You couldn't care less when noncombatants get killed, once you can justify it to yourself by saying it was for military reasons.
Yeah, thats obviously why I consider things like the Dresen and Rotterdam bombings to be horribly unessecary actions
There is not a single instance of me defending the existance of collateral damage that isn't sourced in well articulated and logical facts. You can disagree with me if you want, but we have seen time and time again that your standards for collateral damage mean that mondern conflict is impossible and that Western, controled and disciplined armies will forever be defeated by any faction willing to do its worst against civilians if you had your way.
Similarly, I suppose you consider the thousands (some estimate 30K) French civilians killed in the bombings leading up the D-Day to be unacceptable too, right? I mean we could have just not preped the battlefield and just compensated with more dead GIs on the beach, right? Well, you would if you had any logical consistancy in your position anyway.
I've never seen any regret whatsoever from you about any non-western civilians being killed, only apologism and justification. you don't care and the idea that you will convince anyone that you do is laughable.
Ooooo, look at the disgruntled little arim chair general. I guess the reason I don't care is why I personally put myself in danger to board dozens of dhow vessels throughout the Middle East exposing myself to danger of instant death from bombing instead of just machine gunning them all and letting God sort it out right?
You are out of your element RRW, your above accusation has no bearing in fact.
If you work for a mercenary company whose primary job is to kill people who resist the foreign army in your country (that doesnt justify the ends of those people), then you are a legitimate target. Dont like it? Dont take the risk. At least keep some vague semblance of honour and stick with the army.
1.) There is no sole function occupying Army in Iraq, and there hasn't been for awhile. It is a security forces sanctioned my the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governemt of Iraq.
2.) Because of that there are no legitimate American targets in Iraq, any more than there were legitmate American targets in SK in 1955 of legitimate American targets in Japan or Germany in 1946.
Attacking an American soldier or civilian security offical (government employed or contractor) would be no different than killing the police/secuirty in an Irish courthouse/traffic stop/police station/school/or any other such location. It is illegal murder in EVERY instance.
3.) That last reality is not just because the Americans are legally sanctioned security forces, but also because THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE ISSURGENT GROUPS IN IRAQ. Nor is any other armed group that takes up arms against the Iraqi government or its allies legitimate. You will probably quibble about this, but I would LOVE to hear you justify the existance of any of the factions fighting Iraqi forces and ALLIED elements in Iraq as legitmate.
4.) All the above is not really needed to point out the moral bankruptcy of your position, because blackwater employees are CIVILIANS. They are literally no different, in any way whatsoever, than security firms that provide guards for the banks/court houses/grocery stores/sporting events/or whatever right there in your Ireland. Sure they are armed a little different given the threats they face, but do you think the varuous civilian places like markets/shops/mosques in Iraq don't field their own similar security forces? Do you imagine Iraq concerns don't use Blackwater itself?
On top of that, in most cases and especially this one Blackwater is protecting CIVILIANS. Thats engineers, thats school teachers, thats diplomats, thats journelists, thats doctors, thats aid workers, thats food convoys, thats local government officials, the list goes on and on and on. And you know what, entities like the UN have been using civilian security FOR DECADES!!! None of these are legitimate targets EVER, and for the exact same reasons their Blackwater security are not legitimate targets.
But hey, thats cool. Obvioulsy you would find no moral failing in a person that ambushed a armored car at your bank killing all onboard because three years earlier, in an entire different city hundreds of miles a way one of your family memebers was killed in the crossfirewhile by one the same security firm's employees while DEFENDING HIMSELF form a MILITARY SCALE AMBUSH on INNOCENT CIVILIAN targets. You are advocating this EXACT same thing, congratulations.
Patroklos, you have posted waaaaaaay too many times here to now start pretending you care about civilian or noncombatan deaths. you care about American and american-allied deaths.
There is no basis to this accusation whatsoever, it is a defense mechanism you need to imagine you have some moral superiority.
The current conflicts are some of the least deadly in human history given the scale, yet you pretend we are the Mongul hordes or something.
I am sorry that you seem to think intentionally bombing civilian targets with the civilians being your primary TARGET is the same as the US military attacking rampent unrepentant war criminals flagrantly violating civilan protections in an effort to banish such people from being able to continually victimize populations. I am sorry about that because you are so utterly wrong in your thinking.
But hey, when you can show me an instance of the US intentionally bombing a crowded market without even the rumor of a legitimate target in sight with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, you can pretend you have a point.
Funny thing is, I cant tell whether or not you are folling yourself, you may well be. But you arent fooling me, or, I suspect, anyone else.
Trust me RRW, given the heiness crimes you advocate above you are really not helping yourself here. Enjoy your infraction points
