@Lazarus: Sorry for the long delay...
Originally posted by Lazarus
Anyway, I think we agree, even if we look at the thing from different angles. Take this recent killing of 15 civilians by a US missle, for example. Now you say that it was a US missle, and it killed 15 civilians. This information, as far as I have been able to track (as of 08:35 central time, US) is from Iraqi cources.
<snip>
Now, I would guess that it probably was an American missle that killed those people. But I certainly won't take the Iraqi's word for it, and they are the only ones able to give any information at this time. So, I think that your saying it was and American missle is a bit pre-mature. Again, all I ask is that everyone be skeptical. The US has been perfectly willing to admit when they kill the wrong people (as evidenced by admitting the killing of the Syrians, and also of their own troops in "friendly fire" incidents). So, wait to see what they have to say, before jumping to conclusions.
Isn't that reasonable?
Yes, I think we agree for once

and I think your proposal that we must wait and see regarding all information, is reasonable. Regarding the 15 dead civilians at the market, I trusted the information because when I read it I got the impresssion that it was independant Red Cross workers who had confirmed the origin of the missile. (I might have misunderstood or mixed the sources up since I was in a hurry and at work). My mistake there.
In the middle of a war I tend to evaluate reports from aid organisations as more likely to reflect reality than Western or Arab media. The fact that the US admits killings by friendly fire is very good, but says nothing about how willing the US/UK would be to admit civil deaths, and I suppose we can do nothing but wait for more information regarding the 15 the other day, and the reports of 50 or more deaths in a market place in Bagdad.
posted by Chanak
This is where it all becomes confusing...for there are a number of paramiltary groups and militias within Iraq that the regime there terms "civilians"...they did during the Persian Gulf War, and apparently they're doing it now.
Yes that happens sometimes, but it is only part of the problem since it is also a well-documented trick by the military of many nations to claim that civilians are not civilians just because a few people in a group are armed. In Canada and the US, many people are armed although they aren't policemen or military staff. Would you define them as "not civilians"? Probably not.
A brief comment on the lack of utilities in Basra: one stated objective of Coalition forces right now is the preservation, whenever possible, of the infrastructure that already exists within Iraq, to the exclusion of military targets. Iraqi troops, militia, and paramilitary groups have been busy destroying these things behind them as Coalition troops advance. This is also what happened in Basra, unless I have been misinformed.
Basra seems to be a nightmare situation right now, there are reports of regime-friendly military attacking the civilians, and at the same time they are running out of clean water. However, according to the reports I have seen it is most likely that the destruction of the water utilites was caused by bombings by the US/UK.
posted by Scayde
It is unfortunate that many of these people are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, much as they were in Somalia, but the fact is these 'civilians' are often in fact armed militia. Rather they are coerced, or acting voluntarily, the soldier being fired upon has no way of knowing.
I cannot comment on the situation in Iraq since I have no more information than everybody else, but regarding Somalia 1993 there are independant reports (the Canadian report is confirmed by US officials I think) and hundreds of people including women, elderly and children were murdered by the US/UN forces. A bleak and tragic failure for the US and the UN.