Yes. Do you support the same for those who choose to attack knowing civilians are, or are likely to be, present? Yes or no?

Oh, that's right, the US and Israel won't allow the world court jurisdiction over their citizens. Do you support that? Yes or no?

Antiseptic,

I specifically addressed your pathetic claims that there is no QUALITATIVE difference between Amrosi and a Coalition commander who accidently kills civilians.

Whether you agree with me or not, to deny that I made a case that there is a qualitative difference between the two is simply deluded denialism.

But let me try again.

Scenario:

A daily patrol enters a village in Afghanistan. Standard combat indicator is present, ie local people leaving town in droves as the patrol enters (this usually is a sign the Taliban are in the area). 10 minutes later 2nd Lieutenant, responsible for the lives of 30 men, finds his platoon pinned down by a heavy machine gun, RPG fire and multiple AK’s, which is coming from a compound 150 metres away. He can’t manouvere and he has casualties who need to be casevaced ASAP or they will bleed out, but he can’t call in a helicopter until he breaks contact. At great risk to himself he gets into a position where he can see the building and it appears that there are no civilians nearby. He calls in an airstrike.

A number of things could now happen. The bomb falls and

1) kills the insurgents and he evacuates safely
2) kills the insurgents and civilians who the Taliban have forced to stay with them in the building]
3) drops short and only kills civilians caught up in the fighting
4) drops short and kills the lieutenant and his men.

All these things have happened, although 99% of the time it is the first option which occurs. There are a hundred other scenarios just like it.

Now to even compare the 2nd lieutenant (or the flight lieutenant flying the plane) to Amrosi and his pals takes a particularly bloody minded attitude. Innocent civilians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But coalition forces go out of their way to avoid these casualties. Amrosi and his pals set out to kill as many civilians as they could, including those courageous people who responded to the victims of the first bomb.

TBC

CONT,

There is a qualitative difference, and a QUANTATIVE difference as well. The terrorists, like Amrosi, only target civilians. Civilian casualties of coalition attacks make up a very, very small proportion of the total.

Steel

I see you have acknowledged that there is NO evidence to suggest that civilians are targeted on purpose. That is the basis of my position on the difference between the Bali bombers, who did it deliberately and calculatedly to do the most damage to civilians, and coalition forces, who do their best to make sure that the least damage to civilians is done.

This is not dancing around the central issue. This is the central issue. The death penalty applies to people who deliberately kill civilians. That simply is not the case with the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not saying that it never happens, I’m just saying that 99% of the time it doesn’t happen. And I’m happy for those soldiers who do deliberately kill civilians to be treated like Amrosi.

Secondly ISAF denies that this incident which you have made the basis of case. http://news.theage.com.au/world/isaf-denies-killing-50-afghan-civilians-20080718-3hgh.html

It certainly is the case that the Taliban/Al Qaeda know which buttons to push to gather the leftist support they need to undermine the coalition effort from within.

As Easy Times pointed out, if the coalition was interested in killing civilians why wouldn’t they bomb places where civilians congregate?

You know they are not interested in deliberately killing civilians, apart from all the moral and ethical considerations, it is counter productive to the war effort. Furthermore, incidents in which civilians are killed or injured by the Coaltion forces are investigated and compensation is often offered to victims. http://warvictims.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/iraq-wounded-iraqi-is-given-2m-payout/

So your contentions are all completely untenable.

Paul L., your silly little scenario is a purely defensive one in which the protagonist is none the less able to see there are no civilians present and any civilian casualties are purely an "Act of God". Do you claim that the US and Israeli forces are only ever engaged in defensive actions, or do they sometimes choose to "carry the fight to the enemy"? When they choose to do that, do they stop the planned assault if civilians are known to be present? Further, do US and Israeli forces use cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, when it is clear that the weapons kill and maim many thousands of civilians?

Take your time, I know this is difficult for you.

Are you deliberately being ignorant, Jayb? What about Haditha etc. There are loads of stories about this.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62511/

" Posted September 14, 2007.

The U.S. military is increasingly relying on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians.

According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3419662.ece
February 23, 2008
British troops ‘tortured and killed Iraqi civilians seized after battle’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0mCydl8KP0

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p1.html

Iraq War Veteran Speaks out on Killing Civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vACtnZIoA44

If you are listening to the official bull!@#$ Jayb then you are an idiot. The military CENSORS all of this as much as possible. And they are proud of it.

The differences are minimal or negligible. What does it matter to civilians if they die due to criminal disregard for their lives (and in countless deliberate cases as shown) or via a terrorist? They are both dead. Do police kill all hostages in a bank because of the bank robber? They could, but don't. And that is a deliberate choice.