution that is at fault here. You ackowledged that you cant tell the diff. which shows you know that miltants are using different methods to remain undetected. If we know that mlitants and civilians are together when why are we using the same heavy handed tactics in order to deal with them? They have changed thier tactics but we havent. We still use heavy artillery and helicopter gunships to weed out a handful of insugrents and write the rest of as collateral damage. The British and American military HAVE more advanced methods at thier displosal to deal with this type of warfare so why are the grunts on the grounds still walking about shooting anything that moves?
War is indeed ugly, but it doesnt have to be disgracefully ugly, which is what this is turning out to be. War is about protecting the innocents and you may say that collateral damage is inevitable but its not so ease to be as philosohpical when its your people and families being killed.
The LANCET article doesn't include Fallujah (they couldn't survey it - due to the amount of fighting going on there).
So indeed the figure may be more than 100,000.
Your central point is correct though and it is something which Blair appears to have missed (along witha lot of other things).
The US has sent in troops who have been shown to be incompetent and unprofessional.
The British Army are a professional organisation and are streets ahead of their US counterparts.
The goodwill engendered by the British in Southern Iraq from the Iraqi's is
illustrative.
Few causualties amongst either the civilian population and British troops.
Respect for the local people - engagement with the local people.
In a word, professionalism.
Granted Fallujah and around Baghdad is a different scenario.
But let's examine what is happening here.
Channel 4 recently showed tape of an airstrike by an Apache on people in Fallujah.
This sequence of events took 32 seconds.
32 seconds.
Street to street fighting taking place.
The Apache is hovering above a street.
Buildings have smoke billowing out.
A group of people are seen running out from one building.
Apache pilot informs tactical support "people seen leaving building moving south - what do I do ?"
The immediate response - within 1-2 seconds is
"Take them out - take them out".
I interject here - it is clearly visible from the film that we can see perhaps 40-50 people running.
It is clearly evident that this group is too big to be a militia group (40-50 people in a two storey building - very unlikely.).
It is clear that these people are running for their lives from something.
Back to the film : Apache pilot "Locking on to target" - 10 seconds later.
You see the group being hit by an explosion.
"Target hit - oooh, dude".
Eye witness accounts tell that the group of people seen in the films were women and children.
They had been running from buidling to building because the US forces in Fallujah were going through, house by house, and firing on each and very person.
Indiscriminately.
The local Iraq doctors and the Red Crescent have informed Channel 4 that the remains of these people (where there were remains) clearly show that the group comprised on women and children.
No guns/artillery were found on these people.
Channel 4 put this to the Dept of Defence.
DoD said that they were unaware of this incident but would investigate it.
DoD repsonded some time later to say that the order to fire on the group was
given because the group were seen running toward troops - not in shot on the film.
Channel 4 put it to the DoD, that if they were running toward troops - who were not in shot - why were they not able to identify the group as being women and children, who were unarmed ?
Later DoD, came back to C4 and said that the initial explanation for the attack was wrong (ie that the group were running toward troops and were armed) and that the tactical ops people BELEIVED that the group were armed and that's why they ordered the Apache to fire.
(Bush believed Hussein had WMD too !)
This is a war crime.
it is a war crime committed by the US.
My point is that Blair in acceeding to the Bush request for the Black Watch
and the Scots Guards to go to fight with the yanks, spells trouble.
Both regiments will be under the command of the US - both regiments will be
seen to solidify the forces of invasion in local peoples eyes.
It is a doomed strategy.
Blair is prepared to sell out the good name and professionalism of his own army - and to allow them to be tied in with an incompetent, unprofessional
occupying force called the US army.