They were not invited by the Iraqi government to come to Iraq . "THEY ONLY TARGET THE MILITARY" Really? are the police military, women,children? Like it or not,the US is the boss over there at the moment. If there are bombings etc aimed against the state and its people by a group operating outside the normal tenants of law ( which however much you don't like it) is set by the US , then they are terrorists
I strongly suspect the US mainland will be struck by terrorism within the next four years as a direct consequence of our actions in Falluja and Iraq. But this time, I suspect the terrorists will be Iraqi's rather than Al Quaeda. I also suspect some mainstream muslem scientists and chemists and biologists will began helping and aiding any terrorist group wishing to strike back at the US. Which means more sophisticated attacks such as chemical or biological. What we sow, we will reap. And we are painting a huge bullsize on mainland US. Al Quaeda has already demonstrated our vulnerability. Many, many others will want to follow their example after the world watches the terrorism of Falluja and remembers Abu Gharab. Of course after the next 9/11, the world will say we deserved it. No one has sympathy for a savage bully when someone hits them back.
the boss???? tenants of law??? do Geneva Conventions ring a bell? if someone comes on my land, i will not see them as a boss, in my eyes, the invaders are the terrorists for occupying, and for trying to take the place over, for the sake of their material interest.
If the Soviet Union had managed to invaded the US before their collapse, they would have been the boss. I would not have liked it, but it wouldn't have made it any less true. After a few months of violent resistance without any measurable progress, I might actually come to accept the matter, presuming they aren't actively sadistic and are actually trying to put the country back together. I sure as hell wouldn't attack aid workers. I sure as hell wouldn't attack guys trying to bring my water and power back online. I sure as hell wouldn't blow up a carbomb if it might kill American or Soviet noncombatants. And I sure as hell wouldn't try to blow up police stations filled largely with American policemen, even if they were working for the soviets.
I might actually come to accept the matter, presuming they aren't actively sadistic and are actually trying to put the country back together. You mean as long as the Russians wouldn't have done anything similiar to the US Army's sadistic activities at the Abu Gharab prison? It seems like we were using torture and sadism in Iraq.
I don't think the insurgents are unjustified in what they do. It's despicable, but it's nothing less than human. They're terrorists, no doubt about that. However, the majority of their tactics aren't much different than anyone else's. Israel's threatened to assisinate Iranian nuclear scientists if they do not stop pursuing atomics. Insurgent suicide bombers do lots of collateral damage; so do our tomahawks and tanks. The insurgents target the police because they work with the Great Satan; we'd target (and do target) the civilians that work with the insurgency. We don't attack aid workers, that's true. That's really ugly, but in the same situation, I don't think we'd do anything different. I think the Soviet invasion is a good example. If the Soviets were occupying my town, I'd kill every single communist bastard who wanted to take my country; man, or woman, regardless of whether they carried kalashnikovs or borsch. I know every right winger who condemns the insurgents as animals would be committing the same acts if America was occupied. This is a simple case of us and them.
I mean as long as I don't see Russian soldiers doing sadistic despicable things on a daily basis. No raping women on the street, extorting money from poor shopkeepers, clubbing people into the dirt because of a percieved insult, or machine gunning protesters. If the Russians had done an Abu Gharab style thing to Americans, I would be pissed. I would want those soldiers put away in some particularly nasty gulag to discover some sodomy of their own... but I certainly would not want their heads. I certainly wouldn't blame all of Russia for what a few stupid soldiers decided to do for kicks. Nor would I go on and behead a bunch of people to get even. And this is coming from the guy everyone here thinks of as the warmongering reactionary right-wing nutcase.
You are a very forgiving man, clockwood. I respect you for that. Unfortunately, the majority of people in Abu Gharab were scooped up in mass raids and guilty of nothing. What if you or your brother or your father or one of your kids were grabbed out of their homes and tossed into Abu Gharab for months on end. What would you do then?
Knowing my brother's old frathouse, being stripped nude and put in a pile with a dozen other guys wouldn't have been anything new for him. He would have been most upset about the lost time and would end up poking fun at himself afterwards. Of course I would be worried about him while he was gone. And I would be pissed. Damn pissed. But still not enough to go out and kill somebody. Plus, I would know that the bigger the retrobution against the Russians, the harder they would hold on to any prisoners. I would go through any official channels I could, up to and past bribery, and I would go to the media... if the Soviet Union had actually had one. Blowing anything up or taking hostages would be way beyond counterproductive though.
Yes it does ring a bell.I was a serving soldier and am familiar with it. It pertains to the MILITARY. Terrorists are not military.
Still waiting for your reply Swam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you going to explain the geneva convention and how it should protect terrorists ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
that means if a US soldier cuts a terrorist's head off, it's a war crime but if a terrorist cuts a soldier's head off, it's not even going to be labeled as such all the emotion, damnation, and history attached to that word is not going to be connected with the terrorist. despite the fact that the act is the same, the guy gets a free ride. in fact, people come out and say "it is NOT a war crime", and "he is NOT a war criminal". all because of some technicality in the legal definition of what is a war criminal. don't you find it stupid that people try to label things like that? that they try to put rules on war and say that it's justified in one instance and not justified in another? a mob lynching, gutting, burning-alive, decapitating, and hanging off of a bridge some people, is apparently not a war crime because of one legal definition or another technicality - and therefore does not deserve condemnation the absurdity is mind-boggling
these Geneva Conventions are completely outdated. they apply to nation-wars... not to the new kind of war being fought today... that, at least, goes for the global fight against terrorism. Geneva Conventions are completely irrelevant and unconnected with that fight. a new set of rules should be drawn up - say... the Toronto Conventions ... and then stuck to. as far as Iraq is concerned, if you have a gun in your hand and are aggressive, you are no longer a protected person. if a mosque stores weapons caches, it is no longer a protected place. if a hospital is a sharp-shooter's nest, it is no longer a protected place. if a population hides combatants among its midst, that population is no longer protected. if a combatant is firing from behind a child, that child is no longer protected ... and that is all following those Geneva Conventions. i wonder if anyone can point to any alleged violations that the US has commited, and then quote me the appropriate Convention.
Absoloutley . don,t know if you've seen it yet, but a US marine ( think he's a marine) was caught on film by a TV crew shooting a terrorist in the head. Bit of a PR no no . The terrorist was wounded and laying on the floor at the time. Me, i have no problem with that. He's your enemy and as such could still be a threat, so yup ,blow his brains out. But lets sit back and watch the shitstorm develop. Oh yeh, did i mention he shot him in a mosque, and he was unarmed-oops Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...let the propaganda attack begin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (... this was hung in a room where people were voting to choose their President) Me, i have no problem with that. He's your enemy and as such could still be a threat, so yup ,blow his brains out. sure.. splatter it on the wall if you have to... the question is did he follow rules of engagement. i know often soldiers are required to verify the kill. was it required though? if the terrorist is of the type that would blow up people buying potatoes in a market, if he's the type of guy who'd strap on a bomb belt and detonate, maybe the rules of engagement say "verify, then verify again, 5 or 6 more times" otherwise... i just don't know. i think you've seen real war and are more familiar with all its realities. us couch- / computer potatoes can say "don't kill" but i guess we just don't know what it's like out there.
I feel really sorry for the guy that shot him. The BBC say he was shot and wounded yesterday, but was out on patrol today when it all kicked off. From what i saw of the film ( of course its to strong to show us the real horrors of combat over our cornflakes at breakfast) they seemed to be following rules of engagement. But if i was in there and they were twitching at all after a firefight, i pretty sure i'd pop a couple of rounds in whoever just to be on the safe side. Mind you some of the guys i served with would of realised the Tv were filming and would of probably shot them as well! (joke) But doing him in a mosque- thowing petrol on a fire syndrome ?
...I guess the guy was only an inch from his own death the day before and felt like getting rid of his bad karma Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let's keep in mind; - The event took place in a combat environment - The "insurgents" are know for boobie-trapping their wounded/dead - Some of them (by no means all) would love to take a bunch of US soldiers with them - This incident will get MUCH more play and touch off MUCH more hand wringing than this ; http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostage_12 Barkhorn.
