U.S. and Terrorist Groups Both Kill Civilians - And Call It Necessary

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Thursday August 21, 2003 00:58

by Jay Shaft - Coalition For Free Thought In Media

freethoughtinmedia at yahoo dot com

The U.S. and many terrorist organizations engage in killing civilians to achieve their goals. When the U.S. kills civilians as part of a war they excuse it with the term "Collateral Damage" or "Incidental Casualties".

Jay Shaft: US And Terrorists Both Kill Civilians
Wednesday, 20 August 2003, 11:58 am
Column: Jay Shaft

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00151.htm

U.S. and Terrorist Groups Both Kill Civilians - And Call It Necessary For Their End Result

By: Jay Shaft
Coalition For Free Thought In Media
8/19/03
The U.S. and many terrorist organizations engage in killing civilians to achieve their goals. When the U.S. kills civilians as part of a war they excuse it with the term "Collateral Damage" or "Incidental Casualties".

When a terrorist group or rebel group kills civilians in a fight or bombing, the U.S. denounces it as terrorism and atrocities.

We know that at least 7,500 civilians officially died in the "liberation" of Iraq. This is a very small number when various humanitarian aid groups have put the death toll as high as 10,000. A commonly accepted number is 5000 dead and over 20,000 injured.

LINKS:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm#3
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=397

If you count known figures on Iraqi military dead you get at least another 10,000 added to the death toll of liberation. http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=3

In the months since the ground war has supposedly ended, un-exploded cluster bombs and mines have killed at least another 1000-2000, many of them children. Thousands more have died since the ground war ended from injuries incurred during the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign, or in street fighting.

In Afghanistan the UN reports 150-500 civilians a month dying from US cluster bombs that were dropped in retaliation for 9/11 in the Afghan version of Shock and Awe. Some demining agencies I spoke with have estimated that there could actually be over 1000 people a month still being killed and maimed with the majority being children and teenage boys.

The civilian casualty death toll in the air bombing and US invasion of Afghanistan is known to be at least 3000-6000 at the bare minimum. There is a great study by Professor Marc Herold which details the reported civilian deaths and injuries which I have used in writing several articles.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Marc Herold has also written a paper called Steel Rain: An analyisis of cluster bomb use by the US in four recent campaigns that is very detailed and shows the rate of failuire for the cluster bombs and how many were dropped in each conlict.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/steelrain.html

The Pentagon repeatedly denied the fact of civilian death during the bombing campaign and even when showed file footage and written reports by survivors, they refused to officially be held accountable for any casualties.

This was the prevalent attitude whenever reports came in that civilians were killed during bombings of Taliban areas by stray cluster bombs. Over 4,000 civilians are known to have died during the bombing and the figure could be as high as 10,000 according to some human rights groups. There will never be a true body count known for Afghanistan because of the remote areas that a lot of the people died in and the quickness with which most bodies were buried.

The U.S. refuses to count or acknowledge the civilian dead in either war, saying that it would be counter productive and achieve no pertinent outcome. Yet the U.S. is the first one to quote all the civilian deaths when a terrorist group or rebel group bombs a building or engages in street fighting.

The U.S. excused all the civilian deaths in Iraq with this statement from the Pentagon. "As long as the people of Iraq have been liberated our goal was achieved. If some civilian casualties occurred in the liberation, that was most unfortunate. You have some inevitable civilian casualties in any war. Civilians always die, that's a fact you can't deny. Everyone agrees on this. You have to look at the fact that Iraq has had a regime change and is now liberated. That makes any inevitable sacrifice worthwhile."

This comes after the over 1,000,000 deaths during the sanctions. Many died during U.S. demanded sanctions from starvation, disease, and lack of clean water. We knew that many were dying from simple lack of medications and medical supplies.

At the time Madeline Albright, the Secretary of State, was asked a simple question. "Do you think that sanctions that are estimated to have killed over 500,000 children and over 200,000 women are necessary to bring down Sad-dam Hussein?"

Her answer was "That is a price we are willing to pay."

A lot of terrorist organizations and rebel groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, the I.R.A., FARC, FNLA, Shining Path, and many others target civilians in much the same way.

Osama Bin Laden stated that civilian deaths are necessary to draw attention and support to al Qaeda. He stated that civilian casualties were "unavoidable in the war on the U.S. and western imperialists, and even necessary to our goal of toppling the fascist U.S. regime."

Sounds remarkably like the Pentagon's excuse and lack of acknowledgment in the civilian deaths during the liberation and even now.

I have interviewed many U.S. citizens who supported the war and support invading Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and other countries.

When asked how they feel about all the civilian deaths they all respond with almost the same answer.

"At least Iraq is liberated. You have to make sacrifices for freedom. Iraq is free now and they have democracy, it doesn't matter how the U.S. did it. As long as we freed Iraq, that's all that should matter."

For years the Irish Republican Army and splinter groups deliberately targeted civilians. Thousands have died in the bombings of Northern Ireland and England.

The U.S. officially denounced these actions and called for prosecution and even execution of those planning and carrying out the bombings and terrorist acts.

The U.S. worked with British Intelligence, Scotland Yard, and Interpol to actively hunt down these terrorists and bring them to justice.

Our ally Turkey has engaged in killing thousands of Kurds in their effort to stop the separatists and freedom fighters battling for their own country. Meanwhile right across the border in Iraq the U.S. was working with the Kurds fighting for liberation in northern Iraq's Kurdistan area.

The Kurdish resistance fighters in northern Iraq were engaged in the liberating of Iraq by U.S. forces and the Pentagon. Meanwhile we agreed with Turkey not to help them set up their own Kurd free state.

We know that U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Israel, China, Russia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Argentina, and many other countries have killed and repressed millions in efforts to stop uprisings and freedom movements.

The U.S. is supporting many leaders who are outright dictators who brutally kill and repress anyone who speaks out or stands up for real freedom. You don't see these countries being liberated. At least not yet, as long as they support U.S. policy.

Today we send military support or weapons to the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel ( who killed at least another 40 Palestinians in the last month), Saudi Arabia, and many countries around the world. We know most of these countries are engaging in human rights violations and state sponsored terrorism. But the U.S. does nothing while millions die each year.

The U.S. is very selective in who it brands terrorists. Refusing to name themselves as the leader in state sponsored terrorism is the first step.

As long as the U.S. refuses to count the civilian dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones they are involved in, they have no room to call anyone a terrorist.

There are no excuses for killing innocent civilians, even when the end supposedly justifies the means. Liberating a country is no excuse to kill or maim. This is not bringing freedom and democracy. It only brings pain, suffering, and death to innocent civilians.

********
- Jay Shaft, Editor, Coalition For Free Thought In Media. Email: [email protected] Website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia

save preference

Comments (15 of 15)

Reading this

by Seáinín

Thu Aug 21, 2003 03:33

One would think that the US actively targeted civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was absolutly not the case. One other thing that annoys me and I wish people would get this clear: Colombia is in South America, Columbia is in North America.

As for who is responsible for the people who died during the sanctions in Iraq: it's clear that a certain freedom fighter called Saddam was directly responsible for not creating the conditions where sanctions could be lifted, aided and abetted by cloying, incompetent UN mandarins.

Looks like the anti-war brigades' favourite freedom fighters scored a big hit against the UN yesterday. Viva Saddam!

mmmmm

by Ciaran

Thu Aug 21, 2003 09:11

"One would think that the US actively targeted civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Sure, they may not fly out on bombing missions with the express intent of targeting particular civilians. But when you use highly destructive weaponry in populated areas, there is a certainty that this will happen. They are carrying out their missions with full knowledge that at the end of the day, civilians will be killed, yet this often does not deter them. Therefore civilian lives are of less value than the mission goals. Why is this different from the results of terrorism?
What about the very active targeting of civilian infrastructures (water works, power etc.)? The victims of which come from one distinct group. Can you guess whom they are?
At the end of the day, whether killed by "terrorists" or a government's military, you end up with a lot of dead people. Neither victims are more or less innocent than the other. Hardly much satisfaction to their families to know that they weren't "actively targeted" - whatever that means?

targetting civilians?.

by Gaillimhed

Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:55

There is also the reported 'double fly-over' raids that the Americans indulged in in afghanistan,, ie drop a payload of bombs, fly around and re-bomb when the survivors are trying to dig their neighbours from the rubble of their own homes; doubles the 'collateral damage for some real kick ass US style revenge. 'Paybacks a motherfucker'. Its on the record, rarely any military signifigance, in other words targetting civilians in order to kill, maim and terrorise.
And lets not forget Vietnam.
Interestingly Colin Powell was the officer in charge of covering up the Mai lai massacre at the time.

Terrorists

by P. Pearse

Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:41

Anyone has the right to bear arms against an occupying army. Ask George Washington!

Stick to making your cheap "neutral" movies for the Man, John Shaft.

by Ali la Pointe - Sweet Sweetbacks Baaad AaaSSS song

Thu Aug 21, 2003 15:39

Leave the rest of us to find the truth, unperturbed by obsessions with formal neutrality and symmetry.

"One side's as bad as the other" - now where have I heard that before?

I'm just waiting for the documentary on rape that holds up the one in 100,000 aberrative female-on-male sexual assault beside a typical male-on-female assault - "to show both sides of the story".

Other ones in the pipeline from John Shaft Sitting On the Fence Movies could include the African slave who whipped his master, the child who abused the Christian Brother, the Holy Cross pupil who pipe-bombed Johnny Adair, the Native American who terrorised, raped and scalped innocent white settlers (ok we've already had that one, thanks to John Wayne and Hollywood), the Palestinians who put Israelis into concentration camps, put them under martial law, and carried out their random execution (the Israelis are working on that one as we speak) and , of course the Jew who gassed the Nazi. You could get Seánin to ask his revisionist friends to help you make that one...

other movie ideas[Based on historical facts]

by Lone gunman

Thu Aug 21, 2003 19:06

The Black men who fought for the Confederate side in the war of Northern Aggression.[Three divisions of free men,and freed slaves]

The Dutch,French,Croats,Russians,Rumanians,Irish,Finnish,Spanish who fought in SS divisions of their respective nations for Hitler.

Or The teen dissilusioned liberal leftie American hater from Dublin4 who actually woke up to the REAL world and discoverd that it wasnt as bad or as conspiritive as he/she belived, grew up and got a job.
Now THAT is a film that should be made!

Lone gunman should stop firing off randomly, he could take someone's eye out.

by Ali la Pointe

Thu Aug 21, 2003 19:50

The Blacks who fought on the Confederate side.
The French, Poles, Russians, Brits etc. who fought in the SS... The Gurkhas who fought for the Brits in the far east

And this proves?.. That they were just plain wrong. That not everyone who takes part in a conflict comes in on the side that would objectively benefit them. There are women mysoginists, Catholic loyalists, black members of the Front National in France. So What?

Could this category include the Lone Gunman (does the name mean his bangers are going?), or is he one of those D4 types he loves to hate ( in that case, another type of self-hater, methinks he doth protest too much).

FYI I have a job (two in fact, this one has a computer), I am definitely not from D4 (although I do respect the small minority of D4 types who are traitors to their class), and I do love and admire many Americans (just not the right wing bigot type) for example I like Frederick Douglass, Woody Guthrie, Ice T, Jello Biafra, Utah Phillips, Ani di Franco, Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, Sacco and Vanzetti, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore, The Fun Lovin Criminals, Brian Wilson, Mos Def, the Dilated Peoples, Ded Prez, the Cohen Brothers, the Marx Brothers, the Inkspots, Curtis Mayfield, Nina Simone, Charlie Chaplin, Geronimo, Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, Missy Elliot, Melvin van Peebles, Chester Himes, CLR James, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Angela Davis, Cornel West, Serena and Venus Williams.....

many of these people consider that they love their country; none of them, if they were all alive, could be said to love their government. There is a difference. It's subtle I know, but these people are renowned for their ability to think about things. I like to share my views with people who think things through.

Perhaps the lone gunman should think more instead of firing off blanks randomly.

Army Deaths

by Drbinoche

Thu Aug 21, 2003 21:57

Amazing you go on and on about how many civilians were killed in the war on terrorism and yet you do not mention the US army deaths that occured in both campaigns, I mean do these people not count to you or something. Maybe because they are in a job you disagree with and are fighting for their lives for a government you disagree with, they should have no second thought or recourse when they are killed in a war.

Since when did only civilians die in a war, in fact I believe the concept of civilian casualties in wars only really came into effect during the 19th and 20th century. People die during wars, its horrible, its messy and it should never happen, but guess what...............it does.

Also the double bombing technique someone brought up is false, and before you bring out any crap about this and that and show fake or doctored pages or anything like that realise that there is no point in bombing civilians at all, you are essentially wasting good ordanance on people who are irrelevent to the conflict. Double bombing would have no purpose as why would you bomb a bunch of bricks.

You claim the US cannot drop bombs in highly populatedareas without killing anyone, then you must not read the news or any info on wars. There have been numerous cases when the US have been able to drop bombs into a highly populated region and only take out the people it wants to take out.

Re: Army Deaths

by Major General Smedley Butler

Thu Aug 21, 2003 22:35

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Double bombing is reality

by kokomero

Fri Aug 22, 2003 09:43

Drbinoche you don't remember the cluster bombs used in Iraq do you? How about landmines? The fact is that double bombing and unattended delayed action munitions are part of the standard US/K package of ordanance. Given the reluctance of the Americans in particular to hold territory and concentrate on search and destroy it suits them very well to use these types on munitions to "hold" the territory for them, or at least deny the use of it to their enemies. The result is a low cost in terms of casualties to them, but a very high cost to the civilian populations. Very cynical really!

Landmines

by David Rynne

Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:19

America refuse to sign up to an international treaty banning landmines. That says it all.

American soldiers die. They are volunteers, they made a decision to go and fight. their loss is a tragedy. But In Iraq and afghanistan there were thousands and thousands of non civillian deaths that were never included in any figures reported in mainstream press. At least 5 thousand civillians died in iraq. I would guestimate at least 20000 soldiers died. And many of these soldiers were conscripted or defending their homes from invaders that had been directly/indirectly responsible for genocide there in the past. Every day in the news bullitins there are reports of US soldier casualties in Iraq. It has been a very long time since i remember hearing RTE report the Iraqi civillians or soldiers or "suspected terrorists" that were killed directly as a result of Americans invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's a tragedy if a soldier loyal to bush dies, but it's a victory if a soldier "loyal to Saddam" is murdered?

Ali your point being....

Fri Aug 22, 2003 22:02

Apart from being a wiseass!
I was making a point about your post before mine about unusual films that will never be made as they are too politically incorrect.You were the one who brought it up.It also proves that there were people even then who didnt belive all that they were being told as well.
BTW you are wrong on a few points of your list of heros.No problem with it BTW

Charlie Chaplin was never a US citizen.Otherwise Hoover could never have barred him from the US in the Fifties.
Bruce Springsteen is alive and well,as are the most of your list.So do check before you add them all the dead. Nope i'm not from Dub 4.Would have shot myself if I had to live there!

Deaths

Sat Aug 23, 2003 17:04

Landmines are horrendous and should be removed from the army lists of available weapons. I don't know why they haven't and to tell you the truth I have not looked into it. But why do you always focus on the US and its landmines, a large portion of the landmines in Afghanistan are from the Soviet Invasion and are thus Soviet landmines, I don't see you screaming at Russia. I am unsure if Russia signed the agreement to ban landmines, what about China?? A large proportion of the mines in South East Asis are from the Chinese arms industry, once again no screaming at the Chinese, why do you people INSIST on only ever screaming on and on about the US. I am not saying the US is innocent of what you claim I am just arguing that you should really be screaming at everyone not just the US.

I feel sad anytime I hear about the death of anyone, but at the same time I am aware that in war people get killed innocent and combatants, it is a fact. Until war is stopped altogether then there is no way that a war can be fought without the possibility of people getting killed. The only people I do no feel sad for are Terrorists. When an IRA member gets himself perished I feel nothing but relief, another idiot gone. When a palestinian terrorist gets erased [as has been used to describe the deaths of US soldiers in another thread] I feel relieved that another person who is unwilling to step back and take a look around is gone. Its odd, if the Iraqi conscripts don't want to fight then why didn't they desert or leave. Its logical if you think of it. If I stay here I could get killed by the US army if I defect I could get killed by my own army for deserting, well either way I am dead so I might as well try to make a break for it. Why is it now you are talking about the deaths of Iraqi soldiers with regret and sadness and yet you don't talk about the deaths of the Danish soldiers or the US soldiers, if you people believe human life is precious, then it should be ALL human life and therefore the death of anyone should be mourned, whether you believe with their cause or reason for being there or not. I have never claimed that Human Life is sacred coz its something I have mixed feelings about. Having said that I do not mean that civilians killed during wars is not tragic. But I have come to accept that in war bad things happen.

Conscripts..

Sat Aug 23, 2003 20:56

I'm sure that unwilling conscripts are put under an enormous amount of pressure to remain in the army. They most likely fear not only for their own lives, but for the lives of their families.
In america it was a criminal offense to dodge the draft (unless you're george bush) the prison sentence was longer than the tour of duty in the army. The options were do 4 years in the army, or 10 years in jail and come back disgraced in the eyes of "patriotic americans"
While anti-war activists would appewal to soldiers to disobey their orders to engage in illegal wars (as is their duty under the nurenburg principles), we can not really judge them because we do not know how we would react in their same circumstances.

However, in the gulf war, the american army had no conscripts, each soldier made a decision to join up and they knew the risks. (admittedly the reasons they joined are very complex with socio economic oppression playing a large part) but these people are not as innocent as those defending their homes, their families or those who were simply in the wrong country at the wrong time.

Terrorism... One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.... Why is it wrong to follow the orders of one evil power hungry meglo maniac but not another? If a soldier believes he is fighting for something worthwhile and is willing to risk his life for that cause than he can be seen as very brave. Should he be held fully responsible for whatever information he/she is misfed by those in charge? How can we ever know that the cause we fight for is correct? Does this mean we should not adopt any cause?

I ask that people do not accept the hugely narrow definition of terrorism (everybody except us) that is paraded by the media..

Why do we not condemn china russia etc for not banning landmines? Ok, I'll officially condemn those countries right now. I'll also point out that america is always marketing itself as the good guys and they should start to act that way. It an act of real terrorism to use non discriminatory anti personell weapons that can not be controlled once they have been deployed in populated areas. Americas battle fields are the homes of millions of innocent people. I doubt very much they would use land mines in their own country if there was the possibility they might affect white english speaking people. the same goes for DU and cluster bombs. America is prepared to kill countless innocent foreigners to protect each republican voter. If they came out strongly against landmines, their place in the international arms arena would put immense pressure on other nations to do the same and they would be the good guys.. But this is not likely to happen.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

U.S. and Terrorist Groups Both Kill Civilians - And Call It Necessary

Comments (15 of 15)