American artillery cannon kills three civilians in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gekko513, Jun 5, 2006.

  1. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #1
    [nrk] (In Norwegian)
    Sorry about the poor quality of my translation.

    My question to this is, how the heck does that happen? I'm sure the American military has done thousand and thousands of test fires with artillery guns in the US, but somehow they've never managed to kill anyone there.

    I just don't buy it. There's something terribly wrong with this picture.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Oh I'm sure there have been Americans killed in accidents stateside. Accidents happen even in the best of circumstances. It sounds like that is what this is so far.
     
  3. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #3
    So, it's an accident at that makes it acceptable? What security measures where taken? Why did they even fire within range of civilian settlements if it was a test fire?
     
  4. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #4
    I'm sure they just take more precautions when testing on American soil. I mean, American lives are more valuable, aren't they? :confused: :(
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    I wouldn't call it acceptable, but it can still be an accident, right? You'll have to provide some evidence of intent or carelessness before it moves beyond being called an accident.
     
  6. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #6
    Sure, it can be an accident, but it seems very fishy to fire a cannon in range of civilian buildings for no particular reason. At best it's negligence and should have consequences for the officers in charge.

    The evidence of carelessness is clear. Three people were killed and six buildings were damaged.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    If they weren't targetting civilian buildings, there's no reason a cannon can't be fired near a civilian building. Probably not optimal, but it can, and does, happen.

    People killed and buildings damaged are not, in and of themselves, evidence of carelessness.
     
  8. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #8
    You Norweigians seem to be putting some sort of "value" on "human life and dignity" - and this is the core of your mistake.

    You see, the people who died in Iraq were "brown". BROWN! And POOR! If they were less brown or less poor then they would obviously move to a place that has a lower chance of blowing them up. Iraq is dangerous! *I* wouldn't live there, why are they?

    In other words, it's their own fault. Besides, you can't make an omelette (world peace) without breaking a few eggs (30,000 dead Iraqis), right?
     
  9. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #9
    Do you really mean that? :confused:
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Yes. Like I said, it's not optimal, but you've never heard of an artillery piece inside a city aimed at something out away from the city? When all goes as planned, the only effects inside the city will be noise and smoke. If there is a mishap there can be damage near the cannons location.

    Unless you are telling me that they actually fired a cannon at a civilian structure deliberately?
     
  11. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #11
    It's not optimal. :confused: Of course it's not freaking optimal. If there's only a slight chance of a misfire, you don't fire a test within the range of anything civilian, when all you have to do is move out of range and have zero chance of accidental civilian casualties. I don't believe there's a lack of uninhabited wasteland in Iraq.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    First, what precautions were taken to assure that no civilians were nearby? Do we know this, or are you just assuming that the Americans were reckless?

    Second, was this an explosion of the artillery piece itself, or of some unloaded ammunition nearby, or something else entirely?

    Third, how close were the surrounding populations areas?

    Fourth, was this done according to regulations, or were some soldiers cutting some corners somewhere?

    Would you not agree that we need to know a little more about the events surrounding this event to figure out of something negligent or criminal occured? I'm not excusing this act or condeming it. All I'm saying is that I can see how an accident can happen when large quantities of explosives are packed into a tight tube and ignited. If you can show me that this was reckless or incompetent behavior I will be happy to acknowlege that, but you'll have to provide a little more substance than what you have provided so far.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    Shouldnt you be talking about the police impersonators that took 50 people today or how about yesterdays killing of every teenager on the bus except for a few Sunni's. Sure its sad as heck but come on.
     
  14. gekko513 thread starter macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #14
    OK, I do agree that more information is needed to really establish that it was reckless behaviour.

    But it is suspicious that it was able to destroy buildings and kill civilians. We don't know if the buildings were military or civilian, but if those were civilian buildings, this accident shouldn't be possible because the test site should've been placed somewhere else.

    I found a BBC link on this.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    That's one hell of a grenade. Six buildings???
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    But what if this artillery piece was put there to protect those buildings and they had an accident? I'm just saying...

    Ok, I see the BBC story. It's not an exposion of the artillery piece, it's a misfire or some kind of targetting error.
     
  17. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #17
    American civilians have never been killed in Iraq during this war.

    (Unfortunate as it is, it is impossible to be perfect, especially in a time like this (when ironically it is most needed))
     
  18. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #18
    weren't there some journalists that were killed in Iraq recently? They are civilians correct? They are not in the military.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    huh?
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    All American civilians in Iraq are there courtesy of the occupying powers.
     
  21. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #21
    Yes, that is correct.

    My point was that this is not the first, nor the last, time there will be civilian casualties (from both sides) during a "war." Only in this case, it doesn't appear the Iraqi citizens were deliberately killed.

    Any non-local articles for each occurance is like reminding live people to breath. It is simply not necessary.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    US security contractors, while mainly ex-military, are also technically civilians, as are the aid workers and reporters who have been killed.
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    I realise your earlier post was ironic. A reminder might be appropriate here that the occupying powers are still bound by the terms of the Geneva Conventions, which are very specific about the duty of taking care of the civilian population in a country under occupation.

    You surely don't dispute that the US and UK are still "occupying powers", despite any hollow protestations to the contrary, do you?
     
  24. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #24
    It's 2006 now, skunk. Geneva Conventions are so 9/10.
     
  25. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #25
    Is it sad that i can say "Another day, another dollar" and it make sense in this case?

    Yes very much so :(
     

Share This Page