Jim,
Right now I think that number might even be a bit high........ First, my definition of civilian in these circumstances would be unarmed non-combatants....... I would not count those who may have been armed &/or acting in a threatening manner during ongoing, armed conflict.
IMO, considering the reaction by France (mostly) & other arrogant European countries (and certain Bush haters here & abroad), as well as many, many Arabs (not necessarily those in power though), if there were actually 1,500++ genuine civilian casualties, the foreign press would have been all over it with verifiable pictures, stories, plus cold, hard, undeniable facts.
Instead, all we see is their outrage & unverifiable allegations............ IMO, there comes a point where even the best attempts to cover up massive carnage is no longer feasible......... there's just too many reliable witnesses, including our own servicemen who would be able to provide irrefutable evidence of such atrocities.
I believe that we are in this to rid the world of terrorists who wish to harm the USA. It would be a massive miscalculation on our part to begin the war with the wanton, willful & accepted (at higher levels) slaughter of innocent civilians to meet our stated goals.
Sorry, but I'm not buying into Sylvester's unsubstantiated & less than believable POV's on this & other politically oriented BS.
JMHO
Ö¿Ö |
