Why are half the lines in the post bold and half not? This is not journalism, not even in format.
No of course it's not, because I personally made those parts bold, as I found those parts as interesting information amongst the rest. If you view the original link provided you will see the content in it's original, less bolded fashion, you know.... if it bothers you so much.
The airstrike described is not major.
Considdering the level of aircraft used, the areas they bombed in the same time frame, it would be considdered more major then just one or two jets doing a bombing run which is normally the case in everyday combat.
Apparently the reporter did.
Are the pictures file photos?
What's the difference and your point? You have an overhead map of where the topic in question was taking place, and you have a shot of one a model of an aircraft used in the bombings.... I don't see anything here pointing directly to any paticular aircraft, area of attack, negative or positive spin, etc....
Basically what the hell are you trying to get at here? They could be pictures of ducks crossing the road for all they matter. Those were the pictures supplied in the above linked news article, I used them..... what's your problem?
The mixture of one news item, the strike, and a non-news item, long-contested casualty figures not caused by the strike, has an anti-war prejudice.
That depends on your perspective. Just about every single Canadian news agency when you read their articles related to Afghanistan, they almost always post how many Canadian casualties since the war began have occured, and sometimes how many civilians. I don't see this as anti-war... just facts. If you think explaining some of the background information which may relate to things you think are bad for the cause will ruin your lovely plans for war, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the war in the first place, because you can't justify that information except labeling it anti-war..... cripes man, it's directly related to the war.
If someone wants to think of it as anti-war or good for the war, then so be it. That's called freedom of choice and expression. You or anybody else has no right to restrict information just because you thnk it goes against something you are for. If you're for the war, good for you. Not everybody is, and not everybody has to be forced to agree with what you agree with. It's called the real world.
A founded moral issue might be the number of innocent civilians killed by Americans, Iraqis, Al quaida and affiliates, etc, and if this data were available from a reliable source, that would be a news item that would not have to be tagged to a presidential event, or any other legitimate news story.
There will be new talk of casualties directly related to this strike, very soon and from more than one source. This article overstretched the news. Who knows the results of the strike? There may be civilian casualties. Given the murderous nature of the American enemy, it remains deemed to be counter-productive to turn the country back over to the Bathists or Alqaida. Many Americans remain convinced that they can do this thing, and they can, but they''ll have to kill for too long a time, and it won't fly politically for another two years at this rate of good news.
The Americans must have thouight they'd found a tidy batch of bastards or they wouldn't blow the orchard to kingdom come. My preliminary estimate of the collateral damage is zero. When this is claimed to be fact, someone here will say the whole thing was some kind of a setup, a fake. And maybe it was.
Well let's look into why they related the civilian casualties lists and the attacks that just occured for a moment:
It comes as a World Health Organization survey says 151,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 invasion.
They listed off not to long before the air strikes occured, a list of how many people have died due to the actions of the US invading Iraq. Whether they were killed by US, Iraqi, Insurgent forces or not, the invasion of Iraq is what began this entire mess of crap, and therefore the responsibility lies directly on the US.
Now this is also related for the simple common sense that air strikes are not all that great with preventing collateral damage, nor is there anyway to confirm you killed the right person(s) until after people start digging away at the rubble to find the presents the US left them, called bodies. Most civilian casualties in Afghanistan alone at the hands of NATO, were by majority from US soldiers and their air strikes.
Do I also have to remind you about the Mercs in Iraq who are under investigation for killing civilians in an unprovoked attack? How about the marines who raped and killed who are under investigation?
The point I see in this article is that the US is well known for not giving a rats ass about civilians, esspecially if they're not their own kind. Yet at the same time they want more support for their wars. Now if you want to win the hearts of the people for supporting your war, don't you think you would try and put a better face on for the public to do so? Nope.... instead shortly after this report is released, they pull this major air strike on various targets and what you think is fact, I believe fact is that there where be plenty of civilian casualties in this attack and it's going to piss Iraqi's off even more.
