View Full Version : war on iraq
RandomHero
27-Nov-04, 15:23
what do you think? Should we be fighting or not?
I think it's the right thing to do. People give George Bush a bad name but no one can possibly imagine what a hard job it is being President. People say "Why should America rule the world?" I'd rather America rule the world than Iraq. There's no point saying "Nobody should rule the world!", you might aswell say "There should be no racism in the world" and "I think we should have equal rights and no wars". None of that's ever going to happen. Afghanistan sentenced people to death for walking their dogs and Iran sentenced a young girl to death because she had a child outside marriage but she was raped and that's how she became pregnant. Would you like to see these people rule the world? At least America don't sentence people to death for believing in what they want. These terrorists need to be wiped out. Islamics want everyone to follow their religion or die. Iraq had those weapons and I believe that's what they were preparing to do. It's a tragedy that people are kidnapped and be-headed but we can't give in to these animals' demands.The pay is UNBELIEVABLE for care workers to go to Iraq, think about that. And the cruelty by American/British troops to Iraqi prisoners...iraq would do alot worse to us if given half the chance.
Would you still be against the war in Iraq if they bombed your house?
Didn't think so...
I don't believe journalists should be at the battlefront, a 24 hour delay in reporting would help the troops enormously. Reporters just get in the way and they edit their reports just to be controversial. They aren't interested in the truth, only a story.
RandomHero
27-Nov-04, 16:16
i understand wot u mean. it's nice to know whats going on tho.
ther woz a bit on the news a week or so ago and it showed american troops enter a mosq they had just finished attacking. there were quite a few dead iraqi terrorists on the ground and there was one that was alive. an american soldier shot him. and then kicked of a bunch of people saying that was inhumane! it's bizarre! what the hell do these people think happened to all the other terrorists lying on the ground? were they sleeping? what were the americans supposed to do, give hospital treatment to this injured terrorist (paid for by us) then set him bak out 2 iraq 2 kil some more of our troops.
bizarre!
I agree, he was feigning death but he could have had a live grenade under his clothing, the troops were right.
The Godfather
27-Nov-04, 18:33
Firstly, I belive they would want you to call in the War In Iraq.
Secondly, random hero. Do you read your newspapers, do you watch the news, do you listen to the radio, do you speak to people, do you go on the internet?
Iraq had those weapons and I believe that's what they were preparing to do.
NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!
The ISG delivered a report not to long ago saying there were none. Not even "a teaspoon" of anthrax.
It's terrible that the world is being run by a group of men that all they are interested in is filling their own filthy oil stained pockets. That is why Colin Powel left, he was not one of those men. If they were so intent on fighting the war on terror, WHERE IS OSAMA? They didn't find any Al-Qaeda or even their caves in Afganistan. But they did find a ?Haliburton? oil man and made him predidant of Afganistan so they could build the oil pipe line that the Taliban would not allow.
You may say George Bush thought that the Taliban were nasty men, which they were. But why then did George have them stay at his ranch in Texas to discuss the building of the afore mentioned pipe line.
Then Iraq, what did it have to do with 9/11. Saddam electrocuted terrorists and put them out on public display, dont you think they deserved it? Now Iraq is the terror hot bed of the middle east. But the oil is flowing and thats all that matters.
It doesn't matter that millions of ordinary Iraqis that were safe to walk down the street and lived prosperous and safe lives (as long as they did not speak out against Saddam) are being killed at twice the rate that Saddam killed his people.
If Bush really wanted to defeat terroism he would go to Sudi Arabia. But then, they pay Dubya and his chronies millions and millions of dollars every year.
George Bush makes about $400,000 a year for being president but he makes $millions every year from all the oil barrons of the middle east. "Where do you think his priorities lie" - Micheal Moore.
But because being president is such a hard job he should be excused for not reading the report that said America WAS going to be attacked, because he was playing golf. A little mistake that cost 3000 lives.
Remember Bush didnt even win the election in the first place. The right wingers in the court made him president and he has taken American minds and created the atmosphere of fear he needed to get re-elected. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives was a price worth paying.
Did anyone see that program on BBC2, The Power Of Nightmares
An organised group called Al-Qaeda with spinter cells all over the world simply does not exist.
Random Hero here is just a few things I think you should read and watch:
1. Film -Farenhiegt 9/11
2. TV series- The Power Of Nightmares (I think I have a bit of it taped somewhere)
3. Book - American Dream Global Nightmare
4. Book - Dude Where's My Country
5. Book - Stupid White Men
And if you live in America, dont listen to what they say. They give the Bush admin millions of dollars every year.
And lastly, have you ever heard of an American President that is quoted in the press every week saying something totaly stupid.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/
RandomHero
27-Nov-04, 21:08
sorry, that WAS silly of me. I forgot presidents had to be faltless in every way. you've said a number of stupid things but they don't release it in the papers, do they?
Michael Moore-he's an idiot. All he has to say is 'i hate bush' and he's got film and book deals. I've seen farenheight 9/11. it was a one sided jab at bush. how do they make it work? having people cry. "i've lost my son in the war" that happens in war. did they think that if there son joined the army he'd never be exposed to gunfire? bush played golf instead? supposed ud know that. what with your extensive relationship with bush, or im sure your on first name basis with him now OR was it because you watched a biast movie?
did Bush say he was going to Iraq to find osama? no he didn't. he was going to find a known terrorist and threat. sadam. believe it or not 'godfather', osama isnt the only terrorist leader in the world. the weapon of mass destruction was saddam hussein and all who follow him.
innocent people die in war. how about showing sypathy for our innocent people dying rather than theres. if you've seen any of the beheading videos or torture videos coming from these terrorists ud realise who the bad guys are.
this war began with 9/11 but we din't fight iraq to punish them for 9/11. ur making that up.
do you remember that little thing - conflict desert storm. who were we fighting again...oh yes, the same man we are fighting now...SADDAM. I had a relative in that war. yeh everything is fine, live in iraq, follow ur dreams...UNLESS...(and there it is) UNLESS you follow and worship saddam. not the kind of world i'd like to live in.
another thing michael moore said was that bush rigged the election. employed relative to count votes,ect. at least he didn't murder his opposition but i know a guy who diiiiiiid. need i mention his name again? it rhymes madame. worked it out?
* September 4, 1980: Saddam Hussein initiated a war with Iran as he attacked the oil-reserves in Iran.
* 1987-1988: Saddam Hussein launched the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds. 180,000 Kurds disappeared and 4,000 villages were destroyed.
* March 1988: The Kurdish town, Halabaja, was gassed. 5,000 people were killed and 10,000 were injured.
* August 1988: Many Kurdish villages on the Turkish border were gassed. Thousands of people died.
* August 2, 1990: Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.
* 1993: Saddam Hussein broke the peace terms from the end of the Persian Gulf War. The United States bombed Iraq as a result.
* October 1998: Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the United Nations weapons inspectors. This action led to a four-day bombing raid by the United States.
On September 12, 2002 United States President George W. Bush addressed the United Nations. During the president's speech he asked the world body to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq.
In November of 2002 the United Nations passed U.N. Resolution 1441. The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed this resolution. U.N. Resolution 1441 ordered Iraq to disarm and provide U.N. inspectors unrestricted access for inspections or face ''serious consequences.''
Below is the timeline of events leading up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
* October 16, 2002: President Bush signed a resolution passed by Congress authorizing the United States to use force against Iraq.
* November 27, 2002: Formal Weapons inspections began.
* December 7, 2002: Iraq issued its official declaration of weapons to the United Nations.
* December 19, 2002: Hans Blix stated, ''Iraq's account is not a full account of all their weapons.''
* December 2002: President Bush authorized the deployment of 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf for early January.
* January 27, 2003: Blix reported that Iraq had not proved that they had eliminated illegal weapons.
* March 17, 2003: United States president George Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Either Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq or the United States would use force to remove him. Hussein was given 48 hours to leave.
* March 19, 2003: Saddam Hussein refused to leave Iraq.
* March 20, 2003: Just before dawn, the United States fired missiles at a bunker where the United States government thought Iraqi officials were sleeping.
boy, i agree with you now. i want that man to be my leader! VOTE SADDAM!!!
unless your running for it 'godfather'?
Yes oil did play a part in the Iraq war.
But the reasons run a lot deeper than just oil.
Sadam wanted a united Arab organisation with him at it,'s head.
Other Arab states did not want someone like Sadam in a position that would threaten their own riches.( thats why no Arab states were prepared to back him by providing troops)
Sadam was fantastic with propergander and in time thanks to the events in Isreal would have swayed the people in the Arab world to support him in his claim to be the top leader of the Arab world.
A United Arab world is not what the Israel government want because that would be a threat to it's existance.( jewish vote is very important in U.S.A elections).
Most of the intellegence received by the C.I.A and MI6 about Sadam came from Israel.
(was it taited by their own interests)
U.S.A would not like a united Arab world because who ever contols the oil controls the modern world, yes we can survive without oil if you dont mind going back a 100 years or so.
Britain should have done more in 1946 to defeat jewish terrorists who invented more dirty tricks than the modern Arab terrorist have ever managed up to this point in time.
Did you see the programe about the blowing up of the David hotel in Palistine in1946
If Britain had got things right then we would have a complete new ball game.
I dont think the world would be saver, you will always have the usual problems of greed and religion these two words have provided reasons to start more wars and killings than any other through out history.
Look out Iran if you think Israell will let you develope the a-bomb. You may find the U.S.A
finding an excuse to invade your shores.
What a wonderful world we live in its more like the x-files the true is out there but you will never hear it spoken by a reporter or a politician.
The Godfather
27-Nov-04, 22:06
sorry, that WAS silly of me. I forgot presidents had to be faltless in every way. you've said a number of stupid things but they don't release it in the papers, do they?
Yes you sould be faultless if you are the most powerful man in the world. They don't release the silly things I say because I'm not the most powerful man in the world and I dont affect almost everyone from the Amazon to Tibet.
Michael Moore-he's an idiot. All he has to say is 'i hate bush' and he's got film and book deals. I've seen farenheight 9/11. it was a one sided jab at bush. how do they make it work? having people cry. "i've lost my son in the war" that happens in war. did they think that if there son joined the army he'd never be exposed to gunfire? bush played golf instead? supposed ud know that. what with your extensive relationship with bush, or im sure your on first name basis with him now OR was it because you watched a biast movie?
Well, read Dude Where's My Country and there are about 7 lines at the bottom of every page with his sources. Moore simply puts all the articles together and takes the credit.
I know bush played golf because it is a fact. For the first X months he was on holiday. In this time he recived that report.
did Bush say he was going to Iraq to find osama? no he didn't. he was going to find a known terrorist and threat. sadam. believe it or not 'godfather', osama isnt the only terrorist leader in the world. the weapon of mass destruction was saddam hussein and all who follow him.
Well yes he kinda did. He dliberatly linked Saddam to Bin Laden. Who followed Saddam?
innocent people die in war. how about showing sypathy for our innocent people dying rather than theres. if you've seen any of the beheading videos or torture videos coming from these terrorists ud realise who the bad guys are.
AHH!!! Innocent people are dying because the troups are in there. If there was no war there would not be any killings. The bad guys are only there because we are there.
Before the war were you likly to be captured, tortured and beheaded in Iraq. No
this war began with 9/11 but we din't fight iraq to punish them for 9/11. ur making that up.
Well, actually, Bush made that up.
do you remember that little thing - conflict desert storm. who were we fighting again...oh yes, the same man we are fighting now...SADDAM. I had a relative in that war. yeh everything is fine, live in iraq, follow ur dreams...UNLESS...(and there it is) UNLESS you follow and worship saddam. not the kind of world i'd like to live in.
The only reason America gave a toss about that little scrap of land called Kuwait was because it had oil. Exactly the same reason Iraq gave a toss about it.
And yes Saddam was a bad man, but the ordinary Iraqi was safe. Is the ordinary Zimbabwaen safe? Is the black Sudaniese safe? Is the North Korian safe? And that place, name has left me, Slobodan Milosevic terrorised?
There are lots of bad men in the world, catch ma drift?
RandomHero
27-Nov-04, 22:16
yes ther are lots of bad men, and we will do our best to wipe them all out.
of course, b4 we invaded iraq there woz love and peace. people held hands, children laughed, people were singing and whistleing as they walked the gold pavement of iraq. ur so right.
sea bird sed somthin along the lines of, he who has oil controls the world. then i hope bush gets the oil. y? look at my other statements.
can i have an invite to your perfect world godfather.
You are all right if you look at a situation based on information you have heard (if that information is correct)
History will show who is right about the war.
But remember the winner writes the history.
Only in films does the good guy win and the bad guy get his just deserts.
Some terrorist become heads of government.(Washington U.S.A,Sadam Iraq,
Bagin Israel) there are hundred through out history.
One mans terrorist is anoughers freedom fighter
Wars are dirty not like TV or video games.
History as shown those that are ruthless in war against terrorist will always win.
That means no reporters and no Tv cameras.
A perfect example of the way people view things is to look at their eating habbits,most people eat meat but do they worry how the meat ended up on the table, would they kill a lamb to make a chop.
If they were made to watch the slaughter of thousands of animals each day on TV I'm sure they would think twice about how nice a lamb chop tasted.
War is the same what you dont see you dont worry about.
We all run cars price of oil is a major factor in how we live, do our morals come first, i dont think so!
£10 a gallon could have happened long ago if history had not followed a different path.
The killings in Iraq are because of American and British Troops? It would never have happened if the UN had been allowed to use diplomacy to solve things. It’s all the fault of the West providing Iraq with arms? I didn’t know the West mass produced Scuds and AK47s.
East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland! And not a squeak from the UN whilst the tanks rolled. The millions slaughtered by the Red Guard, the students slaughtered in Tiananmen Square. Cambodia and Pol Pot. The UN certainly helped there, they helped the Butchers by looking the other way. The Three Wise Monkeys were amateurs by comparison.
The killings in Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe, Central African Republic, Zaire, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda, oh, continue making you own list, are all because the Americans are not there.
North Korea? Well what are the Chinese and the Russians doing to help there. They are the ones who helped North Korea get into the state it is in and they could quite easily solve the problem. Will they? Not a chance! It's too convenient for them to keep things as they are. Why shoud they care about North Koreans starving when they can use them to cause disruption in the area. Besides, the UN made the current agreement over the Korean split and solved that problem 50 years ago!
Sudan? Well, the UN are solving that problem by "negotiation". The Sudan Government promised to behave and the UN said "Fine". The Chinese, who just happen to have huge interests in the oil there, effectively blocked anything else. (Where are the cries of "It's all about Oil!" over that little problem?)
Central African Republic? Genocide? UN, Kofi Annan? “ Well maybe we should have taken more interest. Sorry about that!” Nobody woke them up from their slumbers over that one!
Chechniya? UN? Missing again. Concerned Humanitarians? Too busy elsewhere. Fearless Western Media? Hiding as far away as possible. No “embedded” journalists there! The place is so rarely mentioned I’m not even sure I have the spelling correct.
Tibet? The UN did a wonderful job protecting them, ask the Dali Lama!
Nepal? UN? Is anything happening there?
The list of UN failures and No-shows are endless and one sided. The NGO (Whatever constitutes one of them.) “Disaster Mongers” pick and choose where they can get the best Press Coverage to parade their “Concern”. They predict all sorts of humanitarian and natural disasters but they never seem to find them afterwards, they just seem to disappear into thin air.
I fell asleep waiting for the predicted “Disasters” halfway through Chapter One. When one of the predicted “Disasters” we are supposed to be causing occurs please let me know, but don’t let me sleep for more than ten years.
In the meantime can somebody kick the Juke Box, the current record just keeps playing over and over again. It’s time somebody changed it before it gets worn out!
...no one can possibly imagine what a hard job it is being President.
...we will do our best to wipe them all out...
Be upstanding - the President is in the forum.... [lol]
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
At least America don't sentence people to death for believing in what they want.
Really? Yet you go on to excuse American soldiers summarily executing an unarmed and wounded man. Talk about bizarre...
Oh, and in answer to your question; Yes, the Americans were absolutely supposed to give that man medical treatment. It' written in international law. You remember international law? It's what we're supposed to be bringing to the Iraqi people... unless you're suggesting that we are somehow above the laws that we are forcing on others at the barrel of a gun?
Which reminds me, the Americans who entered the Mosque and executed the wounded insurgent had not, as you claim, just finished attacking it. The Mosque was attacked and cleared by Marines the previous day. On entering the Mosque they had found several wounded insurgents. Rather than follow international law (again, you remember international law?) and treat the wounded, they left them there until other marines arrived to deal with them. When those marines did arrive they found only one of the wounded men still alive - and promptly murdered him.
And the cruelty by American/British troops to Iraqi prisoners...iraq would do alot worse to us if given half the chance.
Which makes it alright for us to physically, sexually and mentally torture prisoners how?
did Bush say he was going to Iraq to find osama? no he didn't.
No. He simply said Saddam supported Osama/Al Qaeda.
boy, i agree with you now. i want that man to be my leader! VOTE SADDAM!!!
Ah, the old "anybody who disagrees with our governments' duplicity must support Saddam" routine. I haven't heard that for a while. :roll:
of course, b4 we invaded iraq there woz love and peace. people held hands, children laughed, people were singing and whistleing as they walked the gold pavement of iraq. ur so right.
No, it wasn't all singing and dancing; but then again, since we invaded your average Iraqi citizen is, according to the Lancet, 58 times more likely to die a violent death than they were under Saddam - so I guess they aren't singing in the streets now either, eh?
Islamics
"Islamics" eh? Who would have thought that one word could demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding.
We only need ABEWSED now and we'll be back to our old mega post situation last year!!
jjc, you are absolutely right, the marines had no right to leave wounded insurgents in the mosque, if that is what they did, they were very sloppy, very sloppy indeed.
When did any of the troops feed people feet first through a mincing machine? Has any of them done anything even approaching that?
What does International Law say about beheading prisoners? Or is that OK?
When did any of the troops feed people feet first through a mincing machine? Has any of them done anything even approaching that?
What does International Law say about beheading prisoners? Or is that OK?
Are you seriously saying you’re happy to turn a blind eye to our forces abusing prisoners so long as they don’t abuse them as badly as Saddam did?
Is it okay for our forces to summarily and publicly execute unarmed and wounded men just so long as they do it with bullets instead of knives?
Unarmed? And who decided that? Have you never heard of Suicide Bombers?
I certainly wouldn't have taken the risk. And just when did the Terrorists, Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or whatever name you wish to give them sign up to International Law?
Regular troops, operating as part of a regular army are entitled to be treated as such. These people by their own methods do not fall into that category.
If the Mosque had been cleared the previous day then what were live people doing in their anyway? Either they had not been there the previous day or somebody at that time had not finished the job of clearing the Mosque as they should have done. Wounded people lying on un-pinned grenades is an old trick as is laying on a weapon until some idiot turns their back on you and then shooting them, preferably in the back.
Funny how some people want International Law to work one way only. The only mistake both the Americans and our Forces have made is by taking reporters along so they can present a biased and very one sided picture. When the terrorists take cameramen along to show all of their "atrocities" I might have a little more sympathy, but not until then.
When the terrorists start putting their people on trial for mistreating prisoners I will be more even handed. After all, all they do is empty buses of dozens of unarmed trainees and shoot them in the back of the head.
If you want to point fingers then do try and be even handed about it. Or is that against International Law as well?
what do you think? Should we be fighting or not?
Under international law, treaties and conventions which both the US and UK signed, there are two reasons for one country to take up arms against another. One is in self
defence if you are attacked and the other is if you have a UN mandate.
Britain and America have sent a message to the world that we are not to be trusted, we sign treaties, we expect other countries to abide by treaties but if it suites our purpose we just break the treaties ourselves.
You can't bring peace with a gun, back in the Vietnam war they had a saying, "Fighting in the name of peace is like f*****g in the name of virginity". The only hope the world had
for peace was in dialogue, agreement and trust, weve blown that big time, no one will ever trust us again.
The reasons for the war in Iraq are plain and simple, Iraq has the second largest undeveloped oil reserves in the world. Russia had already signed an agreement with Iraq to develop those oil reserves, all signed and sealed and paid for and just waiting for sanctions to be lifted before going ahead.
RandomHero
28-Nov-04, 11:33
"alright boys, we've got a suicide bomber in our sights. be sure to shoot him humanly because i have the international law document in my holster and we've got to follow it no matter what. even if our lives are in danger. so shoot him in the foot then we'll send him off to the NHS for treatment then get him a place at oxford and lets give him a big house"
this is how you believ war should work. it doesn't and shouldn't. brutality towards criminals, prisoners, wotever, shud b allowed to a certain degree.
"it's okay to cut this guys head off but woteva u do, don't photograph him naked coz that'd b inhumane!"
no laws are perfect. do u follow every law? bet you dont.
i can't believe you'd rather live in a world full of terrorists and constant threats. if america agreed to remove troops because of a hostage then what was next? "give us weapons". america can't b a pushover and give in to this scum who stand before an iraqi flag.
if you want to go on about the innocent iraqis dying....are we shooting them? are we going out of our way to shoot civilians? what about the 'innocent' africans that die due to famine?
can't believe you're not even supporting your own troops. our countrymen are being slaughtered and all you can do is support the innocents of terrorists.
RandomHero
28-Nov-04, 11:46
just want to mention something else
MadPict (wrote in the discussion titled 'theift!!!')
"Bring back the birch. In fact slap the little so-and-so's in the stocks, give them a damn good thrashing and leave them in the stocks for a whole day. I know, even better, stick the stocks on the roundabout at the end of Bridge Street. The humilation of being in there, trousers around their ankles, would surely sort them out..... "
international law wudnt agree with thaaaaaaaat. but wouldn't it be nice to be able to do that. even to iraqi prisoners?
Have I missed a few days news?
I don't seem to heard anything from the usual suspects about this "Atrocity". I'm sure the ones who were only too eager to jump on the band-wagon over some very badly faked photos of supposed "Atrocities" by British Troops would find that one too much to resist.
I notice that the fact that the places where the Hostages, including where Bigley was be-headed didn't rate much comment from certain quarters. And I'm still waiting for signs of the huge Humanitarian Crisis to emerge. And for signs of all the poor starving children which was supposed to result from the war. And the mounds of the thousands of bodies which must have been piled up in Baghdad as a result of the bombing.
Somebody must have been very quick at clearing that lot up so nobody would notice them.
Funny how all these "facts" which were trumpeted so loudly didn't seem to leave any trace.
Not to mention that Al-Jazeera Television was started by Ex-BBC employees. (Oops! Sorry! I shouldn't repeat that, the BBC just happened to let that slip out in a panic to prove that Al-Jazeera was totally impartial on the subject.)
Unarmed? And who decided that? Have you never heard of Suicide Bombers?
Oh, okay. So now we're going to shoot dead all wounded insurgents in case they are suicide bombers. But wait, what about surrendering insurgents? Isn't it possible that they are also suicide bombers? I guess we'd best shoot them too. And then there're those who have never raised arms against our forces before but are willing to strap explosives to themselves now. I suppose we should shoot them too?
And just when did the Terrorists, Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or whatever name you wish to give them sign up to International Law?
What does that matter? We HAVE signed up to International Law. What's more, the very basis of our reasoning for being in Iraq is to uphold International Law. With that in mind, shouldn't we be following it ourselves?
Regular troops, operating as part of a regular army are entitled to be treated as such. These people by their own methods do not fall into that category.
UN Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field:
Article 12 Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated
Article 13 The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:
1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements
If the Mosque had been cleared the previous day then what were live people doing in their anyway? Either they had not been there the previous day or somebody at that time had not finished the job of clearing the Mosque as they should have done. Wounded people lying on un-pinned grenades is an old trick as is laying on a weapon until some idiot turns their back on you and then shooting them, preferably in the back.
That's right, the squad of marines that cleared the building the day before had already disarmed the man in question (according to the cameraman who filmed the execution). Rather than treat the five wounded insurgents, as they were required to, the squad informed field commanders that there were ten dead and five wounded insurgents in the Mosque and moved on, leaving a following squad to deal with the wounded (and disarmed) men. On their arrival, the following squad did indeed deal with the wounded man.
Funny how some people want International Law to work one way only.
Who wants it to only work one way? Personally, I'd like to see it upheld by ALL parties, but that doesn't mean that we abandon it if opposition forces don't adhere to it.
If you want to point fingers then do try and be even handed about it. Or is that against International Law as well?
It's not about being even handed. If you had tried to defend the terrorists beheading prisoners or sending suicide bombers to attack our troops then I would criticise you equally vehemently. But you haven't. What you've done is to excuse the war crimes committed by some of our forces. Whether it's a cliché or not, two wrongs do not make a right.
can't believe you're not even supporting your own troops. our countrymen are being slaughtered and all you can do is support the innocents of terrorists.
I wondered how long it would be before somebody used the puerile "you should be supporting our troops" argument. Explain to me where in my postings here I have indicated that I don't support our troops?
Suggesting that the only way to support our troops is to unquestioningly accept the decisions of our government and turn a blind eye to the crimes of some of their comrades is, quite frankly, crass stupidity.
Not to mention that Al-Jazeera Television was started by Ex-BBC employees
Eh? What's that got to do with anything? You mention it, even going so far as to give it its own paragraph, as if it's some deciding fact that will wake us all up to something. Wake us all up to what?
I don't seem to heard anything from the usual suspects about this "Atrocity".
Really? It was pretty widely reported and commented on.
And I'm still waiting for signs of the huge Humanitarian Crisis to emerge. And for signs of all the poor starving children which was supposed to result from the war. And the mounds of the thousands of bodies which must have been piled up in Baghdad as a result of the bombing.
Somebody must have been very quick at clearing that lot up so nobody would notice them.
So all is well in Iraq since we invaded then? Is that what you're saying?
RandomHero
28-Nov-04, 14:27
isn't it funny how unless we personally know the victims we don't care if the perpatraitors are killed. i'll just relate this to the 'thieft' discussion. bill's house was broken into. now if we had no idea who bill was, if bill lets say was shot in iraq we wouldn't think much of it. (nae offence bill!) perhaps that the perpatraitors shud b arrested, woteva. but we know bill and people think the perpatraitors shud b caught and paraded around naked and egged, ect. wot if the bill we know is kidnapped and be-headed by terrorists THEN we would want the perpatraitors to have the same fate. or to be photographed naked, paraded infront of everyone as torture for wot they've done.
i think it's incredibly selfish that unless you personally know the victim then the perpatraitor shud suffer the same fate.
yes i have brought the support ur troops subject up. be a bit more patriotic and if you think you can avoid the subject by insulting my intelligence then you can go
Frolick Under Cars Kicking yourself.
yes i have brought the support ur troops subject up. be a bit more patriotic and if you think you can avoid the subject by insulting my intelligence then you can go
Frolick Under Cars Kicking yourself.
I'm not avoiding the subject, I asked you a straight forward question:
Explain to me where in my postings here I have indicated that I don't support our troops?
Now, as well as actually answering the question (perhaps without resorting to any more pathetic attempts at getting ignorant obscenities past the auto-censor?), maybe you can tell me what is unpatriotic about questioning the government?
Also, can you tell me whether this US marine executing an injured insurgent in the glare of international media has made our troops more, or less, likely to face more insurgents? Why?
Sea bird wrote
History will show who is right about the war.
But remember the winner writes the history.
Only in films does the good guy win and the bad guy get his just deserts.
Some terrorist become heads of government.(Washington U.S.A,Sadam Iraq,
When the Red army and the Allies took Berlin in 1945 there were a lot of crimes and acts of terrorism committed against the German population. Similiar to what happened in Fallujah.
Eisenhower the chief terrorism protaganist then became President of the U.S.
Do those crimes mean that taking Berlin was wrong?
The Godfather
28-Nov-04, 15:28
isn't it funny how unless we personally know the victims we don't care if the perpatraitors are killed.
Speak for your self.
So if you love your country and are patriotic, Tony Blair said lets go to Ireland and sloughter all the Catholics, we would whole hardedly agree and cheer as the troups carryed out their orders and rejoice as they came home covered in blood.
Of course not.
Sounds to me like we are just hearing the American media through Random Hero.
You are American arnt you?
The Godfather
28-Nov-04, 15:31
Now if the 21st centuary Hittler started terrorising Europe and trying to invade us I would support the troups, hell I would even sign up myself if I wasnt forced to. All because I am patriotic and love my country and want to keep my country as it is, Great British.
What has Iraq got to do with being patriotic to ones country?
RandomHero
28-Nov-04, 19:39
no i'm not american.
alot of you people have seemed to be brainwashed by michael moore and such like. you enjoy america bashing for all the wrong reasons.i hope that iraq terrorists target you and then you can tell me all about how you are against the war. if you want the link to see some of these disturbing torture/be-heading videos, let me know. these terrorists are sick and are so lucky that all our troops do to them if they are wounded is put them out of their misery. if an iraqi terrorist found me when i was wounded, i'd pray that they put me out of my misery as quickly and painlessly as that american troop did.
RandomHero
28-Nov-04, 19:44
So if you love your country and are patriotic, Tony Blair said lets go to Ireland and sloughter all the Catholics, we would whole hardedly agree and cheer as the troups carryed out their orders and rejoice as they came home covered in blood
if the catholics started shooting weapons of mass destruction at us and began to take over places then yes, they would have to be stopped. but there's a difference between catholics and those who follow alah. for the iraqis this is a holy war.
the soldier who shot the 'unarmed' and wounded iraqi. the iraqi could have been a suicide bomber or he could have been unarmed but are you willing to take the risk? who would you rather see die. A platoon of our soldiers. or some terrorist scum who would kill you and your family if given half the chance?
i hope that iraq terrorists target you
And on that truly despicable note I bring any debate (and I use the term loosely) between us to a close.
The Godfather
28-Nov-04, 20:28
God your thick, have you ever read a newspaper in your whole life?
The 'Iraqi' terrorists are not even Iraqi.
Have Iraq ever 'shot' weapons of mass destruction at us?
For the Iraqi's it is not a holy war. It is a war against troops that have invaded and are still in their country.
Talk about brainwashing. What do you thing Bush has been doing through the prepossessed American media.
those who follow alah
I pray to god that you will never leave you house. Your type of igroramous having the internet is bad enough. I think you need to go and visit that Mosque in Glasgow that is having an open week or did you not hear about that on the news?
I also draw any debate with you to a close.
P.S Would you trust that Iraqi doctor in the hospital to treat you. I dont think you would.
"According to the cameraman who filmed the execution." Precisely, so it must be right!
No journalist would ever get it wrong or mis-represent anything for the benefit of their own agenda! When something controversial happens i have a nasty habit of checking several news outlets to see who is putting their own "Spin" on it.
Most of what purports to be "NEWS" is more often than not just inpired guess work and fertile imagination. Sometimes you have to wait months or even years before you realise that what is reported is often just "wishful thinking".
Remember how happy they were to hang on to every word of "Comical Ali"? That was until even they could no longer deny what their own eyes told them as the non-existent tanks rolled into view.
And I still must have missed all the "shock, horror" stories on the news. If a handful of poorly faked photos could create the hysteria it did then this one should rub for weeks or even months. Hell, there's still one MP squawking about which way a ship was pointing nearly 25 years ago!
Well said random_hero. The main problem is that the nasty Americans keep voting for the wrong man and don't have the sense to do what certain sections of the British Media want them to!
Let the Americans deal with it - tis their problem..
I think if you check how the various borders were created in that area that we had more than a little to do with it. In effect America is now having to sort out problems originally created by European Countries and I included Britain in that.
Similarly with Africa, most of the problems there were caused by Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Portugal drawing Borders which were convenient to them regardless of the existing Tribal Units. Often one tribe was set up as "Upper Class" and used to dominate other tribes.
How would Scots feel if say China or India suddenly decided that the Borders belonged to England, the Central Belt belonged to Belgium and the Highlands belonged to Greenland?
After all, England and Scotland are only Tribal Units so what does it matter. In future you need a passport to go outside the Highlands even if you only want to see your relatives!
Of course one of the smaller Clans in each region would be deemed "Upper Class" and would have to be trained to help run each of the three areas and would be put in power over the rest.
Of course it's all the Americans fault and it's theirs to solve.
How nice it is when you can make an absolute wreck of something and turn your back and let somebody else take the blame. We have got very good at that in recent times.
Godfather, can you please clarify.
"The 'Iraqi' terrorists are not even Iraqi."
"For the Iraqi's it is not a holy war. It is a war against troops that have invaded and are still in their country. "
Is it "foreign terrorists" or Iraqi's fighting for their Country or both?
"What do you thing Bush has been doing through the prepossessed American media."
So the American Media just blindly follow what the President tells them? I can think of several Presidents who have reason to show that such a suggestion is absolutely ridiculous. Have you never heard of Walter Kronkyte? (Somebody correct my spelling if it's wrong please)
I seem to remember Saddam Hussein declaring that it was a "Holy War" and very little being said by Clerics to contradict that. Perhaps they thought his pompous posturing was so absurd that nobody would take notice.
However, the call for Jihad has been substituted so many times as a call for "Terrorism" by so many "Extremists" that if people believe that then who is to blame.
Much was made of it being a war against "The Great Satan" and little of that went un-contradicted either in the media here or by either Christian or Muslim Clerics.
The Prophet Mohammed himself taught, "Oh you who Believe, fight the unbelievers who are near you!"
I have no doubt that many of you can quote similar statements from the Christian Bible which could be used to "Justify" the most Un-Holy acts imaginable and which, at one time or another, have been used.
I do not believe for one moment that the vast majority of Muslims would wish to take that particular text in that particular context any more than the majority of Christians would agree with those who twist the words of the Bible to similar ends.
Whilst such teachings are mis-used by people of violence and are not condemned by the Leaders of whatever Religion then if people come to believe that such things are what their Religion is about then they have only themselves to blame.
Whilst Religious Leaders appear to condone violence by their silence then they must accept some of the responsibility. I would have thought that 30 years of that not too far from here would have taught us that!
The Godfather
29-Nov-04, 11:52
"What do you thing Bush has been doing through the prepossessed American media."
So the American Media just blindly follow what the President tells them? I can think of several Presidents who have reason to show that such a suggestion is absolutely ridiculous. Have you never heard of Walter Kronkyte? (Somebody correct my spelling if it's wrong please)
Remember the news that all the American networks share price rose along with nearly every other big corporate when Bush's victory was official.
"According to the cameraman who filmed the execution."
I have to confess that I was wrong. When I said that the executed insurgent was the only survivor in the Mosque when the marines re-entered I ‘misspoke’; there were, in fact, four survivors. Only one of the injured men left the previous day had died of his wounds.
As for your dismissal of Kevin Sites (http://www.kevinsites.net), I can only quote you his words and say that his description of events seems to match the video of the event accurately.
Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.
But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.
Journalist or not, he is also an eye-witness to the event and was holding a camera that recorded the entire thing.
I’m stunned that you would try to equate his reporting of this to “inspired guess work and fertile imagination”.
And I still must have missed all the "shock, horror" stories on the news. If a handful of poorly faked photos could create the hysteria it did then this one should rub for weeks or even months.
You’ve heard no stories of coalition actions that have shocked or horrified you? Truly?
Oh, and whether you listen or not, the execution of this insurgent is still being talked about… or am I dreaming this entire thread?
jjc, What is your position on the war in Iraq?
jjc, What is your position on the war in Iraq?
http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2677
In summary:
There are two parts to answering this.
1 – What went on
We went to war in Iraq on the back of false reasoning and flimsy evidence. We went against the wishes of the international community, against the advice of a great many experts and against the tide of public opinion. We went for ever changing and never certain reasons: was it WMD?; was it for humanitarian reasons?; was it because of terrorism? The politicians changed their minds nearly as often as the Tories change their leader.
We were given scare stories of an imminent threat. The papers told us we could be hit within 45 minutes of Saddam giving the order. The government did nothing to correct this lie. In fact, Blair didn’t even know it was a lie. He’d forgotten to ask the most basic question – “What type of weapons will the troops be facing if we go to war?”.
That we are now there doesn’t change any of this. Some people say that the questions should have stopped as soon as the order to invade was given. They seem to think that to question the government is to question our troops. That’s simply not the case. Members of the armed forces are dying to enforce the will of the government. Watching on unquestioningly as that happens day after day after day isn’t support in my book.
I’m not naïve. There’s no withdrawal for our troops in the immediate future. We made a mess and we’ve got to stay and clean it up. That is going to mean more death and more destruction. But we now know that there were no WMD. We know that Saddam was being contained by the sanction imposed by the UN. We know that Iraqis are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death than they were under Saddam. We know that Blair either lied or was grossly incompetent.
Perhaps, even after continued diplomatic pressure and sanctions, Saddam would have kept power for some time and continued to abuse his people. Perhaps, even after Blix reported that Saddam had no WMD and was weaker than he led people to believe, there would still be no uprising and he would continue to resist pressure for change. Perhaps it would still have been necessary to go to war. We’ll never know because our government didn’t use war as it should be used – as the LAST option. They need to answer for that.
2 – What’s going on
The war in Iraq is part of a bigger picture; the war against terror. It’s a notion so bizarre that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
We have Bush running around the world on a mixture of post-9/11 revenge and a lust for power (not quite sure which is the stronger) unleashing the might of the American armed forces on anybody who stands in his way. We have terrorists targeting the western world and somebody, somewhere decided that shooting them, torturing them and bombing their homes would cause them to have a change of heart.
Instead the world is, arguably, a more dangerous place and terrorism is on the increase. A war waged against a single dictator and his followers is fast turning into a guerrilla war with each side claiming God amongst their numbers. The sympathy for America after 9/11 has been replaced by mistrust, fear and, for some, fanatical hatred.
Blair, rather than use his position to counsel caution, seems to have thrown out all of the hard-learned lessons of Ireland and is joining Bush on his quest. Perhaps Blair too has caught the scent of fear in the air and recognised its potential. Certainly we are turning a blind eye to things that would previously have had us marching in the street.
In some instances caution is most definitely warranted, but this abject fear that is gripping the nation is more dangerous for our way of life than any suicide bomber.
Apocalypse
29-Nov-04, 16:37
i think the war is wrong ma uncle is in the week ta's and they have noo been handed oot there army id cards so they could be called oot at anytime and it is not ur war its amercas so y are so many of our troops over there. [mad]
So certain politicians and sections of the media keep saying. But then again, they said the same things about Afghanistan.
All the Afghans were going to starve to death during the first winter because of America. That was many winters ago and I'm still waiting for it to happen.
What happened to all the "starving babies" in Iraq. Nobody seems to have noticed them lately either. Then, of course, there was the huge humanitarian disaster in Fallugia, but that disappeared without trace.
Of course, it should all have been left to the UN thy would have solved the problem eventually. Ask the people in the south of Sudan about the effectiveness of the UN and their diplomatic solutions. Two Aid Agencies providing food and care for the displaced persons driven out by the Government sponsered Thugs have been thrown out by the Authorities. Their offence? They had the cheek to complain openly about Government Aircraft dropping bombs next to their feeding centres recently. The UN version of the situation in Sudan? Well, all is under control, the Sudanese Government promised to behave.
Press and media? The silence is deafening! Except for the complaints when it started the "America should do something!"
Godfather, if you bother to check I rather think you will find that the reason Hitler was threatening Britain was that Britain and France declared War on Germany because they had invaded Poland! What, pray tell had Poland got to do with us?
Who gave us the right to interfere in an affair between Germany and Poland?
Neither Germany or Poland asked us to we just barged in without reason!
RandomHero
29-Nov-04, 19:47
And on that truly despicable note I bring any debate (and I use the term loosely) between us to a close.
play the good guy jjc? just walk away? grow up.
I pray to god that you will never leave you house. Your type of igroramous having the internet is bad enough. I think you need to go and visit that Mosque in Glasgow that is having an open week or did you not hear about that on the news? Would you trust that Iraqi doctor in the hospital to treat you. I dont think you would.
muslims, islamic, black, white, pakistani whatever. do you think all races should be treated the same? the answer is no. if we were all to be treated the same way we would have all been created the same way. i'm not a racist but i don't consider myself the same as a black, chinaman, pakistani and i feel a black shouldn't be treated the same as me, a chinaman or a pakistani. we are all treated differently. it's not racism. we don't live in a perfect world and never will so get over it.
RandomHero
29-Nov-04, 20:04
i'm not saying we have to go back to the days of slavery etc. when someone says 'treated differently' why do people always assume it's worse. i treat different races the same as i treat everyone. but what annoys me is that if anyone cracks a racist joke they get there ass kicked. is it more acceptable to make jokes about fat people? people with glasses? ugly people? than it is to make jokes about another race?
who decides?
Jaws,
Once again, you seem to be saying that there is no humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Is that your position?
You don’t think there have been reports of bodies in the streets? How about the words of Muhammad al-Nuri, spokesman for the Iraq Red Crescent Society?
A convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies arrived in Fallujah with the help of the US-led forces who gave authorisation to the IRCS to deliver and allowed for one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital for treating the injured.
"Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels. It is very sad, it is a human disaster," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS, told IRIN in Baghdad.
Source: UN Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Want malnutrition in children?
”Latest reports are showing that acute malnutrition among young children has doubled since March 2003. This means that hundreds of thousands of children are today suffering the severe effects of diarrhoea and nutrient deficiencies. The lack of clean water and adequate sanitation leads to the quick spread of disease, and greatly exacerbates the impact of malnutrition. As always, young children are the most vulnerable.”
UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy – November 16th
Perhaps you’re a visual person and you need pictures?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40526000/jpg/_40526713_bodies203bafp.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40525000/jpg/_40525353_mustapha3_b203_afp.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40525000/jpg/_40525889_baby_afp_300.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40523000/jpg/_40523923_fallrefugees_afp300.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40517000/jpg/_40517323_mosul_ap203b.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40117000/jpg/_40117525_water_ap203body.jpg
You’re right… no problems there at all :roll:
The Godfather
29-Nov-04, 22:02
if we were all to be treated the same way we would have all been created the same way.
Sexual Intercourse: n. Sexual contact in which a man put his erect penis into the woman vagina.
Nope, nothing about different races there.
Your wrong RH, all races should be treated the same. After all what's in a race. Almost no genetic diference.
So you would treat a muslim living in Britain differently just because George Bush says they are bad?
we don't live in a perfect world and never will so get over it
"We don't live in a perfect world", Shut up, using a stupid cleche to condone ignorant views. Mabey the world would be better if we didnt have fools like you spouting racist nonsence about how you should be treated differently from anyone else.
I stand by what I said before about you not leaving your house.
racism: n. & adj. 1 the beleif that each race has certain qualities or abilities, giving rise to the belief that certain races are better that others 2 discrimination against or hostility towards other races
the beleif that each race has certain qualities or abilities = differences.
And at the end of all that you tell jcc to grow up. I pity your type.
Godfather, if you bother to check I rather think you will find that the reason Hitler was threatening Britain was that Britain and France declared War on Germany because they had invaded Poland! What, pray tell had Poland got to do with us?
Who gave us the right to interfere in an affair between Germany and Poland?
Neither Germany or Poland asked us to we just barged in without reason!
Actually, in 1939, before the German invasion of Poland, Britain and Poland signed a mutual assistance pact agreeing that if either country was attacked the other would go to its aid.
The Godfather
29-Nov-04, 23:06
Ha!
I think you will find that the pact was with Czechoslovakia and not Poland.
Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia with whom we had a treaty assuring them we would come to their aid if invaded and we did absolutely nothing other than make diplomatic overtures to Hitler who promised he had no further territorial ambitions.
I think it was about that time that Chamberlain came home waving his piece of toilet paper declaring "Peace in our Time!" because it had been signed by Herr Hitler and himself. And of course Her Hitler would never lie would he, after all he did promise? And the Press lapped up every word.
Having got away with the same thing one many occasions without any thing being done to stop him, except Diplomatic Tut-Tutting of course, Hitler decided he would try again with Poland, with whom we did not have a Treaty to come to their aid, and at that stage, much to Hitler’s annoyance, we declared War.
Hitler's own staff have since stated that he was very much annoyed with us as he felt we had acted rather unfairly and could not understand why we were so upset.
If we had a Treaty with Poland to come to their defence in case of invasion then why did we not declare war on Russia when two weeks later Stalin invaded Poland from the East and both they and the Germans stopped at the border they had previously agreed in order to split Poland between them. Perhaps our non-existent Treaty with Poland said, "But only if the Germans invade you, but not if the Russians do" I’m sure the Poles would have agreed to that.
Jjc, injured people yes, and I can take you to Children's Hospitals here where you could find babies with similar dressings. I notice that the dressings are new, clean, and obviously put on professionally. None of that was going to be possible according to the original reports so are they now going to tell me that those pictures are incorrect or where they exaggerating in the first place.
Certainly none of the people in the photos looks like they are starving. I mean starving as in Ethiopia, I mean starving as in Sudan. Tell me when you see photos of starving Terrorists, Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or whatever term is acceptable and I will then start worrying about the rest of the population. Then I really will know there are shortages.
The Red Crescent where complaining bitterly that they could not get into Fallugia where there were horrific Humanitarian Problems with the civilian population but we were being told at the same time that the civilian population had all fled prior to the fighting. The population were there suffering but they were no there?
Now the media have access there have been no further similar claims, or perhaps the Americans have hidden them all from the Red Crescent.
One Organisation was complaining bitterly a while ago that the Medical situation in the Hospitals was terrible where previously there had been no problems under Saddam and everything needed was available. But we were told originally that the sanctions should be stopped because people and babies were dying in their thousands for lack of medical care. They didn't have anything they required but they later had had everything they required?
The toddler paraded by the terrorists in their propaganda film dressed in combat gear and "holding" (if that is what you could call it seeing it was bigger and heavier than the child) AK47 Assault Rifle certainly did not look hungry.
What does International Law and the UN have to say about children and War?
I'm not suggesting that three year olds are used as troops, but he whole display was, shall I say, rather distasteful, if not pathetic!
Jaws,
I notice that the dressings are new, clean, and obviously put on professionally.
Oh, I see. It’s okay if we blow the legs off young children, just so long as we dress them nicely?
Certainly none of the people in the photos looks like they are starving. I mean starving as in Ethiopia, I mean starving as in Sudan.
Other than quote you, again, the words of the Executive Director of UNICEF, I’m not sure what more I can do here. You’ve set your yardstick to measure malnutrition as famine-level starvation. Clearly that is not occurring in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that children are not malnourished and in want of food and clean water.
Perhaps you could tell me just what it is about UNICEF that you find unconvincing?
The Red Crescent where complaining bitterly that they could not get into Fallugia where there were horrific Humanitarian Problems with the civilian population but we were being told at the same time that the civilian population had all fled prior to the fighting. The population were there suffering but they were no there?
Now the media have access there have been no further similar claims, or perhaps the Americans have hidden them all from the Red Crescent.
Really? All the civilians had fled? The only people saying that before the US military began bombing the city were spokesmen for the US military.
There have been no further claims since the media entered Fallujah? Perhaps you just haven’t been listening…
This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4047469.stm) was posted TWO DAYS ago.
According to the Red Crescent, 60 people came out to get assistance in one street alone.
That’s strange, I thought they’d all fled? But then I guess you just ignore the reports of the Red Crescent as you ignore the reports from UNICEF…
The toddler paraded by the terrorists in their propaganda film dressed in combat gear and "holding" (if that is what you could call it seeing it was bigger and heavier than the child) AK47 Assault Rifle certainly did not look hungry.
Sorry, I'm not aware of any toddler holding an AK-47. Did you mean this toddler? If not, perhaps you could post a link to a story about this so we can get a better idea what toddler you're talking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38103000/jpg/_38103604_baby300ap.jpg
What does International Law and the UN have to say about children and War?
Well, it doesn’t say that a vodeo of a toddler holding an AK-47 justifies blocking humanitarian aid from reaching civilians in a war zone. Other than that, I fail to see your point.
I think you will find that the pact was with Czechoslovakia and not Poland.
Hitler defeated Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. We did nothing.
In August 1939 Britain and France reaffirmed their guarantee of the territorial integrity of Poland.
On Friday September 1st Germany invaded Poland. On that day Chamberlain read to Parliament the message that had been sent to the German government:
“I am accordingly to inform your Excellency that unless the German Government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfil their obligations to Poland.”
On Sunday September 3rd at 09:00 we sent an ultimatum to Germany demanding their immediate withdrawal. At 11:00 the deadline on that ultimatum passed and Britain declared war on Germany.
Perhaps our non-existent Treaty with Poland said, "But only if the Germans invade you, but not if the Russians do" I’m sure the Poles would have agreed to that.
Actually that’s precisely what the treaty said:
Secret Protocol 1(a): By the expression “a European Power” employed in the Agreement it is to be understood Germany
It was called the Anglo-Polish Alliance or, to give it its full name, "the Anglo-Polish Agreement of Mutual Assistance and the Secret Protocol" and was signed on August 25th, 1939.
Look it up. Educate yourself. :roll:
The Godfather wrote
Your wrong RH, all races should be treated the same.
I remember reading about a woman who had a lifelong passion for collecting ornamental pigs. She had lived in her house for many years and always visibly displayed them in her front window. She then started to get abuse over her collection and was forced to take them in out of sight by the Asian community.
Was she 'treated the same' for indulging in a pastime that she deems totally innocent?
I personally find the Muslim and Jewish method of killing cattle as being disgusting and inhumane but I wouldn't try to force my beliefs on them!!
Jaws didn't say there wasn't a treaty, only that the treaty was non-existent!
[lol] [lol] [lol] [lol]
Ah, I see what you mean. I do apologise!
I must admit that I was unaware that we rushed an agreement through a few day before we decided to declare War. How very convenient, a very good excuse! The ink must have been hardly dry. Yet a long standing Treaty we just decided didn't matter.
Sounds decidedly convenient to me, especially in view of the fact that the Poles had used the Czech situation to grab their share of the Country and again we had turned our backs. Even moreso when you consider that when Germany made it's first land grab we in effect forced the Chechoslovaks to accept it by more or less telling them to just get on with it.
And it still doesn't explain our non-action over Russia.
Jjc, UNICEF is one of the more corrupt parts of the UN and as recently been investigated by them as such.
The pictures might impress you but I have seen similar in real life, not on the TV.
The picture of the dressed up toddler possibly is the same one except the one on the video was holding the barrel of an AK47 with the butt dragging on the floor behind him.
If you can't see that using a child of that age under those circumstances as a call to War then you have less conscience than me and I have none at all!
What would your reaction be if our forces or more especially those of the Great Satan did that?
The pictures of the injured children, horrific though they are, do not in any way indicate what happened to them. I do niot dispute the injuries or that they came by them as a result of military action but the implication is, and always have been, thay only the actions of one side injures children, the armaments of others always seem to avoid such incidents.
With respect to Kevin Sites, I admit I do not know his background, what I was questioning was the version that there had been no military action at that particular time and that everything had occured the previous day. I think you said that the Mosque had been "cleared" the previous day. "Cleared" means that all live people have been removed and all that are left are the dead! Anybody who was not killed in the original assault should have been moved into the open and the building left as if it were completely empty. My assumption would be that once a building had been declaired "clear" then anybody in that building who was alive had gone there at a later time and therefore could not be guaranteed to have been searched and be unarmed.
With respect to the reporting of the War, I heard the first broadcasts at the time of the first "target of opportunity" bombing the night previous to the indicated “First Day” and the announcement by Bush that it was exactly that and not the initial action of the full attack.
The reaction of the reporters, if the situation had not been as serious as it was, was quite entertaining.
Firstly they were wrong footed because it was unexpected and confused their schedule. Then they decided that the War really had started without them and there was a rush to disturb peoples sleep because they hadn’t been warned not to go to bed. Then there was a Press Conference but they didn’t know just when, then they went to the White House Reporter but nothing was happening. More confusion. Then the short announcement by Bush. Then he went back into the White House but something else was bound to be going on but it wasn’t. Then the President went to bed, but that couldn’t be right. And on and on and on.
The one thing they could not get through there thick heads was that being told that there was nothing further meant exactly that and nothing else. Their carefully worked out script had just been torn up and they were lost.
And before anybody starts talking about American Media I will tell you that I was listening to the great American Propaganda Machine the BBC World Service.
The first day of the War the bombing started at 1800 BST prompt! On the second day the BBC had a countdown to the bombing starting like it was the countdown to the start of a sporting event and right on time went over to the cameras in Baghdad for the “display”, nothing happened, confusion again, “But it started at this time last night!” Fret, worry, fret some more, “What’s gone wrong? It should have started by now!”
How damned inconsiderate of them, fancy not running a War to the TV News schedule, after all they had gone to all the trouble to create a slot for the entertainment and excitement of their audience!
And you wonder why, when they say “Good Morning”, I check the position of the Sun in the sky before I believe them?
And before anybody asks, No, I have absolutely no moral conscience whatsoever. I’ve been around people too long to be shocked by anything. However badly you think humanity can behave you will be wrong, it can be much worse than you can ever imagine!
Rant over for the time being. (Hell I feel better for that!) :evil :evil
UNICEF is one of the more corrupt parts of the UN and as recently been investigated by them as such.
So you simply discount whatever they have to say on the subject? How incredibly convenient for you… :roll:
If you can't see that using a child of that age under those circumstances as a call to War then you have less conscience than me and I have none at all!
What would your reaction be if our forces or more especially those of the Great Satan did that?
The same as my reaction is in this situation. I think it’s a disgusting abuse.
Now, explain to me how the picture of this child holding an AK-47 in any way justifies the things we are discussing here. How does this picture relate to the execution of a wounded insurgent? How does this picture equate to the reported malnutrition?
The pictures of the injured children, horrific though they are, do not in any way indicate what happened to them. I do niot dispute the injuries or that they came by them as a result of military action but the implication is, and always have been, thay only the actions of one side injures children, the armaments of others always seem to avoid such incidents.
I'm quite sure that both sides in this conflict have been responsible for such injuries on children. Once again, can you explain how that makes it right? Is "They did it too" really a valid argument for turning a blind eye?
Of course these things are going to happen in war. That's one of the reasons why war is a last resort and not a road you go down once you get bored of the current stalemate. But just because they are going to happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't be horrified. Simply shrugging your shoulders and flicking the telly back over to Eastenders really doesn't cut it.
My assumption would be that once a building had been declaired "clear" then anybody in that building who was alive had gone there at a later time and therefore could not be guaranteed to have been searched and be unarmed.
That may be your assumption, but it isn't what happened. What happened was that the marines disarmed the injured men the day before and left them there for collection. Should they have been removed and given treatment? Absolutely. But they weren't and, according to Kevin Sites, the marines knew that.
However you might feel about journalists, Kevin Sites was also an eye-witness to the event and was carrying a video camera which recorded the whole thing. I understand why you'd want to question new reports – you'd be a fool not to – but when you simply discount everything a journalist says as 'spin' you might as well find a cave somewhere and go back to nature.
UNICEF is one of the more corrupt parts of the UN and as recently been investigated by them as such.
Okay. How about Medact?
Their report 'Enduring Effects of War: Health in Iraq 2004' was published this month:
There is an alarming recurrence of previously well-controlled communicable diseases including diarrhoeal diseases, acute respiratory infections and typhoid, particularly among children.
One in four people still depend on food aid and there are more children underweight (17%) or chronically malnourished (32%) than in 2000.
32% of children are chronically malnourished? 32%? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/sauer/angry-smiley-005.gif
But I guess Medact is corrupt too, eh?
I try to discount nothing, including the parts of reports which are edited out as inconvenient.
As for UNICEF, I also bear in mind the usual problem , that whilst any such organisations serve a useful purpose they do tend to be self perpetuating. The are there to help solve a problem and as such need a problem to solve to justify their existence. And that is not a problem confined to UNICEF.
What tends to be forgotten when it comes to the UN is that it is not an Organisation which lives in a Utopian Vacuum it is as "politically" motivated as any single Government or State. The UN also will pick and choose what is best for it's image and will get it the most favourable publicity. It is a talking shop which only as as much power as people decide to give it, it has none of it's own. It is not a World Government, neither is it an infallible judge of right or wrong and has a long and disgraceful tradition of ignoring problems which are to "difficult" or to politically sensitive.
It carefully avoids interfering with nations who will retaliate by completely ignoring and who will present a united front against it. How many Humanitarian Problems in the World and “Wars” of various descriptions does it ignore until there is some “Reflected Glory” for it in “Solving” a problem where there is only one obvious solution or whilst the World’s Media are showing a great interest.
The current situation in Sudan is far worse than that in Iraq but how much “Hand-Wringing” and “Weeping and Wailing” is being created over that. How much fuss is the UN making over the situation in Indonesia and Timor. What is the UN doing to stop the decades old War in Central Africa other than treating it as a series of “Minor” Wars of little consequence. The slaughter and atrocities, the constant Human Rights Violations, the constant slaughter of “Innocent Civilians” is ignored almost completely and with far more disastrous results to babies and th3e general population in general. And why? Because there is no constant Media coverage, no “Hand Wringing” by Charities hoping to use it to get donations. There’s no “Glory” to be had there, there’s no “Conscious Pricking Publicity” which can be utilised and besides that “It’s dangerous and not easily solved” so stick it in the “To Hard To Do” File and ignore it.
Like any other Organisation, The UN and it’s various Organisations will only do what is in it’s own interests as a unit and where there might be some “Good Publicity” in the outcome. It has no more and no less self interest than any other Organisation. It sees what it wants to see, hears what it wants to hear and ignores what it finds might show it for what it is a totally Useless Nonentity!
Have you been to Iraq this year, Jaws? Did you walk the streets of Fallujah at any time this month?
I ask because you seem to be universally dismissing any and all reports into the situation there (with the exception, perhaps, of those from the government that your signature claims you 'fear') on the grounds that they are from a third party.
Who do you trust to give you your reports? How will you recognise the truth when you see it? Will it be the report that agrees with you, or do you have some special formula?
Let me know when you've chosen your cave, won't you? :roll:
Jjc, “How about Medact?” Keep producing the figures, they make interesting reading.
So the “Weeping and Wailing” over the “Poor Starving Babies” and the “Lack of Medical Supplies” as a result of the Sanctions imposed on Iraq were a complete fiction? Things were supposed to be as bad as they could get and if Sanctions were not lifted there would be dead babies all over the place for want of food and medical supplies!
Now I’m told to ignore that because things are much worse now? But before that they couldn’t get much worse? Which bit of “Much Worse” do you want me to believe, the original “Much Worse” or the present “Much Worse”?
Why are the Food Charities and the UN Agencies and the EU not hammering at the door with Food Aid for the Iraqis? Or is sulking and posturing more important? Perhaps if they stopped making excuses for the sake of short term Political Expediency things would be a lot easier for the innocent Iraqis. Of course, having “Malnourished Babies” around helps them wag their fingers and say “I told you so!”
If I sit with a house full of food whilst complaining that my neighbours children are starving then it says as much about me as it does about how my neighbours children got in that situation. And no amount of my finger wagging about my neighbours family not doing anything would absolve me from not having done anything!
When the finger-waggers stop their silly “Holier than Thou” posturing and get on with doing something to help then I will be a lot more sympathetic to their moralising. If they are so concerned why are they not help solve the problem themselves?
Or is leaving “chronically malnourished” children without food more convenient for their position?
Whilst they have every right to refuse to send Military Aid, and I respect their right to refuse to do that, does that give them the “moral right” not to send Humanitarian Aid for children. If they had ship loads of food which they were being prevented from landing then I would have more sympathy.
And the pathetic excuse that “It makes it look like we are backing the Americans” is just so much Hogwash to excuse their political posturing! It holds no more validity than me saying “I can’t help feed my neighbours children because people may think I am supporting the behaviour of my neighbours family!”
Who was it who said, “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are just a statistic!” ?
Keep producing the statistics and eventually I might know which to believe!
jjc, there are many places I have not been and many that I have and I am well aware that "public perception" can be manipulated by the media. I also know the trick of presenting a "fair and balanced" report which leaves people with only the desired message.
What are the producers of these statistics suggesting as a solution? Once I am told that then I will perhaps, understand their motives.
So the “Weeping and Wailing” over the “Poor Starving Babies” and the “Lack of Medical Supplies” as a result of the Sanctions imposed on Iraq were a complete fiction? Things were supposed to be as bad as they could get and if Sanctions were not lifted there would be dead babies all over the place for want of food and medical supplies!
Now I’m told to ignore that because things are much worse now? But before that they couldn’t get much worse? Which bit of “Much Worse” do you want me to believe, the original “Much Worse” or the present “Much Worse”?
You seem to be attributing random quotes to, well, me. Why?
Aside from that your logic is… shall we say impaired? There is no earthly reason, other than your refusal to accept that anything bad might be happening in Iraq now that we've liberated it, why comparing the situation under sanctions and the situation under occupation is an either/or scenario. It is entirely possible that the conditions under sanctions were bad but now, for some, the conditions have deteriorated even further.
Why are the Food Charities and the UN Agencies and the EU not hammering at the door with Food Aid for the Iraqis?
I'm sorry, but what makes you think that they aren't? One in four Iraqis is living on aid. Where do you suppose that aid is coming from?
Of course, having “Malnourished Babies” around helps them wag their fingers and say “I told you so!”
Again, I'm sorry, but it almost sounds as if you are accusing the aid agencies of denying food to children as part of an organised publicity campaign. Would that be an accurate description of your position? Perhaps you could name an organisation that you believe is doing this?
Or is leaving “chronically malnourished” children without food more convenient for their position?
Same question as above.
And the pathetic excuse that “It makes it look like we are backing the Americans” is just so much Hogwash to excuse their political posturing!
Once again you've failed to attribute your quote. Who said that they were refusing aid to Iraq because they didn't want to appear to be backing the US?
What are the producers of these statistics suggesting as a solution? Once I am told that then I will perhaps, understand their motives.
Oh, I see. I assumed that you'd read the Medact report (including the page of recommendations) before dismissing it. How foolish of me… :roll:
RandomHero
30-Nov-04, 18:15
racist? i'm not a racist. i don't follow what george bush says. i follow what i know and believ to be correct. i think you're taking things too seriously godfather, learn to laugh about everything. it's the only time war/racism/anything is enjoyable.
The Godfather
30-Nov-04, 18:26
Fit are ye sleverin now, war is enjoyable?
RandomHero
30-Nov-04, 18:30
funny things happen at war. funny things go on all the time. i think you should learn to laugh. people discourage from laughing at war/racism/such like because 'it's not right'. why? there are absolutly hilarious jokes about racism (about whites aswell believe it or not) and there are funny stories about things that go on at war. it makes everything so much easier.
laugh. then the rest will follow.
Sorry jjc, the quotes were not intended to be attributed to you but to those who were describing that as the situation which the UN Sanctions were alleged to be creating in Iraq despite the fact that it seemed to be well known where the money which was supposed to feed the Iraqis was going. A fact that was conveniently ignored.
I am not refusing to accept that "accept that anything bad might be happening in Iraq " (I am quoting you on this occasion) but that sections of the Visual Media have a tendency only to show scenes of "atrocities" committed by the side which is willing to encourage their presence. I have yet to hear of any of the Insurgents allowing the media the same option and I am sure there are plenty of journalists from Countries they can trust who would be willing to accompany them.
There are no doubts that some Countries are quite willing to avoid sending any sort of aid to Iraq and have quite openly said so! ( If you want names, France and Germany to name but two who have made no secret of the fact that their refusal to do anything except finger war was with that intention, work out who the others are yourself by there conspicuous absence in Iraq but not the former Yugoslavia, especially where airports are concerned.) What I am saying about certain Charities is that they are rather like the muck cart following the procession and are quite willing to make very loud noises in some places whilst only whispering in others where there is less media attention and less public interest.
I don’t recall dismissing the Medact report merely questioning what it recommended and similarly with others producing such reports. You are quoting parts of them so I assume you have studied them and would therefore also be aware of any conclusions drawn. It was your wish to quote sections of them not mine. The quotes I have made reference to are not verbatim except where they are obvious quotes or are attributed to a particular source but a general impression given and regularly used phrases by widely reported subjects.
With respect to the UN and their high moral stance I remember UN Troops standing by whilst a village full of civilians in a supposed UN Safe Haven was shelled almost out of existence and the males taken off for Ethnic Cleansing using the excuse that their mandate didn’t permit their interference and the UN being satisfied with that happening. I remember a report showing a Rwandan male pleading with a Rwandan soldier to shoot him rather than wait until a mob found him and hacked him to death with machetes in the Genocide which was obviously being carried out quite openly. UN response? Absolutely nothing! Excuse! It’s not in out mandate to intervene.
Once again, if I were to stand and watch whilst my neighbour beat his wife to death because nobody gave me permission to intervene I think I would be quite rightly looked on with some contempt by decent society. The UN did exactly that whilst it was going on in full view of the world countless thousands of times and carefully averted their eyes. Now, the Secretary General has the audacity to say that perhaps they should have taken some action. A little bit late I would have thought!
The Aid Agencies? Well something has just been revived after twenty years to remind the world that whilst tens of thousands died of starvation both they and the world leaders did practically nothing to help until a fairly second rate singer took it upon himself to have the nerve to harangue them and embarrass them into taking some action. Remember Eritrea and Tigre and the famine in Ethiopia?
If I remember correctly, the situation there was outside the UN’s Charter. It comes in very handy when you don’t want to be bothered with something other than make noises!
As far as the UN and the Aid Agencies are concerned it would appear that All Humanitarian Disasters Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal than Others! This way with the Cameras please!
And jjc, don’t waste you time with sarcasm, it’s like water of a ducks back.
When it comes to sarcasm, insults, abuse and excuses I’m afraid I’ve heard them all.
Occasionally I hear a new one, about once every five years or so, but for the most part they mean no more than getting wet when it rains. In fact I find encouraging them can be quite enjoyable so don’t be put off if you wish to continue.
On second thoughts I think you ought to continue, it might provide some entertainment for others and lighten things up a little. Heaven only knows, the subject could do with a little amusement thrown in it’s dull enough as it is.
Does anybody know any good jokes?
RandomHero
30-Nov-04, 18:48
This penguin was having car problems, so he pulled his car into the garage for a check-up. The mechanic points at the restaurant across the street and says, "Go over there and get a bite to eat, and I'll take a look." The penguin does exactly as he says.
After a while he waddles back, and the mechanic is looking under the hood. The penguin asks him if he's been able to figure out what went wrong. The mechanic glances over his shoulder and says, "It looks like you blew a seal."
The penguin quickly wipes his mouth and says, "Oh, no, no --That's just tartar sauce."
What was the problem? piston broke?
Yes, the penguin had spent his money on drink and couldn't afford the repairs! [lol]
OK, for those who really do take the World seriously I offer the following.:-
Food Shortages!
“A million Iraqis every day open a can of beans and say – One for you and One for you!”
It’s all about Oil!
“Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb, Esso Blue” (For those to young to remember, A very old paraffin advert)
“I’ve got a Tiger in my Tank!” (Petrol advert)
Collateral Damage!
“Baby Baby can I hear a heart beat?”
“Wide eyed and leg-less!”
“Buddy can you spare a mine?”
“Good-night Ladies, see you at the Mourning!”
“You put your left leg in, you take your left leg out!”
“Heartbeat! What do you do when that bomber misses me?”
“Which idiot didn’t teach him the difference between Swallow and Duck?”
“Did nobody tell them the Red Cross was not a target?”
“And it’s One Two Three what are we Waiting Four? You know I don’t give a damn, the next stop is …… ? Baghdad? That’s no good! Get a new song!!
Controversial? I can’t even spell it!
Jaws
You forgot to mention,
'My roadside bomb doesn't lose its shrapnel by the lampost overnight'
I heard it was No.1 in the Iraqi 'Hit' Parade for several weeks! [lol] [lol]
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.