0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:13 am
I got angry this morning by some sanctimonious twaddle which was reported on our TV, that the actions of a US marine was being criticised because he shot an unarmed, wounded and apparently defenceless man in the head.

There was a TV crew there, and his actions were filmed. Now everyone is getting very exercised about how wrong this is.

Well. What do they think soldiers do, when they're securing a town during heavy fighting? Make like Audie Murphy in a U-certificate adventure movie?

We don't mind, apparently, flying in bombers and vapourising people, but this poor GI is going to be made an example of, just like the clowns in the photos from Abu Graib, scapegoats for the decisions of their leaders.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 06:24 am
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39057&highlight=
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 10:05 am
revel wrote:
Press Watchdog “Deeply Disturbed” by Iraqi Regime’s Media Threat

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPA) said it was “deeply disturbed” by the statement.

“We are very troubled by this directive, which is an attempt to control news coverage through government coercion,” said CPJ’s executive director, Ann Cooper. “It damages the government’s credibility in establishing a free and democratic society.”


For quite a long time now, I've believed WFNA (i.e., World Fictional News Association, or more accurately, World Fixtional News Association) was disturbed. They have continually operated under the illusion that the First Amendment of our Constitution is their only constraint on what they publish and/or broadcast. Slander and libel laws are additional constraints they too often ignore. Then, of course, in our Constitution there is this additional constraint:
Quote:
Article III.Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.


"Adhering" That is an interesting word choice.
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: ad·here
Pronunciation: ad-'hir, &d-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ad·hered; ad·her·ing
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French adhérer, from Latin adhaerEre, from ad- + haerEre to stick
intransitive senses
1 : to give support or maintain loyalty
2 obsolete : ACCORD 3
3 : to hold fast or stick by or as if by gluing, suction, grasping, or fusing
4 : to bind oneself to observance
transitive senses : to cause to stick fast
synonym see STICK


Well, if all those consraints are appropriate for our government, then they certainly are appropriate for the Iraqi Provisional Government. The Iraqis have a difficult enough time building a government without the additional burden of the WFNA "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Quote:
The Iraqi was one of five wounded left in the mosque after Marines fought their way in on Friday and Saturday. The U.S. military has accused insurgents in Iraq (news - web sites) of using mosques to launch attacks against American forces.

U.S. forces, along with Iraqi government troops, launched an offensive one week ago on Falluja, and have gained overall control of the formerly rebel-held city, although scattered resistance remains.
...
He said one Marine noticed one of the prisoners was still breathing.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's f***ing faking he's dead. He faking he's f***ing dead."

"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said.

The report said the Marine had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier.


If I were that Marine, I would have also shot that insurgent or any other insurgent like that rather than again risk being shot dead by an insurgent faking he's dead. This is a brutal life and death situation these Marines face continually almost 24 hours a day, not some simple matter of cops and suspects. Get off their backs!
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 10:35 am
ican711nm wrote:

If I were that Marine, I would have also shot that insurgent or any other insurgent like that rather than again risk being shot dead by an insurgent faking he's dead. This is a brutal life and death situation these Marines face continually almost 24 hours a day, not some simple matter of cops and suspects. Get off their backs!


Why didn't he just arrest him? Just like the other 200 that were arrested?
If the scenario was in reverse Ican, I very much doubt you would be taking the stance of "ah well - thats war isn't it"
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 10:40 am
McTag wrote:
Criticism? Very few situations are improved by a declaration of war.
Not in the short term, no.
McTag wrote:
I criticise a country which will falsify reasons to attack another country.
Erroneous judgments don't = falsifications. Pre-Gulf war we thought Iraq was further from WMD than they in fact were. Were we lying down the risk then?
McTag wrote:
A military which will attack a weaker enemy with massive force.
Shocked You'd have us meet them with equal and split the casualties and successes equally? Confused
McTag wrote:
A military which will used bombers against civilians.
WWII would have ended very differently under your command. Rolling Eyes
McTag wrote:
A military which uses cluster bombs and uranium-tipped ordnance, poisoning the land for future unborn generations.
Point made.
McTag wrote:
A military which will call in air strikes against vehicles, against unarmed groups of pedestrians, against wedding parties even.
These accidents happen because our enemies are dishonorable enough to shield themselves behind civilians.
McTag wrote:
A military which uses artillery barrages on a town containing civilians.
Because our enemy prefers human shields.
McTag wrote:
A military which will bring down buildings, irrespective of who may be underneath them.
Because our enemy prefers human shields.
McTag wrote:
So, War is hell. Shame, that all the participants do not dress themselves properly or observe the niceties others would impose on them.
If they gave a rat's ass about civilian collateral damage, they would dress themselves properly. We could save lives by losing the uniforms too, but care far too much for civilians to ever do so. These fiends hide their munitions in schools and shoot from mosques, force us to pursuit them through populated areas. They murder the Iraqis unwilling to be human shields...
But, as usual; you apologize for deplorable tactics of the enemy while condemning the infinitely more humane strategies of the men and women who are fighting on your behalf... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:06 am
There were no erroneous judgements here.

The reason you are seeing a 'purge' in the CIA is that there were plenty of people who advised against the war in Iraq, and were ignored.

This pissed them off.

The only 'erroneous judgement' that was made was when the senior staff decided it was okay to lie to the American people to get what they want...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:07 am
As for the soldier in question; does anyone seriously believe that this kind of thing doesn't go on all the time?

Forget about whether it is justified or not; think about how it makes us look. You hawks need to face it, we are fighting a media war much more than a physical one, and if we lose one, we lose the other.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:30 am
gav wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

If I were that Marine, I would have also shot that insurgent or any other insurgent like that rather than again risk being shot dead by an insurgent faking he's dead. This is a brutal life and death situation these Marines face continually almost 24 hours a day, not some simple matter of cops and suspects. Get off their backs!


Why didn't he just arrest him?
Why do you ask? Why do the insurgents boobytrap their dead and wounded? Why do insurgent wounded pretend to be unarmed and then attempt to kill our soldiers who attempt to capture and treat them? Why do our troops not trust wounded enemy insurgents to try to fight by the same rules we try to fight by?
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:39 am
Ican, I thought we pretty much agree on the fact that this group of injured insurgents had been treated by a group of marines who went in before the group in question. Now do you honestly think that if he was armed he'd be left alive by the first group? Do you honestly think that if there was a booby trap bomb there the first group of marines wouldn't have found it?

Come on here people - theres no excuse!!!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:50 am
InfraBlue wrote:
If there is an act of "harboring" then there is, by definition, "a relationship wherein the parties to such relationship act in concert to perpetrate their action or actions," which is how you, ican, define the phrase "collaborative operational relationship." In the act of harboring, the parties act in concert to perpetrate their action, harboring, with one party "giving shelter or refuge," and the other "taking said shelter in or as if in a harbor." That is, by definition, a "collaborative operational relationship."


To be proved: Y can exist whether or not X exists.
Let X = evidence of a collaborative operational relationship.
Let Y = evidence of a harboring relationship.

The 9/11 Commission alleged no evidence of X exists.
Then X does not exist.
The 9/11 Commission alleged some evidence of Y exists.
Then Y does exist.
Therefore, evidence of Y can exist when there is no evidence of X.
If X does not exist, then no subset of X, other than the null set, can exist.
Therefore, because Y exists, Y is not a subset of X.
Therefore, Y can exist whether or not X exists
Quo Erat Demonstratum
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:02 pm
gav wrote:
Ican, I thought we pretty much agree on the fact that this group of injured insurgents had been treated by a group of marines who went in before the group in question.
I don't know whether or not that's true. More importantly, however, is whether or not the marine shooter knew whether or not that was true. I don't know whether or not the marine shooter knew that was true before he shot.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:04 pm
UN lowers flags to honor the murderer of Munich (Arafat) as murderous suicide bombers rename their sect in his honor. WTF is going through Koffi Annan's head? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
WTF is going through Koffi Annan's head? Rolling Eyes


Says the cheese head!! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:16 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
UN lowers flags to honor the murderer of Munich (Arafat) Rolling Eyes


I suppose, the same will happen, when Libya's Gaddhafi will die one day (and is still president then - I wonder, who remembers Lockerbie, Berlin etc?), or any other president.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:21 pm
Slide another stone over for the "Freedom Fighters".
Iraq aid worker Hassan believed dead

Quote:


http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/030224/01/margaret-hassan.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:24 pm
Yes, she really is (was?) a strong freedom fighter!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
Quote:
Hassan lived in Iraq for 30 years and married an Iraqi. She was a citizen of Britain, Ireland and Iraq.

In its statement, her family said: "Nobody can justify this. Margaret was against sanctions and the war. To commit such a crime against anyone is unforgivable. But we cannot believe how anybody could do this to our kind, compassionate sister.

"The gap she leaves will never be filled."
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:28 pm
Occom Bill you better believe it, that along with their hatred for those who done this, they will also have a deep hatred for the Americans!!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:29 pm
Are you changing the sites and joining the anti-war fraction now, Bill? Shocked
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 12:35 pm
Cyclo,
Did you have a chance to edit for promotion the Liquid Freedom article you posted? Have you had a chance to established a new able2know topic on Liquid Freedom?

Did you include your idea about US loaning oil stock dividends over the next 3 years to the Iraqi people (assuming the insurgency is adequately controlled within 3 years) and Iraqi repayment within 6 years?

The 3 year cost, assuming zero interest, 26 million Iraqis, one share per person, and $100 per year per share dividends, we must loan them a total $7.8 billion. I think it would be cheap at twice the price for what it would buy, even if it took the Iraqis 20 years to repay it.

CURRENT RESULTS OF MY PONDERING.
1. Pay each registering and voting Iraqi one share.
2. Read "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks, Chapter 10 The Plan, page 419-425.
3. E-mail the final draft of the idea to Limbaugh
and O'Reilly and encourage them to promote it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 08:06:43