Rigby5
Diamond Member
We spent BILLIONS to keep the civilians happy. At no point were we trying to cause fear among the Iraqi population for political gain.None of that meets the requirement to be labled "terrorism". Dont respond again until you look up the actual definition.What an absurd statement.Killing terrorists is never wrong.
Biden orders airstrikes on Iran-backed militias near Iraq-Syria border in response to UAV attacks
"The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope," Kirby said.abcnews.go.com
"President Joe Biden ordered airstrikes this weekend on Iran-backed militias near the Iraq-Syria border in response to unmanned aerial vehicle attacks, according to Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby.
"At President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region -- the targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq."
Kirby said the U.S. acted within its legal rights and said the airstrikes were a matter of self-defense. The sites hit by the U.S. were determined to have had command, control and logistics capabilities, the official said. The official said it's too early to know if there were any militia or civilian casualties."
This moron is so senile he doesn't even know if his airstrikes killed anyone?? This is what happens when you let a neo-con get control of what use to be the most powerful military in the world. How is what he did legal? He didn't get approval from Congress first...he is basically committing war crimes and should be thrown in prison.
Iran has never been guilty of terrorism, but the US is constantly.
So you think it is right to kill people in the US?
Did the US consistently commit acts of terrorism?
YES.
Recently, like assassinating General Soleimani.
Previously the illegal invasion of Iraq on WMD lies, with illegal attack on civilian infrastructure, with "Shock and Awe".
There has never been a country committing terrorism as often or as bad as the US.
Wrong.
Here is the definition of terrorism:
{...
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
...}
The invasion of Iraq was totally and completely unlawful since Iraq had done nothing wrong, and we specifically attacked the civilian population with "Shock and Awe", depriving them of food, water, sanitation, and electricity, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of them.
You can't be more terrorist than that.
Totally wrong.
We deliberately targeted civilians infrastructure, wiping out all utilities and food.
Sure we then had to spend BILLIONS, but that was just to replace all the utilities we had destroyed.
If we had not intended to cause fear in the civilians population, then we would not have called it "Shock and Awe".
{...
Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "[m]inimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[8] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[9]
Using as an example a theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, the authors claimed, "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[10]
Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated, "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."[11]
...
Criticism of execution[edit]
According to The Guardian correspondent Brian Whitaker in 2003, "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11."[20] Anti-war protesters in 2003 also claimed that "the shock and awe pummeling of Baghdad [was] a kind of terrorism."[21]Casualties[edit]
A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the U.K. non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of U.S.-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.[22]These findings were disputed by both the U.S. military and the Iraqi government. Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, the spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, stated, "I don't know how they are doing their methodology and can't talk to how they calculate their numbers," as well as "we do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties in all of our operations."[23] National Geographic researcher Bijal Trivedi stated, "Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical."
...}
There had essentially been no resistance, and the US should not have bombe Iraq at all or destroyed the civilian utilities as we did.
It as all totally illegal terrorism.
