The Pentagon Official Who Came in From the Cold

[Kampfbaer]

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ANALYST MARC GARLASCO
The Pentagon Official Who Came in From the Cold
By Susanne Koelbl

As chief of high-value targeting at the Pentagon, Marc Garlasco was in charge of the hunt for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Now, in his position as a weapons expert at Human Rights Watch, he has become a critic of the military.

In a few days there will be another anniversary of the embarrassing incident involving the notorious "Chemical Ali." The same questions are asked every year, including: Who, in the US military's long chain of command, was responsible for this major error? "Everyone, somehow," says Marc Garlasco. "Each individual contributes something, and that's what is executed in the end."

Almost six years ago, at 5:30 a.m. on April 5, 2003, a warplane dropped two laser-guided, 500-kilogram bombs on a house in Tuwaisi, a neighborhood in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. The Americans believed that the man responsible for poison gas attacks on Kurds in Iraq beginning in 1988, Saddam Hussein's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali, was inside. Garlasco was the Pentagon's chief of high-value targeting at the time. Only 32 years old, his job was to pinpoint the whereabouts of President Saddam Hussein and his cohorts, then recommend when and where US bomber pilots should strike. Chemical Ali was a so-called high-value target.

On that April 5, Garlasco was standing in the basement of the Pentagon, monitoring satellite images of the bombs' impact site. The room was cold to keep the high-powered computers from overheating. Officials usually wore winter coats in this room, even in the summer, and stared at their screens as if looking at a computer game.

Reality was 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) away. Garlasco watched as the bombs landed, precisely on target, and exploded. He threw his arms up into the air and yelled: "I just blew up Chemical Ali!"

Two weeks later, he stood corrected. Ali Hassan al-Majid has not been in the house, after all. Instead of killing Chemical Ali, the bombs took the lives of 17 innocent people.

Garlasco accepted the consequences and left his job at the Pentagon. And then he changed sides.

Video vs. the Real Thing

Today Garlasco, a native New Yorker, is a senior military analyst with the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW), which pays special attention to the victims of armed conflicts. He's considered one of the most prominent critics of the military, and his former colleagues now fear the precision of his analyses, which they valued when he was still on their side.

Most recently, Garlasco and his colleagues at Human Rights Watch spent several weeks in the Gaza Strip to study the aftermath of the Israeli attacks in late 2008 and early 2009, in which 1,400 Palestinians died. Human Rights Watch released a report on March 26 that included evidence of the Israeli military's alleged violations of the laws of war, especially through the use of white phosphorus and the firing of artillery shells into densely populated areas.

Garlasco's task was to investigate senseless attacks on civilians by Israeli soldiers. One of their victims was Majar Abu al-Aish, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was sitting at a desk in her room doing homework when, at 4:30 p.m. on Jan. 16, a tank shell crashed through the wall and sent hundreds of pieces of shrapnel into the ceiling.

A piece of shrapnel severed her head from her body, while other fragments killed her two sisters and a young female relative who had sought shelter in the house. She had believed that the house of Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, a well-known doctor and peace activist, would be safe.

The Israeli army initially claimed that it had been attacked from the direction of the house. But a week later, Garlasco, searching through rubble, hair barrettes and blood stains, collected the deadly pieces of shrapnel, calculated the angles from which the projectiles had been fired, and concluded that the Israeli tanks had attacked the settlement from a hill 100 meters away.

The fact that Israeli tanks had computer-controlled targeting systems led Garlasco to rule out the possibility that the direct hit was a mistake. There was also no evidence of Palestinian weapons in the house. In early February, after an investigation, the Israeli army accepted responsibility for the error.

Garlasco is a slim man, fond of wearing jeans and wool sweaters. He sits in the office of his small house in Pleasantville, 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of New York, sipping a cup of black tea. His black-and-white photographs are displayed on the walls, scenes from his new life on the other side of war: the empty gaze of a woman standing in front of her bombed-out house in Georgia, mourners in Iraq, a little boy standing in the rubble of Gaza City, holding two passports in his hands, the only memento he has of his family.
During the Iraq war, Garlasco picked out hundreds of strategically significant targets for the US armed forces without having set foot in the country. Shortly after his job at the Pentagon, he arrived in the Iraqi capital to begin his research for Human Rights Watch. Driving through Baghdad, he thought he knew every street, bend in the river and large building -- except that the real thing didn't look quite as expected.

He stood at the crater of the house in Basra that he had helped destroy. An old man walked up to Garlasco and told him how his family was wiped out on the morning of April 5 by a US bombing attack. Only one son survived. "Why did this happen?" the old man asked.

The administration of former US President George W. Bush sanctioned up to 30 civilian deaths for each attack on a high-value target in the Iraq war. Why that number was 30 and not 5 or 60 is mystery to Garlasco. Nevertheless, he says he doesn't feel truly responsible for what happened in Basra, during the hunt for Chemical Ali. "I didn't build the bomb, fly the plane or make the decision. I issued an order."

'We Don't Want You Here'

After obtaining a degree in political science, Garlasco planned to join the US Diplomatic Service, but he landed at the Pentagon. His interview had just ended when an official told him that he had the job, but that the precise nature of his work was classified. "I accepted on the spot. It sounded exciting, just cool."

The new employee soon embarked on a successful career. By 1998, one year after being hired, he was an Iraq analyst. During President Bill Clinton's four-day war against Saddam Hussein, he was suddenly told: "Garlasco, we're dropping bombs today, and you're up." Four years later, in 2002, he was promoted to chief of high-value targeting.

From then on, he devoted much of his attention to Saddam Hussein, monitoring his movements "among various palaces in Baghdad, his hometown of Tikrit and his lakeside country house." Based on the intelligence reports, Garlasco even knew when the Iraqi president and his wife argued, which was often the case, especially after Saddam allegedly had her brother killed. Saddam also had several girlfriends.

Senior officials started appearing in Garlasco's office for briefings almost daily. They included half of the Bush administration, from Vice President **** Cheney -- whose doctor would wait in the next room in case his patient suffered a heart attack -- to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who rarely paid attention. George Tenet, the CIA director at the time, was the most frequent visitor. Unlike Rumsfeld, Tenet was always extremely interested in what Garlasco had to say.

Garlasco flew to Germany on behalf of the Pentagon at least a dozen times, where he met with contacts at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), in Pullach outside Munich -- and visited relatives. His mother is German, and his German grandfather was constantly asking him: "Why on earth are you in the military?" The grandfather, a former soldier in the German Wehrmacht, had long ago become a fervent pacifist. "I experienced a war, Marc," he told his grandson, "and it's horrible."

Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Garlasco left the Pentagon and spent much of his time following the bombs that continue to fall around the world. He has been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Georgia and Gaza.

Again and again, Garlasco points out mistakes the Americans made while hunting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he has also sharply criticized the use of cluster bombs in Georgia and Lebanon and researched cases of alleged torture in US prisons. He was the first to name the European countries in which the Americans had their enemies tortured during the Bush administration in order to circumvent the Geneva Conventions: Poland and Romania.

In return for his efforts, Garlasco has become a target of the overt hatred of military personnel around the world. He has received emails wishing him death at the hands of terrorists. The Israelis tried everything under the sun to keep him out of the Gaza Strip. A government representative in Jerusalem told Garlasco bluntly, "We don't want you here."

The persistent weapons specialist eventually entered the Palestinian Territory through Egypt.

Garlasco's life has not grown any easier since he switched sides. An organization like Human Rights Watch pays even less than the Pentagon. A stack of photographs he took on his last visit to Gaza is on his desk. The road to where he is today has been a long one, he says. "But at least I can sleep well at night."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,617279,00.html

[commanding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_London_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing_of_Tokyo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker

it was war.

[khukuri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_London_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing_of_Tokyo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker

it was war.



And your point, is that some kind of argument to say that this is okay.

[Irons]

And your point, is that some kind of argument to say that this is okay.

Not only totally ok, but totally understood by ALL parties involved, that during a war many, many innocent people get killed. There is no morality involved in war. War itself is the penultimate antithesis of morality; of fairness; of rightiousness. It doesn't matter if an innocent baby gets killed, or a harmless farmer gets vaporized. It happens, and it's never going to stop, and it's often necessary for the greater good.

The reason that more people don't understand that "once you let those Dogs of War slip, all bets are off" is the very reason why we have so many wars. I do not like war, but once one is on, then I say take the fight to the enemy, and do not worry one iota about the collateral damage. The best way to fight a war is ruthless, and quick. It's when wars get drawn out over "rules" that they truly become tragedy's IMO. There are no rules in war, not for those of us who live in reality.

Besides, who's to say the dude in this article isn't a spook. Either way, none of this will change a think. War is just war, accept it, and move on. There is no other choice.

[commanding]

I am saying it is regrettable. A civilian life in 1943/1944/1945 was/is worth as a civilian life today.

It is my understanding that the point of bombing cities during world war two was to destroy civilian morale for the continuation of the war. In other words, it was done on purpose. The bombing of the house where chemical Ali was supposedly hiding, was an error killing those 17 civilians.
Personally, I think a special ops team would have been a better option. but I am no expert.

[Mackie]

Garlasco flew to Germany on behalf of the Pentagon at least a dozen times, where he met with contacts at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), in Pullach outside Munich
...........................
Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, Garlasco left the Pentagon ..............


Surprising. p-)

[Macs.]

Not only totally ok, but totally understood by ALL parties involved, that during a war many, many innocent people get killed. There is no morality involved in war. War itself is the penultimate antithesis of morality; of fairness; of rightiousness. It doesn't matter if an innocent baby gets killed, or a harmless farmer gets vaporized. It happens, and it's never going to stop, and it's often necessary for the greater good.

The reason that more people don't understand that "once you let those Dogs of War slip, all bets are off" is the very reason why we have so many wars. I do not like war, but once one is on, then I say take the fight to the enemy, and do not worry one iota about the collateral damage. The best way to fight a war is ruthless, and quick. It's when wars get drawn out over "rules" that they truly become tragedy's IMO. There are no rules in war, not for those of us who live in reality.

Besides, who's to say the dude in this article isn't a spook. Either way, none of this will change a think. War is just war, accept it, and move on. There is no other choice.

I guess that's then also a excuse for the Holocaust.

Well, jeez. It's all so easy.

Everything is allowed, some things just HAPPEN. It's war after all, the free ticket to do whatever you want without taking responsibility. :cantbeli:

[LineDoggie]

And your point, is that some kind of argument to say that this is okay. Do you magically assume that such incidents only started & ended with the IDF?

Commanding is pointing out that historically it has been far, far worse in wars. Where no concern over civpop areas from opposing sides was in the equation. It is a War, you cant hide among the civil population, firing at the Opposing side and expect some of the return fire wont hit Civilians. You should also not be surprised when it does.

[Irons]

History is written by the victors Macs. Just make sure you're on that side after the dust settles. And yes, it IS that simple. That's the one good thing about war. It's super-duper simple; SURVIVE, that's it. Your avatar is super-duper simple to understand btw. :)

[tercio67]

Actualy, today victory is reported by CNN.

[Irons]

Actualy, today victory is reported by CNN.

That's all "living history" stuff. Give it 40 years or so, then it becomes history. The CNN stuff is just industry, not "the word" IMO.

[tercio67]

In todays word there is always somebody with a camera, successes and the 'unavoidable' mistakes are broadcasted before the dust has settled.
It is perception of the images that shapes opinion.

After all, "seeing is believing".

[khukuri]

Do you magically assume that such incidents only started & ended with the IDF?




No, what Im again is this bs argument that promote laissez fares attitude towards civilian, Ie **** happens lets not think too much about. Thats pure bs, sure accidetns happen, like the chemical ali one and even worse. But that doesnt mean that we should put all cases under the carpet an ignore them. This is typically the attitude I see when pro israel or pro whatever have you confront allegations against them. Wether the allegations being true or not. Theyre usually met by the pointless "its war" replies.


Garlasco's task was to investigate senseless attacks on civilians by Israeli soldiers.

That says it all...

lets look at this again


it was war.

And, so what, whats your point, lots of civilians died in ww2... and? Does that suddenly mean its ok and we shouldn't care? There is a difference when civilans are caught in violence and when there is intentional violence against them. The latter, if happened, should be investigated and if found guilty the perpetrators should be judged just like any terrorist scum. End of story

[Gleipnir]

Garlasco is a slim man, fond of wearing jeans and wool sweaters. He sits in the office of his small house in Pleasantville, 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of New York, sipping a cup of black tea.

This tells us what exactly?

Hey Irons, you would have been very effective at My Lai

[Irons]

@ khukuri (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=1269): As much as we try to dress it up, or play it down, war is the end of the road. It's when the only solution left is the solution of "might makes right." And when I say that I don't just mean raw power, but the sum total ability of one collection of people/ideas to subvert, overcome, pacify, or quell another set of people/ideas by any means necessary. You want to look for some kind of "Truth" or "Higher Plane" with inside of that be my guest, but me thinks you will only turn out like this fellow:

http://i34.tinypic.com/35hef76.jpg

People who seek complex answer to simple scenarios are just as guilty of avarice as those who do the vice-versa IMO. It's a pointless road/exercise. Men have been working on it since the beginning of time, and nobody has come up with a better way to handle it than the worlds shortest prayer: "F*ck It!" It means: "It's out of my hands. I give this up to fate, chance, God, or whatever. Sh*t Happens!" Do what you will, but you're not going to get anywhere but "a snail crawled across the edge of a straight razor; it was beautiful." Then Charlie Sheen will cut your head off. That's no good for anybody. ;)

[Gleipnir]

Do what you will, but you're not going to get anywhere but "a snail crawled across the edge of a straight razor; it was beautiful."
I thought what was beautiful was the fact that it survived?

[afreu]

Not only totally ok, but totally understood by ALL parties involved, that during a war many, many innocent people get killed. There is no morality involved in war. War itself is the penultimate antithesis of morality; of fairness; of rightiousness. It doesn't matter if an innocent baby gets killed, or a harmless farmer gets vaporized. It happens, and it's never going to stop, and it's often necessary for the greater good.

The reason that more people don't understand that "once you let those Dogs of War slip, all bets are off" is the very reason why we have so many wars. I do not like war, but once one is on, then I say take the fight to the enemy, and do not worry one iota about the collateral damage. The best way to fight a war is ruthless, and quick. It's when wars get drawn out over "rules" that they truly become tragedy's IMO. There are no rules in war, not for those of us who live in reality.

Besides, who's to say the dude in this article isn't a spook. Either way, none of this will change a think. War is just war, accept it, and move on. There is no other choice.

THE GREATER GOOD /reminds me of Hot Fuzz rofl

[WarDancer]

I think history has shown that bombing population centers is essential to victory. If you undermine the will of the people to support a government by bombing them back to the stone age then victory can be had. If killing 1 million people via carpet bombing saves the lives of 10 million people in a long drawn out war, then why not?

Ah yes, I forgot. It's just not PC to kill people in a time of war.

[Irons]

I thought what was beautiful was the fact that it survived?

Oh that's right. It's been a long time since I've seen that film. Ok, it survived. Good for the snail. The straight razor is dirty. Don't clean it. Throw it away and buy another one. It keeps the economy going. "F" the environment! We can use the clean-up to start a whole new industry later. See, all's f-ed up, and all's well! :)

[Irons]

THE GREATER GOOD /reminds me of Hot Fuzz rofl

Just to be forthcoming, I sided with the townspeople in that movie. Where did he get that sweet-a*s FAL? It wasn't from Gub'ment stocks was it? See what I mean, they had a "nice town" going.

[afreu]

Ah yes, I forgot. It's just not PC to kill people in a time of war.

It's funny how some (simple-minded) people dismiss the moral principles of our societies as political correctness, implying they are some fashionable media thing, which aren't compatible with reality. Why not give up morality all together and live like apes in the jungle without any conception of right and wrong.

[Irons]

It's funny how some (simple-minded) people dismiss the moral principles of our societies as political correctness, implying they are some fashionable media thing, which aren't compatible with reality. Why not give up morality all together and live like apes in the jungle without any conception of right and wrong.

Uh, because that would be extremist? All things in moderation. How about we just rewind the clock to say, 1950? That'll work; did work; worked good too!

[Bia]

Irons... MP.net War expert.

He also is an expert on how the dead PA policemen should have reacted and what he would have done diff to stay alive and kill the gunmen.

Irons for president of the galaxy!!!!1111

[Irons]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful Bia. (You've got a real thing for me lately don't ya? I'll send you a life-size poster of me doing River Dance. You can tape it to the ceiling above your bed.)

[DS73]

that what happens when you recruit people with political degree as analysts.

[LineDoggie]

No, what Im again is this bs argument that promote laissez fares attitude towards civilian, Ie **** happens lets not think too much about. Thats pure bs, sure accidetns happen, like the chemical ali one and even worse.

But that doesnt mean that we should put all cases under the carpet an ignore them. This is typically the attitude I see when pro israel or pro whatever have you confront allegations against them. Wether the allegations being true or not. Theyre usually met by the pointless "its war" replies.



That says it all...

lets look at this again



And, so what, whats your point, lots of civilians died in ww2... and? Does that suddenly mean its ok and we shouldn't care? There is a difference when civilans are caught in violence and when there is intentional violence against them. The latter, if happened, should be investigated and if found guilty the perpetrators should be judged just like any terrorist scum. End of story


And I see many who make any excuse for Hamas's actions during this war. You cannot Use your Civilian Population as a Human Shield, Launching rockets from Civilian Areas, Putting Ordnance/Munitions Caches in Civilian Areas, Firing Mortars & Small Arms from Civilian Areas and Not expect some of the Civilians will be killed/injured by the return fires. And make no mistake, the IDF has a right to fire back, an obligation to fire back. If your supposition is that it was IDF Policy to deliberately target Civilians, then that I will call BS, until evidence to the contrary is put forth.

As to the "It's War" reply, it is Valid. I cant think of any war (Except maybe the North African Campaign) where Civilians didnt wind up on the wrong end of an airstrike, artillery barrage, firefight, Bayonet, E-Tool, etc. Pretending that war is clean is absurd, and naive at best. Since 1945 Militaries have gone to great lengths to avoid the scale of Civilian Casualties of the previous wars. Statistically there will always be some Civilians who get killed/injured in it, especially in an MOUT/FIBUA setting. If you consider that callous of me, it is, as it is also realistic.

But considering how much care Hamas has for it's own Citizenry, I would say less callous then they are to a great degree, I will not wring my hands and gnash my teeth, self-flaggellate myself into a froth when their own Elected Government doesnt give a **** about using them for Protection.

War is Dirty, War is Bloody, War means someone dies, Always has Been, Always Will be.

[commanding]

I agree with linedoggie when he spoke thus:


Pretending that war is clean is absurd, and naive at best.


Just as "friendly fire" causes casaulties, and accidents during wartime kill soldiers as well as civilians, sh** happens, and will until that time when man becomes "perfect" which will never happen. Until then civilians will die in wars due to both errors, enemies hiding behind civilians, and intentional targeting of enemy civilian populations to save lives on the other side. The winners write the "right" history as Irons said.
Might does make right in war. Has been that way for thousands and thousands of years. Study history lads.

[khukuri]

And I see many who make any excuse for Hamas's actions during this war.

I dont see anyone making excuses for hamas in this thread? You just brought up something completely pointless to have something to counter with.



As to the "It's War" reply, it is Valid. I cant think of any war (Except maybe the North African Campaign) where Civilians didnt wind up on the wrong end of an airstrike, artillery barrage, firefight, Bayonet, E-Tool, etc. Pretending that war is clean is absurd, and naive at best. Since 1945 Militaries have gone to great lengths to avoid the scale of Civilian Casualties of the previous wars. Statistically there will always be some Civilians who get killed/injured in it, especially in an MOUT/FIBUA setting. If you consider that callous of me, it is, as it is also realistic.



You reply to a post of mine where I clearly point a difference in collateral damage and intentional violence against civilians with more blabber about collateral damage. Stop playing that card, no one here is naive...

Collateral damage is collateral damage, stopping a convoy and executing people because their passport reveal that they are sunni/shiite is not, shooting unarmed civilians is not, etc etc etc there is loads of cases where civilians have been killed that have nothing to do with collateral damage. Yet you are trying to downplay that part. In this case its Israel, and obviously you being on there side and trying to defend them regardless if we had all the facts or not. Im not judging Israel or anyone yet, but its this armchair warrior attitude of common its war nothing to see here move on stop being so political correct and naive, let have passivity and indifference prevail... sorry thats not how it works. If any agency or institution can hold governments, armies and individuals to account for their actions then that should happen. There is morality in war, there is rules, most people in uniform tend to follow them, life is not an apocalypse now movie.

[LineDoggie]

Hmmm, who to Believe ro side with...

Israel or Hamas

tough choice :roll: yeah I thnk I'll side with Israel on this, since they have credibility


Life isnt an Apocalypse Now Movie? really I'd have never guessed. I must be an Armchair Warrior

[budgie]

In todays word there is always somebody with a camera, successes and the 'unavoidable' mistakes are broadcasted before the dust has settled.
It is perception of the images that shapes opinion.

After all, "seeing is believing".


Probably the fairest assessment.

We inevitably see the images of war as they unfold and it shapes our perception as non-participants. But that doesn't mean the media needs to STFU and let the military do their job. There's a balancing act going on wherein the media keeps the good guys good. If they weren't always being watched by their own people, the military might stop trying.

[Irons]

There is morality in war, there is rules, most people in uniform tend to follow them, life is not an apocalypse now movie.

I don't believe that you're real. As a matter of fact, there aren't even any "armchairs" on this forum. This whole forum is not real. Am I real? Are any of us real? Is having a harsh breeze of lead coming in from the left flank really the time to be worrying about what is, and is not real, or about the fairness and duality of mankind? You don't actually SEE the bullets. Perhaps one is not so much killed by mach 2 projectiles, as they are just convinced that they have been killed. These questions I think Soldiers should ponder as they stroll down the street in 114 degree heat around people that are trying to kill them. That's it, you have changed my mind! I think we should stop the war right now and figure all of this out. Afterwards we can watch Marlin Brando movies.rofl

[khukuri]

Hmmm, who to Believe ro side with...

Israel or Hamas



So because hamas is a terrorist organisation that means you have to side with and make excuses for a country that occupies land, discriminates against Palestinians, roots up their oilve trees etc. Two wrongs dont make a right plus you make it look like that hamas is the only Palestinian factor in this.
The armchair comment was a more a general one and not directed at you.


I don't believe that you're real. As a matter of fact, there aren't even any "armchairs" on this forum. This whole forum is not real. Am I real? Are any of us real? Is having a harsh breeze of lead coming in from the left flank really the time to be worrying about what is, and is not real, or about the fairness and duality of mankind? You don't actually SEE the bullets. Perhaps one is not so much killed by mach 2 projectiles, as they are just convinced that they have been killed. These questions I think Soldiers should ponder as they stroll down the street in 114 degree heat around people that are trying to kill them. That's it, you have changed my mind! I think we should stop the war right now and figure all of this out. Afterwards we can watch Marlin Brando movies.rofl


Great even more philosophical babble. So what you are essentially saying is that if military personnel injure civilian intentionally then we should just look to the side. Thats basicly what you are saying, despicable stance in the matter. Sorry matey but there is more going on in war than firefights and cool action.

[Irons]

Pretty much. I'm for our boys and girls. The rest of 'em. Nah, I don't care about them. Not one bit to tell you the truth. A few accidents go on, so what. I'm big-picture, and none of that will matter in 100 years. I just want to see more support of all kinds so that our people can win this thing and come home. I'd be for nuking the whole area, and turning it into a parking lot, if that got the job done, and got our people out of harms way. None of it matters, it just "is what it is" and you're not going to change that. History say's I'm right about that as well.

[khukuri]

Pretty much. I'm for our boys and girls. The rest of 'em. Nah, I don't care about them. Not one bit to tell you the truth. A few accidents go on, so what. I'm big-picture, and none of that will matter in 100 years. I just want to see more support of all kinds so that our people can win this thing and come home. I'd be for nuking the whole area, and turning it into a parking lot, if that got the job done, and got our people out of harms way. None of it matters, it just "is what it is" and you're not going to change that. History say's I'm right about that as well.

That settles our discussion then, we are of different opinion and yes it is what it is, despicable.

[LineDoggie]

So because hamas is a terrorist organisation that means you have to side with and make excuses for a country that occupies land, discriminates against Palestinians, roots up their oilve trees etc. Two wrongs dont make a right plus you make it look like that hamas is the only Palestinian factor in this.
The armchair comment was a more a general one and not directed at you. Tell me, does Hamas let Israeli's live in peace, or does it discriminate when it comes to Jews? what is there stated Policies?

"The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust... It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it... Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..."



I've already figured out who your rooting for, and you know who I am rooting for. My side has the better track record(Not a Perfect one ,but no one does) when it comes to winning wars, and human rights than Hamas or any of the other Palestinian Organizations.

[khukuri]

Tell me, does Hamas let Israeli's live in peace, or does it discriminate when it comes to Jews? what is there stated Policies?


I've already figured out who your rooting for, and you know who I am rooting for. My side has the better track record(Not a Perfect one ,but no one does) when it comes to winning wars, and human rights than Hamas or any of the other Palestinian Organizations.


No you havent figured out who I root for, you are still trying to make it look like I root for hamas by making it look like a vs hamas debate, quite shameful on your part. Mather of fact what you are trying to diverge this discussion into has nothing to do with hamas. You are flogging a dead horse mate. So tell me, does hamas being the bad guys justify bad actions of the side you support. Thats the question in essence, as it stands your just sidestepping this question on every post you make. As for your question on hamas, yes they try too and probably would if they had the power too. Israel does have that power and does discriminate, your not trying to put hamas and israel in the same basket are you ;).

[DaveDash]

And your point, is that some kind of argument to say that this is okay.

The fact that you are missing is that in the vast majority of the time, most democractic nations in this day in age spend billions of dollars and take unnessesary risks to avoid civilian casualties. Great lengths are taken to try and prevent this thing from happening, more than any other time in history.

You seem to paint soldiers with some broad stroke as robots. Soldiers are fathers, sons, daughters, mothers. They are human just like you and me, and the vast majority of humans from the nations I speak of do NOT want to learn they were responsible for the death of 17 innocent people.

The other point you are missing is that it takes two to Tango. The reason civilians are caught in the cross-fire is because people from certian parts of the world tend to value human life a lot less than others, and use civilians as a shield. If you are going to blame one, you have to blame the other. That's all people want from you in this discussion, a lack of hypocracy.

Clearly you've gone and read this news report and gotten all angry and caught up in emotions. That is fine, but you seem to lack in understanding about the issue you raise. For example, In the U.S. military (and most likely others) they could use an MRLS to plaster an entire area full of munitions with NO regard for civilian casualties and very little risk to themselves, but instead chose to use precise mutions and greater risk to their own to MINIMISE this sort of thing.

I recommend you go do some research to see many of the advances done to minimise colateral damage, then ask yourself "why". No they're not perfect and mistakes still happen, but it's not like it is a non-issue either.

[ltrowley]

Pretty much. I'm for our boys and girls. The rest of 'em. Nah, I don't care about them. Not one bit to tell you the truth. A few accidents go on, so what. I'm big-picture, and none of that will matter in 100 years. I just want to see more support of all kinds so that our people can win this thing and come home. I'd be for nuking the whole area, and turning it into a parking lot, if that got the job done, and got our people out of harms way. None of it matters, it just "is what it is" and you're not going to change that. History say's I'm right about that as well.


Just ****ing..wow. For someone who's "big picture" you have an incredibly narrow minded view of things.

[Irons]

War isn't neighbors helping neighbors, or the thoughtful interaction between fighting family members. On the world stage, and in group dynamics, but most especially in WAR, it's "put 'em down, keep 'em down, kick them in the guts if they even think about getting up."

Human beings are not capable of knowing any more than 150 people. We are tribal animals. The way that we fight wars today have nothing to do with tribes fighting over resources and having to co-exist side by side later due to geography, and everything to do with a negotiated peace AFTER the winner takes all. You don't show weakness, or hesitation, or mercy to an enemy that wants to kill you unless you have to to buy time, and can afford to do so.

Human cultures understand the universal appeal of the boot. You win their compliance by setting generous laterals inside the schema of defeat for them, but only AFTER you have made it abundantly clear that you are in charge, and it's not likely to change anytime soon. We've been playing in the desert for too long.

The only reason the coalition gets criticized is because of that fact. Unfortunately the troops are servants and can't make policy. We have done so much damage to national security, and our image by trying to please everybody but the prime directive: WIN AT ANY COST. That's the way I see it. You can do anything you want, so long as you make it brutal, violent, and brief. We've been holding our troops back too long in my estimation, and we have all payed the price for the hesitation, and lack of strong direction.

It doesn't matter what you do in life, just don't do it half-a*sed. If you are going to war, war like Genghis Kahn. If you are going to steal, steal like George Soros. If you are going to love then love like Jesus Christ. And if you are going to be nice. Don't engage in warfare to start with. That's the pitfall in everything because of the way tribal humans operate. They will find intricacy in anything if you give them enough time. You must herd, and herd quickly to move them forward. I am not immune either. We are all the same in this regard. We are hardwired to it the same as we are hardwired for love...and war. That's what I'm allulding to, and why in 100 years none of this will matter but who dictated the terms of the future. We must do this, sensitivities be d*mned. The die is cast now, the only way out is through the fire this time. We must charge hard if we hope to survive IMO.

[DaveDash]

War isn't neighbors helping neighbors, or the thoughtful interaction between fighting family members. On the world stage, and in group dynamics, but most especially in WAR, it's "put 'em down, keep 'em down, kick them in the guts if they even think about getting up."

Human beings are not capable of knowing any more than 150 people. We are tribal animals. The way that we fight wars today have nothing to do with tribes fighting over resources and having to co-exist side by side later due to geography, and everything to do with a negotiated peace AFTER the winner takes all. You don't show weakness, or hesitation, or mercy to an enemy that wants to kill you unless you have to to buy time, and can afford to do so.

Human cultures understand the universal appeal of the boot. You win their compliance by setting generous laterals inside the schema of defeat for them, but only AFTER you have made it abundantly clear that you are in charge, and it's not likely to change anytime soon. We've been playing in the desert for too long.

The only reason the coalition gets criticized is because of that fact. Unfortunately the troops are servants and can't make policy. We have done so much damage to national security, and our image by trying to please everybody but the prime directive: WIN AT ANY COST. That's the way I see it. You can do anything you want, so long as you make it brutal, violent, and brief. We've been holding our troops back too long in my estimation, and we have all payed the price for the hesitation, and lack of strong direction.

It doesn't matter what you do in life, just don't do it half-a*sed. If you are going to war, war like Genghis Kahn. If you are going to steal, steal like George Soros. If you are going to love then love like Jesus Christ. And if you are going to be nice. Don't engage in warfare to start with. That's the pitfall in everything because of the way tribal humans operate. They will find intricacy in anything if you give them enough time. You must herd, and herd quickly to move them forward. I am not immune either. We are all the same in this regard. We are hardwired to it the same as we are hardwired for love...and war. That's what I'm allulding to, and why in 100 years none of this will matter but who dictated the terms of the future. We must do this, sensitivities be d*mned. The die is cast now, the only way out is through the fire this time. We must charge hard if we hope to survive IMO.

It's far more complicated than that. If it is a war of survival, then yes, you need to go all out. However, in the case of the most recent wars the U.S. has engaged in, they are hardly wars of survival. This is where the term "limited" war was coined.

War is an extension of policy and politics, and needs to be calibrated properly in order to fit that extension of whatever policy wants to be executed.

What you suggest in Iraq/Afghanistan (say, go Roman on "the enemy") would end up alienating the United States and cause enough civil unrest that it would not survive in its current state. It took the Romans years to pacify nations they conquered using the "boot to throat" technique and they had the luxury of not having to worry about morality, free media, and IMO were considerably more powerful at their peak relative to their neighbours than the U.S. is now in the world.

Divide/Bribe and Conquer is still the most effective strategy (which is what eventually turned the tide in Iraq), but if you alienate the entire population against you, you are eventually going to fail a limited war. Again, all out war? That's completely different, because all the players are already involved and then you are truely at "the end of the line".

If you have time, go read Machevalli's "The Prince", he has some interesting insights on warfare as an extension of politics that are still very relevant today.

[khukuri]

The fact that you are missing is that in the vast majority of the time, most democractic nations in this day in age spend billions of dollars and take unnessesary risks to avoid civilian casualties. Great lengths are taken to try and prevent this thing from happening, more than any other time in history.

You seem to paint soldiers with some broad stroke as robots. Soldiers are fathers, sons, daughters, mothers. They are human just like you and me, and the vast majority of humans from the nations I speak of do NOT want to learn they were responsible for the death of 17 innocent people.

The other point you are missing is that it takes two to Tango. The reason civilians are caught in the cross-fire is because people from certian parts of the world tend to value human life a lot less than others, and use civilians as a shield. If you are going to blame one, you have to blame the other. That's all people want from you in this discussion, a lack of hypocracy.



What you are missing is 1, read the entire discussion and not just the first posts, 2 After reading the discussion try to get the gist of and differentiate between the arguments and 3, dont make fvcking assumptions, like who is a civilian and who is getting fired up by media. Yes I bloody well do know the great length we go to in order to avoid civilian casualties. Thats not what we are talking about, re read the discussion and If you still don't get it then Ill explain it to you. You clearly missed the point and missed several posts, like this one.


There is morality in war, there is rules, most people in uniform tend to follow them

How that makes me paint my fellow soldiers like robots?

Your second post however is far better...

And as for you text on my hypocrisy, where am I hypocritical, please point that out before spouting such bs.




Clearly you've gone and read this news report and gotten all angry and caught up in emotions. That is fine, but you seem to lack in understanding about the issue you raise. For example, In the U.S. military (and most likely others) they could use an MRLS to plaster an entire area full of munitions with NO regard for civilian casualties and very little risk to themselves, but instead chose to use precise mutions and greater risk to their own to MINIMISE this sort of thing.

Most military organisations try to avoid large civlian casualties, at least in these days. The difference come in some instances where local commanders, unit leaders or soldiers gone out of their way and broken geneva conventions with different crimes against local population. To say that civilians only get harmed in war during cases of crossfire is naive, it have happened in several wars before. The article is about a dude whos job is in investigation such matters, the discussion has evolved into one being about weather such incidents are interesting at all or should be ignored.

[DaveDash]

What you are missing is 1, read the entire discussion and not just the first posts, 2 After reading the discussion try to get the gist of and differentiate between the arguments and 3, dont make fvcking assumptions, like who is a civilian and who is getting fired up by media. Yes I bloody well do know the great length we go to in order to avoid civilian casualties. Thats not what we are talking about, re read the discussion and If you still don't get it then Ill explain it to you. You clearly missed the point and missed several posts, like this one.


You made the assumption because I quoted something early on, I didn't read the entire discussion. ;)



Most military organisations try to avoid large civlian casualties, at least in these days. The difference come in some instances where local commanders, unit leaders or soldiers gone out of their way and broken geneva conventions with different crimes against local population. To say that civilians only get harmed in war during cases of crossfire is naive, it have happened in several wars before. The article is about a dude whos job is in investigation such matters, the discussion has evolved into one being about weather such incidents are interesting at all or should be ignored.

I am not saying that civilians only get harmed in war during cases of crossfire. However, are you implying that dropping a bomb on the suspected location of enemy high value targets, who try to blend in the civilian population, is breaking geneva conventions?

I think these things SHOULD be investigated, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However one must remember a lot of these investigations are heavily biased themselves. That is why there tends to be this attitude towards them by many posters here. If they wern't proven to be such (i.e. that Lancert report was recently discredited), people might take them more seriously. The investigators have discredited themselves by crying wolf.

Does that mean they should stop? No. But it is going to take some significant changes to the way these organisations work, or some very heavy levels of trust, until many people will take them seriously.

You can either trust the establishment, trust the anti-establishment, or something in the middle. I personally tend to lean more towards the establishment that has a morality based society and some principals of accountability.

[khukuri]

I am not saying that civilians only get harmed in war during cases of crossfire. However, are you implying that dropping a bomb on the suspected location of enemy high value targets, who try to blend in the civilian population, is breaking geneva conventions?

Depends on the case, if knowing that there is one terrorist among 20 civilians... very slippery slope and depends on case on case. If as the case on ali majid, which was the one discussed in the thread, then as I noted earlier it would be collateral damage as the strike was on bad intel. OF course dropping a bomb would have caused some damage to the surrounding areas anyway.



I think these things SHOULD be investigated, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However one must remember a lot of these investigations are heavily biased themselves. That is why there tends to be this attitude towards them by many posters here. If they wern't proven to be such (i.e. that Lancert report was recently discredited), people might take them more seriously. The investigators have discredited themselves by crying wolf.

Yes people here are arguing otherwise and pointing out that incident shouldnt matter at all. Posters has this attitude only when it concerns government on whos side they are. That the hypocrisy.




Does that mean they should stop? No. But it is going to take some significant changes to the way these organisations work, or some very heavy levels of trust, until many people will take them seriously.

You are right there, but at the same time some people discredit any report that deals with their own armed forces etc.



You can either trust the establishment, trust the anti-establishment, or something in the middle. I personally tend to lean more towards the establishment that has a morality based society and some principals of accountability.

That where we have to agree that we disagree, I trust neither.

[Gleipnir]

Hey Irons, is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaqAl4mjK8w

[Irons]

LMAO! That guy is genius funny. Yeah, ok, I'll be him.

[Gleipnir]

glad you see the fun in it, thought you might enjoy that.
I have to say when I read your posts, this is who you remind me of.

[Irons]

glad you see the fun in it, thought you might enjoy that.
I have to say when I read your posts, this is who you remind me of.

One does not argue with stupidity. One backstrokes in it, like Daffy Duck, dig?

http://www.alexross.com/81122-big.jpg

[Clayton Gold]

One does not argue with stupidity. One backstrokes in it, like Daffy Duck, dig?

Indeed. Hence I will not argue with your thoughts on hitting civilians.

Daffy Duck what ?

http://www.funbumperstickers.com/images/Daffy_Duck_1.gif

[budgie]

The other point you are missing is that it takes two to Tango. The reason civilians are caught in the cross-fire is because people from certian parts of the world tend to value human life a lot less than others, and use civilians as a shield. If you are going to blame one, you have to blame the other. That's all people want from you in this discussion, a lack of hypocracy[sic].
.

There they go with the name calling. Nobody is defending Hamas: we are well aware of their misdeeds. But as a civilised western democracy, we expect better from Israel. Accidents happen in war and I don't accuse Israel of deliberate atrocities (a certain level of callousness perhaps), but there seems to be an opinion here that if the Palestinian people support Hamas, they deserve what they get. Who the hell else are they supposed to support? Israel?

Hamas is all they've got.

[DaveDash]

There they go with the name calling. Nobody is defending Hamas: we are well aware of their misdeeds. But as a civilised western democracy, we expect better from Israel. Accidents happen in war and I don't accuse Israel of deliberate atrocities (a certain level of callousness perhaps), but there seems to be an opinion here that if the Palestinian people support Hamas, they deserve what they get. Who the hell else are they supposed to support? Israel?

Hamas is all they've got.

Excuse me - they?

And try Fatah, Not Hamas, whomever else. That's like saying the British are all the U.S. had. :roll: