Enough said.

[_JS]

If there are ten people in a house with one terrorist , are they helping hide him?

Al Maliki needs to get his own forces in gear and do all the detaining with Iriqui police and army forces under his own command , the less he depends on the strength of the US the better for him and us too.

He barely has a cohesive government and one the US military seems to ignore anytime it sees fit. Added to that, we ignore the main threat to his government (Sunni insurgents) and focus on Iran and Shi'a insurgents.

Laying this at the foot of Iraq is low.

[sirs]

Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional.  You don't think so??  And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread.  That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into).  Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely?? 

That is what al-Maliki is implying in his statement.

Maliki is implying wanton intentional targeting, attacking & killing of Iraqis?  Then we're reading 2 different versions of his comments.  I'm seeing it precisely as I've outlined above.  You appear to believe he's saying it as if he were Tee.  What say "you" personally?  You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??

That is what Maliki means by mistakes for which he has to clean up the mess.

Better intel, better focus of force useage, and less collateral damage.

[_JS]

"Concerning American raids on Shula (a northern Shiite neighborhood) and Sadr City (the Shiite slum enclave in east Baghdad). There were big mistakes committed in these operations. The terrorist himself should be targeted not his family.

"When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others. These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," the angry al-Maliki declared.

"Maliki is implying wanton intentional targeting, attacking & killing of Iraqis"

I'm not so sure he is implying it as much as flat out saying it.

I know that you want to make this into some argument over semantics Sirs, but Maliki's statement is clear and the media made it equally clear that he made these statements in tones of anger and outrage.

Do you have some reason to believe that the leader of Iraq is lying?

[sirs]

Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but then again, perhaps I understand why

[_JS]

Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but then again, perhaps I understand why

Sirs, I think that the problem comes from your lack of understanding the English language.

Was it a mistake to dismiss every Ba'athist in every position of Government in Iraq? Yes. Was it done intentionally? Yes. See, the two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to claim.

What say "you" personally?  You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??

Yes. There is certainly proof of that. The question is to what degree and how widespread. That, I cannot answer.

[sirs]

Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.

Sirs, I think that the problem comes from your lack of understanding the English language.

I've got the language down pretty pat.  Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do.  So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing.  Wonton widespread targeting and killing of Iraqis on purpose, or wartime collateral damage that's not acceptable by their leader.  I can easily deduce the latter, based on the specific quotes you've provided, the context that they were given, and the military parameters the U.S. is working under, in a war zone

Now you, and Tee, can go right ahead and believe that our military is just a bunch of low hanging barbarian fruit looking to kill anything that moves.  I don't beleive that, and I'm confident Maliki doesn't believe that.  But he does believe our military can do better, and it should

 

You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??

Yes. There is certainly proof of that. The question is to what degree and how widespread. That, I cannot answer.

Well, there you go     

[_JS]

I've got the language down pretty pat.  Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do.  So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing.

Honestly, I think you have a very elementary grasp on the language at best. I've given you two perfectly acceptable examples of mistakes where there was intent. The two are not mutually exclusive, though for some odd reason you are still hung up on this bizarre semantic tangent. 

Now you, and Tee, can go right ahead and believe that our military is just a bunch of low hanging barbarian fruit looking to kill anything that moves.  I don't beleive that, and I'm confident Maliki doesn't believe that.  But he does believe our military can do better, and it should

Obviously I've never said that our military are barbarians, shooting anything that moves. Quite the contrary, it was the tactics that was in error here and I'm certain the soldier on the ground was following orders. Let's stick to the argument and not play your favourite game of constructing a strawman.

Well, there you go     

It is not deniable that we have killed civilians, even on purpose in some instances. As I said, how widespread that is remains to be seen. Don't huff and puff and get all self-righteous Sirs, I've stated nothing that is not fact. Where there aren't facts, I simply wait and see. I prefer that to jumping on one bandwagon or another.

[gipper]

I feel a minor compulsion to jump in here, perhaps to offer a clarification. Maybe what the two of you are ultimately talking about, beyond strategy and tactics, aberrations and policy, reflexive acts born of fright and edginess rather than purposeful acts born of design and intent, is the very philosophy of war: what comes with it and what doesn't, a sort of slow-mo retrospective through the fog of war. Are ordinary notions of morality altered in the crucible of war and, if so, according to what principles. (I must add that, Dresden aside, the cause of a war: it's wisdom and wise management greatly affect the perceptions that flow from it.)

[Christians4LessGvt]

to take a phrase from you: "you are kidding, right?"
when i said "I don't want to bomb anyone"
it is like when a father says he does not want to spank his son
but sometimes he does what he does not want to do to correct poor behavior

[sirs]

I've got the language down pretty pat.  Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do.  So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing.

Honestly, I think you have a very elementary grasp on the language at best.

Well, that's your opinion perhaps

The two are not mutually exclusive, though for some odd reason you are still hung up on this bizarre semantic tangent. 

Yet, your position is that Maliki HAD to have meant wanton disregard of civlilan life at the hands of the U.S.military, that he had meant widespread targerting of Iraqi civlilians, since that's what Tee introduced, to which you applied Maliki's comments as supposed validation of such.  I've read the same quotes, IN CONTEXT, and they clearly demonstrate frustration on his part at the loss of tragic life, and that the U.S. needs to do better.  That doesn't equate in the least some proclaimation that our military is a bunch of murderous barbarian mercinaries, as Tee would claim

Obviously I've never said that our military are barbarians, shooting anything that moves.

Yet, that's largely Tee's position, to which you then jumped in with Maliki's comments as validation. 

Quite the contrary, it was the tactics that was in error here and I'm certain the soldier on the ground was following orders. Let's stick to the argument and not play your favourite game of constructing a strawman.

Love to, if you'd stop perpetuating the strawman.  And the strawman is Tee's game, not mine however.  I've already conceded the mistakes in tactics.  They do need to do better.  Hard to run a perfect war, as thereso few to look to as examples of such

It is not deniable that we have killed civilians, even on purpose in some instances.

"Purposely" targeting and killing innocent civilians??  Wow,  What's it like living on Tee's side of the island?