posted on October 18, 2001 08:28:39 AM new
Here is the list you NEVER hear the media call civilian casualities in the war on terrorism:
The WTC - 4000 to 5000 killed
Plane in PA- over 100
Plane at Pentagon- nearly 100
Media in FL- 1 dead and others injured
CBS- several injured
Congress- many injured
Other media outlets- many injured
While the Pentagon is not a "civilian" target, it did have civilian workers.
For some reason, if our military accidently, and without intention, injures or kills innocent civilians it is blared by newscasters as some sort of horrible act by the U.S. military.
Yet, while innocent American deaths are tolled, they announce it like carnival barkers.
I have YET to hear ONE newscaster state: " While the Taliban has claimed 3 civilian deaths from U.S. bombings, the death toll in the U.S. of innocent civilians is now confirmed at 5382."
If our service men and woman are slaughtered or unable to complete missions because they have both hands tied behind their backs due to public opinion, you can blame the U.S. media.
posted on October 18, 2001 09:30:29 AM new
I have a suggestion, I am on my way out but, I agree with Reamond 100%. How about putting up links to some of the major networks and making an email blitz based on Reamonds post?
****************************************
I have YET to hear ONE newscaster state: " While the Taliban has claimed 3 civilian deaths from U.S. bombings, the death toll in the U.S. of innocent civilians is now confirmed at 5382."
If our service men and woman are slaughtered or unable to complete missions because they have both hands tied behind their backs due to public opinion, you can blame the U.S. media.
posted on October 18, 2001 09:34:57 AM new
Zazzie--tell that to foreign military if--God forbid--they should ever start a real attack over here! You can bet you and I would be considered as much a target as any military or government area.
posted on October 18, 2001 09:35:27 AM new
I think Bush reads here, lol. news people do too, since everytime I see something here, I hear about it on the news AFTER someone here posts it. Great idea, Zilvy. We need to send this link on.
posted on October 18, 2001 09:43:04 AM new
"Target for Terrorists----Civilians
Target for Military--not Civilians"
So, if Bin Laden's guys were behind the U.S.S. Cole and Sept 11th, they weren't terrorists then, because that was a military target, but they are terrorists now because the WTC wasn't a military target?
Or how about the Allied bombings of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Maybe the Reamond formula will work - it's how many civilians are killed that determines. Oh, and we have to make sure that when their civilians are killed, we refer to them as "civilians," but when ours are killed they're "innocent civilians." That's an important distinction.
posted on October 18, 2001 09:48:19 AM new
Lindajean---what a foreign government would attack and what the USA military should attack are contrary.
Just because a bully or in George Bush's terms (evil doer) deliberately attacked and killed civilians does not mean the USA should do likewise.
Though I'm sure the civilian deaths were not intentional ---but I'm not too sure about what they were thinking when they targeted that Red Cross warehouse.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:06:59 AM new
You know, I just watched interviews with the American servicemen ambushed in Somalia.
They told how the Islamic terrorists STOOD BEHIND WOMEN AND CIVILIANS WITH THEIR GUNS FIRING KNOWING FULL WELL OUR SERVICEMEN COULDN'T FIRE BACK.
While we do not target civilians, allowing these rules of engagement to stand ensure our defeat in the war on terrorism.
We need to decide whether ending terrorist attacks on the U.S. is more important than civilian collateral fatalities.
These attacks will have a world wide effect and cause many civilian deaths indirectly.
Just the damage to our economy will cause starvation, malnutrition, and infant mortality rates to climb around the world, as the attacks cause the economy to contract.
Who will pay the price of civilian losses in this war, Americans or the POPULATIONS THAT WILLING HARBOR AND SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS ?
There is a price in civilian deaths that must be paid, the terrorists have caused it, not us.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:11:54 AM new
I don't endorse killing civilians, just think it is the way it will go at times and we CAN NOT let that stand in the way of our winning this war. Also, I'm sorry but being "nice guy's" hasn't seemed to help us much. You can see how much "love" that has generated world wide for American's.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:12:01 AM new
I am becoming more of a "HAWK" everytime I read your posts and I agree...it would not surprise me if hiding behind their women and children is not the worst the terrorist will do. I wouldn't doubt for one minute if they didn't bomb their own civilians to make the military look bad.
Zazzie It was my understanding from the news we didn't target the Red Cross we overshot another target.Unfortunately and I mean that most sincerely, mistakes will happen. Hell, in times of conflict we have lost our own men to friendly fire!
posted on October 18, 2001 10:17:14 AM new
I think the other piece of the picture here is that massive Afghan civilian casualties were part of Bin Laden's strategy, part of his PR to drum up support for his cause.
Bin Laden's pre-taped response to the initial bombings clearly indicated that what he expected was a massive overreaction on the part of the US government that resulted in great loss of civilian life. He wanted to be able to point to the US as being the big bully of the world so people would rally in support of his actions. I'm glad that Bush's response was a little more measured than that.
Bin Laden decrying the US for endangering Afghan civilians' lives when the Taliban has shown even less regard for them by using them as pawns in some PR powerplay is hugely and blatantly hypocritical.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:18:56 AM new
With all our emphasis on "surgical strikes," it could be that we mistook the Red Cross buildings, with the huge red crosses on top, for hospitals and so concluded that they fit into the "surgical strikes" plan.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:25:17 AM new
CNN has 400,000 viwers in the U.S., the major networks have 40 million. I wouldn't get too worked up.
What the gov't should do is reverse that dumbass mentality they created in the past that it's somehow possible to wage war without civilian casualties. "Smart bombs" and "surgical strikes" should be eliminated from the lexicon. All that notion has done was to create an impediment to waging effective war.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:27:23 AM new
Let's say the WTC attack never happened. How many thousands of their innocent civilians would have been slaughtered by the Talibans in the coming year? How many millions would have starved?
posted on October 18, 2001 10:28:51 AM new
Somehow, Julesy, I think Reamond is taking this personaly! I know I am! But, I will modify my use of bolding and caps to be PC for those who do not share being incensed at the overthetop coverage of a few civilians compared to 5400 of ours.
edited cause this is no place for a dumb smiley!
[ edited by Zilvy on Oct 18, 2001 10:30 AM ]
posted on October 18, 2001 10:34:54 AM new
Come to think of it, I wish the gov't would also dispell the notion that U.S. soldiers won't be killed while engaged in military operations.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:44:36 AM new
Why aren't all these tough "investigative" war reporters like Amanpour in Iraq looking for chem and bio weapons production?
Why aren't they in the Bekka Valley or West Bank, or Gaza Strip, or Egypt reporting on the terrorists and their covert activities ?
Why doesn't Amanpour go undercover in Iran, where she is from, and report about the nuclear reactor that Iran is developing or whatever else Iran may be plotting ?
She is a cheap shot coward that's why. Just another foreigner taking gross advantage of American Largesse. I hope CNN is paying her well.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:47:41 AM new
"Come to think of it, I wish the gov't would also dispell the notion that U.S. soldiers won't be killed while engaged in military operations."
I agree with that, and also agree with your previous comments about the euphimisms of war - "smart bombs," "surgical strikes," and I'd add in "collateral damage" also.
The language should reflect the reality. They're trying to make it sound much cleaner than it is.
Additionally, and this is weird, it bothers me that we've been fed an image of the damage at WTC that's not really the truth. What we see are glossy photos of victims at weddings, with smiling spouses, lounging on hammocks, etc.
I caught an early interview with a rescue/cleanup guy. A reporter brightly asked "What conditions are you finding?"
The rescue/cleanup guy shifted and looked down, and sort of mumbled - "We're not supposed to say."
A few days after the attack, it was reported that Giuliani ordered 10,000 body bags... for around 6,000 victims. I doubt 10,000 would be enough.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:53:01 AM new
donny- I agree. I think they need to show the remains of the victims being dug out of the WTC, just like they would if they were a civilian hit by U.S. military weapons.
I think it does have an effect on our pschye about these murder victims. The victims of these attacks have become ghosts, here today, gone in an instant.
The American people need to see what was done to them.
posted on October 18, 2001 10:58:41 AM newAdditionally, and this is weird, it bothers me that we've been fed an image of the damage at WTC that's not really the truth. What we see are glossy photos of victims at weddings, with smiling spouses, lounging on hammocks, etc. and..
A few days after the attack, it was reported that Giuliani ordered 10,000 body bags... for around 6,000 victims. I doubt 10,000 would be enough. *gasp!* And Donny finds yet ANOTHER conspiracy! Lol!
Off-topic...
oh calm down. Julesy, that was one of my ex-husband's favorite phrases to me. It was the one thing he would say to me that would send me into a rage.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:08:04 AM new
Yes, RAEMOND, more graphic images would have an impact. My father retired from the FBI and at one point he had to investigate the scene of an airplane crash not far from Camp David. The sight of body parts hanging from trees and scattered in the wreckage stayed with him as few other scenes have. I don't know whether that would harden Americans' resolve or have the same impact that the nightly news had during the Vietnam War.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:17:26 AM new
I'll add that I have a book that was printed in a rather limited edition since it was so expensive - it's James Nachtwey's "Inferno". It's a collection of his war photography or as he puts it, his anti-war photography. The victims in the photographs are mainly civilians in places such as Romania, Somalia, Rwanda, Chechnya. As a photographer, I've seen many disturbing photos in my life. I waited expectantly for this book, but I've only been able to look through it piecemeal and infrequently because it is so sorrowful. I remain divided in my opinion of whether seeing such graphic images will steel or steal our will.
posted on October 18, 2001 11:28:29 AM new
I couldn't say for certain what effect graphic photos of WTC remains would have on everyone. But I can say that truth is the path to follow.
Not only Americans need to see the carnage, but those around the world who think the attack was deserved need to see it also.
Edited to add- we made the Germans, civilian and military, go into the concentration camps to carry away and bury the remains of the murdered. This caused a reality check for them.
[ edited by REAMOND on Oct 18, 2001 11:32 AM ]
posted on October 18, 2001 11:43:27 AM new
The bottom line is this...Civilians should not be targeted directly, but if they happen to get whacked by a stray bomb, that's just too bad. I personally will not shed one bloody tear over collateral damage. Nor will I make any apologies for my opinion.
War, ladies and gentlemen, is an ugly, nasty business. People die.
Furthermore, if turning Afganistan into a smoking pile of rubble and in the process that happens to kill every living thing in that country, so be it. That's the cost of doing business.
I saw a interview with actor James Woods and he summed it up best. He said something to the effect of if this had happened to the Russians within 20 minutes three cities in the middle east would have nuked off of the face of the Earth. The terrorists know without a doubt of the Russian response. They also know of ours. We need to chage our response so that it becomes unpallatable for them to attack the United States or we will face more of the same attacks. Also, they woulldn't be worried about the reprisals becuase there wouldn't have been any becuase the other leaders would have said ok...we get the picture.
Bottom line folks, we can beat around the bush or we can turn the lives of the terrorists into Hell on Earth.
