Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 05, 2004, 12:47:43 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fallujah
-
Also Baghdad and Basra; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3601887.stm
There's a Shia uprising.... whereas before it had been the Sunni muslims, who were the main supporters of Saddam.
-
Yes the **** is hitting the fan. Iraqi's are making a statement, they no want US help.
I think they should say it in English, maybe the americans will listen then.
-
They're using the universal language of high-power explosions to get the message across quite effectively.
-
Well, as complex as this is, it should also be borne in mind that any other invading country in their history, including England, Germany, China and Russia would have bombed this village. Flat.
That doesn't make this right, just suggest we all keep this in mind. ;)
-
fuck
-
you know looking at the chain of events over the last few days I realy wonder if **** was TRYING to incite a violent upriseing
-
Probably.
-
is it still bleeping ****?
[edit]
yes it's still bleeping B-U-S-H -- why is it bleeping the unpresident's name?
-
Something to do with Shrike and his communist rebellion.
-
so **** get's censored, but **** doesn't?
edit: nm, bob did it like this: ****
anyway, this is only a logical follow up.
-
****es name is vulgar, whoever bleeped it im glad they did. If he found we were posting this as much as we were HLP may be considered terrorists instead of debatists.
As far as the the city being bombed in the past, and them being lucky today? What kind of statement is that? A threat? Fact? Hard to swallow that one without looking at it badly.
Fact is Iraq wants the US out of the country, the US is pissed they had casualties and use it as an excuse to pacify a bunch of people who are better of killing each other IMO.
Seriously, what is the US interest there? This morning the administration could hardly give a reason why, or even hard facts relating to the arrest of the 25 men who apparently killed four american contractors.
No burden of proof is required in iraq, they can just kill whoever they think is involved and get away with it. iraq kills 4 US people, they take 25? Hows that fair? And without burden of proof to top it off?
The US is being hypocritical in their policy, and obviously only trying to create war and problems in iraq so they dont have to hand it over on june 30th.
Ill bet 100 American dollars right here the US does NOT hand over power on the 30th because of the iraqi populous problem.
Im betting Iraq will never really be free, and while the rest of the world is getting more intense in their problems, US focuses on their oil problem in Iraq.
I honestly hope the US gets the message eventually, it seems to me the US has a non-respecting foreign policy, a policy that says "kill 'em all and let god sort them out"
Why do the US have to stick their big nose in their in the first place? Still no damn WMD's......mumble....mumble....NWO
-
It was done almost certainly to diffuse political polarization that has gripped these forums for about a month. In theory, if you can't use **** in a sentence you won't talk about him as much. But that hasn't worked.
-
if they're trying to dispell our politics talk they can [connery]"shuck my wang"[/connery]
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
****es name is vulgar, whoever bleeped it im glad they did. If he found we were posting this as much as we were HLP may be considered terrorists instead of debatists.
At least you're in Canada, Lone, so you're safe from prosecution...unless you get extradited. Those of us here inside the US aren't nearly as safe.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
At least you're in Canada, Lone, so you're safe from prosecution...unless you get extradited. Those of us here inside the US aren't nearly as safe.
They will never take me alive. It will be a cold day in hell when i let the US extradite me from my Country up north.
YOU CANT CATCH ME COPPERS! Besides i have the right to freedom of speach i think.......
****es term is almost over then the new NWO leader will appear, Mr Kerry who i beleive will be more militaristic then **** was, but time will tell.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
if they're trying to dispell our politics talk they can [connery]"shuck my wang"[/connery]
:eek: Ack! No! Use 'dick', not 'wang' - he probably doesn;t know the meaning of the word. ;) And go for 'Pushy Galore' references - works a treat :nod:
My god, that was Ot. and ridiculously picky..... meh
-
What the ****?!?
All the Shia guy did was kill someone who was, by anyone but America and the UK's standards, a traitor, back in May which was effectively war-time.
So he killed a traitor. During war time.
How is that any reason to issue a warrant for his arrest?
-
Originally posted by an0n
What the ****?!?
All the Shia guy did was kill someone who was, by anyone but America and the UK's standards, a traitor, back in May which was effectively war-time.
So he killed a traitor. During war time.
How is that any reason to issue a warrant for his arrest?
Cause the US said so, and they say some Iraqi judge said so. And they wont name the judge so we will never know.
This is how the US politics work, they jerk you around until your too tired to look for the answers anymore. All this propaganda we get in the west, is just that, propaganda. Big news conference today was only to make threats and make US look good during their pacification of Fallujah. I dont like seeing people fight or die, but in this case i hope Fallujah prevails. its time to kick the bully our of their backyard.
-
Ahahahaha.
I just thought:
This explains why they veto'd the condemnation against Israel.
-
Isreal is a tool for the NWO, it will be the Isrealites that will claim to have the christ and will use the "christ" to claim their fallen lands.
This is all predestined.
BTW 8 US soldiers died in a Mobbing. Not shooting, or fighting, or crossfire or even friendly fire.
THEY WERE MOBBED TO DEATH!
US cant win this one.
-
fuck
-
See, the Sunni leadership got raped to death in the fighting with the US, so all they could do was snipe in 2-3 man teams at open US targets.
But the Shia have been working under Saddam for years. They'll have a working leadership, organization and operational security.
Plus, they've probably been planning this since last May.
America is going to get pwned so bad it'll make Vietnam look like a kick in the groin compared to this nuke in the face.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know looking at the chain of events over the last few days I realy wonder if **** was TRYING to incite a violent upriseing
Do you think the US government actually wants a shia led government in Iraq, considering that the Shia communitys two biggest allies are Iran and Hez'bollah?
Anon, this has probably been planned since long before last may. Hez'bollahs in there for 6 months at least clicky (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/international/middleeast/24INTE.html?ex=1156050000&en=677500339faed57b&ei=5035&partner=MARKETWATCH)
-
Originally posted by an0n
See, the Sunni leadership got raped to death in the fighting with the US, so all they could do was snipe in 2-3 man teams at open US targets.
But the Shia have been working under Saddam for years. They'll have a working leadership, organization and operational security.
Plus, they've probably been planning this since last May.
America is going to get pwned so bad it'll make Vietnam look like a kick in the groin compared to this nuke in the face.
But it's the Shias who are starting to revolt now..........yon black-shirted militiamen. That's why this has spread to Basra.
-
you'd think they wouldn't, but small violence, they close a news paper, this invokes big violent protests, so they arrest one of the guys aids, this leads to huge outrage, and now there going to arrest the guy himself, add to this the faluja crap and it seems like there trying to fuck up. what's next Bush declairing the war in Iraq a crusade?
-
The thing is, it's the Iraqi's that are issuing the arrests. I don't know if it's something the occupation is doing systematically with the Iraqi authorities working with them, or some kind of internal power struggle. I suspect the latter, but why couldn't it have happened after the troops handed over power?
-
becase then it wouldn't be America's fault,
and anyway, I don't think that's it, it seems like we have simply cluster****ed, again
we controle the Iraqi authorities if there doing something we arn't just ok with it we told them to do it
-
Well, seeing as how anyone in a decision-making capacity has been appointed by the US (sorry, sorry, "the Coalition"), yes you are responsible. No one so much as takes a piss without the CPA's say so, and I think that the Iraqi people recongize their "government" for what it is; a puppet regime.
Now, the big mistake was pissing of Muqtada al Sadr. It is estimated that anywhere from one third to one half of all Iraqis support him, so trying to shut him down might not be the wisest thing to do. He's got his militias up in arms all over Iraq.
If the Shia ever come to stand united against the US, its going to get very bloody very quickly. And this guy, he seems likely to be the man to make it happen.
-
Another article people should check out. (http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc4234.html)
-
I see what you mean about the Veto Anon.
This technique has been proven to only increase resistance and local hatred. Everyone knew this was coming I think, from the moment those bodies were dragged through Fallujah there had to be a show of power from the Americans.
Whoever commanded the military forces to surround the village knew this would spark off a riot, caused by panic if nothing else, say what you like about the American Army, but they are shiny, and they have big guns.
Basically, being anti American is a matter of survival in that village more than anywhere in the Middle East, a lot of the people involved in the mutilation business etc were there because they would be persecuted if they weren't, or suspected of being a sympathiser. So I don't quite see how to resolve this now.
< sigh > Where's Asterix and Obelix when you need them?
-
I just wish I could be able to rant
"AHAHAHAHHHAA YOU ****ED UP IRAQ JUST TO ESTABLISH YET ANOTHER COLLAPSING FUNDIE-ISLAMIST ****HOLE JUST WAITING TO TOSS MONEY AT WHOEVER THEY LIKE/DISAGREES WITH USA USA USA"
But I won't.
-
I hope there is an uprising. Kicking out the US is the only way the Iraqis are going to get real soverignty. That thing on June 30th is a charade. All the real power will be kept with the US. Not to mention the fact that the entire Governing Council is US appointed.
-
The Iraqis won't push America out, and, as much as I feel for the Iraqi people, the Bloodbath that would follow the Americans leaving at this moment in time doesn't bear thinking about.
The only way Iraq will get sovereignty is if every other country in the world leant on the US, which isn't going to happen, and then for the US to comply to the weight of the rest of the planet, which isn't going to happen :( They've got the Bombs.
If America had the world in it's hands, I wouldn't feel so bad, but America doesn't, a few massive corporations have the world in their hands, and they are squeezing.
< Ding > Time for Prozac! LOL
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I hope there is an uprising. Kicking out the US is the only way the Iraqis are going to get real soverignty. That thing on June 30th is a charade. All the real power will be kept with the US. Not to mention the fact that the entire Governing Council is US appointed.
I don't.... because they're probably the only thing preventing (or at least trying to) an all out civil war. And if the Kurds get involved, then Turkey probably will.
Unless a multinational UN force of sufficient size can be sent in - which is highly unlikely given how the war was started - I think the US (and by extension the UK) will need to stay for beyond July 30.
-
What you've got here(Fallujah) is a bunch of guys who just want to make waves. They are on their way out and want to take as many with them as possible.
-
'Finished by Christmas'
:(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The Iraqis won't push America out, and, as much as I feel for the Iraqi people, the Bloodbath that would follow the Americans leaving at this moment in time doesn't bear thinking about.
Both are inevitable. It would be impossible for the US to control Iraq with ten times the number of troops they have there without the compliance of the majority of Iraqis. The number of bombs they have makes no difference, those are for destroying things, not controling them.
-
It's phsychology, not Maths that will win though, it's not ALL Iraqis that are in the uprising, I have no real idea of numbers at the moment. But I personally feel that if America really cut loose with some of the stuff they've got over there, the outcome would be horrific.
The 'Bombs' aren't for Iraq, they are to stop everyone else interfering, in the politest possible way, of course. Control is often achieved by possesing the ability to destroy things, and (and this is important) demonstrating this once in a while so people don't think you have grown feeble. This has worked since before Man was Man, if you believe in evolution.
-
Sure thing Lib. Downplay the extent of the resistance.
As I've said, it has been estimated by Middle-East scholars that anywhere from one third to one half of Iraqis support al Sadr. This is not "a few guys in Fallujah". This is many millions of people, who want the US out of their country.
______
aldo: Though I by no mean support al Sadr, I do support soverignty (jeez, I can never spell it right) for the Iraqi people. If a fundamentalist is who they want, then thats who they get. Of course, I believe that basic rights for women and such should be upheld, no matter who is in power. This would take more than US presence, it would take a UN effort on the ground.
After years of Saddam's secular Iraq, the people are hungry for some religion. The fact that Muqtada al-Sadr's father and uncle were killed by Saddam for their religious views only strengthens him. I think a moderate theocracy with someone like al Sistani is the best that can be hoped for.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo: Though I by no mean support al Sadr, I do support soverignty (jeez, I can never spell it right) for the Iraqi people. If a fundamentalist is who they want, then thats who they get. Of course, I believe that basic rights for women and such should be upheld, no matter who is in power. This would take more than US presence, it would take a UN effort on the ground.
After years of Saddam's secular Iraq, the people are hungry for some religion. The fact that Muqtada al-Sadr's father and uncle were killed by Saddam for their religious views only strengthens him. I think a moderate theocracy with someone like al Sistani is the best that can be hoped for.
Point is, is it any more of a democracy if the troops controlling the place are militia in black shirts? Iraq is currently held together by a thread.... if the 'coalition' pulls out, the country could very well disintigrate into a Yugolsavia style civil war along ethnic or religious lines. It could very well be trading a secular dictatorship for a religious fundamentalist one - and quite possibly against the wishes of the people.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's phsychology, not Maths that will win though, it's not ALL Iraqis that are in the uprising, I have no real idea of numbers at the moment. But I personally feel that if America really cut loose with some of the stuff they've got over there, the outcome would be horrific.
When you're occuping a country, maths matter. You simply cant control a population of 20 million with 200k soldiers. And they cant let loose with some of the stuff they've got over there because they're supposed to be liberating the people, remember?
The 'Bombs' aren't for Iraq, they are to stop everyone else interfering, in the politest possible way, of course.
Its not going to stop anyone interfereing. Theres been reports of some of the newest veriosn of russian weapons being found in Iraq and Syria and Iran are getting as many volunteers across the borders as they can. US military is kinda stretched thin atm.
Control is often achieved by possesing the ability to destroy things, and (and this is important) demonstrating this once in a while so people don't think you have grown feeble. This has worked since before Man was Man, if you believe in evolution.
The ability to destroy something is not control. Theres a fly in the room with me at the minute, I can destroy that fly but I cant control where it goes. If I did destroy it, I'd actually be demonstrating my inability to control it. I can take a swing at it and hope it doesnt come back, but thats not control.
-
Originally posted by Gank
The ability to destroy something is not control. Theres a fly in the room with me at the minute, I can destroy that fly but I cant control where it goes. If I did destroy it, I'd actually be demonstrating my inability to control it. I can take a swing at it and hope it doesnt come back, but thats not control.
if you destroy, you don;t need to worry about the control part tho, do you?
:)
-
Nope, but you cant destroy everything you dont contol.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Nope, but you cant destroy everything you dont contol.
unless you have a large number of nukes........
which leads us nicely back onto the **** pre-emptive strike (i.e. 'you looking at me?') strategy.
-
If you have ten men, and show that you have the will and ability to destroy one of them, the others will tend to do what you say, because no-one wants to be No. 2.
This equation works at country level and beyond, in fact, it's one of the main 'human' equations, it's a question of appearances now, and **** is aggressive enough to keep turning up the heat till Iraq is in flames rather than stand down in front of the world community.
As far as countries supplying arms to the Iraqis, that's not what I meant, this is a minor irritation, not a danger. It would take a unilateral demand from the rest of the world, coupled with a threat of isolation, no trade with any other country to effect America, and that just isn't going to happen, because several countries would be utterly bankrupt long before America stopped rolling along on Internal Economics. And the current American administration is certainly stubborn enough to say no to the entire planet anyway.
-
normally I don't mind foreigners, and I'll defend them from some of my more bloodsucking country men
but right now you're ****ing pissing me off - DO NOT equate every american with that bloodsucking warmonger in the white house - DO NOT wish death on men and women who are simply following the orders of an asshole.
[edit]
furthermore that guerilla news source implicated themselves for being extremely biased via their language - whoever wrote that article was a muslim fundamentalist
-
Personally, I'm not, I'm saying the current American Administration is the problem, not America :)
-
I think it should be safe to assume America = American Government in these threads.
-
Thats what I mean when I say "America" anyways. And no Kazan, following orders is not a valid excuse in my book. The way I see it, anyone in the American military as a career has to demostrate a healthy disregard for human life and the prinicples of justice.
Oh ****, I'm going to get smacked by someone, I'm not going to say who.
*puts on asbestos suit*
-
Originally posted by Flipside
If you have ten men, and show that you have the will and ability to destroy one of them, the others will tend to do what you say, because no-one wants to be No. 2.
This equation works at country level and beyond, in fact, it's one of the main 'human' equations, it's a question of appearances now, and **** is aggressive enough to keep turning up the heat till Iraq is in flames rather than stand down in front of the world community.
The equation doesnt work flipside, else the Iraqis wouldnt be fighting the US atm. Saddam ruled by fear, and he had a constant civil war with the Kurds, several major uprisings and constant coup attempts to deal with. It doesnt work full stop, look at Israel and the palestinains, the more you kill, the more you destroy, the deeper the hatred gets.
As far as countries supplying arms to the Iraqis, that's not what I meant, this is a minor irritation, not a danger. It would take a unilateral demand from the rest of the world, coupled with a threat of isolation, no trade with any other country to effect America, and that just isn't going to happen, because several countries would be utterly bankrupt long before America stopped rolling along on Internal Economics. And the current American administration is certainly stubborn enough to say no to the entire planet anyway.
Its not a minor irritation, its pretty major. World opinion is not going to drive the americans out of Iraq, no more than it stopped them going in. Guerilla warfare, continued to the point where the US is gaining nothing by occupation is. And in this respect, modern weapons capable of taking out abrams or apaches are not minor irritations.
Kazan :wtf: I suggest you go and read some of the muslim fundamentalist sites and get a bit of perspective here. Thats a lefty site, not an islamic one, theres nothing islamic about any of the language. And of course its ****ing biased, look at the name ffs. You're sounding a bit like liberator :no:
-
Yes, Saddam was plagued by coups and assasination attempts, but he still ruled. I'm not saying the Equation is perfect or incorruptible, but it works long enough. The Iraqis are fighting the Americans who are attempting to use fear, just as they fought Saddam who attempted to use fear, but Saddam kept enough of them in fear to stay in control, I'm just hoping America doesn't come to the same conclusion.
I agree that a 'worst case scenario' is unlikely, I don't see America dropping nukes on Iraq or the like, but if America are pushed out, I can garauntee that the current administration will not just bring them home, **** does NOT want another Vietnam this close to election, from his own bigoted point of view, it may seem better to bomb the living sh*t out or Iraq, I can see the speech now :-
'Many nations have condemned this, but America has a right to protect itself against Terrorism. These people, by attacking and killing American Men and Women have sided with Terrorism and against Freedom. For this reason I we decided that saturation bombing was the only way to be sure we got everyone involved. Civilan casualties were high, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is War and War is Hell.'
That'll pretty much be it, but with a speech impediment ;)
Edit : As I recall, this Russian 'anti-jamming' device didn't work, and most of the other weapons may cause irritation, the may take down a helicopter or two, kill 20+ soldiers etc, then the owner would get hit be a clusterbomb or the like and that's the problem solved.
-
Gank: how am I acting like liberator by pointing out an obvious bias - and if you missed it that's your own fault (hint: religiously tainted wording)
Rictor: "healthy disreguard for human life and the principlies of justice" what are you a ****ing retard? Most of these people joined for one of the following reasons
A) college $
B) protect US (that does not include invading other countries)
C) Family tradition
How do any of those show a "disreguard for human life and the principles of justice" -- ESPECIALLY B
Rictor get your head out of your posterior
-
If **** wins the election, he'll restart the draft, flood the area with troops, and get thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis killed. I'll be dead, and the world will be a suckier place.
Mmmmmm Vietnam.
-
a) killing people for money is no excuse. tough. get a job or something.
b) the us has not fought a defensive war since, well, does WW2 count? If not, then the last one would be maybe the war of 1812?
c)again, its not a valid excuse. All this shows is that you are incapable of making decisions for yourself, but I guess thats why people join up, eh?
If you go into the Army, even if you work at a desk job, you are sustaining an organization which has visited much suffering on a great many innocent people. Face facts, the US Army is not a defensive organization. If you join, you are helping to perpetuate US dominance. And this dominance always comes at a cost to some poor schmuck in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever.
-
Reaction to this news: ****.
Reaction to this quote:Originally posted by Flipside
< sigh > Where's Asterix and Obelix when you need them?
Someone actually mentioned Asterix!
-
Hoboy - here we go
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2236439005&category=588
Oh yes, and Asterix kicks arse. :nod:
Er, after he's taken Getafix's potion, of course.
-
That's what this board needs. More Asterix, less politics :p
-
These are not "Holy Men", these are thugs with personal armies who want to carve Iraq up into there own personal feifdoms and rule the populace with an iron hand, killing all who oppose their murderous ways. Their armies are made up evil men who's purpose and desire is to kill Americans, any Americans.
They don't care what your politics are, or how you feel about them or their ideas. The fact that you are American is enough to get you killed. Their only desire is the acquisition of personal power.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That's what this board needs. More Asterix, less politics :p
ZIGACKLY! *hic*
-
Hmm.... Do you think the admins would mind if we hijacked this thread and turned into a thread about Asterix?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Hmm.... Do you think the admins would mind if we hijacked this thread and turned into a thread about Asterix?
Nope.
And the on-site burns unit would be postively delighted.
-
Rictor: you're being a jackass - you know most of america felt like they had been "Pearl Habor"ed after 9/11 and thought some reasonable powerful government was going to be behind it - and not afghanistan -- technically that invasion was reprisal as they did have enough evidence to link the attack to Bin Laden and his Taliban support -- I can remember most of the world supported us on that call
As for your "supporting american dominance" - it sounds like your jealous, it honestly does. You ever consider we don't _have_ to use our military to be on top - you really are a jackass -- by your logic no country on the planet can have an army - but you seem to be directing that logic just at the US --- you are being stupid, illogical and more-or-less a bigot.
-
(http://www.thesunmachine.net/image_archive/archive/feb03/sam.jpg)
-
EDIT: NM.
-
Grey Wolf: start your own thread -- stop trying to intentionally hijack a thread
-
Fine, I'll stop.
-
Balls.
I've come up with a theory, y'see, that it's easier to completely divert a thread than to calm people down (i.e. avoid the escalation of insults) when trying to prevent it erupting into a merciless flamewar.
Was hoping to test it, too...
-
Pfft, let 'em protest. That's supposed to be the whole damned point, being able to do things like that. If they're protesting it means it's working.
-
So much talk about controlling other people and how to do it. Why? What happened to the rights of the iraqi people, nevermind US soldiers and bombs for one second.
Why are we there? its not humanitarian thats for sure, so the only reason anyone is quelling anything is because of economics not people.
Now the people affected by the economics are fighting, together to destroy the west and it will get worse with each debate asking how to fix this.
the solution is simple, leave, let them decide who is in charge by voting or fighting. And when they become our problem again or ask for help, we go over and do what they ask of us within our means and within our morals.
However the coalition wont leave cause of economics and as long as that takes precedence over human lives Iraq will be a swell of terrorism and problems for many years, maybe decades to come.
Good job to the coalition for killing over 600 coalition members, and millions of iraqi's in this effort. This is the only apparent number coming from this war, all else is just destruction and death.
Im beginning to think the coalition is a terrorist organization hellbent on world domination and power through controlling of resources, but dont tell GW i said so.....
One last thing, the mission is accomplished according to ****, so why then are US soldiers still their and why does it matter so much they be allowed there? US concenr was WMD's and there are none there, and their other concern was Saddam and his regime and his family and they killed all them but Saddam and have him in a dark hole somewhere.
So why is this massacre allowed to continue?
The US people think they are free, but they are the most controlled society known to man. Democracy breeds problems IMO. Im sure atleast 50% of the US population wants this to be over, but even with democracy a majority isnt enough soemtimes.
Does this remind anyone of vietnam? Even though casualties are far lower the exact same thing is happening all over again, and some people are so ignorant of the past they let it happen again...
-
They let them protest - just not with bombs, hand grenades, guns, etc
-
I assume you mean the censored one, and not me?
Me, I personally feel we should turn over the area to the UN or the Iraqis themselves ASAP.
-
Anyone around here knows what an ass****, er, warmonger I am, but I agree with what the general consensus is.
It doesn't matter if 10,000 Iraqis are running through the streets protesting the US presence. As long as they aren't hurling grenades, for the US to use force against them is no different than when the National Guard opened fire on protesters here years ago.
"The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back"
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: how am I acting like liberator by pointing out an obvious bias - and if you missed it that's your own fault (hint: religiously tainted wording)
Because its the sort of thing is ilk start crying when they dont like what the article says. And I meant it more in the context of saying its written by a fundamentalist, when theres absolutly nothing to suggest that it is. I suggest you go back and read the damn thing, because you seem to have missed something.
(hint: religiously tainted wording)
Articles about a religious figure, course theres going to be "religiously tainted wording". And since when has mentioning religion made you a fundamentalist?
Originally posted by Flipside
Edit : As I recall, this Russian 'anti-jamming' device didn't work, and most of the other weapons may cause irritation, the may take down a helicopter or two, kill 20+ soldiers etc, then the owner would get hit be a clusterbomb or the like and that's the problem solved.
Nice guess, but I wasnt actually talking about the gps jammers, which actually did work quite well. RPG-29s and SA-18s I was reffering to, which are small, relatively cheap and manportable, ideal for guerilla warfare.
the may take down a helicopter or two, kill 20+ soldiers etc, then the owner would get hit be a clusterbomb or the like and that's the problem solved.[/B]
Riiight, like somebodys gonna stand around waiting for a clusterbomb to fall on top of them after an attack. You seem to have a lot of faith in the power of bombing, in the sort of conflict in Iraq atm its next to useless.
-
What I like about you Gank is your hypocricy.
You attack what you call fundamentalists in defense of what are essentially fundamentalists.
So what this leads me to believe is that, to you at least, is that it is okay for you to attack Christians and Jews just because they are Christian or Jewish.
You are trying to make this conflict not about religion, but in fact, the agressors(Islamist thugs) admit that it is about religion, at least in part.
-
You know what I like about you Liberator? The way you dont let your complete inability to understand whats being said prevent you from argueing. I never called anyone a fundamentalist here, nor have I attacked christians or jews just because they're of that faith. I think thats happened in your bigoted little mind.
And I thought the conflict in Iraq was about liberating the place from Saddam, not religion? I think all this foreign stuff is too much for you libby, maybe you best go lie down for a while?
-
Gank: the author was using religiously tainted speach as their own wording - not in a purported quote of summation of the religious leaders words
they were his/her own words when refering to the US and "Coaliition" forces.
The Conflict in Iraq as suppoedly because they had WMD and links to Al Qaeda - which i knew to be BS, and then they tried shifting attention to it being about Saddam being an evil person, yada yada BS
You keep talking about "handing it over" - they're going to do that June 30 - which is a very reasonable ammount of time considering some occupations in the past
You may not know it - but life for the _average_ Iraqi is better - I hear through people who have no interest in supporting either side of the conflict (See: IT people who are working their for information freedom, etc the promotion of alternative operating systems ---- PS: Microsoft is so screwed, there is no way they're going to convince iraqis to pay $150 US for something they can get for $2 at the local internet cafe's burn station (cost of a cd))
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: the author was using religiously tainted speach as their own wording - not in a purported quote of summation of the religious leaders words
they were his/her own words when refering to the US and "Coaliition" forces.
Right
All the news agencies flocked to his mosque. But few reporters on the ground understood, and almost no one back home, save a small handfull of astute observers like Juan Cole, that Al Sadr and his radical Shiite followers were Iraq's wildcard. Since the first hours after Baghdad fell they had been biding their time, quietly arming, raising money and recruiting new members to fight what they knew would be a coming battle to remove the foreign infidel from their land. The Americans appeared helpless, or unwilling, to stop them.
I presume this is what you're talking about, I cant find anything else. Its pretty obvious hes talking about what the Shias think. Looking around the rest of the site I find it hard to believe the editors a muslim, let alone a fundamentalist. You're taking an inch here and running a mile. I do apologise for saying your like libby though, after his last post I realise how big an insult that is.
You keep talking about "handing it over" - they're going to do that June 30 - which is a very reasonable ammount of time considering some occupations in the past
Dont recall mentioning it at all, I mentioned the americans getting kicked out. What exactly are they handing over? I know they arent going home, and elections arent happening.
You may not know it - but life for the _average_ Iraqi is better - I hear through people who have no interest in supporting either side of the conflict (See: IT people who are working their for information freedom, etc the promotion of alternative operating systems ---- PS: Microsoft is so screwed, there is no way they're going to convince iraqis to pay $150 US for something they can get for $2 at the local internet cafe's burn station (cost of a cd))
70% of the workforce is unemployed http://www.uuiraq.org/english/41.htm, they might have more freedoms but they cant afford to enjoy those freedoms. Why? Because most of the work in the country is going to US contracters. As for them paying $150 for a cd, the average wage is about $50 a week, course they're not going too.
-
unemployeement hasn't changed since before we went in AFAIK
the economy of that country has been in the ****ter since UN sanctions were handed down 13 years ago
---------------------
I never said I think we're justified to be there - but I'm not going to let you talk out your ass
"Americans getting kicked out" - yeah freaking right, that's going to happen all of _NEVER_ especially with the arrogant unelected president we have
-
watching liberator and Gank snipe at each other is like watching two walls fight :lol:
oh, we are so fucked.
well I say get somehting like a government put together, give them the keys, then run. try to get the UN to stableize it, we probly won't be able to settle it down becase everyone hates us. then have elections. popular vote, no ****ing electoral collage.
Kaz, what do you'r Iraqi slashdot folks sudgest we do?
-
Bobboau: the Iraqi's that directly /. don't open their mouth themselves about the issue as far as i know - they did talk to us through an US IT guy who is helping them get their LUG up and going.
According to them the average iraqi's life is indeed better - and tanks rolling through town and gun fire is uncommon enough in most cities that they actually take note of it again.
Mostly they're just trying to get life back to normal, and they're finding 'normal' life is going to be better now. No matter what some sects want to do.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: you're being a jackass - you know most of america felt like they had been "Pearl Habor"ed after 9/11 and thought some reasonable powerful government was going to be behind it - and not afghanistan -- technically that invasion was reprisal as they did have enough evidence to link the attack to Bin Laden and his Taliban support -- I can remember most of the world supported us on that call
As for your "supporting american dominance" - it sounds like your jealous, it honestly does. You ever consider we don't _have_ to use our military to be on top - you really are a jackass -- by your logic no country on the planet can have an army - but you seem to be directing that logic just at the US --- you are being stupid, illogical and more-or-less a bigot.
In order to be jealous, I would have to want that power for myself or for someone else. I don't When a single nation wields as much power as America does today, there is only one word for it: Empire. I am simply against Empires. There's no envy in it, I just don't think anyone should have so much power, not even me. And don't delude yourself, without your Army, the States would be unable to defend its ill gotten gains, not to mention taking them in the first place. Do you think that bases in 130 nations are a defensive tool?
As you remember in the days and months after 9/11, the US populace went into ultra defensive mode and gladly gobbled up any rhetoric that Dbya cared to dish out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not why laws exist, to prevent individuals (or nations) from acting out of rage immeditatly after an attack. You said it yourself, it was a reprisal attack.
Also, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence linking 9/11 to Afghanistan. Am I wrong in assuming that the vast majority of people take it on good faith? I mean, hace you seen any independently confirmed evidence. Maybe its just me, but I actually haven't seen *any* evidence to indicated who did it, and I think that I am more informed than most.
______
But what I was talking about was not 9/11 or US dominance, I was talking about America soldiers and the US Army. Here's a question, please answer it. Do you believe the United States military to be a defensive organization, and if so, to defend against whom?
-
have you seen any evedence that the USA landed on the moon, I mean real evedence independently confermed, none of that American propaganda fake photo ****, untill someone flys up there and shows me that flag I ain't beleiveing it
Usama admitted it, hell he bosted about it, and the Talaban was suporting him, only a bigoted (hey, I like this buzz word) moron is going to BS there way through saying the Afgahnastan war was not justified.
-
I never "galdly gobbled up any rhetoric" - EVER, being from a long line of military minds I analyzed the situation myself. I don't need some moron mouthpiece telling me what to think.
the UN supported US actions in afghanistan - which is enough for me to for once take what the government mouth pieces are saying as possibly true.
"Nobody should have that much power" - somebody must be on top, there is always someone on top - that's kinda of a definition.
You still failed to address the fact that your logic leads to saying every country on the planet cannot have an army. ANY country not having an army is just plain stupid - the country without an army is a country quickly overrun by the slightest enemy. Wecleom to reality
-
When was the last time that the United States was threatened to be "overrun by enemies"? In other words, when was the last time that a foreign power attempted to stage an invasion of America? WW2? WW1? The Mexican War? when?
In an ideal world, no nation would have armies. However, we are not living in an ideal world. Having armies is, however much a drain on other vital programs, necessary. But I never said that the US should not have an Army. I said that that Army should not be used to conquer, should not be used in an offensive fashion.
Holland has an army. They just never use it to attack. If they were threatened, they would use it to fight off an invasion, but until that time the Army takes no action. Is that really too much to expect?
Yes or No, is that too much to expect?
_________________
And no, Bobboau, I have no evidence that the moon landing occured. None that can't be easily faked. But I take it on good faith, or actually I just don't care much. If the moon landing was faked, would that affect thw world much? No. If the evidence to link 9/11 to Afghanistan fakes, would that affect the world much? Sure would.
If you care, I do believe that Osama planned it. Again, good faith. But I was just saying that I saw no evidence. Maybe you've got access to some great source of information that I don't. And Osama admitting it is not much evidence. If it was not indeed him, do you thyink he would still claim he did it? Yes, so that pretty much negates him admitting it.
Again, not saying it wasn't him, just saying that I have seen no evidence.
-
Rictor: so you're saying we shouldn't keep an army in peace time? Peace time would last exactly ZERO SECONDS and we'd get our arses kicked because we didn't have a trained army
You are changing your stance now - you origionally said that anyone in the army is evil, etc, etc
You know it's like i said - most of them joined to DEFEND our country against threats - but since our asshole president is technically commander-in-chief they do have to follow his orders, whether they like them or not
-
No, I said that you can keep an Army whenever you damn well please, just don't use it to attack. Its like, you can own a gun, but the second you use it to attack someone, you become a criminal. Owning the gun itself is not a crime. A drain of social programs, yes, but not a crime.
I am not reversing my position. If I said something and it came out the wrong way, sorry. But I thought i was qute clear on the matter.
And you say that "most of them joined to DEFEND our country against threats", but when was the last time the US was threatened? This is what I have been asking all along, but you don't get the point. If the organization you join has spent the past 50 years on the OFFENSE, it is not reasonable to say that anyone joining it can expect to perform DEFENSIVE duties. Not saying that the people joining it do not THINK they are defending America, but history has shown that the US Army is used almost exlusivelly for offense.
edit: to clarify, I think I get where you got mixed up. I said anyone in the US army is "evil" (not the term I used, and not I term I would use in this situation, but for conveniece sake). That quite a step from "anyone in any army is evil". As I steted above, ther US Army specifically has been used pretty much 100% for offense during the past 50 years, and before then it wasn't much of an issue since the US was isolationist. The logic being that if you join an organization which is an offensive one, then you yourself are supprting the war, conquering etc, which makes you and "evil" person.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I thought i was qute clear on the matter.
Originally posted by Rictor
anyone in the American military as a career has to demostrate a healthy disregard for human life and the prinicples of justice.
-
read my edit
-
Originally posted by Kazan
unemployeement hasn't changed since before we went in AFAIK
the economy of that country has been in the ****ter since UN sanctions were handed down 13 years ago
Wrong Kazan, its gone completely to ****, even Paul Bremer acknowledges this. Life is improving slowly, but its nowhere near the level enjoyed pre-gulf war which is when this conflict really began. As for the tanks and gunfire, that wasnt really an everyday event before the invasion now was it?
Originally posted by Kazan
I never said I think we're justified to be there - but I'm not going to let you talk out your ass
"Americans getting kicked out" - yeah freaking right, that's going to happen all of _NEVER_ especially with the arrogant unelected president we have
Who said its going to happen in his term? Who said its going to happen in the next presidents? The US is in Iraq for the long haul, and without the support of the general populance, which its loosing, it cant mantain control on the country. I think we both know why the US invaded Iraq kazan, as do the majority of Iraqis, if it was your country what would you do?
Bobbaou, I shot JFK.
-
oh yes.. and being offensive when we're asked to be by the UN is so many cases is SOOO evil
If you don't like us using it offensively _EVER_ then go ***** to all the UN member nations who have asked us to do so repeatedly in the past
until then STFU
fact of the matter is: no matter what we do you hate us - so maybe i should just said **** YOU and get it over will
-
Rictor, your initial statement that the USA is an empire is a fallacy. Empires grow by absorbing smaller, weaker states, they don't help setup independent nations to conduct commerce with.
The current actions by the USA in Iraq are an effort to get the undesirables, criminals and warlord-thugs, out before the Iraqis begin self-government in June.
-
Gank: if it was my country i'd play along and actually try and work diplomatically, because that would be the fatest way to get rid of them in this case
if that requires me giving them permission to have one military base on our soil so be it - i'll make them promise [sign a treaty] that they have to help us if a neighbor invaded us
-
Wait, wait, I must have missed the part where I gave holy authority to the UN to govern on all matters justly and fairly.
Oh yeah, I didnt. The UN doesn't make decisions for me, and just becuase I agree that they are in theory a positive organization does not mean I agree with everything they do.
Obtaining UN support is next to meaningless. The US can exert enough influence (via its position on the security council, as well as economic and political influence) to sway the UN any which way it wants. The fact that **** was unable to do it only shows how very incompetent he is. Clinton did it many times, as did any capable US president before him.
So, in essence, I have proven that I'm right, but you choose to generalize and state that I agree with every word that comes out of the UN's mouth, so if they gave it the thumbs up I can't complain.
_____
And I like how you put the empahsis on _EVER_. Like thats such an unusual a request. Yes, ever. Its like someone asking "so you mean I can't kill someone, EVER. Wow, thats harsh"
-
You haven't proven jack Rictor, you keep ranting on like some tinfoil hatted madman.
If most of the world supports us doing something - like trying to stop genocide in Kosovo or the incursion into Somalia, etc and you disagree? tough **** - WE WERE ASKED, are we evil because we said yes because we have the capability
-
You are not evil becuase you have the capability.
I would advise you to get informed on Kosovo before stating that genocide occured, it is a specially touchy topic for me so I think you shoudl drop it or get educated before I start *really* ranting.
And at which point do I come off as a "tinfoil hatted madman"? Is it because I am skeptical of the "official story" that is put out by the government? I thought you were too.
And again, you assume that the UN represents "the world". Now, I'm going to skip the whole "people of the world" speech, and play it by your terms. Lets assume that a UN resolution is the equivalent of "world support". This UN resolution is, as I've said, menaingless becuase of the huge amounts of influence that the US exerts over other nations.
Its hardly a free decision when coercion, bribery, and other factors are used to influence the decision. Or do you deny that this is happening. Are you saying that the US exerts no influence over UN member nations when it comes to decision making?
-
My brother was in Kosovo - thank you very much - he was in the army to pay for college, they tried screwing him out of his benefits - and in the end because of lawyer fees that effectively did happen
I am skeptical of the official story - however you're acting like the US is _ALWAYS_ evil and _ALWAYS_ wrong, even when most of the world WANTS it to do something - this is exactly the bias vaalidates the extremely poor behavior of some of my country men in relation to europeans
Resolutions we've wanted have been blocked before on many occasion, and they can still be blocked, and will be blocked in the future. All it takes is one vote "no" on the security council. We don't say "SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION OR WILL DROP THE BOMB ON YOUR ASS"
I do not deny that we can throw our weight around - but at the end of the day we don't always get what we want in the UN
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: if it was my country i'd play along and actually try and work diplomatically, because that would be the fatest way to get rid of them in this case
if that requires me giving them permission to have one military base on our soil so be it - i'll make them promise [sign a treaty] that they have to help us if a neighbor invaded us
In an ideal world thats the way it would go, except the world aint ideal and the middle east even less so. There'll always be armed resistance to the occupiers of a country, and the way the US deals with this resistance only generates more. Look at Fallujah, full of anti-american hatred, so the US surrounds it and bombs it. The guy responsible for yesterdays violence is holed up in Kufa mosque, Shia's holiest site. The US has issued a warrant for his arrest. Whats going to happen? Whats going to happen then? Doesnt take a genius to figure that one out. I'm not saying this is the way things should happen, I'm saying its the way they're going to, and anybody that expected anything else needs their head examined.
-
Gank: no the world isn't ideal, but you can TRY DIPLOMACY before getting out the guns. Al Sadr didn't try diplomacy,
We've surrounded Fallujah - but we haven't BOMBED it at all - we shot ONE ROCKET at a strategic target -- not all those "plain clothes" people are non-combatants - that entire crowd the other day made themselves combatants under international law. Most other countries would have outright carpet bombed that city, don't kid yourself.
We issued a warrant for his arrest (technicalyl they said an iraqi judge did, but being that we appointed that judge) because they suspect he murdered a rival - that's a rather justified reason to issue an arrest warrent in my personal opinion.
This guy has ARMED support, if they fire on the police/troups that come to arrest him then they're criminals and they're firing on military/police and they've just made themselves combatants - that's a CHOICE they made - we by no means are forcing those paramilitaries to stand around that mosque with AK-47s to support Al Sadr
I never said I expected otherwise - but be careful when you pain people for being "evil"
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: no the world isn't ideal, but you can TRY DIPLOMACY before getting out the guns. Al Sadr didn't try diplomacy,
Diplomacy's been going on for the last year, Al-Sistani, the major player on the Shia side has rejected the US drawn up constitution. The US is pushing ahead with it regardless.
We've surrounded Fallujah - but we haven't BOMBED it at all - we shot ONE ROCKET at a strategic target -- not all those "plain clothes" people are non-combatants - that entire crowd the other day made themselves combatants under international law. Most other countries would have outright carpet bombed that city, don't kid yourself.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D43A5CDF-E1AF-4572-B027-B2AE9F4AC150.htm
I know its al-jazeera but its the only decent article I could find. And most countrys wouldnt carpet bomb the place, most countrys wouldnt have invaded Iraq in the first place.
We issued a warrant for his arrest (technicalyl they said an iraqi judge did, but being that we appointed that judge) because they suspect he murdered a rival - that's a rather justified reason to issue an arrest warrent in my personal opinion.
True, not saying otherwise, just saying the place is going to go to **** because of it. Its worth mentioning no US soldiers have been brought up on murder or even manslaughter charges for the deaths of unarmed Iraqis though.
This guy has ARMED support, if they fire on the police/troups that come to arrest him then they're criminals and they're firing on military/police and they've just made themselves combatants - that's a CHOICE they made - we by no means are forcing those paramilitaries to stand around that mosque with AK-47s to support Al Sadr
Aye, but wtf did the US expect them to do?
I never said I expected otherwise - but be careful when you pain people for being "evil"
I never called anyone evil, dont put words in my mouth.
-
I want to see the US drawn up constitution - he could be rejecting it because it has something like the seperation of church and state - so he's pissed that he cannot enact sharia law
I don't put much stock in Al-Jazeera, they are to muslim fundamentalist as fox news is to christian fundamentalists
In a war, collateral damage happens - if a solider INTENTIONALLY killed unarmed civilians they get in trouble
What we expect them to do? Don't make themselves combatants - sometimes arrests are warranted. Them behaving like that is kinda like psycho americans holding up on the top of a mountain with lots of guns
-
Sistanis objecting to the constitution because theres a clause in it which gives the Kurds a veto on anything. Afaik hes not actually for a theocracy, likewise most Iraqi muslims.
Al-Jazeera is more like the bbc of the mid-east, infact its staffed mainly by ex-bbc employees. Theres not much in the reporting to distinguish it from western news services most of the time, but then some people arent capable of looking past the arabic symbols and language.
As for soldiers killing people, the whole ill-feeling in fallujah started when 15 demonstraters were gunned down, or does protesting make you a combatant now?
As for them not resisting the warrent, they dont recognise the authority of the US to issue such warrents, why would they honor one?
-
you know I just looked over that article and it actualy doesn't seem overly biased, in the english print
-
Originally posted by Gank
...or does protesting make you a combatant now?
It Depends. If you protest violently enough that the soldiers feel their lives threatened, they are justified in taking action. If they intentionally targeted the protesters, it's the other way around. What you run into though is the previous acts of terrorism have heightened the soldiers awareness of potential threats.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know I just looked over that article and it actualy doesn't seem overly biased, in the english print
We are in the west, we get the "western" documents. If we want the truth, we need to be in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
We are in the west, we get the "western" documents. If we want the truth, we need to be in Iraq.
You think the Iraqis get the truth? :)
I think the constitution gives the minority groups - Kurds and Sunnis* - the veto, and doesn;'t distribute the power based on population (because that would massively favour the Shia majority). Shias are pissed off at this - especially because it was the Sunnis that ruled the country and oppressed them during Saddams days.
*apologies if I got Sunnis and Shias mixed up
-
They can't NOT get the truth, they're living it.
As for media coverage, if think that over in Iraq, they get even more pro-US bias due to the fact that the US monitors all media channels and censors the ones who are too explicitly anti-American.
However, while we rely only on media (well, most people for the most part), they have the advantage of being there. They talk to people on the streets, their friends and family and they gather and discuss and generally they can get first or second hand information much better (obviously) than we can. This is more valuable than any media source, since you can't spin reality.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
They can't NOT get the truth, they're living it.
As for media coverage, if think that over in Iraq, they get even more pro-US bias due to the fact that the US monitors all media channels and censors the ones who are too explicitly anti-American.
However, while we rely only on media (well, most people for the most part), they have the advantage of being there. They talk to people on the streets, their friends and family and they gather and discuss and generally they can get first or second hand information much better (obviously) than we can. This is more valuable than any media source, since you can't spin reality.
Ever heard of Chinese whispers?
Iraq is a somewhat large and confused country, after all.... I find it hard to believe that the word on the street is any more grounded in reality than it would be in any other country. After all, one of the militia attacks (on Spanish troops) was due to a (wrong) rumour that the Spaniards were holding someone prisoner.
-
it doesn't matter if they know the truth, they are the truth, if they are getting lies and confusion then lies and confusion is what's going on.
-
Nah the attack was just protesting thje fact that he'd been taken prisioner, not that the spanish had him.
Anyways 8 more US dead and 30 Iraqis, these guys arent doing badly for an untrained militia
-
pointing a gun striaght and pulling the trigger is very easy
i would like to know the details of this "protest" that had US soldiers gunning down the protest -- there are a lot of things that get called protests, not all of those are peaceful
-
Iirc the Iraqis started lobbing stones. Try googling it Kazan, usuallly the best thing to do if you want to know something, rather than waiting for somebody to tell you.
-
Gank: then the soldiers should have used _Rubber_ bullets - as those are often used in crowd control like that. I will agree that lethal force was excessive
-
Yeah, but with a major US army presence in most cities and daily shootings, attacks, mortar fire, arrests, searches and all that fun stuff, I doubt very many Iraqis have to rely on rumours and heresay. Look outside your window, and thats the news right there.
-
acting on hersay with guns is a sure way to get yourself killed - infact if you act on hersay with guns you deserve to get yourself killed
-
Just read this article Kazan and thought it was relevant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50227-2004Apr4?language=printer
Got this one on there as well,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53059-2004Apr5.html
kinda sheds a bit of light on the renta-cop thing. Also found one of the guys that died in Fallujah, Michael Teague, was the former Aryan Nations security chief.
-
Copy+paste second one please.. the first one came up, but the second one will not
-
Hmm, strange, gives me a reg screen nopw.
Private Guards Repel Attack on U.S. Headquarters
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A01
An attack by hundreds of Iraqi militia members on the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf on Sunday was repulsed not by the U.S. military, but by eight commandos from a private security firm, according to sources familiar with the incident.
Before U.S. reinforcements could arrive, the firm, Blackwater Security Consulting, sent in its own helicopters amid an intense firefight to resupply its commandos with ammunition and to ferry out a wounded Marine, the sources said.
The role of Blackwater's commandos in Sunday's fighting in Najaf illuminates the gray zone between their formal role as bodyguards and the realities of operating in an active war zone. Thousands of armed private security contractors are operating in Iraq in a wide variety of missions and exchanging fire with Iraqis every day, according to informal after-action reports from several companies.
In Sunday's fighting, Shiite militia forces barraged the Blackwater commandos, four MPs and a Marine gunner with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 fire for hours before U.S. Special Forces troops arrived. A sniper on a nearby roof apparently wounded three men. U.S. troops faced heavy fighting in several Iraqi cities that day.
The Blackwater commandos, most of whom are former Special Forces troops, are on contract to provide security for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Najaf.
With their ammunition nearly gone, a wounded and badly bleeding Marine on the rooftop, and no reinforcement by the U.S. military in the immediate offing, the company sent in helicopters to drop ammunition and pick up the Marine.
The identity of the Marine and two other wounded men could not be established, but their blood was still fresh hours later, when the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt arrived to survey the battle zone.
Without commenting at a news conference yesterday on the role of the Blackwater guards, Kimmitt described what he saw after the fighting ended. "I know on a rooftop yesterday in An Najaf, with a small group of American soldiers and coalition soldiers . . . who had just been through about 3 1/2 hours of combat, I looked in their eyes, there was no crisis.
"They knew what they were here for," he continued. "They'd lost three wounded. We were sitting there among the bullet shells -- the bullet casings -- and, frankly, the blood of their comrades, and they were absolutely confident."
During the defense of the authority headquarters, thousands of rounds were fired and hundreds of 40mm grenades shot. Sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of Blackwater's work in Iraq reported an unspecified number of casualties among Iraqis.
A spokesman for Blackwater confirmed that the company has a contract to provide security to the CPA but would not describe the incident that unfolded Sunday.
A Defense Department spokesman said that there were no military reports about the opening hours of the siege on CPA headquarters in Najaf because there were no military personnel on the scene. The Defense Department often does not have a clear handle on the daily actions of security contractors because the contractors work directly for the coalition authority, which coordinates and communicates on a limited basis through the normal military chain of command.
The four men brutally slain Wednesday in Fallujah were also Blackwater employees and were operating in the Sunni triangle area under more hazardous conditions -- unarmored cars with no apparent backup -- than the U.S. military or the CIA permit.
One senior Blackwater manager has described those killings to U.S. government officials as the result of a "high-quality" attack as skilled as one that can be mounted by U.S. Special Forces, according to a copy of a report on the incident obtained by The Washington Post.
The four victims of that attack, according to Blackwater spokesman Chris Bertelli, were escorting trucks carrying either food or kitchen equipment for Regency Hotel and Hospitality. Regency is a subcontractor to Eurest Support Services (ESS), a division of the Compass Group, the world's largest food service company.
ESS provides food services to more than a dozen U.S. military dining facilities in Iraq, according to news accounts.
Blackwater, a security and training company based in Moyock, N.C., prides itself on the high caliber of its personnel, many of whom are former U.S. Navy SEALs. It has 450 employees in Iraq, many of them providing security to CPA employees, including the U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, and to VIPs visiting Iraq.
Blackwater has applied to occupy a former MIG air base near Baghdad as a counterterrorism training facility for Iraqi forces. The training range will mirror the 6,000-acre Moyock site, which is frequented by U.S. law enforcement and military personnel.
And a pic of them posing on the roof
(http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/14110/I53443-2004Apr05L.jpg)
-
That's hilarious! :lol:
-
NB: Apparently the SAS is facing up to losing a large number of it's troops as they go to the better paying private security firms / mercs.
-
Same thing with the American Special Ops and Rangers. They're getting like 20k in the Army and the pricate firms are offering 100-200k. Also, the CIA is doing much the same thing, with more lucrative offers than the Army is ready to make.
This may seem to be a wierd thing to know, but I'm not some sort of military nut, honest :D:D I just read it in an article somewhere
-
yeah you're not a military nut, just a nut :P
-
Originally posted by Kazan
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_fallujah
Hehhehheh, this is what happens to people who don't play nice.:drevil:;7
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Hehhehheh, this is what happens to people who don't play nice.:drevil:;7
They surrounded them, woohooo. Solve the problem and ill be impressed. Otherwise bullying is not impressive its depressing especially for a democratic nation. :rolleyes:
-
Trust me on this. We won't just surround Fallujah, we'll send a massive force into the city to teach our foes in Iraq that we're not playing around anymore.
-
That'll win hearts & minds.
-
Here, have a relevant stanza printed over 100 years ago in the New York World, published in response to the Phillipines:
We've taken up the white man's burden
Of ebony and brown;
Now will you kindly tell us, Rudyard,
How we may put it down?
-
And it's 1, 2, 3
what are we fightin' for?
don't ask me, I don't give a damn
next stop is Vietnam
and it's 5, 6, 7
open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopie! We're all gonna die.
- Country Joe & The Fish
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Trust me on this. We won't just surround Fallujah, we'll send a massive force into the city to teach our foes in Iraq that we're not playing around anymore.
Because obviously that strategy has been so effective for Israel.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because obviously that strategy has been so effective for Israel.
That's because Israel won't do what needs to be done.
-
Wait a moment.... You post a protest song about Vietnam, then say that we should smash through Iraq?
-
Originally posted by vyper
That'll win hearts & minds.
It will win the hearts and minds of a lot of people in Iraq who would love to see many of the terrorists and Baathist holdouts in their country locked up.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
That's because Israel won't do what needs to be done.
And what is that exactly?
-
Bit of context here, theres 1200 marines "surrounding" fallujah, a city of 3-500,000. Theres about as much chance of the US stamping out resistance in the city as there is of **** winning the nobel peace prize.
-
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT'S NAME FROM THE CENSOR PLEASE!:hopping::mad2:
-
Aye its a bit strange hes censored and c*nt isnt
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Wait a moment.... You post a protest song about Vietnam, then say that we should smash through Iraq?
Ya, quite the conundrum, hm?
Might as well call a spade a spade. It's a question of whether or not one wants to feel guilty about it.
-
sup ionia. whats the deal
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And what is that exactly?
Simple, they have two choices.
1. Take the high road. Pull out of whatever spaces back to the '67 war (or whatever Palestine is upset about), hand over Jerusalem to the Palestinians, then start shipping them building and agricultural equipment so Palestine can rebuild. Followup it up with sponsoring them to the UN to recognize Palestine as an independent nation and you're done. Of course, they'll have to simply "deal" with the occasional coffe-shop suicide bombing with no retaliation whatsoever.
Oops, lest I forget. The "right of return" will have to be extended.
2. Take the low road. Line up all the tanks, bulldozers, and troops necessary to level the Palestinian territories. Kill or expel all the persons there, civilian and otherwise, then annex the whole thing as the Nation of Israel.
It's one or the other.
-
Well, that made...no sense at all.
And Woolie, I think you have it the wrong way around. These guys aren't YOUR foes, you're THEIR foes. Remeber, its their country, and they have more right to defend it than you have to invade it. Don't mistake right by force for right by justice.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
sup ionia. whats the deal
??
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Simple, they have two choices.
1. Take the high road. Pull out of whatever spaces back to the '67 war (or whatever Palestine is upset about), hand over Jerusalem to the Palestinians, then start shipping them building and agricultural equipment so Palestine can rebuild. Followup it up with sponsoring them to the UN to recognize Palestine as an independent nation and you're done. Of course, they'll have to simply "deal" with the occasional coffe-shop suicide bombing with no retaliation whatsoever.
Oops, lest I forget. The "right of return" will have to be extended.
2. Take the low road. Line up all the tanks, bulldozers, and troops necessary to level the Palestinian territories. Kill or expel all the persons there, civilian and otherwise, then annex the whole thing as the Nation of Israel.
It's one or the other.
So..... are you saying the US' could completely withdraw from Fallujah to easily solve this problem of violence, then?
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, that made...no sense at all.
And Woolie, I think you have it the wrong way around. These guys aren't YOUR foes, you're THEIR foes. Remeber, its their country, and they have more right to defend it than you have to invade it. Don't mistake right by force for right by justice.
What about when these people start turning on their own countrymen? Y'know, when the militias start killing people who object to them? And how is murdering & mutilating 4 foreigners justice, anyways? I don't agree that the current response will work, but I wouldn;t condone mob violence either.
-
I think he means a complete withdrawal from Iraq Aldo
-
Originally posted by Gank
I think he means a complete withdrawal from Iraq Aldo
ah, right. The good old "we've ****ed up their country so lets wash our hands and run away" tactic that worked so badly with Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So..... are you saying the US' could completely withdraw from Fallujah to easily solve this problem of violence, then?
The US withdrawling from Fallujah wouldn't make a smidgen of difference right now as the same thing is happening in, what, 7 other cities right now?
Okay. Say the US pulls out of Iraq completely right now. Obviously, no more violence against the allied occupying forces as they wouldn't be there, with the exception of potshots and laughter as we "run home with our tail between our legs". Somalia Pt. II.
Would it end violence in the region completely? Unlikely. Ask around and you'll find civil war is the general consensus which the US would be blamed for, of course. We're to blame for ALL the problems in the Middle East it seems. That's the nice thing about blame, it zeroes out accountability.
Your guess is as good as mine how that would turn out. Maybe the Iraqis would pull themselves together just fine. Maybe they'd war themselves out of existence. Who knows?
Either way, it wouldn't change anyone's opinions about my country. We're too far down for that now.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
The US withdrawling from Fallujah wouldn't make a smidgen of difference right now as the same thing is happening in, what, 7 other cities right now?
Okay. Say the US pulls out of Iraq completely right now. Obviously, no more violence against the allied occupying forces as they wouldn't be there, with the exception of potshots and laughter as we "run home with our tail between our legs". Somalia Pt. II.
Would it end violence in the region completely? Unlikely. Ask around and you'll find civil war is the general consensus which the US would be blamed for, of course. We're to blame for ALL the problems in the Middle East it seems. That's the nice thing about blame, it zeroes out accountability.
Your guess is as good as mine how that would turn out. Maybe the Iraqis would pull themselves together just fine. Maybe they'd war themselves out of existence. Who knows?
Either way, it wouldn't change anyone's opinions about my country. We're too far down for that now.
Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp? as in minimal force.
(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).
-
Lets look at the history of conflicts in the Middle -East
Gulf War 2 - US invades Iraq
Afghanistan - US invades Afghanistan
Gulf War 1 - OK, admitedly Saddam invades Kuwait, but US also gets their hands bloody.
Iran-Iraq War- US supplies weapons and training to Saddam to fight Iran.
Israel - constant Israeli/Palestinian violence, caused by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Unconditional US support for Israel allows the conflict to continue.
Afghanistan - Soviets invade, US arms and trains rebels to drive them back.
1967 War - Granted, Lebanon et al. mass armies on Israeli border, but it is Israel (with support from you-know-who) that takes the offensive and conquers land.
Now, tell me again who is the major cause of instability and war in the Middle East? Was it Syria who staged a coup in Iran in 1953. Was it Jordan who invaded Iraq, TWICE? Was it Turkey who armed rebel groups in Afghanistan, only to fight them 20 years later?
No, it was not.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp? as in minimal force.
(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).
Contrary to popular opinion (including my own), I'm in the "never should have gone there in the first place" camp because it's a total waste of resources".
I knew damned well what the response would be. "Oh great Amerika, thank you so much for removing this dictator that you helped put in power in the first place and totally ****ing up our country along the way. Speaking of which, would you please get the **** out of our country?" . More to the point, world reaction (and even some domestic-side) would be "Oh great Amerika, the great bully who fights people who can't fight back...blah blah blah". Somalia, Korea, Vietnam, oh my.
I don't get off on seeing American lives squandered like that. I find it even more appalling that President **** seems to be under the impression it's "no big deal". I expect better behavior from an elected official (and yes, I'm used to disappointment).
When America is talked about as being the Big Terrorist Bully on the planet, I want to smack people. You can "accidentally" cruise-missle a neighborhood. You can "accidentaly" shoot the wrong target ("You IDIOT! The red "X", not the Red Cross!!!).
You cannot "accidentaly" set off plastic explosives strapped to your body in a packed coffee-shop in Tel Aviv.
Unless it's a Starbucks, in which case good riddance to crap cof-ay.
Yeah, we've got the firepower to murder every insurgent (ha) in Iraq, no problem. but that won't make any of us heroes in anyones eyes. And I'm also sure that the situation in Fallujah doesn't reflect the state of the entire country. But as the media's handling of the Columbine High School situation went, just goes to show you can't trust the media.
i don't know what the solution is. If levelling the whole damned place will make the world safer for everyone, by all means light them up. But if taking the high road will do it, then it's about time.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Right... so you're in the proportionate but not excessive response camp? as in minimal force.
(i.e. neither the bugger-off nor flatten the place camp).
Originally posted by ionia23
2. Take the low road. Line up all the tanks, bulldozers, and troops necessary to level the Palestinian territories. Kill or expel all the persons there, civilian and otherwise, then annex the whole thing as the Nation of Israel.
-
what, thats proportionate but not excessive...
what?
-
[color=66ff00]ionia23, you're being pretty bloody offensive on the whole with your remarks.
Ethnic cleansing seems to be a reasonably good solution to you, thank God the civilised world vehemently disagrees with your idea of justice. I'd keep your opinions to yourself.
[/color]
-
maeglamor: i think you misunderstand what ionia is saying
seriousness != 100%
-
[color=66ff00]I responded to this by request and on reading it any intended sarcasm is not apparent IMHO and obviously the opinion of others too.
I tend to stay out of these kinds of threads actually, I just see patterns of arguing in circles in general.
[/color]
-
and often: no matter what america does other country yells at us for it - which is one of ionia's points
[edit] bad engrish
-
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
Those of you ripping me up as "bloody offensive" might do well to go read what I"m saying. You'll hardly find it offensive.
That is, unless you're just plain dim.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]ionia23, you're being pretty bloody offensive on the whole with your remarks.
Ethnic cleansing seems to be a reasonably good solution to you, thank God the civilised world vehemently disagrees with your idea of justice. I'd keep your opinions to yourself.
[/color]
Well, seeing as you don't control my opinions or the voicing thereof [color=66ff00]Yes, I can[/color], much less take the time to read them for anything other than cannon fodder, you're out of luck.
For some people, ethnic cleansing IS a solution. The Balkans, Cambodia, Sierra-Leone, you name it. Does it work? See history. It's a pretty clear "No".
Like I said, it's a high road/low road situation, depends on what the players choose to do. Do I think A. should exterminate B.? Hell no. Morals-schmorals, it wouldn't work. An option? Sure, anything's an option. We could decide to bury Iraq in unsold copies of Atari's port of Pac-Man too.
Of course, New Mexico is still here so that obviously won't cut it.
Read my statements before you decide to dictate morality to me. I'm not trying to win any popularity contests, just participating.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and often: no matter what america does other country yells at us for it - which is one of ionia's points
[edit] bad engrish
thx for the back-up, btw.
-
np
-
I guess I'm dim then.
You laid out two cases. One was a reasonable, just solution. The second was, well, genocide.
Perhaps you have accomplished new depths of subtelty when it comes to sarcasm, but my oh so dim intelligence didn't detect any. This is the second time in a few days that you suggested be just round up the civies and shoot 'em down. So far as I can recall, only you and Liberator ever came to spew such fanatical BS, and he only did it once. Everyone else has the good sense to refrain from wishing death upon millions of innocents. I thought that the world left those sentiments behind after WW2, when we saw what suffering collective punishement brings.
You didn't see me (or anyone else) posting on here after 9/11 to say "Those guys sooo deserved it, too bad it was only 3000". Even if I thought that (I don't), I would spare you the bother of having to listen to me piss myself with glee at the deaths of innocents.
The Rest of the World (read: everyone less America) has seen untold suffering done to its people throughout history, and especially in the past 100 years. War devasted Europe twice this century, on a scale you can not even begin to imagine. Countless innocents died at the hands of people who's beliefs sounds frightenighly similar to yours.
Millions have died from war, from hunger (thank you sanctions), from oppression by tyrannical regimes (but they're "our" dictators) and from every kind of terrorism. And yet, you seem to think that the murder of hundreds of thousand of innocents is indeed an appropriate response to the killing of four armed mercenaries.
You do this, because you have never seen a trace of war in your life. Never have you seen what these actions which you advocate look like, when they're happening to YOU. To YOUR family, to YOUR nations, to YOUR world. I'm going to make a very broad generalization, and say that this is the "problem" with Americans. You have never seen the other end of the big stick which you swing around with such impunity. Yes, your soldiers die, but not your wives, your mothers and fathers. Not you innocents. If you ever saw a hint of this, you would very quickly come to be humbled. You would sto war, stop your emperial adventures.
If you're still wondering, I raised the alarm. Its the first time I ever did it on this board, in 2+ years of my time here, which should tell you a little something about your behaviour.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You didn't see me (or anyone else) posting on here after 9/11 to say "Those guys sooo deserved it, too bad it was only 3000".
there were people saying this
PS: Ionia was simply presenting the possible responses - not endorsing one of them dimwit.
Quite frankly there is NO CORRECT SOLUTION to any situation - everyone's going to have a problem.
No you Rictor are getting on my nerves - you keep accusing us of being Imperialists (calling us empricalist is a compliment... go look up your definitions retard) -- You sound absolutely bitter. We may be economically imperialist to an extend - but not militarily. The cold war is not an example of imperialism just so you know - you seem not to even understand the words you're throwing around.
You know what Rictor - you know what would happen to america if we brought all our troops back into or own borders, etc -- PEOPLE WOULD ***** AT US
No matter what we do it's wrong - and you're one of the prime examples of that. You're just ****ing *****ing.
WHAT THE HELL COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN - so i can try and make sense of your messed up mind
-
Originally posted by Shrike:
Kazan, if you don't stop with your attitude you're going to be taking a bit of a vacation. There's absolutely no excuse for it. You're supposed to be an adult. Act like it.
[color=66ff00]Pushing your luck Kazan?
[/color]
-
more like i didn't see shrike's post
rictor is irritating
-----------------
edit:
that wasn't even in this thread anyway - so i probably didn't read it
FYI: threatening me is the quickest way to piss me off, and the slowest way to get the results you want
-
Temper temper. You know, just because you CAPS it, doesn't mean there's a better chance on me reading it.
I'll drop this matter now, but before I do, let me say this.
Contrary to what you say, there is a "correct" solution to each situation. Its the one where morality is best served.You claim that I (and people like me) will never be satisfied with any solution, that I live to ***** and simply, well, love to hate.
Satisfying me is very, very simple. Act like every other peaceful nation on Earth. This is not ureasonable. America posseses no special skills, no special insight into human behaviour, no special rights. You are not the chose people, you are not GloboCops, you are not "a beacon of freedom" or anything of that nature.
Act like a normal, peaceful nation.
This means: no invasions, no economic imperialism (forgive my spelling, I just can't be bothered), no supporting or toppling governments in foreign nations. No manipulating the UN and NATO to do your bidding. No exploitation of foreign people and lands for the proft of American corporations. No special justice for American troops or citizens. No military bases in foreign nations. No mixing of politics and business, especially when it comes to foreign countries. No human rights violations. No rape of natural resources for short-term benefit.
I short, no special rights or privileges for American citizens, sodliers, corporations, governments and any other person or institution.
If you'de like to discuss this further, I welcome you to via PMs. If you want to do so, just give me a few hours to clean out my inbox.
-
morality is subjective rictor - i never claim we are any of those - and often a lot of us groan when we are _ASKED_ to send troops to a place - because we know that we're going to get complained it if we send them, or if we don't
There are countries that hate our guts and wish death upon our men, women and children and yet welcome our foreign aid
No invasions? I agree - we have no reason to be in Iraq (but since we're already gone past that things should be doen right
Afghanistan was justified - but we didn't do that the right way
Economic Imperialism: so, how exactly are we not suppose to do this, no matter what it will happen even without intent (which not everyone has that intent)
No supporting or toppling governments in foreign nations? Ok when a rebellion starts in your country if your governemnt asks us for help we'll refuse - even if the revolutionarys take over and start killing anyone who disagrees with them
No 'manipulating' the UN or NATO - so basically no asking them, no trying to persuade them with arguments - because no matter what we do you could easily say that we're threatening them under the table so we're "manipulating'
No exploitation of foreign people and lands for the profit of american corporations? Same for your countries corporations - oh yeah, and be careful when calling things sweatshops - some of our companies hire foreign workers at wages well above the poverty line of their country, but the wage is compared against the poverty line of some 1st world nation so it looks measily --- in otherwords normalize the wage for their costs
"No special jstuice for American troops of citizens" define wtf you're talking about
No military bases in freogin nations: You know some of those we're invited to, and we're not the only ones with military bases in foreign nations - sure we'll withdraw completely back into our own borders and be isolationist again, even with several countries *****ing at us because they had asked us there... (PS: last time we were isolationist two world wars happened)
No mixing of politics and business? YES - oh make sure your own governments follow that directive too
No human rights violations? Such as circumcision [which i fight vehementy against], or breaching the constitutions protections of free speech and what not which **** has done that I protest a lot? Then there is that entire POW thing in Cuba... which pisses me off to no end - freaking **** administration ---- Also: make sure your own government doesn't limit human rights - do you have seperation church and state? freedom of speech, association, press? innocent until proven guilty? ad nauseum
No rape of natural resource for short-term benefits: you mean like oil reserves and ANWOIR (SP?) - talk to the **** administration - I personally am all for getting hydrogen fuel cells as fast as possible
In short: no special rights privileges for Your countries citizens, soldiers, corporations, persons or instututions.
You better make sure you're not setting up a double standard - and for the love of freedom make sure to differentiation between administrations! Oh and differentiate between the current administration and the population, and differentiation between different groups of the population that are of different opinions.
Once again Rictor: what country are you from? Are you afraid of telling me because I'll know you're being a hypocrit?
-
and Kaz, as he didn't answer your question, IIRC he is a Serb liveing in Canada.
I think that should answer your questions.
-
oh - i should say he has answered my questions- he took everything to PM
-
ah,
I did recal corectly then, yes?
-
I was born in Yugoslavia (Belgrade, Serbia) and my family moved to Canada when I was about 8 years old.
-
Hence the touchiness about Kosovo.
-
understandably
-
Aye, Serbia was rightly shafted there.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aye, Serbia was rightly shafted there.
Yep. They were. But if they hadn't been the ethnic Albanians would have been shafted.
The UN f**ked up there but then the UN has a long history of f**king things up.
The simple fact is that if they don't interfere they still get complained at. Almost everyone blames the UN/US for Rwanda because they didn't act there.
The main reason NATO interfered in Kosovo was cause of the amount of flack they got about not interfering in Bosnia quickly enough.
While going into Iraq was just plain stupidity I can see why NATO did interfere in the Balkans. My complaint is with the execution not the original idea.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
While going into Iraq was just plain stupidity I can see why NATO did interfere in the Balkans. My complaint is with the execution not the original idea.
:nod: My thoughts exactly.
-
Eh, Nato figure put casualties at 500 Kosovans dead because of the Serbs, 1500 because of the KLA and 500 Serbs dead from the bombing. There was no threat of genocide, the Serbian army was fighting a bunch of criminals who killed more of their own people than the Serbs.
I'm not defending Serbia, what happened in Bosnia was disgraceful, but Kosovo wasnt the same thing. Nato shouldnt have stuck their nose in, only made things worse.
-
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+jwwBmehrhI_wwwwnwwwwwwwhFqo7E2RN02ItFqopwGBDnG5AFqo7E2RN02IcFqpAd5dVdaH0NZgfy0Mzm1wwwwwwwDzmxwwwwwww1FqnN0bI/opendoc.pdf
interesting document (see pages 120-150 ish).
NB: Don.t forget the displaced people forced from Kosovo into surrounding countries.
-
Link doesn't work Aldo
-
Arse.
-
right - had to upload this thing tio my own webspace
http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~awhite/pish/opendoc.pdf
-
read
http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/mgenindex.shtml#A2
-
you know all these conspericy theorys about why NATO bombed Serbia always fall flat for me when I think about one thing,
why is Serbia important?
why would it would be something to bother bombing?
it's (well was) a small part of a small fedration ('was' indicateing that the federation is now just two states) with little if any major world economic/military power, and little if any natural recorces. you can say that Clinton bombed it do distract from his domestic problems, and ok I could by that, but why was he asked to do it in the first place by the varius European nations?
is there some place that has a consice record of all UN votes, i.e. wich nations were in suport of wich resolutions?
-
The conspiracy theories regarding that are pretty obvious in nature. Yet one more thing to talk smack about America over, nothing more.
-
If there was such a thing, I would very much like to have a look at it. Voting records are about the most objective proof of a politician's idealogy available.
-
Also, once you bring up the word conpiracy theory, you instantly discredit whatever cause you applied the word to. It doesn't matter it there is evidence or not, once you say "conspiracy theory" everyone just closes their minds and thinks "yeah right buddy, put on your tinfoil hat". You could say that there are a lot of cons[iracy theories that I went to the store to buy some milk, and once they hear those magic words people would not believe it, no matter what evidence was given. Whether you are doing it intentionaly or not, thats what you're doing so please just shut up about it.
You have seen no evidence that did not come from highly biased sources. There is tons of proof that no genocide occured, from Western journlists, organizations etc, and yet you intentionally don't want to hear it. Your positions is to belive the official sotry regardless of say, past experience, and anyone who deviates 1 degree is a crackpot. With people like that, there is no need to propaganda, you police yourselves quite well.
There is no "consipracy theory". From the beggining of the civil war in 1990, Serbia has been the whipping boy simply because a whipping boy was needed. Bosnia and Croatia commited the same acts that Serbia did during the civil war, and yet no one thinks of laying the blame at their feet. The KLA was (in '99) and is today linked to various Islamic fundementalist groups including, you guessed it, al Queda. Where do you think they got their oney from? Support from Islamic fundamentalis and the heroin trade.
A few weeks ago, the KLA began expelling non-Albanians from Kosovo. This has been well documted by the UN officials on the ground, though the way CNN & Co tell it, people get the impressin that its a 2-sided battle. The Serbs aren't fighting back because the moment the Serb army crossed into Kosovo to protect the Serbs and other living their, everyone would be screming genocide again.
And just for future reference, Yugoslavia under Tito was not weak or unimportant. It was at the head of the Non-Aligned movement, while such a thing existed, and it was of immense importance to both the US and the Soviets. It was on the border between Eastern and Western Europe, and a strategicly valuable spot.
-
THE SPECTATOR (UK), Saturday, November 20, 1999
"I Was Right About Kosovo"
John Laughland
"The guy's a complete asshole." Spectator readers, who are simple souls, may be unfamiliar with the sophisticated legal terminology and carefully weighed judicial arguments employed by the Spokesman for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the body upon which all future international law and civilisation is to be based. Yet this was how Paul Risley described your correspondent when confronted with a recent article in this magazine on the low body count in Kosovo. In it, I alleged that the number of Albanians massacred by Serbs had been inflated by Nato propaganda and that the International Criminal Tribunal is so deep inside Nato's pockets as to make kangaroo courts look like models of due process.
Last week, the Tribunal's Prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, made a statement to the United Nations in New York to counter the article's allegations. She claimed that the findings of the forensic investigators were helping to establish both the total number of dead and the overall pattern of the killing. In fact what the report establishes is both the overall pattern - and indeed the detail - of the deception practised by the leading Nato governments.
In May 1999, at the height of the attacks on Yugoslavia, the US State Department published a detailed report entitled "Erasing History, Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo." Its political impact was immense, contributing to the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic and the other Yugoslav leaders. The report is still available on the State Department's web site, suggesting that it remains authoritative. But what the Tribunal's findings now prove is that the report contained little but the wild imaginings - or deliberate lies - of the men and women whose fingers are on the buttons of the world's most powerful military alliance.
[...]The total body count reported by the Tribunal is 2,108.
Even if one assumes that all these people are Albanians murdered for ethnic reasons by Serbs, this is 1/5 of the number alleged by the Foreign Office in June; 1/50 of the number alleged by William Cohen in May; and 1/250 of the number suggested by the State Department in April. However, even this assumption is unjustified.
First, in the vast majority of cases, the bodies were buried in individual, not mass graves.
Second, the Tribunal will not say what sex or age the alleged victims are, let alone what nationality. There were many causes of violent death in the province: over 100 Serb and Albanian civilians have been killed in terrorist attacks by the Albanian KLA since its insurrection began in 1998; 462 Serb soldiers and 114 Serb Interior Ministry police were killed during the war; the KLA, which had tens of thousands of men under arms, also sustained casualties, as death notices in Kosovo towns announcing Albanian men killed in combat testify; and finally, hundreds of Serb and Albanian civilians were killed by the Nato bombing. (For that matter, over 200 hundred people have also been killed since the war by stepping on unexploded Nato cluster bombs.) Many of the excavations have been carried out in what are obviously Christian cemeteries (with gravestones rather than posts) while several corpses have been wearing blue (i.e. Serb police) uniforms.
The Prosecutor insists that this figure is not a final body count nor even a full census of the dead. As she says with remarkable candour, her office's first priority has been "to gather evidence relevant to the criminal charges against President Milosevic and other leaders" - in other words to look the other way if atrocities are committed by Albanians against Serbs or gypsies. (To underline the organic connection between the Tribunal and Nato, indeed, the former's web page has a link to the latter's.) Instead, she implies that the final body count may be higher when examinations of the remaining "crime scenes" resume in the spring. Paul Risley claims the exhumations have been shelved "because the ground is frozen". However, there has been no frost in Kosovo and the ground is not frozen: on the day this article was written (15th November) it was raining heavily in the province and the temperature was 10 degrees Centigrade. The exhumations must, therefore, have been interrupted for some other reason and the suspicion must be that the winter break is an attempt to kick the embarrassing question of the low body count into touch for a few months, in the hope that people will soon forget about it.
The pattern which is emerging, in other words, is not so much of a systematic attack on the Albanian population as such - Nato's declared casus belli - but rather of a low-level civil war with casualties on both sides, a situation greatly aggravated by Nato's attacks. The fighting was of an utterly different scale from that in either Bosnia or Croatia. Yes, crimes were committed by Serbs during the war, as they indisputably have been by Albanians before and after it. But the most accurate depiction of the nature of the Kosovo conflict is probably that given by a series of court rulings in Germany between January and March of this year, when a series of applications for political asylum by Kosovar Albanians were rejected because political persecution could not be proven. On 12th January 1999, for instance, the German Foreign Ministry gave the following opinion to the Administrative Court in Trier: "An explicit political persecution of the Albanian population cannot be established, even in Kosovo. The actions of the security forces are not directed against Kosovo Albanians as an ethnically defined group but instead against military opponents and their real or supposed supporters." Now, that's what I call legal reasoning.
-
I was talking about Yugoslavia at the time we bombed it,
and the only people I've heard evedence that there was no genocide were ether Serbs themselves or had some huge 'I hate America and look for anyhting I can to make a piss storm about it' thing going on.
-
Truly, everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American and can thus not be trusted. I'm not going to waste my breath on this. You don't want to believe what you don't want to believe and nothing I say or do or any evidence I present can change your mind.
I sincerely hope that someday, you will be subject to grave injustice and be unable to prove it. I hope with all my heart that you are accused to something horrible, and will live the rest of your life with the knowledge that you are innocent, and yet no one will believe you.
But thats wishful thinking, eh? History is writen by the victors.
Those of you with any interest in the subject; feel free do PM me. I'm not going to fight this in thread after thread after thread, because its simply not worth it.
Cheers
-
I didn't even want to go here, becase my felings are the same about you
-
Pff. I have a solution to everything, I'm going to kill every last ****er on the planet and dance on your bodies.
Or, I may kill myself, that might be quicker.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, that made...no sense at all.
And Woolie, I think you have it the wrong way around. These guys aren't YOUR foes, you're THEIR foes. Remeber, its their country, and they have more right to defend it than you have to invade it. Don't mistake right by force for right by justice.
Sometimes we need the force to get the justice. It's not like these guys will turn themselves in. We'll only use deadly force if they resist our attempts to bring them to justice and restore order to the city. The only reason we're even using soldiers is that police don't quite cut the mustard when faced with such a powerful and dangerous foe.
-
Rictor: you know what - i personally know some serbs that would argue against you - serbs from families that didn't move to another country before the supposed atrocities takes place
if bobboau and I don't trust you that generally means something - I am one of the most objective americans you're ever going to meet - you are making extraordinary claims and accusations and yet have nothing to back it up other than opinions by other people who could easil have a bias.
When you make extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence - bobboau and I are not the kind of people who instantly call someone anti-american for disagreeing, being able to disagree is _very_ american - it is gauranteed by our constitution, though some of our countrymen forget this. No, when bobboau or I call someone antiamerican it's because that person is displaying a slavering-at-the-mouth-bias
-
"They're not your foes! you're there foes!" that idoesn't make sense - because it takes too people to be foes
sometimes violence is neccesary - these people are CHOOSING to become combatants when they could wit another two months and have their government handed back over to them, they could wait until then to see if it's just going to be a puppet government or if we're being honest, like we can be from time to time.
**** is sticking to his June 30th date- but I must ask myself why he's doing this. There is a simple answer: if we're not in the process of pulling out by the time the election rolls around he is in grave danger of iraq becoming his 'political Vietnam' - but if he pulls out too soon he's going to have all the major generals protesting. So no matter what at this point **** is screwed - we should all rejoice for that -- maybe we can get someone in office that will go back to being civil with the other nations of the world
-
Basically, the situation in Fallujah boils down to this: if people just live their lives and not make trouble, we'll stay out of their way. If they incite or commit acts of violence, the hammer goes down. The terrorists and Ba'athist supporters in Fallujah have refused to play nice, so now they get the ultimate time-out. If they still don't get the message, we'll give them one hell of a "spanking". Psychologists and parents call it "behavior modification". And it's been proven throughout history to work.
-
Woolie, American soldiers in Iraq are more criminal than tje resistance fighters killing them. Its simple, you don't have a right to be there.
If Iraqis killed four Americans while IN America, it would be a different story, but you're in Iraq. They not commiting crimes, they're fighting the invaders. Every country on Earth has the right to fight invaders.
_______
As I said, the handover in June is only a clever charade. Americans have made certain "laws" which the new government is powerless to overturn. Add that to the fact that the US will stay in control of the Iraqi military, and that the new government will be appointed not elected, and you've got yourself a nice 'ol puppet regime.
Did you know, for example, that an old Saddam era law banning unions is being kept in place by the US. This is one of those "edicts" which cannot be overturned by the new government. Let me say that again, unions are illegal in Iraq. Champions of freedom, eh?
-
We did them a huge favor by throwing off Saddam's regime. The resistance movement is a very small percentage of the Iraqi population and almost entirely concentrated within the Sunni Triangle. Most of Iraq WANTS these murderers gone.
-
Yes, but they want you gone even more. My enemie's enemy is my friend. Why do you think that the Iraqi people are hiding the insurgents, supporting them, joining them and generally being very helpful to their cause.
Because they wan't the US out. Thats their first priority.
And, no, its not just the Sunnis anymore. The Shia are getting into the fight bigtime, via al Sadr and his followers. Check the bodycount in the past few days. You'll notice that it is consistant with a great many new people joining the fight against America.
-
Rictor do you claim that the Serbians never commited any form of genocide or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia too or just in Kosovo?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And, no, its not just the Sunnis anymore. The Shia are getting into the fight bigtime, via al Sadr and his followers. Check the bodycount in the past few days. You'll notice that it is consistant with a great many new people joining the fight against America.
Al-Sadr is an Iranian puppet. There are a LOT of vested interests involved in the Shi'a rebellion.
-
Someone's really gotta get this government sorted out. Acting in British interests? My arse. Fekin pretend moderate socialist is Blair. Arse arse arse arseeeee!
Okay so I'm pissed off.
-
What the hell does your rant have to do with Iraq, Fallujah, and the uprising there?
-
Because my country has troops involved because of that arse called Tony Blair. Thats why.
-
Most of the population of Iraq probably appreciates Blair for that. The more guys helping to maintain stability there, the better.
-
Yeah but the British people don't. And that's who Blair serves (not the Iraqi's, not the US, the British ppl).
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Rictor do you claim that the Serbians never commited any form of genocide or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia too or just in Kosovo?
Originally posted by Rictor
Those of you with any interest in the subject; feel free do PM me. I'm not going to fight this in thread after thread after thread, because its simply not worth it.
Cheers
___________________________
Woolie, regardless of what your opinion of al Sadr is, the fact it that a great many Iraqis support him. Sure, certain Iranian would love to see a Shia rebellion, but the Iraqi people wouldn't want to rebel if things were all nice and peachy for them. The Sunnis as well as the Shia want America out.
Your claims that the majority of Iraqis welcome the US and want them to stay is BS. Where are you getting this info from?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know all these conspericy theorys about why NATO bombed Serbia always fall flat for me when I think about one thing,
why is Serbia important?
why would it would be something to bother bombing?
it's (well was) a small part of a small fedration ('was' indicateing that the federation is now just two states) with little if any major world economic/military power, and little if any natural recorces. you can say that Clinton bombed it do distract from his domestic problems, and ok I could by that, but why was he asked to do it in the first place by the varius European nations?
is there some place that has a consice record of all UN votes, i.e. wich nations were in suport of wich resolutions?
Ive heard of a conspiracy theory that names the US as the reason why wars are starting in some areas, and fanned in others. This theory states US will attempt to destabalize many regions of the world, in order to bring in a New World Order.
Some beleive the World Bank and IMF (run by Enron high-ups) are a world monopolization method to bilk countries of their assets, this would make the rest of the world seem like they need US assistance, and if this comes to such a height eventually asking for the US to bring in this new world order is easily done with the public approval.
its known, in fact that 9 days after 9-11 the US and Britain planned to take out Saddam Hussein even before they went to afghanistan. Why would they want to get rid of Saddam hussein? Easy answer is oil, but really all it did cause was chaos which was really the point of the war. Further destabalization in the middle east will prompt a more severe and radical approach and this approach is easier to accept when we are in "times of terror".
Its all propaganda, and no one can end it or stop it but those putting it in motion. All we can do is be aware of what our own governments do and hope it all ends without too much damage.
I think this NWO (New World Order) Theory is pretty close to whats really happening. I mean **** stole Florida its a fact. yet nothing is done about it at all. Saddam had no weapons, those who tell this tale dont speak in official media anymore, only what is canistered is considered news.
Whitehouse website still lists Saddam as having a ton of biological warfare, yet not one spec, or micron has been found. Another lie, yet nothing done. Its obvious the politics in the US are nothing but puppetry, whats really going on no one sees until its too late.
Its too late for Iraq now, no policy will make things better there and as long as the US is involved war will prevail, and as long as **** is in power the administration wont leave. Leaving wouldnt help either, as it would be admitting defeat, and handing it over to the UN is practically begging for help after **** circumvented them and went in their in the first place without their consent.
Now, i know one thing. There is a ton of people lying, cheating and stealing. (Enron, ****, Blair) and somehow they are all connected in other ways, and somehow are all connected with shady dealings whether publicly or not. However all of the above still are in business, still practically determine world trade and economics, and now are starting wars in regions they dont have diplomatic relations with.
The way i see it Iraq will get worse, and when Kerry gets elected Cubans will be next, as he has expressed dislike for policy towards them and a need for change in them, and done so publicly. As iraq gets worse, Pakistan will be fighting terrorism on their own front lines, hopefully winning else the Terrorist have a real bargaining tool, a nuke. If this does happen, China will back the terrorists, and so will North korea and you can then kiss the rest of asia and even russia goodbye. Iraq will become the frontlines for World War 3, and pray to God we dont blow ourselves up in the meantime.
Nothin we can do about it though, not one of us here talking is powerful enough to make a change and it wont matter if millions feel the same, it takes real power to affect the world, not the kind you see on TV.
-
Yes, yes, yes, and live alien specimens are held at a secret facility in Nevada, and AIDS was created by the United States for population control in Africa, and Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy killed so we could enter Vietnam, and Elvis, Janis, and Jimi are toastin' it in Libya.
All of which is even more amazing than that time Chunk saved all those people from the nursing home fire, which was even more amazing than the time Michael Jackson came over to his house to use the bathroom.
Conspiracy theories serve two purposes: Firing the imagination and allowing people to think they have control over something they don't. Excrement.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Woolie, regardless of what your opinion of al Sadr is, the fact it that a great many Iraqis support him. Sure, certain Iranian would love to see a Shia rebellion, but the Iraqi people wouldn't want to rebel if things were all nice and peachy for them. The Sunnis as well as the Shia want America out.
Your claims that the majority of Iraqis welcome the US and want them to stay is BS. Where are you getting this info from?
Here, among other places (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110004067)
Have you ever listened to military reports on what's going on down there. The military commanders have stated that the armed opposition is well under 5,000. 5,000 out of millions and millions of people! Also, listen to the news and note where all the attacks take place. Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit, Ramani...almost all of these attacks are within the Sunni Triangle. The only other hot spot is Mosul in the north. If it was a real mass uprising among the people, there would be armed revolt EVERYWHERE, not just in the Sunni Triangle and Mosul. Also, note that most of the people conducting these attacks are--gasp--foreign fighters and people with vested interests in the Ba'athist regime! Once all these elements are combined, it's hard to see how ordinary Iraqis could be involved on a large scale here.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ive heard of a conspiracy theory that names the US as the reason why wars are starting in some areas, and fanned in others. This theory states US will attempt to destabalize many regions of the world, in order to bring in a New World Order.
Originally composed by the band Lard:
Remember when you ran away and
I got on my knees and begged you
Not to leave because I'd go berserk?
Well,You left me anyhow and then the
Days got worse and worse and now you
See I've gone completely out of my mind.
And,
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he, ha ha,
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
You thought it was a joke and so you
Laughed, you laughed!
When I had said that
Losing you would make me flip my lid - right?
You know you laughed, I heard you laugh,
You laughed, you laughed and laughed, and then you
Left, but now you know I'm utterly mad.
And,
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he , ha ha,
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toesAnd they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
I cooked your food, I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds? Huh?
Well, you just wait--they'll find you yet
And when they do they'll put you in the
RSPCA you mangy mutt!
And,
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he, ha ha,
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and
They're coming to take me away!
-
Yeah Woolly, and you should remember another interesting few lines
[q] And when they came for me, there was no one left to save me [/q]
-
That line was taken out of context. The speaker is talking about no one being left to save him from madness, not some wacked-out fictitious conspiracy.
-
Well, at least this topic hasn't shifted to religion.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
That line was taken out of context. The speaker is talking about no one being left to save him from madness, not some wacked-out fictitious conspiracy.
Actually, he was speaking about a conspiracy of men to both rule the world and commit acts we could call madness. See any links yet?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Actually, he was speaking about a conspiracy of men to both rule the world and commit acts we could call madness. See any links yet?
Are you quoting Mr. Looney over there or the song?:wtf:
-
I'm quoting regarding my quote.
-
Lonestar saith:
Why would they want to get rid of Saddam hussein?
1. He posed a potential risk to US assets overseas, especially in Israel.
2. He gave the families of suicide bombers $10000 each (which is literally sponsoring terrorism)
3. He had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors, so he was already in material breach of UN resolutions whether or not he actually had weapons. In fact, we found prohibited missiles in Iraq that violated the 150km range limit, although they didn't have WMDs on them. ANY breach of the UN resolution was enough to justify force, not just proof of WMD possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. He is a brutal despot who crushed dissent and murdered his own people.
Now, i know one thing. There is a ton of people lying, cheating and stealing. (Enron, Bush, Blair)
All politicians are lying, cheating weasels. Live with it.
China will back the terrorists, and so will North korea and you can then kiss the rest of asia and even russia goodbye.
But will the terrorists back THEM? The extremist Islamic leaders have clearly indicated their hatred for anyone who is not also an Islamist zealot lunatic. They did not attack us because of legitimate grievances, they did it because of who we are and what we stand for (democracy, consumer/money culture, freedom).
-
[q](
democracy, consumer/money culture, freedom)[/q]
:p
-
the fundamentalist isalmists want to kill _ANYONE_ who doesn't: treat their women like property, wear a beard, bow down to mecca five times a day, etc
anyway - conspiracy theories = extraordinary claims, you have no extraordinary evidence to back it up
however **** is an arse, blair is a puppet, and saddam is genocidal
Al Sadr is in the sack with Iran, anyone who picks up a gun and fires are occupation troops is a combatant, there are a lot of iraqis that ARE happy that we kicked saddam out: don't kid yourself by saying there are none because i have it directly from the horses mouth
-
[q]Al Sadr is
in the sack with Iran[/q] ;)
-
oh yeah, and **** wants to sack iran
-
So many sack comments, so little ways to avoid trouble....
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q](democracy, consumer/money culture, freedom)[/q]
:p
Since their idea of commerce is often bartering, they have a much broader view of what a consumer/money culture is than we do.
-
:wtf: Am I missing something here?
-
They don't like our economic system because they consider stuff like advertisements, stock exchanges, and other such things to be immoral. They consider anything different from themselves to be evil.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
1. He posed a potential risk to US assets overseas, especially in Israel.
2. He gave the families of suicide bombers $10000 each (which is literally sponsoring terrorism)
3. He had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors, so he was already in material breach of UN resolutions whether or not he actually had weapons. In fact, we found prohibited missiles in Iraq that violated the 150km range limit, although they didn't have WMDs on them. ANY breach of the UN resolution was enough to justify force, not just proof of WMD possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. He is a brutal despot who crushed dissent and murdered his own people.
All politicians are lying, cheating weasels. Live with it.
1. Yeah, thats what we've been saying all along. Dancing bear.
2. He sure did, and America gives Israel weapons and money. Both of you were just supporting "your side" of the conflict. Both sides are equally guilty.
3. Israel has violated many, many UN resolutions. So has the US.
4. Ageed.
And saying I should "live with" corrupt, power hungry, war-mongering politicians is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. You can't possibly mean that?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the fundamentalist isalmists want to kill _ANYONE_ who doesn't: treat their women like property, wear a beard, bow down to mecca five times a day, etc
anyway - conspiracy theories = extraordinary claims, you have no extraordinary evidence to back it up
however **** is an arse, blair is a puppet, and saddam is genocidal
Al Sadr is in the sack with Iran, anyone who picks up a gun and fires are occupation troops is a combatant, there are a lot of iraqis that ARE happy that we kicked saddam out: don't kid yourself by saying there are none because i have it directly from the horses mouth
1. Wrong. Where is your proof? How many Islamic fundamentalists do you know? Or do you just think whatever TeeVee says? They have specific goals, such as getting US troops out of the Middle-East, getting Israel to give back Gaza and the West Bank. These are not insane, unachievable fantasies, they are real goals that can (and should) be accomplished quite easily.
2. I never said Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam go. They were. But they don't want the US to take his place. They don't want to trade one bully for another. Especially a foreign one.
-
You have a very delusional idea of what TV news is like. TV news has always been liberal and antigovernment, and always will be. Their coverage (except for Fox's) of the war on terror has been decidedly negative. The real sources that tell us the kind of things Kazan mentioned are in newspapers and online.
2. I never said Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam go. They were. But they don't want the US to take his place. They don't want to trade one bully for another. Especially a foreign one.
We're not a bully like Saddam. We only go after those who deliberately try to hurt us. You can think and say pretty much anything as long as you don't hurry anything by commiting or inciting acts of violence. You can say "Bush is Satan, the US sucks, and Saddam is a great guy" without any consequence (besides other people invoking their right to ridicule you). If you tried to criticize Saddam when he was in power, you'd be hauled off to God knows where or even killed.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
1. He posed a potential risk to US assets overseas, especially in Israel.
I thought that Israel was a country, not an US asset, seems I don't know my geography that much...
2. He gave the families of suicide bombers $10000 each (which is literally sponsoring terrorism)
That one's true, and has nearly never been used by **** and Co, which I found highly amusing.
3. He had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors, so he was already in material breach of UN resolutions whether or not he actually had weapons. In fact, we found prohibited missiles in Iraq that violated the 150km range limit, although they didn't have WMDs on them. ANY breach of the UN resolution was enough to justify force, not just proof of WMD possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
The resolution didn't clearly said that a breach would trigger the sending of troops. How can it even be considered then as a good reason to go to war ?
4. He is a brutal despot who crushed dissent and murdered his own people.
And who is worse, the guy who does this or the governement that backed him up and numerous other tyrants and dictator ?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
You have a very delusional idea of what TV news is like. TV news has always been liberal and antigovernment, and always will be. Their coverage (except for Fox's) of the war on terror has been decidedly negative. The real sources that tell us the kind of things Kazan mentioned are in newspapers and online.
We're not a bully like Saddam. We only go after those who deliberately try to hurt us. You can think and say pretty much anything as long as you don't hurry anything by commiting or inciting acts of violence. You can say "Bush is Satan, the US sucks, and Saddam is a great guy" without any consequence (besides other people invoking their right to ridicule you). If you tried to criticize Saddam when he was in power, you'd be hauled off to God knows where or even killed.
As far as I can tell, the threat from Saddams' Iraw was exactly zip. Whilst Saddam was an evil bloke and deserved to be removed, that wasn;t the justification given for this war. the cause given was WMD & terrorists in iraq, neither of which have proven true. That is, except for the foreign fighters flooding into the country to be martyrs.
Also, bullying doesn;t just extend to military force. Threatened sanctions towards the likes of France and Germany for disagreeing (how dare they!) with the US over Iraq counts as bullying IMO.
NB: Iraq started destroying the long (well, not exactly long....) range missiles when they were discovered, which shows that the weapons inspectors were having an effect. It also evidences Iraq complying with the resolution, albeit largely to save their own arse.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
As far as I can tell, the threat from Saddams' Iraw was exactly zip. Whilst Saddam was an evil bloke and deserved to be removed, that wasn;t the justification given for this war. the cause given was WMD & terrorists in iraq, neither of which have proven true. That is, except for the foreign fighters flooding into the country to be martyrs.
You confuse supporting terrorism with actually giving terrorists sanctuary inside the country. He gave thousands to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel. How can that not be supporting terrorism.
Also, bullying doesn;t just extend to military force. Threatened sanctions towards the likes of France and Germany for disagreeing (how dare they!) with the US over Iraq counts as bullying IMO.
What, not buying their stuff because we don't like them? That's typical and accepted politics. It's done all the time. It's just too bad that their economies will suffer badly without our dollars fattening their pockets.
NB: Iraq started destroying the long (well, not exactly long....) range missiles when they were discovered, which shows that the weapons inspectors were having an effect. It also evidences Iraq complying with the resolution, albeit largely to save their own arse.
They kicked the weapons inspectors out in the late '90s. That's not cooperating.
-
After they'de been in there for like more than 5 years.
And as I said, both Israel and the US have disobeyed UN resolutions. Except when you do it, you don't say you're not cooperating, you say that you are maintaining your sovreignty. Love hypocricy.
And there are many, many people in the world who consider the IDF to be terrorists. You giving them weapons is the same as Saddam giving money to the families of suicide-bombers.
I've already said all this, but you just don't bother to read.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
You confuse supporting terrorism with actually giving terrorists sanctuary inside the country. He gave thousands to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel. How can that not be supporting terrorism.
And that constitutes an immenent and dangerous threat to the sanctity of the US/UK?
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
What, not buying their stuff because we don't like them? That's typical and accepted politics. It's done all the time. It's just too bad that their economies will suffer badly without our dollars fattening their pockets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2968775.stm
Sounds like petty recriminations. And it;s not the tactics, it;s the reason - 'disagree with us and you get cut off' sounds like bullying to me. especially if everyone is as desperate to suckle on the golden teat of the US economy as you say.
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
They kicked the weapons inspectors out in the late '90s. That's not cooperating.
That was the past - the inspectors were back in, doing their job. That was co-operating.
-
So its not terrorism when Israelis bulldoze the houses of the families of suicide bombers, when Israelis tear down villages, when Israelis use a missile to take out an old guy from the safety of an attack helicopter!!
The Palestinians are fighting for their freedom, and it is the ultimate sacrifice to give up your life for a cause!
-
It's still murder - cowardly murder - to kill civillians with a suicide bomb.
-
So is dropping bombs from 20 miles up, or killing with a cruise missle fired from 200km away. They're all equally cowardly. The Palestinians have two things going for them
1. They have a legitimate claim to the land for which they are fighting.
2. They are man enough to die for the cause in which they believe, not take potshots from halfway across the world or from a stealth bomber in the sky.
-
And that constitutes an immenent and dangerous threat to the sanctity of the US/UK?
In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.
Originally posted by Rictor
So is dropping bombs from 20 miles up, or killing with a cruise missle fired from 200km away. They're all equally cowardly. The Palestinians have two things going for them
1. They have a legitimate claim to the land for which they are fighting.
2. They are man enough to die for the cause in which they believe, not take potshots from halfway across the world or from a stealth bomber in the sky.
First of all,
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.
2. Israeli soldiers and police often DO die for their cause. They get shot, stabbed, blown up, etc. all the time by Palestinian rebels. Whether they die on foot, in a tank, or in a plane makes no difference. Furthermore, it's not the suicide bombers so much as the disgusting terrorist leaders that indoctrinate them and send them out to be "martyred" who are the cowards.
-
I smell worryingly blind patriotism...
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.
First of all,
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.
2. Israeli soldiers and police often DO die for their cause. They get shot, stabbed, blown up, etc. all the time by Palestinian rebels. Whether they die on foot, in a tank, or in a plane makes no difference. Furthermore, it's not the suicide bombers so much as the disgusting terrorist leaders that indoctrinate them and send them out to be "martyred" who are the cowards.
1. Now, assuming you are right (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), we've got Israel belonging to: Jews, conquerers, conquerers, conquerers, conquerers, Jews (conquerers)., Now, what does this teach us about land ownership?
He with the biggest gun gets the loot. No justice or reason, just force. Yay!
And it doesn't matter if the Palestinians "owned" the land. As we've seen, whoever has the biggest army gets to say he "owns" the land. Its matters who has lived there for the longest time, and that would be our good friends the Palestinians.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.
I'm sorry, but that's just daft. If anything, the Iraq war increase the likelihood of terrorism - as we've seen in Spain, Turkey and Iraq itself. It gave Arabs another cause to die for - putting American forces on the ground was like drawing a gigantic bullseye.
Not to mention that it neccessitated moving the most fluent Arabic speaking special forces away from the hunt for Bin Laden. Or that other countries like syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia itself could be said to beequally or more dangerous in these terms.
And that any reduction in terrorism in Israel itself would be minimal - Iraqs support was after the act, and to the familes. It was probably a more effective PR excercise that a facilitator of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
They don't like our economic system because they consider stuff like advertisements, stock exchanges, and other such things to be immoral. They consider anything different from themselves to be evil.
You mean advertising cigarettes to children isn't immoral?
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108956/posts
Read the people's comment here. Its all war-bloggers splooging their pants at the prospect of leveling Fallujah, trying to outdo each other as to who can think of the most terrible death for the population of Fallujah.
O'Reilly, the quintessential American fanatic.
I had quite a good laugh before I got bored at the sheer repetition.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.
And how do you think the jews got it in the first place? That's right. They kicked out the people who were already there.
-
1) There is no reason why the palestinians and the israelies couldn't just form a joint state and who cares who your neighbors is - act like human ****ing beings and grow the hell up
2) soon as you pick up a gun and fire at a soldier you're a combatant and you will be shot
3) if you direct military, paramilitary, or terrorist operations you are a valid target for elimination
4) Most of the insurgents in Iraq are not iraqi born OR they're not iraqi commanded (see Al Sadr <---> Iran connection)
-
4) I thought be established this months ago. While there are foreign organizations, there is a large homegrown reistance who are no one's "puppets" but they just want the US out. Around September of last year, **** was claiming that there is little or no genuine Iraqi resistance, and I remember reporters going out to interview Iraqi insurgents and they got quite a different picture.
And you seem to think that any anti-American organization with religious ties is Iran's puppet. Thats just to broad a statement. Have you met al Sadr, do you know his motivations? Or are you just omniscient??
-
Rictor: my statements about Al Sadr come from the intelligence community (and NOT ****'s intelligence 'specialist')
-
US hits mosque, 40 killed (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/04/07/ap/Headlines/d81q7oe81.txt)
Nearly 3 million Iraqis approve of anti-American attacks (http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108122739953940588)
AMerican attack in Fallujah kill 26, includng women and children (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_FALLUJAH_DEATHS?SITE=ORMED&SECTION=HOME)
Sunnis, Shiites unite to fight US (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-035654-8564r)
also here (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9214701%5E1702,00.html)
and here is an interesting bit by Wolfowitz:
There’s not going to be any difference in our military posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th, except that we will be there then at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi government, which I am quite sure will want us to stay there until killers like the ones who perpetrated these atrocities in Fallujah are brought under control.
:lol: :lol: Do they even bother to check this stuff before they release it?
from here (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040402-depsecdef0577.html)
-
Kazan Al-Sadr has nothing to do with Iran, the Badr Brigades have Iranian connections but they're still Iraqis.
Globalsecurity is a pretty good source for stuff like this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-sadr.htm
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I was talking about Yugoslavia at the time we bombed it,
and the only people I've heard evedence that there was no genocide were ether Serbs themselves or had some huge 'I hate America and look for anyhting I can to make a piss storm about it' thing going on.
Eh, Nato themselves say theres no genocide before they went in. I actually know a couple of Kosovan refugees who've confirmed this and blamed all the violence on the KLA, Albanian mafia they call them. Btw the "we dont do anything wrong people just hate us for no reason" act is a bit pathetic.
-
Gank, thank you. I'm outnumbered like 10 to 1 on this, even more than in the usual "US in Iraq" threads. There's hope yet.
:cool: :cool:
-
Well if Nato had done things the right way you wouldnt hear a peep out of me Rictor, I have no respect for Serbia after what happened in Bosnia.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=2100
Bloodlust satisfied yet?
Also just seen wounded boys being pulled out of an abrams on sky, guess the iraqis do have some of those weaps I was on about earlier
-
Rictor: that US missile strike "on a mosque" was on an outer compound wall, which there were insurgents actively using for cover to fire out of -- soon as you turn a building into a combat zone (_ANY_ building) it becomes a legitimate military target. Trying to use a mosque for cover is cowardly and just trying to make your opponant look bad. The people who turned it into a military target by using it to shoot from should be the ones looking bad
"Women and children" -- you know women are sometimes combatants - there is a nice AP photo of an all opressins-garbed-out woman holding a HK up in the air. In somalia little kids would sometimes retreive fallen RPGs, etc and occasionally use them. Soon as they touch that weapon they become a combatant
-
The US army has said no bodys were recovered from the mosque
And heres one of your "combatants"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/8CB7C17E-F69E-48A2-8034-DEA425192815/33968/1.JPG
You could just say people get caught up in the crossfire, trying to justify their deaths is just sick
I'm not sure that kind of image is appropriate to be directly linked. Anyone who wants to look at the link is free to do so. //Kalfireth
-
indeed - peopel get caught in the crossfire
certain terrorists are also known to use children has human shields, or to recover dropped weapons (recovering dropped weapons makes them a combatant technically)
In short: collateral damage _HAPPENS_, you know it's the insurgents who didn't wait patiently and see if we would actually leave like we promised and picked up guns and started shooting
-
Well, isn't collateral damage just a nice fix-it-all excuse. 99% of the time, when innocents are killed, they just say "collateral damage, our bad" and expect it goes away. Sorry, but I don't see the difference betweem intended casualties and accidental ones.
Yes, on a theoretical level, you're a *bit* less guilty, but its still a human life. If you kill more people by accident than most militant organizations are capable of doing on pupose, don't you think its time to re-evaluate your procedures?
-
rictor: you clearly don't know the first freaking thing about war --- your entire post is basically talking out of your arse
-
And do you know about war? Please enlighten me.
Heres my basic theory: whoever kills the most innocents is the worse criminal.
why is that not a good rule? Why should the US (or whoever) be excused for collateral damage? No one ever intends to run over a person with their car, but when you do you are still guilty, even though it was an accident.
-
An unfortunately truth about war now is it's no longer a case of two armies meeting on a battlefield, and whomever is left standing wins. Now it's in cities where you can't tell combatant from non-combatant until they are shooting at you.
US Military defines "victory" on two principles. 1. Were our objectives accomplished, 2. How few non-combatants did we kill in the process?
Arguing over "should've done this/should've done that" is merely exasperating. Some of us knew invading Iraq was a bad idea in the first place, some thought it was good then and disagree now, some are stalwart in their support to this day.
So all "should'ves" aside, what should be done now?
-
Originally posted by Gank
The US army has said no bodys were recovered from the mosque
And heres one of your "combatants"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/8CB7C17E-F69E-48A2-8034-DEA425192815/33968/1.JPG
You could just say people get caught up in the crossfire, trying to justify their deaths is just sick
Again, direct linking removed. //Kalfireth
I have to comment on this little piece of propaganda. I noticed you conveniently left out pictures of the charred bodies from the Fallujah incident.
One can criticize the US all they want for shelling that mosque, a facility from which rockets were being fired. What does that say about the insurgents willing to place the very people they were supposed to be protecting in harms way?
-
i wasn't behind the war, but i am behind our troops doing their jobs and coming home alive
I am not going to tolerate slander against my country - whether I agree with the current administration or not
-
I'm smelling that blind patriotism again.
-
vyper: then you need to get your nose examine
FYI: you just extremely offended me to the point i am hardly refraining from telling you to do various inpolite things
-
Kazan, it is one thing to slander the government and quite another to slander the country. the Army is part of the government.
You say that you are "behind our troops doing their jobs and coming home alive", even though you don't agree with their reason for being there. Does this seem like a contradication to you?
also, a question for anyone who cares to answer it: Would you rather see an American GI kill 5 innocents and return home alive, or spare those 5 people and return home in a body bag?
I'm just interested on your opinions on this. and ionia, I would have prefered that the Fallujah bodies be shown, but American news organizations refused to show them. Its hardly propaganda if your own news sources supported it.
edit: Kazan, you are too easily offended. If I were anywhere near as easy to offend as you, I would have let loose a hundred times by now.
-
Rictor: no it isn't a contradiction - i may not _like_ that they're there, I may not think we should have gone there and may not think that we should be there. However the thing is done, now things need to be handled _PROPERLY_ or we will leave the place a bigger mess than before we came in. These insurgents are making it a bigger mess
How would it possibly be that a solider would either have to kill 5 innocents or die - if those are truely innocents then there is no danger to him and we won't fire
our own news sources did show the fallujah bodies retard
-
This will probably send you in to a blind rage, but I consider people who change their stance "once we're already in there" to be fence-sitters extrordinare.
As for the soldier, it would be the choice between playing it safe and gunning down "suspicious persons" or trying to ascertain their identity and maybe finding out too late that they are insurgents. Essentially, I am asking who's life do you value more. A single American soldier, or several Iraqi innocents.
-
Since we've had so much fun thrashing the US for it's handywork, lets take a moment to applaud the tactics of the insurgents they are fighting.
Truly, these insurgents deserve our sympathy for having to resort to the following honorable, courageous tactics to fight the Wicked Americans. I am glad American blood is being shed for these people. Truly.
True Heroes of Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html)
-
Rictor: i didn't change my stance - i still oppose the war, but i am a freaking realist and I have some grasp of military tactics and what _NOT_ to do
Rictor: if a soldier (i am leaving out the bigotry-enabling qualification of an american solider) feels threatened they have the right to open fire - they should fire to disable instead of kill unless their is clear and present danger (ie they other person is pointing a HK at them)
disabling is easy - bullet to the knee, but not everyone is a good enough markmess
You keep saying "innocents" - "innocents this" "innocents that" - INNOCENTS KEEP THEIR ARSES INDOORS OUT OF HTE CROSSFIRE WITH THEIR DOORS LOCKED
you are also acting like 1 civilian caught in the cross fire is a million innocents killed - Face reality, collateral damage HAPPENS - when I see intent then I'll get all outraged
The world has forgotten what real war is in it's "advancement"
-
A crossfire is not how the majority of civilians are killed.
Here's an example that I remember off the top of my head. Sometime last year, I read an article that told how a kid (I think he was 10) was taking a car part from a mechanic's shop back to his home in order for his dad to do some repairs on their car. The part was roughly the size of a grenade. He got spotted and shot.
Another story I remember, was two kids (sorry I keep bringing up kids, but these are the ones I remember) were camping out of the roof of their house one night. They got spotted, mistaken for snipers and shot. Then the soldiers proceeded to fire RPGs in to the house, thinking there were more insurgents in it, and promptly killed the boy's family.
I would guess that mistaken identity is a huge killer of civilians. And its not ALL soldiers, I've heard many instances where British soldiers were on the scene with Americans and restrained them from firing so that the identity of the person could be confirmed. And it always turns out to be an innocent. Trigger happy I guess.
The question I was asking was, would you rather that American (or UK if you'de like) soldiers play it safe and shoot on sight, or that they maybe expose themselves to danger in order to potentially save innocent lives. This is the third time Ive asked, answer the question.
Civilians can't stay in their homes 24/7 for years on end. They have to live their lives, and in living their lives they expose themselves to danger of being mistaken for insurgents and killed.
The fact that it is an accident does not excuse it.These are not supposed to be trigger happy yokels with guns, they're supposed to be trained and disciplend soldiers. Such a high level of error should not be tolerated, especially when the cost is so high.
-
1st Story: misjudgement happens, and once the soldier found out it wasn't a grenade i can garauntee he felt absolutely wretched
2nd Story: see 1 (camping on the roof in a combat zone.. let's use some common sense)
Triggery happy, or more likely simply paranoid (paranoia in combat conditions keeps you alive)
You were not asking the question without loading it for bigotry before - I would rather have the soliders try to run the middle ground - do not be too quick to shoot, nor too slow to shoot
No they cannot, however they can maintain curfew while it's enforced - it's there for their protection, when they hear gun fire they should remain indoors, they should approach soldiers only when necessary and with utmost caution (hands exposed in gesture of being unarmed)
"High level of error" - what are you comparing it to - the error rate could be 1/100,000 and get the numbers were seeing, actually with an error rate that high you'd probably have a lot more causes of killed due to mistaken identity
put your numbers into perspective before running your mouth
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I have to comment on this little piece of propaganda. I noticed you conveniently left out pictures of the charred bodies from the Fallujah incident.
Its a dead baby, how the **** can you call that propaganda. And I didnt "conveniently leave out" the dead mercenarys, I left them out because they had no relevance whatsoever to what was being discussed, women and children being combatants. And why the **** do you think I should? Does a dead foriegn mercenary justify the death of a baby?
One can criticize the US all they want for shelling that mosque, a facility from which rockets were being fired. What does that say about the insurgents willing to place the very people they were supposed to be protecting in harms way?
Eh nothing really, doesnt actually have anything to do with people being placed in harms way, a mosque is a building you twat.
Originally posted by Kazan
i wasn't behind the war, but i am behind our troops doing their jobs and coming home alive
I am not going to tolerate slander against my country - whether I agree with the current administration or not
My country, right or wrong eh?
Originally posted by ionia23
So all "should'ves" aside, what should be done now?
Go home
Originally posted by Kazan
certain terrorists are also known to use children has human shields, or to recover dropped weapons (recovering dropped weapons makes them a combatant technically)
Certain people should look up the word terrorist in a dictionary, attacks on US soldiers are not terrorist attacks.
-
Gank: do we know how that infant died? for all we know it could have been intentionally used as a human shield to have this very effect - it's been documented to happen in the past, a certain hamas leader comes to mind
Gank: no not "my country, right or wrong" - it's the asshole in the white house has already ****ed up enough stuff, let's leave that country in better condition than when we came in so we don't look like a bunch of freaking assholes anymore than we already do, the best and most effective way of pacifying and enemy is to make them your friend - so let's hope we leave that country in great condition and they'll forgive us for the transgressions of our current administration as we kick them out of office
(YAY! I saw some polls today saying Kerry is leading **** in the standings by more than the statisical error margin)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: do we know how that infant died? for all we know it could have been intentionally used as a human shield to have this very effect - it's been documented to happen in the past, a certain hamas leader comes to mind
Save it for somebody who'll swallow it, Iraqis arent running around holding babys up in front of them as shields, do you know how ridiculous that sounds?, and spare us the Israeli crap as well, what good is using a baby as a human shield when Israels favoured method of assasination is airstrikes. And judging on previous assasinations the Israels have carried out, it wouldnt stop them for a second.
btw you have a link for this human shield stuff, cos I cant find any reports on it and the US spokesman didnt mention it in the CPA breifing this morning. You'd think they'd be the first people to mention it.
-
You know, it just occured to me, that if anyone said " f*uck B*sh ", both of the words would be censored and people would have no idea what was going on.
-
[q]vyper: then you need to get your nose examine
FYI: you just extremely offended me to the point i am hardly refraining from telling you to do various inpolite things[/q]
Right now let's get something straight - you said:
"I am not going to tolerate slander against my country - whether I agree with the current administration or not"
Lets look at that - from what I've read you aren't going to tolerate any questioning, or the use of negative comments agains your country - even though you think it's actions are complete and utter bollocks?
Now, excuse me, but isn't that pretty much blind patriotism? Or can you neatly explain that away?
Btw, tell me to do any rudes things you want, I'm a big boy I've heard them before :p
-
Just as an aside, looks like afghanistans falling apart as well
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040408/wl_nm/afghan_fighting_dc_5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt Dostum one of the main US allys when the Taliban were ousted?
-
vyper: do you know the definition of the word slander - questioning is not slander
gank: him being one of our "allies" because he's willing to fight with us doesn't mean he's going to behave as we'd like after we start handing the back to the locals who it rightfully belongs to
-
Again, the fact that these people have taken hostages is conveniently overlooked. hmmm.
-
ionia, why do you function on the prinicpal that if A and B are enemies, and I disagree with A, then I must agree with B? I agree with neither.
I don't support their methods, only their ends. I wouldn't mind if al Sadr was shot tommorow, he's a fundamentalists asshole. But they have the right to fight for their freedom.
-
Rictor: they're not "fighting for their freedom" though - we have GRANTED them almost every freedom they could want (except for immediately leaving their country)
Why aren't we IMMEDIATELY leaving their country? because doing so would leave the place is a bigger mess than before we went in, we don't want to leave the place unstable and where people fear for their lives - we want to leave the place better than when we went in, so that we may be forgiven of our president's transgression of going in there at all
so basically: "since we ****ed up, let's try and make ammends" - even if your "3 million" number is correct for the number of people supporting the insurgents, that's 15% of the population -- lemme see where you got that number
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ionia, why do you function on the prinicpal that if A and B are enemies, and I disagree with A, then I must agree with B? I agree with neither.
I don't support their methods, only their ends. I wouldn't mind if al Sadr was shot tommorow, he's a fundamentalists asshole. But they have the right to fight for their freedom.
True, they do. And they shouldn't cry when they get shot back at.
I'd rather see the whole lot of us come home and go isolationist again. No sense dying for the ungrateful.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html
-
hmmmm, seems like most of them have already been released. 2 israeli arabs I wouldnt worry too much about, if they are Israeli arabs they'll be ok, if they're mossad ****em. Koreans were let go after a couple of hours, hardly qualifies as a kidnapping. Wtf were evangalistic christians doing going to Iraq in the middle of all this anyway?
Japanese look a bit more serious, doubt its shi'ites as when they took hostages yesterday they asked to trade them for the cleric the US have, seems to me they'd ask for the same thing now. If it is a proper terrorist organisation that have them as opposed to a bunch of thugs I'd seriously worry about their safety. One of the poor bastids is only 18 and incountry for just a week.
Could see this coming a mile off though, surprised it hasnt happened before now actually.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But they have the right to fight for their freedom.
Originally posted by ionia23
True, they do. And they shouldn't cry when they get shot back at. ......No sense dying for the ungrateful.
Ungrateful for what exactly? Their freedom? ffs
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wtf were evangalistic christians doing going to Iraq in the middle of all this anyway?/B]
encouraging religions to do what they do best: start wars
-
[q]vyper: do you know the definition of the word slander - questioning is not slander[/q]
I was meaning that your attitude was really about questioning and negative commentary, and that you misrepresented yourself by saying "slandered".
-
no i didn't misrepresent myself by saying "slandered" - i meant it - some of what's being tossed out is purely SLANDER, and that's what makes me angry
i don't mind questioning, i encourage questioning - but outright slander against anyone or any country shouldn't be acceptable behavior
-
Even if it's reciprocal?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i don't mind questioning, i encourage questioning - but outright slander against anyone or any country shouldn't be acceptable behavior
Yet you yourself are slandering the Iraqis by saying they're using babys as human shields.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wtf were evangalistic christians doing going to Iraq in the middle of all this anyway?
They were being evangelic Christians. Ever wonder why they are called evangelic? Because they evangelize and preach the faith to non-Christians, whether said non-Christians want them or like them or listen to them or not.
-
I think we're getting closer to the cause of a great many things with that one.
-
I know that woolie, I was wondering why they chose a country full of heavily armed muslim radicals in the middle of an uprising to do that in.
-
gank: i was saying it was a possibility, and nothing more
-
Originally posted by Gank
I know that woolie, I was wondering why they chose a country full of heavily armed muslim radicals in the middle of an uprising to do that in.
Because God told them to. Duh ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
gank: i was saying it was a possibility, and nothing more
Based on what exactly? If I'd have said US troops were doing the same thing you'd be the first to jump on me. Btw US troops did exactly that in Mogadishu.
01010, God sure has a funny sense of humour.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I know that woolie, I was wondering why they chose a country full of heavily armed muslim radicals in the middle of an uprising to do that in.
Cause they view it as a challenge :D
-
Originally posted by Gank
I know that woolie, I was wondering why they chose a country full of heavily armed muslim radicals in the middle of an uprising to do that in.
Because they're stupid. Reason enough?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: they're not "fighting for their freedom" though - we have GRANTED them almost every freedom they could want (except for immediately leaving their country)
Why aren't we IMMEDIATELY leaving their country? because doing so would leave the place is a bigger mess than before we went in, we don't want to leave the place unstable and where people fear for their lives - we want to leave the place better than when we went in, so that we may be forgiven of our president's transgression of going in there at all
so basically: "since we ****ed up, let's try and make ammends" - even if your "3 million" number is correct for the number of people supporting the insurgents, that's 15% of the population -- lemme see where you got that number
except the right to determine their government.
Thats a biggy. Why not hold elections>?
-
Sovereignity will be handed over on June 30th, and THEN elections will be held. You can't just jump into elections right after liberating a nation. It needs time to settle down first or the whole country will go to ****.
-
rictor: wollie has a point
-
Do you even read my posts? Sovereignty will NOT be handed over on the 30th. Symbolic control will be handed over, not actual control.
-
The US has no sovereignty to hand over in the first place, its a big show for the elections.
-
Rictor: until you show that you are not just slavering-at-the-mouth biased I take all your posts with more than a grain of salt
but yes symbolic control is being handed over, and it is a big show for the elections
-
**** it, would someone please send the SAS into rescue those hostages?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: until you show that you are not just slavering-at-the-mouth biased I take all your posts with more than a grain of salt
but yes symbolic control is being handed over, and it is a big show for the elections
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk15.html
-
he said show that you are _not_ just slavering-at-the-mouth biased
-
Sorry, these are facts. Or perhaps you're implying that Robert Fisk, one of the most acclaimed British journalist in the world is simply pulling it out of his ass?
You can put whatever spin you want to them, but the facts remain nevertheless.
-
no those are not fact's rictor - it's all speculation, pessimistic speculation, but perfectly plausable series of events
don't act like they're facts just because you agree with his speculation.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Based on what exactly? If I'd have said US troops were doing the same thing you'd be the first to jump on me. Btw US troops did exactly that in Mogadishu.
01010, God sure has a funny sense of humour.
Show some proof of US troops using babies as shields, otherwise dispense with the nonsense. Its really quite unbecomming.
-
From the article:
Fact:
the so-called "Coalition Provisional Authority" - the occupying power - has issued unchangeable "orders" on highly significant matters, non-governmental organisations and the judiciary. For example, this places the Iraqi military under US military command until a final constitution begins operating; the new "government" - unelected, of course - will have no power over the Special Tribunals to try former members of the Baath Party.
Fact:
The Americans control the central bank law and companies law. Institutions to control the press and television in Iraq have been set up by the Americans, including a Communications and Media Commission which will be "solely responsible for licensing and regulating telecommunications, information and other media in Iraq".
Fact:
Paul Bremer, the US proconsul, has already issued an executive order specifying that the new Iraqi armed forces will be under the command of the American commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who will lead US forces after the "transfer" of power on 30 June
Fact:
A 1987 Saddamite law which forbids Iraqi workers in state-owned organisations from forming trade unions is to remain in being. Resistance at the work site - political "resistance", that is - will be illegal and trade union leaders can be arrested.
Fact:
And favoured for the future US "ambassador" in Iraq is none other than Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative pro-Israeli academic who is a member of the US administration and one of the "hawks" who encouraged the whole disastrous US invasion of Iraq.
-
During the night after the botched raid covered in blackhawk down US troops took cover in a building containing women and children. Anyone with a copy of the book can confirm this. Anyone who doesnt should borrow a copy if you can, for all its hoo har cheastbeating ****e its a decent read.
-
"unelected of course" is not necessarily true - until a "final constitution begins operating" could (And should) be long after the first elections are held
Fact 1 eliminated
Fact 2 needs not be disputed
Fact 3 needs not be disputed
Fact 4 needs not be disputed
Fact 5 needs not be disputed
I agree that 2-5 are bad things, however fact 1 is not wholly true, any counterexample is enough to eliminate the "facthood" of a fact - the counterexample is that your fact 1 rests on a presumption, which therefore means it's not logically sound
gank: where the women and children just there ie as casaulties of the situation, or was there intent to use them as shields
-
The whole issue of militants sheltering themselves in mosques is somewhat dubious as well with obvious political ramifications. Troops can't fire on the mosque without being percieved as attacking the religious institution or enter it without being accused of defiling the place. However, militants have no qualms about carrying their guns and RPG's in and firing said weapons out of the mosque. They are hijacking Islam, and that's a universally bad thing. I don't care if they are doing it in the name of religion; they are indirectly causing their "holy places" to be placed in danger and then accuse their attackers of attacking the religion. What is annoying as hell to watch is that no one seems to see a discrepency there.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"unelected of course" is not necessarily true - until a "final constitution begins operating" could (And should) be long after the first elections are held
Fact 1 eliminated
*reads it over again*
I don't see how you are eliminating it. The first sentence is fact, unless you think Fisk is fabricating it. The second bit, about the military being under US control until a functioning constitution is also fact, I think the date December 2005 is mentioned. And then the last bit, about the new government having no power over the Baath party tribunals is also true.
Are you discarding the whole lot of it just becuase you find one part to be questionable? Then its only a matter of breaking it down into smaller chunkcs which will all be true except for one.
err.yeah. Not that it matters much, I just don't see where you are arriving at a fault.
-
Rictor: the entire STATEMENT is not true
you're trying to puport his entire ARTICLE as truth though
-
Originally posted by Gank
During the night after the botched raid covered in blackhawk down US troops took cover in a building containing women and children. Anyone with a copy of the book can confirm this. Anyone who doesnt should borrow a copy if you can, for all its hoo har cheastbeating ****e its a decent read.
That mission was an utter disaster and the commanders behind it should have been fired. Now, the next time you use what happened during a previous military operation as evidence, make sure the military officers in charge were competent (like the ones currently in Iraq).
-
Originally posted by StratComm
The whole issue of militants sheltering themselves in mosques is somewhat dubious as well with obvious political ramifications. Troops can't fire on the mosque without being percieved as attacking the religious institution or enter it without being accused of defiling the place. However, militants have no qualms about carrying their guns and RPG's in and firing said weapons out of the mosque. They are hijacking Islam, and that's a universally bad thing. I don't care if they are doing it in the name of religion; they are indirectly causing their "holy places" to be placed in danger and then accuse their attackers of attacking the religion. What is annoying as hell to watch is that no one seems to see a discrepency there.
I was thinking of dropping infantry into the mosque instead of blasting it from the air to minimize damage to the facility, but that would cause its own PR hell when a bunch of the soldiers get shot while roping down from the helicopter.
-
You know we could just pull our soldiers back and glass the entire town. Probably the best way in the long run anyhow.
-
You could drown a whale in your stupidity. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You know we could just pull our soldiers back and glass the entire town. Probably the best way in the long run anyhow.
Originally posted by Rictor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108956/posts
Read the people's comment here. Its all war-bloggers splooging their pants at the prospect of leveling Fallujah, trying to outdo each other as to who can think of the most terrible death for the population of Fallujah.
O'Reilly, the quintessential American fanatic.
I had quite a good laugh before I got bored at the sheer repetition.
-
yes, let's use nuclear weapons.. that's really freaking smart
you know once in a while i'll suggest it out of PURE SARCASM or use it as a device to show the FUTILITY of an action.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
*O'Reilly quote"
He's Bill O'Reilly. What can I say?:p
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
That mission was an utter disaster and the commanders behind it should have been fired. Now, the next time you use what happened during a previous military operation as evidence, make sure the military officers in charge were competent (like the ones currently in Iraq).
Lemme get this straight, it was the commanders fault for planning such a bad operation. By the same logic germans are excused of the atrocities commited in germany because it was hitlers bad plan? Doesnt work that way mate, if you do something, you are responsible for it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Lemme get this straight, it was the commanders fault for planning such a bad operation. By the same logic germans are excused of the atrocities commited in germany because it was hitlers bad plan? Doesnt work that way mate, if you do something, you are responsible for it.
Commanders don't drop down from helicopters and start shooting. They sit at tables planning out their next move. I'm talking about high-ranking officers like generals here.
-
Yes I know, thats why it doesnt gel, high ranking officers arent responsible for the actions of the men in the field. If a soldier behaves irresponsibly, he cant blame it on the man who sent him on the mission.
-
Yes you can.
Now, back to my point - SAS + Hostages = :yes: No probs.
Oh and Channel 4 news (UK) interviewed an independent journalist who says there's a marge US army massing on the outskirts of Fall... fal... that ****ing place. ;)
-
Fallujah. Its right there in the thread topic :D:D
Soldiers ARE acountable for their actions. If you are given an order which you believe is immoral or unjust, it is your duty, not as a soldier but as a human being, to disobey it.
-
[q]Fallujah. Its right there in the thread topic[/q]
Meh, I've been drinkin wine so I'm lazy :p
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yes you can.
You can but you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you tried using it as a defense.
Now, back to my point - SAS + Hostages = :yes: No probs.
Its not some embassy in london you know, its doubtful anybody knows where these guys are. And chances are they're surrounded by thousands of hostile Iraqis, take the whole british army to get them out and they'll probably be dead by that stage.. Besides, most of the SAS has left to work for private contractors.
Originally posted by Rictor
Soldiers ARE acountable for their actions. If you are given an order which you believe is immoral or unjust, it is your duty, not as a soldier but as a human being, to disobey it.
Nobody gave them orders to do what they did, thats the whole point.
looks like they have Italians and americans now as well
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040409/ts_nm/iraq_abductions_dc
-
Technically the mandate is an ILLEGAL order - "immoreal or unjust" doesn't play in, if it's a blatant violation of human rights, the constitution of the united states, geneva convention, several other things it's an illegal order and the soldier is authorized to disobey
if they protest an "immoral" or "unjust" order that isn't an illegal order they get tossed in the stockade indefinantly
-
Originally posted by Gank
Its not some embassy in london you know, its doubtful anybody knows where these guys are. And chances are they're surrounded by thousands of hostile Iraqis, take the whole british army to get them out and they'll probably be dead by that stage.. Besides, most of the SAS has left to work for private contractors.
*sighs* We have (US) satellite intelligence, we have (Allied) spy planes, we have the (UK) best intelligence services in the world - I think we could find them. The SAS isn't completely disbanded for commercial efforts you know. They could be in, out and gone before the Iraqi's knew why the main British or US forces were distracting them.
;) Go British Special Forces
-
I very much doubt it vyper. It takes several hours to plan and execute an infiltration plan, and about 1 second to pull a trigger. The hostages would be dead before the SAS even entered the compound.
Kazan: well, since morality is the basis of all laws, it is absurd that something could be immoral but not illegal and vice versa. You're talking about Army rules governing combat, I'm talking about basic human morality. Soldiers are first and foremost human beings. This means that the imperitive to obey human morality should override the imperitive to obey orders. Not saying that it does, but it should.
-
"morality" is not the basis of all laws, logic is, morality can be derivied from that same logic
-
Originally posted by vyper
*sighs* We have (US) satellite intelligence, we have (Allied) spy planes, we have the (UK) best intelligence services in the world - I think we could find them. The SAS isn't completely disbanded for commercial efforts you know. They could be in, out and gone before the Iraqi's knew why the main British or US forces were distracting them.
;) Go British Special Forces
Um satellite photos arent really much good unless the hostages are kept out in the open. Nor are spy planes. :rolleyes: And is this the same intelligence service that told us Iraq had huge quantitys weapons of mass destruction? Those are the best? Besides, the SAS's track record of operating in Iraq isnt so hot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,927848,00.html
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"morality" is not the basis of all laws, logic is, morality can be derivied from that same logic
since when is morality logical? morality is just human emotion, not human logic. Logic is unfeeling.
Logically, there is nothing wrong with rape, murder, theft, oppression etc. Morally there is. The most logical social system would be a total dictatorship, but morally it would not.
Hence, laws are derived from morality not logic.
-
It wasn't the intel that told us they had WMD it was **** and Blair's governments. They interpreted the intel the way they wanted.
-
Hmm, I think not. There was no intel, they made it up. Not to fool themselves mind you, but to fool the public. Do you honestly believe B&B thought there was WMD in Iraq?
-
I was kinda saying that :p
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040409/pl_afp/us_iraq_missing&cid=1521&ncid=1480
more hostages? debka seems to think the hostage taking is hizbollah's work
-
well everyone else seemed to think he had them, at least they did two years earlier, and there was no reason to think that he had gotten rid of them, if Bush knew that Sadam had no WMDs he would have used something else to justify the war (like terrorism, wich was legitimate)
-
Uh theres been no link between Iraq and terror, in fact Iraq was a victom of terror by Alsar-al-Islam, a Quada related group. As for the weapons, UN inspectors didnt think he had them, and everybody else believed them.
-
they were in the north and attacked the kurds, enemies of Sadam.
Sadam provided $20,000 per person to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal.
I think that validates the suport of terrorism charges, you don't.
and UN inspectors were kicked out in 98 still thinking he had them, they weren't let back in untill a year and a half ago
-
Despite the fact that bin Laden stated several times how he hated Saddam and was opposed to his secular Iraq?
And UN inspectors were kicked out in '98 after how many years in Iraq? Then they were let back in. And there are still no sings of WMD, so its safe to say that he had none at the time. Probably destroyed them all sometimes after the first Gulf War, or they simply aged beyond use.
-
weren't you saying something about the enemy of my enemy is my frend just the other day?
think it was about the Ba'athists and shei allying against us.
hell, we've been over this, you know what I thin I know what you think, I don't care anymore.
-
touche
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
they were in the north and attacked the kurds, enemies of Sadam.
they didnt just attack the Kurds, infact most of their operations were against Saddam
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think that validates the suport of terrorism charges, you don't.
I do think that qualifies as supporting terrorism, I dont think that justifies invading the place. And judging by the amount of terroist attacks against Iraqis over the last year the US has only made the place worse as far as thats concerned.
Originally posted by Bobboau
and UN inspectors were kicked out in 98 still thinking he had them, they weren't let back in untill a year and a half ago
So because people thought he had them 6 years ago its ok to assume he still had them at the time of the invasion, despite the same people saying he hadnt? riiiiight.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well everyone else seemed to think he had them, at least they did two years earlier, and there was no reason to think that he had gotten rid of them, if Bush knew that Sadam had no WMDs he would have used something else to justify the war (like terrorism, wich was legitimate)
From what i can tell, the entire justification for the war was that Saddam had WMD which he could supply terrorists with. That was what the suppossed imminent threat was - certainly that's what the governemnet over here tried to sell it on.
-
Turkish warplanes attacked the Kurds villages actually. We (US/UK) pulled our no fly zone off line several times to allow it. Ironic no?