The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Hannibal]

I believe the same thing happened in Vietnam.? After being there in a psychologically intimidating situation for ages, U.S. soldiers have a higher potential to unleash their frustration in cases like this, or the Vietnam massacre of civilians at My Lai.? That's probably what happened with this soldier.? If GnRNightrain is correct, and a lot of insurgent soldiers pretend that they're wounded, then this guy might have cracked under the pressure and that's why he shot the guy - it's the "kill or be killed" instinct.? It doesn't excuse his actions, but it might explain them.

I think that the title of this thread is in very poor taste.? What the soldier did was wrong, but your title politicizes this tragedy to make it seem like the Bush administration's whole goal in "liberating Iraq" is to kill all the Iraqis.? Look, I don't like the Bush administration either, and anybody who thinks that they went to war in Iraq just to "free the Iraqi people" is incredibly naive.? But I know that they certainly don't desire the deaths of innocents.

The best thing said by far on this issue, just well said Matt.

Too much to be said, but I can't start talking because I don't want people to call me terrorist again! god knows I had nightmares for the past 4 days after nesquik called me so

[Hannibal]

By the way, we can't tell for sure if this happened only once! we just react upon things we see on TV.

I'm not saying it's a common thing that american soldiers kill wounded fighters for the fun of it, but maybe this wasn't the first case, especially no reporters were allowed into Fallouja if not embeded with the army.

[jarmo]

The leader of the insurgents...i forget his name Al sahwi or soemhting is from Jordan. Hardly Iraq eh

Terrorists from Saudi-Arabia, Egypt etc attack USA, terrorists from Jordan attack US troops and yet USA decided to invade Iraq.

Interesting.



R.I.P.


/jarmo

[LeftToDecay]

GNR 3.0,

Disappointment is the keyword here, I think.
Not many things summon more discussion/reaction than a disappointment.

When someone who belongs to the U.S army murders a wounded man people get disappoinnted.The amount of sheer power and hi-tech killing gadgets of U.S army is so vastly superior to their enemies in Iraq that U.S army can often afford  paying attention to sparing lives of both enemies&innocent. Then, when TV vomits  images of U.S soldiers killing/torturing/etc people for no apparent reason..It's a huge disappointment.And summons protests and expressions of PO:D-ness.
"Wow.I thought those guys were better than this"etc.

Then again, when some fucked up terrorists who are ready to kill anything for their cause murder  someone who was fucking helping Iraq&Iraqi  for years...
It doesn't suprise. It doesn't summon as much protests/reaction as it should because..well, it's what guys like her killers do.
Killing someone like her was utterly fucked up, sad and simply very STUPID but it didn't make anyone safely away from Iraq feel very..suprised.Thus, (angry) reaction is harder to summon here even though it shouldn't be.Part of human nature I guess.

From your own input at the 1st post in this thread one easily gets the expression  that you didn't really respond/react  to Hassan's death per se either, just wanted to attack people who don't bless the Invasion of Iraq.

[matt88]

The leader of the insurgents...i forget his name Al sahwi or soemhting is from Jordan. Hardly Iraq eh

Terrorists from Saudi-Arabia, Egypt etc attack USA, terrorists from Jordan attack US troops and yet USA decided to invade Iraq.

Interesting.



R.I.P.


/jarmo

Not really, just a group of people banding together to fight an enemy.

[discobiscuit1]

I think despite our differences we should all agree that the murder of this woman was completeley fucking vile, and the 'people' who could do this in cold blood to such a beutiful human being are just repulsive.

Im not a voilent person and , lean toward the left wing, but in this instance with her family in mind I would happily watch those cunts be executed.

ok.....that said.

Matt.

How in the hell can you...with a straight face say that George W bushes  intentions are to help the Iraqi people???.....sure it may be a byproduct..or a self delusional, excuse for self serving goals...but the initial purpose of this war surely never was to help these people.   

It was about protecting american interests (debate amongst yourselves wether that be security or finacial interests or a mix of the two)....but surely you cant say that this debacle is in Iraq's best interests???

[matt88]

I think despite our differences we should all agree that the murder of this woman was completeley fucking vile, and the 'people' who could do this in cold blood to such a beutiful human being are just repulsive.

Im not a voilent person and , lean toward the left wing, but in this instance with her family in mind I would happily watch those cunts be executed.

ok.....that said.

Matt.

How in the hell can you...with a straight face say that George W bushes  intentions are to help the Iraqi people???.....sure it may be a byproduct..or a self delusional, excuse for self serving goals...but the initial purpose of this war surely never was to help these people.   

It was about protecting american interests (debate amongst yourselves wether that be security or finacial interests or a mix of the two)....but surely you cant say that this debacle is in Iraq's best interests???

By eliminating Saddam Hussein, destroying the Republican Guard, finding the wmd's( they have em somewhere).

If ridding a dictator, destroying his armed forces and his weapons aren't in the best intrests of a repressed, starving, poor and backward nation then u have no clue man.

There would be no debacle if islamic extremists would fuck off and let America and other nations do it's job.

These people were no fan of Saddam..so why are they making this mess? Simple they hate America. They don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people, their killing them. They don't want America to invade a muslim country and succeed thats why their there. If they were there to help the Iraqi people they sure as hell wouldn't be detonating car bombs.

[Hannibal]

discobiscuit: I guess for once, we all agree that killing Margret is an unjustified crime, and that's a good thing (agreeing on it, not killing her of course), but it would've been nicer of you to respect Matt's opinion even if you guys disagree (god only knows how much I believe in what you said discodude, but uh well!), I'm sure that there are millions of people out there truely believe that President Bush is actually doing what's best for Iraqis, and on the other hand (count me for one) millions believe that Bush is doing what's best for the American corporates. Just trying to say that we all have to accept that others may have different opinion than ours, and that's no crime sir

[Charity Case]

Tyrod,
Ok. a 20 year old guy from Saudi Arabia experiences/learns something that makes him go "Gah, Yankees need to be fucking driven out from Middle East!! Allah Akbar! Paradise!!"He takes his nailbombs and heads to Iraq, Explodes himself in the middle of a street. Dozens of civils and few marines get killed. Ok, everyone here can agree that this fukhed can be called a terrorist.

Howabout a 20 year old guy from Mosul who feels that it was very wrong that U.S.A army invaded his country and is now puling the strings of everything.He goes "fuck this, i don't want soldiers? from the other side of this world to control lands that have belonged to my ancestors for centuries I wanna try to drive them away."? He ends up in Falluja because he hears there's lots of people like him there. He gets wounded while trying to kill Marines who try to kill him, he gets shot in the head while lying on the ground without a weapon anywhere near.
Can you call this guy a terrorist?

Terrorism is a tactic.  If that person from Mosul, regardless of his motivations, is targeting and killing Iraqi civilians, or any civilians for that matter, in the name of his god or country, then he is a terrorists.  If he is simply fighting against American troops because we are an invading army and he isn't targeting or killing civilians then he is not a terrorist in my book.  In this case, I don't think it matters much whether he was a military fighter or a terrorist.

Regardless of whether this guy was a terrorist or not, he could have been playing possum as has been reported to happen over there.  The soldier could have perceived him as a threrat.  Some of these terrorists have been booby-trapped where if you roll them over a detonator goes off and blows you up.  Maybe he didn't want to take a chance with his own life.  I have absolutely no problem with what this soldier did.  He seems like the perfect person to have on the front line.  He was wounded by a shot to the face two days earlier and could have come home.  Instead, he asked to be placed back into combat.  This guy is more a hero than a villian in my book.

And, as the last poster pointed out, I'm sure this isn't the first instance of this.  I bet it happens on a daily basis.  I know that slcpunk can't get his mind around the fact that being in the US safely tucked away behind his computer is different from being on the front line, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.  Honor is for ideological discussion between politicians, it has a diminished amount of meaning when your life is in danger. 

[Hannibal]

I agree with that too Matt, people who kill Iraqi civilians are not there to help them in the first place, neither is the American invasion of Iraq.

Well, Saddam had been in power since 1979, and before that was his cousin "Al Baker" who was a dictoator too, yet Saddam was America's "guy" in the gulf during the war with Iran, and that what pisses me off Matt! why was it "ok" for Saddam to be in charge in the 80's, and suddenly it becomes not as "ok" in the 90's? and let's not forget that there are too many dectators in other countries, so why Saddam and not them? Pakistan's Musharraf, Libya's Gadhafi, Egypt's Mubarak, Syria's Assad, Tunisia's Ben Ali, N. Korea's Chung Yung (whatever ). But Iraq's Saddam comes with an extra bonus which is oil.

PS: I agree with you that Saddam managed to hide WOMD, and it's just a matter of time to find them.

[matt88]

I agree with that too Matt, people who kill Iraqi civilians are not there to help them in the first place, neither is the American invasion of Iraq.

Well, Saddam had been in power since 1979, and before that was his cousin "Al Baker" who was a dictoator too, yet Saddam was America's "guy" in the gulf during the war with Iran, and that what pisses me off Matt! why was it "ok" for Saddam to be in charge in the 80's, and suddenly it becomes not as "ok" in the 90's? and let's not forget that there are too many dectators in other countries, so why Saddam and not them? Pakistan's Musharraf, Libya's Gadhafi, Egypt's Mubarak, Syria's Assad, Tunisia's Ben Ali, N. Korea's Chung Yung (whatever ). But Iraq's Saddam comes with an extra bonus which is oil.

PS: I agree with you that Saddam managed to hide WOMD, and it's just a matter of time to find them.

Yeah i know, that was stupid to support him back then but u must understand that it was a different time and a different President.

[discobiscuit1]

Ok....as far as helping the Iraqi people.    Matt can you honestly hand on heart tell me you believe Dubya's intent is based more on helping the poor Iraqi people rather than serving the best long term interestests of capitalists and the US designs of global hegemony??

If so...then why  didnt the US step in yersa and years ago when Sadamm was committing the worst of his attrocities??  when the US was bankrolling him and turning a convinient blind eye??   and to know feign indignance when it suits us is fucking lame. No wonder the have nots in Iraq are angry....talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How is the death of 100,00 people ( I mean seriously imagine the devastaion of that figure ....how many generations of devesated people...and therefore angry peiople is that going to create).....hundreds of thousands of injured, millions more starving before due to food for oil programs etc etc etc........do you really think all these dead, dying starving people are shouting hallelujah america??  thanks for fuckin nothing is what they are saying.

[matt88]

Ok....as far as helping the Iraqi people.? ? Matt can you honestly hand on heart tell me you believe Dubya's intent is based more on helping the poor Iraqi people rather than serving the best long term interestests of capitalists and the US designs of global hegemony??

If so...then why? didnt the US step in yersa and years ago when Sadamm was committing the worst of his attrocities??? when the US was bankrolling him and turning a convinient blind eye??? ?and to know feign indignance when it suits us is fucking lame. No wonder the have nots in Iraq are angry....talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How is the death of 100,00 people ( I mean seriously imagine the devastaion of that figure ....how many generations of devesated people...and therefore angry peiople is that going to create).....hundreds of thousands of injured, millions more starving before due to food for oil programs etc etc etc........do you really think all these dead, dying starving people are shouting hallelujah america??? thanks for fuckin nothing is what they are saying.

Fucken hell was Dubya President in the 80's?

[discobiscuit1]

No.

But does he have the balls to condemn US support and indifference to genocide?? to the use of weapons of mass destruction and chemical use on his own civilians??....and then years and years later when its convinient out of the blue say were here to save you from the guy we helped do these things??

Duh.

Sucsessive presidencies have done these things and failed to be moral enough to say enough is enough.

The USA spends more on weapons and war research than the next 15 countries combined.....for a country that has only what 350 million people (im guessing) out of 5 or so billion human beings, and uses a massively disproportionate amount of natural rescources, and continually supports terrorist states while attacking other 'terrorist states' that dont fit the bill ..... eventually the have nots start fighting back.

The intelligent war on terror should be to take away the causes of global anger toward the USA....or you could just spend the next 100 yrs trying to squash hordes of ants with mallets as dubya is doing, and end up getting eaten by the majority of have nots.

[discobiscuit1]

By the way dude....you avoided the first and second paragrah of my comment and commented on the middle one where Dubya could avoid the sins of the past.

Ok...fair enough....what about the sins of the present. Unless you are in clear and present danger, going to war and the inevitable human misery is completely and utterly repulsive. Its all cool to view it from a distance . but these are real flesh and blood people who love there kids (US military absolutely included).....and its all so unneccesary.

Im someone who has lost a brother 3 yrs ago, and I think about him every single day.....I cant imagine what these people are going through.....for no reason.

[discobiscuit1]

My main point is in a court of law say.....and for gods sake lets apply the basic premise of law to foreigners we attack.

Even in an extreme example of a robbery in your home/home invasion....if you killed that person whilst all along every other witness was stating that you were not in any clear and present danger.....what would happen to you??

You would go to jail.  Simple. Diminished responsibility, perhaps....manslaughter rather than murder .

Thats why rather than villifying Europe for disagreeing and showing independant thought...(democracy even)...the US should thank them for being good enough friends to try and prevent an ally from making a stoopid mistake after suffering so badly post 9/11.

Virtually every nation on earth viewed the invasion of Iraq as unnecessary. These nations werent saying that to just piss dubya off....but we have an extremely dangerous precendent now.  For example Iran and North Korea have more legitimate reason to fear attack from the US, than the US did from Iraq.  So if alls fair.... then why isnt a pre emptive strike from them toward  a potential aggressor legitimate now??   you tell me.

God help us if they do....cos its curtains for all of us methinks.

[Hannibal]

Discodude (hope you're not offended by calling you so ), I can't thank you enough for your words. As an Arab, it means a lot to me hearing an American (especially after 9/11) saying all what you've just said above.

Matt, I can understand your feeling man, and I know how securing your home land became a priority after 9/11, but this doesn't justify attacking Iraq for any given reason (althoug I do respect your reasons for sure), it's true that Saddam is the "bad" guy, but he had been contained successfully in the 90's (although his people were the ones who had really suffered, while he kept building palaces), but there are worse guys out there! and don't you agree that America has no right to change a president without the approval of the international community?

Anyway, I'm glad that we all manage to talk about this without loosing our tempre and start accusing each other of being stupid and ignorant, so way to go both of ya

PS: Matt, it's true that George W. Bush wasn't President in the 80's, but the republicans were! and maybe I'm wrong (and feel free to correct me if I am), but I think that the republicans foriegn diplomacy doesn't change, it's just the faces that do.

[GnRNightrain]

So what is the deal with you guys not wanting to call them insurgents any longer?

Is it reminding you that you are wrong? Since the enemy had to come to the country we wrongly attacked? Easier and cleaner to just say 'enemy'. (I did hear Fox say "bad guys" the other day.? )

That always seemed to be a weak point, to hear that word. So now you are claiming the 'liberal media' likes to call them insurgents. Although I watched Fox and they are still calling them that.

So...where are you getting this from? I'd bet that if I searched through some right wing (propaganda) blogs, websites, etc...I'd see somebody attacking the word 'insurgent'. LOL, I just bet I would!?

I dont see what the big deal is from getting information from other places.  Isnt that what all people do?  I certainly see you post all of the same crap I see on liberal sites and that are in the liberal talking points.

[GnRNightrain]

I find it pathetic that you dont post until you can degrade the US, mock our efforts, or spit on a marine.?


We are doing the right thing and court marshalling him to find out what actually happened.? I have heard tons of stories of insurgents acting like they are wounded when they arent, act like they are surrendering when they are not, etc.? If this guy just shot the guy cold blooded knowing that he was wounded then he will get his.

I just find it interesting the title you put on the thread.? I know you think we are all evil anyway.

Come on ... you cannot defend this !!!!?


Have you seen it on TV yet ? there was blood all over the place...?
I don't think the post was to spit on the US army ... It happened, it's on tape for godsake's !

I didnt defend it.? Im simply not rushing to judgment and I am saying that you have to look at it in context.? But the title of the thread was spit on the US and the US marines.? I dont think you can read it any other way.

[GnRNightrain]

I find it pathetic that you dont post until you can degrade the US, mock our efforts, or spit on a marine.?

How about degrading the US administration, concurrently mocking the people (they chose the admin), and spitting on the whole works?

Q - How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?

A - It takes 10:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either "for" changing the light bulb or "for" darkness.
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb.
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: "Light bulb Change Accomplished".
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
8. One to viciously smear #7.
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Yeah, I'm BOARD................

...bored...

Criticize criticize criticize.  And meanwhile the rest of the world, including the UN, does nothing about the problems in the world.  The last time we were complete isolationists, Hilter was burnings Jews in ovens and the Nazis were drinking coffee in Paris.