Dang, them bombs shore is smart! - Page 2

Drake Tungsten · March 23, 2003, 01:49

I wonder if these missiles were part of the strike on Ansar-al-Islam? That would put their target close to the Iranian border, close enough that a relatively small problem might have caused them to enter Iran...

Rufus T. Firefly · March 23, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Rufus - the Iraqis don't have reason to downplay civilian casualties, and they're not claiming huge amounts. Considering what evidence is available, lots of the appropriate targets in Baghdad were burning, so there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

Accuracy over Baghdad seems to be better so far than GWI, if for no other reason than the Iraqis aren't putting up near as much AAA as they did originally.

Agreed, MtG. But given the sheer scale of the bombardment of Baghdad, I'll be truly impressed is each and every bomb hit its non-civilian target. And while I'm genrally one who bows to the facts in these dicussions, I'm still pissed about how the government lied its ass off about civilian casualties in GWI (and Panama, for that matter),and how our lap-dog media let them do it. So the facts, or "facts," we get this time had better be pretty convincing.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 04:05

how did I know people would be cheering this.

You anti-war freaks would cream your pants if we actually killed some Iranians.

This just goes to show you want innocents do die so you can blame the U.S.

**** you all

Rufus T. Firefly · March 23, 2003, 06:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
how did I know people would be cheering this.

You anti-war freaks would cream your pants if we actually killed some Iranians.

This just goes to show you want innocents do die so you can blame the U.S.

**** you all

WTF?

Who the hell is cheering, Diss? Nobody wants civilian deaths; some of us think there may eventually be quite a lot and, further, that our government will try to cover them up. ("Governments lie during wartime" is up there with "2+2=4" as far as controversial statements go.)

If you're not trolling, you need to either sober up or take a break from the war coverage and watch something nice and soothing, like "Teletubbies."

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:10

you don't see what che is inferring to in his orginal post.

He is inferring that if a missile is that far off course, what could be happening inside the Bagdhad?

Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

Normally I would have no problem with that. But there has been no evidence of civilians dying yet. At least not by our hands. Some British journalists are dead or prisoner right now by Iraqi hands.

Reading between the lines. I gather he is saying: I told you so!

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Agreed, MtG. But given the sheer scale of the bombardment of Baghdad, I'll be truly impressed is each and every bomb hit its non-civilian target. And while I'm genrally one who bows to the facts in these dicussions, I'm still pissed about how the government lied its ass off about civilian casualties in GWI (and Panama, for that matter),and how our lap-dog media let them do it. So the facts, or "facts," we get this time had better be pretty convincing.

Actually, the Panama civilian casualty myths were pretty well settled - the Panamanians were short on casualties, but realistic and methodical estimates from independent sources put the actual number, based on missing persons reports, bodies at morgues, graves, etc. at between 280 and 350, depending on the source, compared to approximately 250 as estimated by the Panamanian government. This is way off from the rather baseless claims of mass graves, etc. - several "mass graves" turned out to be less than massive, and one of the reasons for overestimates of casualties was that due to a loss of electricity and strain on rather limited mortuary capacity, a number of non-combat related deaths ended up being buried in groups in hasty graves, along with the combat deaths. The number of bodies recovered on exhumation of the grave sites was a little over the 350 mark, but appeared to contain some non-combat deaths.

Civilian and military casualties in GW1 are still subject to a lot of dispute, but the high numbers claimed are pretty baseless. The real numbers are worse than the official US claims, but on a scale from the US claims to the higher claims, the amount is very likely to be on the lower end.

As far as the current generation of bombs, undoubtedly there will be some misses, but there are two major differences from GW1 - the use of satellite guided bombs, freeing the pilots or SOF teams from active target designation from bomb release til impact, and the lack of Iraqi AAA fire.

BTW, the three stray missiles are now reported by IRNA to be Iraqi, not US.

Rufus T. Firefly · March 23, 2003, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
you don't see what che is inferring to in his orginal post.

He is inferring that if a missile is that far off course, what could be happening inside the Bagdhad?

Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

Normally I would have no problem with that. But there has been no evidence of civilians dying yet. At least not by our hands. Some British journalists are dead or prisoner right now by Iraqi hands.

Reading between the lines. I gather he is saying: I told you so!

Of course he's inferring that. I'm inferring that, too. When I see a car totalled on the side of the highway, I infer people got hurt; but I don't cheer about it, and I hope to God I'm wrong. Can you honestly not tell the difference, or have you swallowed the administration's "with-us-or-against-us" tripe? The latter would be pretty ironic fro a guy who calls himself "Dissident."

Urban Ranger · March 23, 2003, 06:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Yes, he is inferring that many, many civilians are dying.

There's no need to infer. One report has it that 77 civilians were killed in a bombing attack.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:27

source?

Clear Skies · March 23, 2003, 06:43

I don't have a source on the civilian casualties claim, but what I do have a source on is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

An RAF Tornado and its crew are missing after being downed by a US missile close to the Kuwaiti border.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:46

yes this is terrible.

too many aircraft and too much **** going on.

And people say how much better this would be if we had more nations in this coalition? 2 is already too many. We cannot coordinate all these aircraft. Things would be worse with other U.N. nations in the way.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Clear Skies
I don't have a source on the civilian casualties claim, but what I do have a source on is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

An RAF Tornado and its crew are missing after being downed by a US missile close to the Kuwaiti border.

That's one of the problems with this war plan. Everything comes in and goes out of Kuwait, except for a trickle that flies over Jordan.

When you have the Iraqis firing missiles along the same corridor your strike flights are using, then there's bound to be problems.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

There's no need to infer. One report has it that 77 civilians were killed in a bombing attack.

Big whoop. Even if true, that's what, one civilian per 20 tons of bombs? Sorry, but if anyone thought zero civilians would die, they're nuts, and the anti-sanction people have been whining, claiming sanctions have killed half a million Iraqis, which would be over 100 a day since 1991. (another BS number, but let's assume it has some validity, just for the sake of argument) So let's keep things in perspective - 77 civilian fatalies isn't a hell of a lot.

Alexander's Horse · March 23, 2003, 07:04

I was reading that only 25% of the "smart" bombs hit their target. The ratio is higher now but they still miss.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 07:08

I heard 99.8%

Dis · March 23, 2003, 07:32

in any case now they are reporting those missiles were probalby Iraqi

Traianvs · March 23, 2003, 09:11

Quote:

Normally I would have no problem with that. But there has been no evidence of civilians dying yet. At least not by our hands. Some British journalists are dead or prisoner right now by Iraqi hands.

Hmm even CNN admits there have been quite a few civilian casualties already

you're tripping right now or what?

General Ludd · March 23, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I heard 99.8%

in any case now they are reporting those missiles were probalby Iraqi

What are you watching, FOX?

Gangerolf · March 23, 2003, 09:22

can you blame them? it's a one letter difference for god's sake

chequita guevara · March 23, 2003, 13:03

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00372.html
http://www.lights.com/~scott/morenew...feed=Iran+news
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/23Mar2003_news11.html
http://www.tehranglobe.com/s/business/iran_index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in545305.shtml
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../35463/1/.html

Urban Ranger · March 23, 2003, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
source?

Haven't found any links on the Web.

Heard it on the news, supposedly to be a bombing attack on Basra with cluster bombs.

Urban Ranger · March 23, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Big whoop. Even if true, that's what, one civilian per 20 tons of bombs? Sorry, but if anyone thought zero civilians would die, they're nuts, and the anti-sanction people have been whining, claiming sanctions have killed half a million Iraqis, which would be over 100 a day since 1991. (another BS number, but let's assume it has some validity, just for the sake of argument) So let's keep things in perspective - 77 civilian fatalies isn't a hell of a lot.

So it would be all right by you if a bunch of Iraqis pop up in the middle of a US city and nail 77 US citizens?

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 13:21

edit - reply to chegitz

Your first link is about some **** from Scott Ritter five years ago.

The rest of them repeat the original story, which was superseded by one from IRNA that the rockets were apparently Iraqi and fired from the ground.

I heard that one on TV news last night, both from independent news here in México and from CNN in the US.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

So it would be all right by you if a bunch of Iraqis pop up in the middle of a US city and nail 77 US citizens?

If they're doing it while attempting to hit military targets, then yeah, that sort of thing can happen, especially if those military targets are interspersed in civilian areas. (say they wanted to hit a national guard armory for some obscure reason) It doesn't make it "alright" on either side, but it will inevitably happen that civilians are killed.

The account is unconfirmed, it comes from the Iraqis themselves, so it's pretty rich. Why doesn't someone ask Taha Yassin Ramadan how many Iraqi civilians he was responsible for killing in Basra?

chequita guevara · March 23, 2003, 13:29

For now the war has seemed very clean and easy. The point of this thread is to remind the hawks that just because things seem clean and easy doesn't make it so.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 14:10

actually it was CNN that says military sources believe the missiles may have been Iraqi.

Why would you assume I'm watching Fox? Nevermind

Kaak · March 23, 2003, 15:25

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...les/index.html

missile was iraqi. making assumptions makes an ASS out of U and ME

monolith94 · March 23, 2003, 15:59

I think it's conceivable that 500,000 Iraqis could die as a result of this military action - but not soley as a result of our bombs and soldiers - the vast majority of casualties would come from peripheral effects, such as lack of food, Republican Guard attacks, lack of hospitals, etc.

Az · March 23, 2003, 16:09

It couldn't. it's not that people that lack hospitals will just be "turned off" and die instantly. water could be a problem after a couple of weeks ( the vast majority of people stored water and food ) but so far, no water installations were targetted, same with electricity.

500,000 is exagerated by far.