Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bless the Beasts and Children
Where did they go?
On 29 June, American and Iraqi soldiers were again fighting side-by-side as soldiers from Charley Company 1-12 CAV, led by Captain Clayton Combs, and Iraqi soldiers from the 5th IA, closed in on a village on the outskirts of Baqubah. The village had the apparent misfortune of being located near a main roadabout 3.5 miles from FOB Warhorsethat al Qaeda liked to bomb. Al Qaeda had taken over the village. As Iraqi and American soldiers moved in, they came under light contact; but the bombs planted in the roads, and maybe in the houses, were the real threat.
The firefight progressed. American missiles were fired. The enemy might have been trying to bait Iraqi and American soldiers into ambush, but it did not work. The village was riddled with bombs, some of them large enough to destroy a tank. One by one, experts destroyed the bombs, leaving small and large craters in the unpaved roads.
The village was abandoned. All the people were gone. But where?
...
The media has behaved in Iraq the way it always behaves. It has behaved in exactly the same way it did in Viet Nam. It would have behaved the same way in WW2 had it not been strictly controlled. The way that the media has behaved in Iraq should have been expected. Unlike WW2, and similar to Viet Nam, the Iraq war was not fought with the degree of ferocity necessary to win. Name a war where the "civilian" enemy (those who back up the enemy combatants) was not crushed and yet complete victory was still achieved. History is filled with examples of wars where enemy combatants were defeated, yet the outcome was insurgency and/or stalemate: WW1, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War, Iraq War, the slow retreat of the British Empire, the French in Algeria, and the list goes on and on. To find examples where war has been won without a resultant insurgency, one must look at examples where the "civilian" backers up have been completely defeated: the American Civil War, WW2 in Europe, WW2 in Asia, the Communists on mainland China. The list is short. I am not referring to the morality of war on civilians. That is another matter. I am referring to who wins wars and why. It is clear that there is a difference between winning in combat and winning in war. A war is not won until the civilian supporters (those that enable the war) have been crushed. "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." William T. Sherman. That is the horrible truth about war. It was true in 1864 and it is still true today. If we are not prepared to fight war in the ruthless and savage way that is necessary to win, then we should not go to war in the first place.I'd like to think with a larger r'epertoire of experiences, tech tools, and superior forces that we would not be forced to crush civilians. To some degree that is playing out during this latest strategy, the civilians are turning to the stronger side, betraying al qaeda that has been subjugating them.
However, the administration has been nearly criminally negligent at getting out the story of what has been done there. Few people here actually understand the success and challenges that have been faced. Buckets of ink and hours of airtime have been spent on crimes by a few, yet nearly none on what has been done correctly and for whom. There is a total lack of portraying the enemy in their ruthless reality. Yon has, but how many read his pieces? Roggio has, same problem. Totten too, as well as others. One has to ask, why the MSM has failed so miserably and why?
Update on Bless the Beasts and Children
Baqubah, Iraq
Since the publication of Bless the Beasts and Children many questions have arisen: some of which I can and will answer here, and some whose answers lie elsewhere.
Today, late afternoon on 3 July in Baqubah, Colonel Hiduit from 2nd Brigade 5th Iraqi Army was able to provide some additional details about the murders, as the ongoing investigation begins to yield more facts. The name of the village was not on any maps I examined while preparing the dispatch, but Colonel Hiduit said the name is al Hamira. Coordinates to the area of the gravesites are MC 679 381.
In my dispatch, I reported that six people were killed, but mentioned that Iraqi soldiers were still digging out bodies when I left. A few hours ago, Colonel Hiduit put the number at 10-14, and said the search for bodies had ended. I made video of the graves, bodies and of interviews with Iraqi and American soldiers while we still were at the scene and have been working to make material from this available on this website.
As the investigation unfolds more pertinent details, Ill continue to update the story. But the biggest question rippling across the internetWhy hasnt the mainstream media picked this up? is something only representatives of mainstream media can answer.
...
The media has behaved in Iraq the way it always behaves. It has behaved in exactly the same way it did in Viet Nam. It would have behaved the same way in WW2 had it not been strictly controlled. The way that the media has behaved in Iraq should have been expected. Unlike WW2, and similar to Viet Nam, the Iraq war was not fought with the degree of ferocity necessary to win. Name a war where the "civilian" enemy (those who back up the enemy combatants) was not crushed and yet complete victory was still achieved. History is filled with examples of wars where enemy combatants were defeated, yet the outcome was insurgency and/or stalemate: WW1, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War, Iraq War, the slow retreat of the British Empire, the French in Algeria, and the list goes on and on. To find examples where war has been won without a resultant insurgency, one must look at examples where the "civilian" backers up have been completely defeated: the American Civil War, WW2 in Europe, WW2 in Asia, the Communists on mainland China. The list is short. I am not referring to the morality of war on civilians. That is another matter. I am referring to who wins wars and why. It is clear that there is a difference between winning in combat and winning in war. A war is not won until the civilian supporters (those that enable the war) have been crushed. "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." William T. Sherman. That is the horrible truth about war. It was true in 1864 and it is still true today. If we are not prepared to fight war in the ruthless and savage way that is necessary to win, then we should not go to war in the first place.
What is pathetic is the lying hostility contained in your post. Where did I say that I wanted war conducted like a terrorist, assbreath? The implication of your "murder civilians" comment is that American attacks on enemy cities during WW2 constituted murder. Obviously false. What is the meaning of the word "civilian," when those described with that word support and finance enemy combatants? My comments in the posts above were about what countries have avoided insurgencies and/or stalemates and why. I outlined a comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam, and why America did not eliminate the enemy insurgency in both cases. Then pointed out conflicts where insurgencies were avoided. Any fool, even someone as slow as you Larkinn, can observe that insurgencies were avoided when conflict resulted in the defeat of "civilians" that backed up enemy combatants. Moreover, fewer real civilian casualties result when the "civilian" supporters and financiers of a conflict are defeated, compared to those conflicts where long-term insurgencies develop. You have a real reading comprehension problem. What part of this sentence do you not understand:You bitch and whine about me "defending terrorists" and then you want to commit terrorist atrocities and murder civilians? You want the US to act no better than Hezbollah, even though you hate them so. Pathetic.
onedomino said:I am not referring to the morality of war on civilians. That is another matter. I am referring to who wins wars and why. It is clear that there is a difference between winning in combat and winning in war.
What is pathetic is the lying hostility contained in your post. Where did I say that I wanted war conducted like a terrorist, assbreath? The implication of your "murder civilians" comment is that American attacks on enemy cities during WW2 constituted murder. Obviously false.
What is the meaning of the word "civilian," when those described with that word support and finance enemy combatants? My comments in the posts above were about what countries have avoided insurgencies and/or stalemates and why.
I outlined a comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam, and why America did not eliminate the enemy insurgency in both cases. Then pointed out conflicts where insurgencies were avoided. Any fool, even someone as slow as you Larkinn, can observe that insurgencies were avoided when conflict resulted in the defeat of "civilians" that backed up enemy combatants.
[/quote]Moreover, fewer real civilian casualties result when the "civilian" supporters and financiers of a conflict are defeated, compared to those conflicts where long-term insurgencies develop. You have a real reading comprehension problem. What part of this sentence do you not understand:
grrrrrrrr I dont know why it didnt quote right, the following is Larkin....Obviously false? No, sorry. The firebombings of civilian populations and the nuclear blasts were both murder.
Considering almost everyone in America supports and funds our troops, does that mean that we are not civilians? With this idiotic logic 9/11 was not a crime against civilians, but this new term that you haven't specified yet.
Regardless of what actually happens in the different scenarios, the fact remains that you are now advocating killing civilians, hence making you advocating terrorism.
His ends here....Errr no. How many people civilians died in Dresden (just one city) vs, how many died in Iraq?
And why the hell are you asking me what part of a sentence I don't understand when this is the first time you posted it? Posting new information and then demanding to know what I don't understand before I even have a chance to respond? What the hell is wrong with you.
Murder can sometimes be justified, as it was in WWII. Then the situation was fairly desperate. Most of the major powers were at war, and the situation was...well grim. Tens of millions of people died in those battles, the cruelty was a necessary evil.
Now? Iraq is a piddling ME country with barely any power. We are fighting an insurgency there. We don't need to crush them completely, its not worth the massive human loss of life, and frankly its incredibly stupid. Times have changed. We live in a more globalized world. We crush the Iraqi insurgency cruelly and inhumanely and we give reason for people across the Arab and Muslim world to join AQ.
grrrrrrrr I dont know why it didnt quote right, the following is Larkin.... His ends here....
An outright LIE. Neither the bombing campaign nor the use of the two A Bombs was murder, nor criminal. You and those that claim so 60 years after the fact are ignorant of the conditions, the mores and the reasoning for the bombing and the Atomic weapons. I will grant that it MIGHT be possible Dresden was not necassary. But it was a legit target and was bombed for military reasons.
Using your logic, machine guns are criminal as are grenades, artillery and any naval or airstrike.
The atomic bombs are the easiest of all to defend if you were a sane person. But your obviously one of those crackpots that buys into the conspiracy theory that we bombed them to scare the Soviets.
There is NOT ONE shred of credible evidence that PRIOR to the surrender of Japan and our gaining access to their documents and records ANYONE in a position of command on the Allied side had any idea that Japan would surrender out right before we invaded and slaughtered most of the Japanese population.
Read up on Saipan and Okinawa and the conduct of the military of Japan through out the war. Then read up on the KNOWN war plans of the Japanese to defend the home Islands.
The Japanese civilian population chose suicide to surrender in every location we encountered them on the ground. In Okinawa the Japanese army forceable chose death for Okinawans that wouldn't commit suicide that they had control over.
The Japanese military did not surrender, or rather so few did that for all intents and purposes there was no reason to expect them to quit no matter the odds.
Japan was run by the Military. Even after the Emperor, a man they considered a God, made the decision to surrender , after two Atomic Bombs, the Japanese Military tried to prevent his surrender.
The projected losses in the planned invasion of ONE of the home Islands was a MILLION allied ( mostly americans) troops, with 1 to 2 hundred thousand being killed. It was, based on the previous experience of Saipan and Okinawa and the plans for use of civilians armed with bamboo spears, believed that the Japanese race could be in danger of being eliminated. At the least MILLIONS of civilians would die.
Truman agonized over the use of the Bomb ( and in fact he never ordered the second, but left it to the military) And NO ONE knew the consequences of the radiation after the use of the bombs. Both targets were legit military targets. Ports and Army headquarters used to raise Armies to resist the invasion.
A little history lesson may help as long as you don't buy into the revisionist history that somehow the Allies were the bad guys in WW2.
by larkinnMurder can sometimes be justified, as it was in WWII. Then the situation was fairly desperate. Most of the major powers were at war, and the situation was...well grim. Tens of millions of people died in those battles, the cruelty was a necessary evil.
What is pathetic is the lying hostility contained in your post. Where did I say that I wanted war conducted like a terrorist, assbreath? The implication of your "murder civilians" comment is that American attacks on enemy cities during WW2 constituted murder. Obviously false. What is the meaning of the word "civilian," when those described with that word support and finance enemy combatants? My comments in the posts above were about what countries have avoided insurgencies and/or stalemates and why. I outlined a comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam, and why America did not eliminate the enemy insurgency in both cases. Then pointed out conflicts where insurgencies were avoided. Any fool, even someone as slow as you Larkinn, can observe that insurgencies were avoided when conflict resulted in the defeat of "civilians" that backed up enemy combatants. Moreover, fewer real civilian casualties result when the "civilian" supporters and financiers of a conflict are defeated, compared to those conflicts where long-term insurgencies develop. You have a real reading comprehension problem. What part of this sentence do you not understand:
Are you insane? That was unprovoked and there was no war. However, I would COMPLETELY support you going back on medication.So what you're saying onedomino is that you COMPLETELY support Al Qaeda's attack on the "civilians" in the World Trade Center?
After all...those enemy combatants were only playing by the very rules you've laid out here.
How bout it?
Do you really think that was a superior and viable strategy?
Are you insane? That was unprovoked and there was no war. However, I would COMPLETELY support you going back on medication.
Murder is a criminal act. The bombings and the A bombs were NOT murder. Plain and simple. Soldiers only commit murder during a war under VERY specific CRIMINAL actions.
Lmao...murder is only a criminal act, if its against the law.
Killing civilians is murder. Whether its justifiable or not is another question, but its fucking murder. Especially when you know your actions will kill civilians.
I agree with you completely. According to the Geneva Conventions deliberate attacks on civilians is murder.
Unfortunately the US is not at liberty to pick and chose when it wants to apply international law to this "war on terror" though.
Think about it.
