rao@utcsstat.UUCP (Eli Posner) (11/01/83)
Well, well!! The US just killed (murdered) 47 defenceless mental patients!!! Where are all the critics ??? If Israel killed 47 mental patients by accident, the headlines would be flashing : "Barbaric and Ruthless Israelis Slaughter 4700 Innocent Patients" Don't deny it , it's happened before! Eli
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/04/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:ucbesvax:7500047:000:1128
ucbesvax!turner Nov 4 06:52:00 1983
Well, well!! The US just killed (murdered) 47 defenceless mental
patients!!! Where are all the critics ???
If Israel killed 47 mental patients by accident, the headlines
would be flashing :
"Barbaric and Ruthless Israelis Slaughter 4700 Innocent Patients"
Don't deny it , it's happened before!
Eli
Pardon me for being over-literal, but I have never seen a headline in any
mainstream paper in the U.S. which characterized an Israeli military
action as "Barbaric and Ruthless". I happen to condemn the invasion of
Grenada, but that doesn't mean that I think that the Marines said, "Oh
goody, a mental hospital--let's bomb and strafe."
If you condemn the invasion, do so in rational terms. If you are supporting
the invasion, why are you injecting the issue of casualties of Isreali
bombing? Do you have a coherent opinion on the matter?
At some point, it will become clear whether or not these civilians died
because of an understandable error or massive ineptitude. I would rather
wait until I can present something resembling a fact on the matter.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)rao@utcsstat.UUCP (Eli Posner) (11/08/83)
I don't know how it was in the U.S. , but in Canada (in particular Toronto,[even more particular "The Toronto Star"]) the papers were so blatantly anti-Israel in their reports and assessments of Israeli bombings etc. The exagerrations were so obvious. Eg. "there are now 600,000 homeless Lebanese in southern Lebanon" - and there aren't even 600,000 in the region!(they used the number 600,000 'cause in sounds like 6 million). BTW, I don't have any opinion on the US invasion, it's just that I wish people would be more uniform in their opinions , so when US and Israel do the same thing , either you condemn or condone BOTH. Eli
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (11/08/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:uiucdcs:29200029:000:1002 uiucdcs!renner Nov 6 13:49:00 1983 /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / utcsstat!rao / 7:25 pm Oct 31, 1983 */ Well, well!! The US just killed (murdered) 47 defenceless mental patients!!! Where are all the critics ??? /* ---------- */ It is customary in war to mark a medical facility with a large red cross clearly visible from the air. Once this is done, it is considered bad form to drop bombs on it. According to two reports in American newspapers, some of those present at the hospital at the time (a nurse and a psychiatric worker) say that the hospital was not so marked. Instead, it was occupied by soldiers who flew Grenadian (sp?) flags from it and fired out of it. Responsibility for such civilian deaths rests only with the soldiers who use them as a shield. It is interesting to speculate on the motives of the soldiers who occupied the hospital. One wonders if their actions were designed to provoke an American attack on a mental hospital in order to reap the propaganda benfits. Scott Renner ...pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:uiuccsb:11000045:000:255 uiuccsb!grunwald Nov 8 17:40:00 1983 Uhm...As for marking buildings with large red crosses during war-time. The raid was so quick that I honestly doubt that anyone had time to get out a bucket of red paint, climb on top of the building and paint a red cross while people are shooting at him.
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (11/10/83)
>Uhm...As for marking buildings with large red crosses during war-time. The raid >was so quick that I honestly doubt that anyone had time to get out a bucket of >red paint, climb on top of the building and paint a red cross while people are >shooting at him. If you will check the news reports on this, you will find that the hospital in question was being used to direct artillery fire on US troops. That clearly invalidates its neutrality in a battle zone. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
andree@uokvax.UUCP (11/14/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:uokvax:5000017:000:312 uokvax!andree Nov 13 00:10:00 1983 What!? Not enough time? But I thought that Grenada had been making noises about a possible invasion for a while now. Marking hospitals, etc. would seem to be only common sense in those conditions. After all, we mark hospitals in Germany - surely the government of Grenada would take the same precautions? <mike
jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R Carbin) (11/14/83)
Come on Mike, give me a break!!!!! Your claim that Grenada should have been
marking their hospitals since they feared imminent invasion doesn't hold
water. When is the last time the red cross on the roof of your local
hospital was repainted? Or are we just spending all of that money on the
military just to give lots of people jobs? I thought that we had to have a
strong defense to keep the Ruskies out! Could not that be classified as a
threat of imminent invasion?
as ever,
j.r. {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc
p.s. Better get out the red paint and the brushes boys, call your local
hospital administrator, and volunteer to come down and repaint their
cross!renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (11/17/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:uiucdcs:29200035:000:863
uiucdcs!renner Nov 16 15:58:00 1983
/***** uiucdcs:net.politics / ritcv!jrc / 2:29 am Nov 16, 1983 */
Come on Mike, give me a break!!!!! Your claim that Grenada should have been
marking their hospitals since they feared imminent invasion doesn't hold
water. When is the last time the red cross on the roof of your local
hospital was repainted?
/* ---------- */
This claim is invalid. The United States does not fear imminent invasion.
If we expected air strikes and naval shelling soon, then we would indeed be
painting red crosses on medical facilities.
More importantly, we would be obligated to refrain using hospitals for
military purposes. Enemy soldiers in Grenada were doing just this. Any
building used for hostile purposes is a military target. Those who use the
building are responsible for any civilian casualties suffered there.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!rennerandree@uokvax.UUCP (11/21/83)
#R:utcsstat:-136200:uokvax:5000022:000:405 uokvax!andree Nov 18 08:31:00 1983 Thank you, Scott Renner. You found the hole in jrc's comments. Just because the Soviets are in `conquer-the-world' mode does NOT mean that the US is in threat of `immenent invasion.' The Soviets may be crazy, but they aren't stupid. Currently, no single nation could succesfully invade the US. A coalition of European states with good bases in Central America would be another matter entirely... <mike
wall@ucbvax.UUCP (12/02/83)
Oh give me a break! If you think that the hospital was yet another coverup for "subversives" (Cubans - I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you did imply this), you're crazy. I'll bet that the damn pilot didn't even know that he/she was bombing a hospital. My bet is that the pilot made a major screwup and the air force had to cover it up *somehow*, otherwise our "rescue mission" might have become tainted and the media might have even come out against such an act (not likely since the wishy-washy US media didn't even question the *invasion* (it was *not* a "rescue mission"). Let's face it folks, the air force screwed up and had to cover their asses. No war/invasion is a clash between the "good guys" and the "bad guys", and to stand up on a soapbox waving old glory and saying that the dirty Cubans stooped to such a low so as to use a hospital as a military outpost (and therefore *they* should be blamed, not us) is absolutely ridiculous! Steve "if Grenada was a rescue mission, I'd hate to see an actual invasion" Wall wall@ucbarpa ucbvax!wall
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (12/09/83)
#R:ucbvax:-3300:uiucdcs:29200050:000:994
uiucdcs!renner Dec 6 21:23:00 1983
In response to Steve Wall's remarks about the bombing of the mental hospital
in Grenada, I will make the following points:
1. It was a Navy plane; the Air Force didn't have anything to do with it.
2. The hospital was being used by enemy forces to direct attacks against
our soldiers. It was not marked as a hospital. I maintain that the
responsibility for civilian deaths rests with the enemy, not the U.S.
3. It is almost certain that the Navy did not know the building was a
hospital. If they had known, they certainly would not have attacked it.
Those of you who believe that the Navy would not hesitate to kill
civilians should still be convinced if you considerthe bad publicity that
inevitably follows such an attack.
4. The only grounds for criticism of the U.S. in this affair is the
following question: Why didn't the Navy know about the hospital?
I still haven't heard a good answer to that one.
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!rennertpkq@charm.UUCP (12/10/83)
The hospital the U.S. bombed is clearly marked as such on standard maps of Grenada. If the planners of the invasion had any concern for protecting Grenadian lives, they could easily have found out where the hospitals were.