I don't see the correlation. Unless you're going to dismiss the insurgent cause of defending their homeland from a foreign agressor as "terrorism", then the majority of these people we are fighting are innocent. What wrong did they commit to have us attack them? If you are "for the war" that obviously comes along with the killing of innocent people. So no, if you're for the war you can't be against killing innocent people.
That's a shock. I disagree. Considering most of the 'insurgency' targets civilian iraqis I don't see how they're 'innocent.' Generally terrorism is when a non-state actor targets civilians. That's not the same as saying innocents don't get killed in war - they do. In fact they've been targeted in 'just' wars in the past. But when you are a combatant you aren't innocent. We're not targeting everyday Iraqis. Even the largest estimate put the insurgency at less than .5% of the population of Iraq. Sure. Just like you can support the troops but somehow not the killing they do. 'Hey, we want you guys to know we're behind you 100% - except the 100% of your job that involves killing people.' You claim that war obviously comes along with killing of innocent people - so how could you ever support a war - or its actors - without supporting the killing of innocents? Or, to reverse the same argument you make in the 'support the troops' argument: Why can't I support the military doing only what they are supposed to do - killing enemy combatants? You support the troops (supposedly) but not the bad ones. Not those who abu grab or guantanamo or kill wounded insurgents. I support the war, but not the part where innocents get killed - just the rest of it. If you can pick and choose why can't I? Hey this is fun! I support all Islam but not the fake Muslims that are terrorists! I support the Christianty except for any fake Christians that do bad stuff! Wow, doesn't this make it all easier!
Why are the reports from the Sunnis who don't like the American involvement in their country in the province that is voting heavily against the constitution (ie the base of the insurgency) automatically to be believed over the reports of the American military in their BDA? I see no reason to doubt that 50 or more insurgents where killed by these air strikes, and as such, I don't see how they can be considered an act of terrorism. It would be great if the insurgents and terrorists would fight us out in the open desert (or even better, not fight us at all), but that is not the way it works. They get to choose the battleground and thus any collateral damage is on their heads, AFAIAC.
Most of these confirmed deaths are reported by HOSPITAL OFFICIALS, not propoganda outlets. Obviously, the military has an interest in saying what they said (which is that all of them are insurgents) or otherwise they risk a backlash and negative publicity. The military does have its own propoganda professionals, I don't know if you're aware of that or not. I tend to believe the hospital officials who actually saw the dead and treated the injured. Plus, this is not the first time this has happened, there have been numerous incidents with similar results in the past, some of them even caught on video tape.
As someone else said the reports are from health workers and hospitals, and not insurgents. In addition the Americans have been caught changing their story regarding civilian deaths before. Officially the Americans have decided not to keep a count of civilian deaths this time out.
Actually I believe it said 'health workers' (whatever that means) and residents. The military claims that they are targeting and killing insurgents. That's confirmed in the story. Fighting insurgents in an urban area is going to lead to civilian casaulties. That doesn't equate to terror or terrorism. In addition, anti-interventionists have wildly inflated numbers before. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - I don't propose that no civilian casualties are happening in Iraq. However, the doesn't equate to terrorism.
I am in agreement that there were earlier numbers that were inflated. Health workers though would hopefully be more reliable. If the numbers are between what the U.S. army says and what health workers say, I will go with health workers. After all the U.S. army isn't even keeping count, so how would they know? If it is between the U.S. army and residents, then I would place the number somewhere in between.
