*The military said militants had gathered around the site of a roadside bomb blast which had killed five U.S. soldiers in the Al-Bu Ubaid village near Ramadi.
The military said the crowd was about to set another bomb when the warplanes struck, killing around 20 people. Witnesses said those killed were civilians looking at the wreckage. *
Since when does it take a crowd to plant a bomb? :rolleyes:
Maybe some good will come out of these senseless deaths… maybe some of the dead had relatives who until now had to reason to see the occupying force as their enemy but now have the urge to avenge the innocent.
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
^^ Iraqi gov. / US says they killed 70 insurgents. Local sunni arabs say 25 innocent civilians were killed. This thread says 20 innocents killed. What happened to the 35-40 others? Were they really terrorists. I mean the maths doesn't seems to work here!
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
Just shows how brutal and inhumane the Americans have become in their arrogant self-righteous pursuit of oil politics covered up in democratic robes. Shame on this nation that was supposed to be a beacon of democracy but has degenerated into a violent, crime-ridden society that is not satisfied with killing its own members but wants to take its violence overseas.
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
abay it was never a beacon of democracy.. it's only that back then we didn't have access to the internet and the non-propaganda sources of information..
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
^ yeah, now we all know the beacon that has been responsible for the mass conversion of countries to democracies around the globe has been Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
actually I think the only thing the internet has done has been to give you sources and outlets for your conspiracy theories which are nothing more than propaganda you say you despise.
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
Who can say insurgencies are illegal? in any country which has been invaded, it is the right of those who have to defend their country against the invaders, remember when france got invaded by the germans in 1940 and the germans set up a puppet govt the vichy govt, without resistance we would all have been in concentration cells.
Also article of the un charter states that regime change is illegal, so therefore the war has been illegal, no mass weapons of productions was found, surprise surprise, and now all of those are wondering why insurgents have been stronger ???
Re: $48,000,000 fighter-bomber vs 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians
No baboo! You are giving more credit to French than they would give to themselves.
French resistance couldn’t a didly squat. FYI. We are not in concentration camps because of the heroic sacrifices of the Allied nations and their armies (US, UK mainly). USA alone lost 400,000 of its young men and another 1.2 million went home with shattered bones and broken lives.
In modern history WW-2 was precisely the point when powerful nations on the earth said, no more. No more hitlers or other fascist leaders like Mlosovich, or Saddam, or Gaddahfi.
If you wait for too long, these guys would continue expanding their murders and pillage. Then the Allied nations have to go in and get their sons killed in 100s of 1000s.
Had the hitler thingy been attacked way early, the loss to American GIs (and other allied troops) would have been minimal.
