0
   

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

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 11:36 am
RexRed wrote:
McTag wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
White House Rejects Italy Hostage's Claims

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the car carrying Giuliana Sgrena was traveling on one of the most dangerous roads in Iraq when it was fired upon.


That seems to have been true, certainly. Crying or Very sad


Yes, this is the very road where many brave Americans have already lost their lives.


At check points?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 11:44 am
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
If there is a plot anywhere I am beginning to smell one between the Kurds and the insurgency and possibly even foreign investors; or at least some mutual benefiting tolerance.

What's the nature of the plot you are beginning to smell? In other words, what is it "you smell" the Kurd's giving the Baathist insurgency and al Qaeda in return for the Baathist insurgency's and al Qaeda's tolerance of the Kurds?

Saddam's Baathist Regime mass murdered Kurds. The Kurds defeated the al Qaeda based in northern Iraq at the end of the 1990s. Al Qaeda was re-established in northern Iraq in 2001.

Maybe the Kurd's are less tolerant of the Baathist and al Qaeda insurgents than are the Sunnis in the Bagdad area. In other words, the Kurd's fight back and the Sunnis don't fight back.


You know I went back and thought about exactly what you were saying in this post yesterday. You are leaving the implication here that the Shiite's who are getting the most of the bombings from the insurgents deserve it because according to you they do not fight back.

They have only now begun to get bombed since the forming of the government and it became clear that they were going to be participating in it. The Kurds also participated in the elections. To my knowledge the Kurds have not been staging attacks on the insurgents since the fall of Saddam Hussien because they have not been targeted too much.

But even if the Kurds have been fighting back, the Iraqi police and security has also been targeted. So has our own military which I dare say you don't believe are cowards deserving of being bombed.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 11:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
To me 'moderate' means kissing your sister. It's wishy washy, straddling the fence, breathing neither hot nor cold, devoid of passion or conviction, or not having a clue and covering that up by pretending to be neutral or even handed.


So far, the only person on this forum I might even consider to be moderate might be Craven, but that's mostly because he is good at arguing both sides. Even still, I would still raise an eyebrow if I said he was.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 11:58 am
RexRed wrote:
Yes, this is the very road where many brave Americans have already lost their lives.


... and now an Italian secret agent as well.

As an aside: is there a list of deads/roads online?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:08 pm
Ican you ask of me

"Does your irrational exaggeration "know no bounds?"".

But hang on a minute. If it wasn't an accident, what was it?

I'm not saying it was deliberate, but other people are, including the poor woman who was shot.

So I ask again, if it was not a tragic mistake or accident, then what was it? I don't think you want to go there, and to be honest neither do I.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:14 pm
I believe the position of the U.S. government is that the italians paid a ransom to get the return of their reporter - something to which we would not have agreed - and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S. No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:16 pm
revel wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
...
Maybe the Kurd's are less tolerant of the Baathist and al Qaeda insurgents than are the Sunnis in the Bagdad area. In other words, the Kurd's fight back and the Sunnis don't fight back.


You know I went back and thought about exactly what you were saying in this post yesterday. You are leaving the implication here that the Shiite's who are getting the most of the bombings from the insurgents deserve it because according to you they do not fight back.


I shall proceed to immediately dispel that implication. You wrote (my boldface emphasis is added):
"You are leaving the implication here that the Shiite's who are getting the most of the bombings from the insurgents deserve it because according to you they do not fight back."

First, no innocents deserve to be bombed whether they choose to fight back or not.

Second, I posted about the Sunnis in the Baghdad area, not about the Shiites.

Third, I wrote about the possibility that the Sunnis in the Baghdad area were more tolerant of the al Qaeda and Baathist terrorists among them than were the Kurds tolerant of these terrorists among them, and that may be illustrated by the fact that the Kurds have fought back and are fighting back against these terrorists among them, and the Sunnis in the Baghdad area do not appear to me to be fighting back against these terrorists among them.

Fourth, fighting back has proven more effective in suppressing these terrorists for the Kurds than not fighting back has proven effective in suppressing these terrorists for the Sunnis in the Baghdad area.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
... and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S.


So the Italians are lying here as well.


georgeob1 wrote:
No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint.


Well, it wasn't actually 'night', but certainly not bright sunlight (sunset in Bagdad was 18:05).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:25 pm
Quote:
March 7, 2005

Twisting the Minds of the American People

More War Crimes


By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Let me paint a word picture. An unarmed, wounded American soldier is lying helpless, bleeding and barely conscious on the floor of a church in a country with which the US is at war. An armed soldier of that country walks up to the wounded American. It so happens that a TV cameraman is present. He films the foreign soldier shouting, "He's ******* faking he's dead!" One of his comrades says "And he's breathing". The first soldier again yells "He's faking he's ******* dead!" He then kills the helpless, wounded man with a burst of fire that blows his head off and spatters the room with blood and tiny bits of flesh and bone. One of the foreign soldiers says "He's dead, now."

Question One: What do you think the reaction of most of the American people would be to the murder of a wounded, unarmed US soldier lying helpless and barely conscious on the floor of a church in a foreign land?

Question Two: What was the reaction of most of the American people to the murder of a wounded, unarmed Iraqi lying helpless and barely conscious on the floor of a mosque in his own country?


***

First Answer: Shrieking outrage and demands for the foreigner to be tried and executed, whichever came first.

Second Answer: Unconcern.


***

The dialogue about faking it came from a CBS tape of a US soldier killing an Iraqi prisoner. The whole thing was recorded. It is undeniable that the crime was committed. The clips of the murder were played worldwide on television - except for the actual killing, because that was thought too vile, even for a television audience accustomed to the most explicitly horrible murder scenes. And nobody has dared take a poll as to how many Americans approve of the murder. Most TV reports called it "an incident", and it has dropped out of sight because, to put it bluntly, an American life is considered to be worth more than an Iraqi life. To many millions of Americans, the marine who murdered the helpless man is a hero. If you doubt this, please read on.





***

Think about another 'incident', when a squad of US soldiers opened fire on a car travelling along the Baghdad-Airport road on March 4, killing an Italian official. The lies began at once, and there is no point in describing what happened because the truth as told by eyewitnesses has already been denied by the military, and the official version will be accepted by much of the US media. It is not surprising that the media will toe the official line, as most of their readers and viewers automatically doubt what they are told by foreign or independent US sources (not that there are many of the latter, these days), and are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of criticism of US soldiers. This is because such criticism is considered unpatriotic and unforgivable, even if it is justified by first-hand evidence of brutality or murder. And if audiences are unhappy about what appears in the media, advertisers will be even more unhappy and will withdraw their business. In short: mainstream news cover in the US is directed by two major factors: advertising revenue and its precursor, audience prejudice. And advertisers get their financial messages from some very unpleasant bigots.

These are people like the beauty who commented on the killing of the Italian official and the wounding of the Italian journalist he was escorting to freedom (that's Bush freedom: it comes with free shrapnel wounds) as follows:

"Too bad the US troops didn't shoot her in the head and been done with trouble making people like her . . . Posted by bpb901 March 5."

We only have to look at the deranged outpourings on right wing blogs to realize there are millions of Americans who feel exactly the same way as bpb901. He or she is not in any way unusual. Unhinged and demented, yes ; badly in need of urgent mental treatment, certainly ; but out of the ordinary: no. (Bear in mind that The Economist of March 5-11 noted the uncomfortable statistic that "about one in five Americans now suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder".)

Think back to the 'incident' in January at Tal Afar in which US soldiers killed the mother and father of six kids. Getty Images photographer Chris Hondros was there. He described the shambles like this:

"We have a car coming," someone called out as we entered an intersection. We could see the car about a 100 meters away. The car continued coming; I couldn't see it anymore from my perch but could hear its engine now, a high whine that sounded more like acceleration than slowing down. It was maybe 50 yards away now. "Stop that car!" someone shouted out, seemingly simultaneously with someone firing what sounded like warning shots -- a staccato, measured burst. The car continued coming. And then, perhaps less than a second later, a cacophony of fire, shots rattling off in a chaotic, overlapping din . . . . From the sidewalk I could see into the bullet-mottled windshield more clearly. The driver of the car, a man, was penetrated by so many bullets that his skull had collapsed, leaving his body grotesquely disfigured. A woman also lay dead in the front . . . the children continued to wail and scream, huddled against a wall, sandwiched between soldiers either binding their wounds or trying to comfort them . . . the teenaged girl kept shouting, "Why did they shoot us? We have no weapons! We were just going home!"

We know about the killing of the father and mother of six kids because a photographer was there and we've seen his evidence. Same for the murder of the wounded prisoner. And we know about the killing of the Italian official because there is a high-profile former hostage still alive to tell us what really happened. But if these 'incidents' had not involved independent witnesses we would have been told nothing about them. They would have gone unrecorded, as have unknown numbers of similar atrocities in and around many cities. The Washington Post of 7 March says US officials "have declined to estimate how many civilians . . . have been killed accidentally by US forces at checkpoints or elsewhere in Iraq" This is no surprise, because although countless Iraqis have been killed by being sprayed with bullets by delinquent troops, the stories recounted by Iraqi witnesses of these terrible events are ignored. There are many people with the mentality of the moron who wrote "Too bad the US troops didn't shoot her in the head and been done with trouble making people like her . . .", and none of them would for an instant condemn the murder of a helpless prisoner by a heroic marine. Neither would they be critical of the gallant troops who wiped out the parents of six children. It is a terrible thing to say, but it must be said: there are millions of Americans who would and do applaud these murders. In the case of the Italian murder, however, they seem to be a bit out of step with their hero, the deranged Bush.

Bush and Rumsfeld have grovelled to Italy's crooked prime minister, Berlusconi, because their troops murdered an Italian citizen and wounded another. There was a phone call of apology from Air Force One to Rome the moment the news broke, and the Bush media machine trotted out the usual garbage about the car being attacked "by coalition forces". (This phrase is used by the Bush people to try to avoid acknowledgement that US troops have been criminally incompetent yet again.) Bush spoke to Berlusconi "to express his regret about the incident that occurred earlier today," and to assure "prime minister Berlusconi that the incident will be fully investigated." But there is never an investigation of the murder of Iraqis. To the US military and to millions of tragically disturbed Americans they are non-persons.

Iraqi lives do not matter. Just as in Hitler's Germany the Nazis referred to various sections of the population (Jews, gypsies and other 'antisocial elements') as the "untermenschen" -- the sub-humans -- so do US troops and the crazed bigots who bay for blood refer to Iraqis as "ragheads" -- the sub-humans. The Nazi regime was founded and fostered by people who thought along the lines of "Too bad the US troops didn't shoot her in the head and been done with trouble making people like her . . .". If people are trouble-makers, well, don't try to live with them ; don't try to understand them ; don't try to treat them as human beings: just shoot them. Or torture them. Or both. What the hell? The reasoning is that they are different to the superior people and therefore they should not be allowed to exist.

The attitude of millions of Americans is exactly that of the German supporters of fascism in the 1930s and early 1940s. They were encouraged to think of themselves as the Master Race and there were whole nations whose populations could be treated as inferiors, and they took pride in doing just that. The present wave of hysterical intolerance in the US makes the McCarthy years of persecution look benign, because the idea has been planted by Bush and his people that US citizens are superior in every possible way. There can be no admission of frailty, and no acceptance of equality. International law and treaties are ignored or treated with contempt, and human dignity has become irrelevant. Hysterical ultra-nationalism is thriving and gathering pace.

The director of the slippery slope to totalitarianism has beckoned his citizens, and they are responding with enthusiasm to his encouragement. War crimes are being committed by US troops and spooks on an extraordinary scale all round the world, but the biggest war crime is taking place in Washington: it is the twisting of the minds of the American people.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com
Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:28 pm
Quote:
So far, the only person on this forum I might even consider to be moderate might be Craven, but that's mostly because he is good at arguing both sides. Even still, I would still raise an eyebrow if I said he was.


So, the Mod is Mod? Too funny!

As for the dead Italian; who can say? The only thing that we can know, at our computers, is that the country isn't safe for anyone there right now, no matter what side you're on.

ps, Does anyone else find it ironic that Bush told Syria that 'free elections cannot be held under occupation?'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the position of the U.S. government is that the italians paid a ransom to get the return of their reporter - something to which we would not have agreed - and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S. No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint.


Exactly, they took a gamble based on emotion which had an unfortunate ending.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:39 pm
Brand X wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the position of the U.S. government is that the italians paid a ransom to get the return of their reporter - something to which we would not have agreed - and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S. No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint.


Exactly, they took a gamble based on emotion which had an unfortunate ending.


A gamble? Could you elaborate?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:41 pm
George wrote

"I believe the position of the U.S. government is that the italians paid a ransom to get the return of their reporter - something to which we would not have agreed - "

Why? What's it got to do with the US?

"and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S."

You might believe this, but is it true? Isn't it more likely nothing of significance happens in Baghdad these days without the Americans knowing about it...

"No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint."

They say they were travelling a moderate speed. Given no warning. Raked by fire from an armoured vehicle, not infantry weapons. Its a miracle anyone survived. And if it wasn't an accident, it was an act of war against an ally.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:44 pm
Oh I see BrandX all those emotional Italians, gambling that their allies would assist them not shoot them. How very silly of them.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:46 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
...
Maybe the Kurd's are less tolerant of the Baathist and al Qaeda insurgents than are the Sunnis in the Bagdad area. In other words, the Kurd's fight back and the Sunnis don't fight back.


You know I went back and thought about exactly what you were saying in this post yesterday. You are leaving the implication here that the Shiite's who are getting the most of the bombings from the insurgents deserve it because according to you they do not fight back.


I shall proceed to immediately dispel that implication. You wrote (my boldface emphasis is added):
"You are leaving the implication here that the Shiite's who are getting the most of the bombings from the insurgents deserve it because according to you they do not fight back."

First, no innocents deserve to be bombed whether they choose to fight back or not.

Second, I posted about the Sunnis in the Baghdad area, not about the Shiites.

Third, I wrote about the possibility that the Sunnis in the Baghdad area were more tolerant of the al Qaeda and Baathist terrorists among them than were the Kurds tolerant of these terrorists among them, and that may be illustrated by the fact that the Kurds have fought back and are fighting back against these terrorists among them, and the Sunnis in the Baghdad area do not appear to me to be fighting back against these terrorists among them.

Fourth, fighting back has proven more effective in suppressing these terrorists for the Kurds than not fighting back has proven effective in suppressing these terrorists for the Sunnis in the Baghdad area.


I made double sure that I read and reread again your post to try and understand it; this time, as it appears that I missed some things in your original post and was mistaken in the implication that I thought you were making.

I was talking about the Shiite's who are now being targeted so heavily by the insurgents since the elections.

I find it curious that the Kurds who also participated in the elections are not being targeted as well.

But you believe that the insurgents are rewarding the Kurds and not the Shiites (who are the subject in this discussion) because they fought back. Correct? Did not the Shiite's stage a rebellion as well? I seem to remember something to that effect. If so, your guess as to the reason why the Kurds seem to be left alone might not be accurate.

What evidence do you have that the Kurds are presently fighting back as opposed to the Shiite's?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Oh I see BrandX all those emotional Italians, gambling that their allies would assist them not shoot them. How very silly of them.


If you don't know the plan, you don't know who to protect. This was clearly a miscommunication or no communication case.

We'll see how this story developes.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
So far, the only person on this forum I might even consider to be moderate might be Craven, but that's mostly because he is good at arguing both sides. Even still, I would still raise an eyebrow if I said he was.


So, the Mod is Mod? Too funny!

As for the dead Italian; who can say? The only thing that we can know, at our computers, is that the country isn't safe for anyone there right now, no matter what side you're on.

ps, Does anyone else find it ironic that Bush told Syria that 'free elections cannot be held under occupation?'

Cycloptichorn


I do but I am not sure if by saying so I do you any favors.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:53 pm
Brand X wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Oh I see BrandX all those emotional Italians, gambling that their allies would assist them not shoot them. How very silly of them.


If you don't know the plan, you don't know who to protect. This was clearly a miscommunication or no communication case.

We'll see how this story developes.



No I dont think we will. Bush has said there will be an investigation which means thats the end of it as far as he is concerned
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 12:53 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Brand X wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the position of the U.S. government is that the italians paid a ransom to get the return of their reporter - something to which we would not have agreed - and arranged for the release without any coordination with the U.S. No surprise in these circumstances that a speeding vhecile travelling at night after the curfew was fired on as it approcached a U.S. checkpoint.


Exactly, they took a gamble based on emotion which had an unfortunate ending.


A gamble? Could you elaborate?


A secret Italian rescue operation being executed in a known war zone, suicide car bombs going off daily, the whole area saturated with armed US Military and these idiots are demanding an explanation for why our troops fired on a vehicle speeding towards them and failing to heed the numerous warnings?

Italy must have thought they were going to trump us, show how their "diplomacy" worked better than our "brute force and aggressive ways". Their minds were already leaping ahead to the parties and media celebration. God forbid they'd let any brutish American troops get in the limelight. The blood of that agent is on the terrorist's hands, not ours. The very same terrorists Italy's people want to run and hide from.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 01:00 pm
Amazing: U.S. soldiers gunned down or blown up by rockets or short range missles or car bombs have 'to expect that sort of thing' since they are in a war zone--get them out of the war zone some say. You can't blame the terrorists that U.S. solders are being killed.

But the U.S. soldiers after warning a speeding car to stop, after firing warning shots, in the dark, after curfew, should have allowed the car to approach and politely asked the occupants for I.D. If the car was a car bomb, well the U.S. soldes weren't supposed to be there in the first place, right?

Even though the Iraqis themselves have requested the U.S. troops stay, Cyclop and Revel consider our troops an 'occupation' and no different from Syrian troops in Lebanon.

Our administration promises an investigation into the matter of the shooting but some thinks pigs will fly before anything come from that. The very same people think it's just fine that the U.N. conduct its own internal investigation into the OFF scandal.

And there isn't even a full moon right now. I just don't undertstand I guess.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 09:12:06