Fallujah in pictures

[sexual_chocolate]

It really wasn't a question. They killed the head of an Iraqi aid organization. They killed a fellow muslim. They killed a helpless women. And for what reason? To send a message.

 

The torturing of Iraqi prisons is more than just unfortunate, and hopefully those officers that were supposed to be in charge of that prison get a fair trial that reflects their true guilt in the whole thing. Let's just remember that these people were imprisoned, and while 60 minutes or Nightline or whatever can do a story about how so and so was innocent and tortured at that prison, it's just one person out of a sea of guilty people. Does that justify them being tortured? No. But they also choose to be there which she did not.

 

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you are saying above.

And the last sentence loops me a bit. About how some perhaps deserve their fate more than others?

[jon]

Sorry Chuck, I guess the CIA forgot to drop report by for me to read. I'll call Condoleza right now to find out what the fucking deal is.

[chucK]

I'm a little taken back by your implication that the people the US has put in prison are somehow less innocent than the British/Iraqi woman.

 

They are certainly 'less innocent' if they had guns and were firing at our troops. There is no moral equivalency here.

 

I was talking here about civilians rounded up and sent to Abu Ghraib, not the guy who got executed in Fallujah on Saturday. There are tens of thousands of Iraqis, woman and children, dead by our weaponry, who never raised a gun and fired at our troops. I think it's these people that we're comparing to the CARE-woman victim.

[jon]

What is there not to get?

 

Don't twist my words. The people who were imprisoned did something to get there, guilty or innocent, but it doesn't justifiy their torture or death. They also deserve a fair trial. It didn't happen and it's an injustice, and people are going to pay for it. The women was abducted for no reason and killed and the video was sent to a TV organization. But it's ok because Allah told them to do it, and that's who they answer to.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I was talking here about civilians rounded up and sent to Abu Ghraib

 

None of them were firing at us, or sitting on top of weapons stockpiles (conventional weapons), or doing anything wrong?

 

not the guy who got executed in Fallujah on Saturday.

 

If he was unarmed, then I think that murder is not much different than the CARE worker's...

 

There are tens of thousands of Iraqis, woman and children, dead by our weaponry, who never raised a gun and fired at our troops. I think it's these people that we're comparing to the CARE-woman victim.

 

I don't equate the two. These civilians are not intentionally murdered. It is "collateral damage" - a horror of war, terrible, and tragic. The CARE worker was intentionally murdered in cold bold. It is personal. I equate the later to premeditated murder, and the former to something like "manslaughter". If it can be proven that we *intentionallY* target civilians with our bombs, well that is another matter...

[sexual_chocolate]

What is there not to get?

 

Don't twist my words. The people who were imprisoned did something to get there, guilty or innocent

 

Perhaps being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps being the wrong age? The wrong sex? Perhaps giving the evil eye to an american soldier who just invaded their country? Perhaps coming across an american with a bad hair-day?

Perhaps being an Iraqi?

 

but it doesn't justifiy their torture or death. They also deserve a fair trial. It didn't happen and it's an injustice, and people are going to pay for it.

 

Who do you think will pay for it? Will Bush pay for starting an illegal war? Will Powell pay for it for lying to the UN? Will the CIA pay for it by incorporating into their policy actions leading inevitably to the excessive use of force, and a climate conducive to the attrocities we have witnessed? (Remember that the onus is on the US, since WE invaded THEIR country! Don't get so self-righteous!

 

 

The women was abducted for no reason and killed and the video was sent to a TV organization. But it's ok because Allah told them to do it, and that's who they answer to.

 

That seems to be a bit of a racist generalization, not even worth addressing.

 

 

But, if this country was invaded, would you take up arms and strategize about how to fend off the invaders?

[jon]

Your funny. You are so brainwashed you don't even understand who is on your side and who isn't. And you are calling me self-righteous? Why because you don't think I agree with you.

 

The comment wasn't racists. Our soldiers answer to the military courts. They will be go to jail if they are guilty. The terrorists answer to Allah and they will not pay for killing these innocent people until we put a bullet in their head.

[jon]

Wait I get it. You are angry because I voted for Bush. Am I right?

[sexual_chocolate]

Yes it's true, I AM brainwashed. I try to wash my brain regularly of the type of jingoistic pablum that you ascribe to.

 

But! I digress.

 

Your assumptions are a marvel. You don't address a single point I make, yet you continue with your Norman Rockwell americanisms, about our "military court" justice and them bad "terrorists" and their pagan god "Allah".

 

So answer the following:

 

All US opposition in Iraq is the work of "terrorists"? Only "terrorists" are killing "innocent" people? The only justice for these alleged "terrorists" is a bullet in the head? (What happened to the military court.)

 

And in the above statement:

 

"The terrorists answer to Allah and they will not pay for killing these innocent people until we put a bullet in their head."

 

Which "terrorists" do you speak of? I guess you haven't heard that the guerrilla opposition to the US isn't comprised entirely of Muslim fanatics. There are even secularists who oppose us! Surprise Surprise!

 

And one more question:

 

Do you not see the guerrilla opposition in Iraq as "legitimate"? If someone invaded your country, would you fight back?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Do you not see the guerrilla opposition in Iraq as "legitimate"? If someone invaded your country, would you fight back?

 

I do. But only if they target our soldiers.

[sexual_chocolate]

Are those who provide assistance to the soldiers legitimate targets?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are those who provide assistance to the soldiers legitimate targets?

 

Assistance? Like intelligence? Collaborators? I'd say yes, but they need to *know* for sure that someone is doing it, not just suspect it.

 

BTW, I don't think of all the insurgents as terrorists - only some, maybe even a very small percentage.

[cj001f]

Are those who provide assistance to the soldiers legitimate targets?

Especially since those same jobs would have been performed by soldiers in past wars. We've outsourced the logistics of our army and somehow expect our enemy's to respect this.

[jon]

And what pablums do I ascribe to?

 

I don't address any of your points because you don't have one. What is your point? All you have shown is that you are good at making false assumptions, twisting my words, and using inaccurate facts and generalizations to try to gain leverage in an arguement that you are losing.

 

You answer my question in my previous post and I will answer your questions.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are those who provide assistance to the soldiers legitimate targets?

Especially since those same jobs would have been performed by soldiers in past wars. We've outsourced the logistics of our army and somehow expect our enemy's to respect this.

 

Please elaborate.

[sexual_chocolate]

About voting for Bush? I'm not angry about the election, nor who you voted for.

 

Perhaps this was your question?

 

And my point was that you have a one-sided view of the events in Iraq. You have cultural and national blinders on. Perhaps this is more apparent to me since I am not "american".

[sexual_chocolate]

[quote I'd say yes, but they need to *know* for sure that someone is doing it, not just suspect it.

 

Is this the same litmus test used by the US? "knowing", instead of suspecting?

 

And, it sounds like the only qualm you have with the Iraqi resistance is their resort to the kidnapping of civilians who could be thought of as perhaps only marginally aiding the US effort....

[glassgowkiss]

jon, the question is i suppose what the fuck are americans doing in iraq in the first place! in the meantime this coutry is declared "safe" by departing asscrapt. let me point out the fact, that since sep 11 2001 none of the citizens of soudi arabia are required to obtain a visa before entering united states!!! let me remind you, that none of the terrorists-hijackers were iraqis. more- 18 out of 19 were sauduis. and the whole operation was masterminded by saudis. so where is the logic? even more- there are theletons in soudi arabia auctioning art, gold and juwery to raise money, which goes directly to organizations like hamas. and what saudi officials do? nothing. to make it clear to you seems like soudis are the real enemy of this coutry, yet i don't see this administration talking about solving problem of arab terrorism in saudi arabia. wonder why.

even more- this administration treats their allays like crap. while turkey- a coutry that did not allow US troops into their contry- received over 2 billion $$ in military aid, while poland (we have over 2500 soldiers and over 100 dead) recived only 200 milion at the same time. where is the logic and fairness in that? try a direct and straight answer to these questions for one.

my answer is that this administration treats this coutry like their own private idaho and they are taking the nation for a nice ride. because if their interest was the same as most of the poeple here the sollutions are quite obvious to me.

[cj001f]

Please elaborate.

In prior wars supply trains were staffed with military personnel - convoys were driven by soldiers, meals were fixed by soldiers, repair work was done by soldiers. In Iraq the fuel trucks are driven by US contractors, the meals fixed by contractors. Same roles, same duties, different "boss" than in the past, and one that to my mind places themmin the role of unarmed combatant.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

If tanker trucks with fuel are driving into US bases every day making deliveries with foreign drivers at the wheel, then I think blowing up the trucks or shooting the drivers would be legitimate.

 

What is not legitimate is to kidnap foreign workers at random, hold them in some rathole as hostages making unreasonable demands, then stand behind them reading from the Q'uran, and beheading them alive - on videotape.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Please elaborate.

In prior wars supply trains were staffed with military personnel - convoys were driven by soldiers, meals were fixed by soldiers, repair work was done by soldiers. In Iraq the fuel trucks are driven by US contractors, the meals fixed by contractors. Same roles, same duties, different "boss" than in the past, and one that to my mind places themmin the role of unarmed combatant.

 

Thanks. Where are you reading up on these details? Our media doesn't seem to cover any of it.

[sexual_chocolate]

Yeah the beheadings are pretty grim.

 

As are children and mothers and brides and grooms and entire families being torn into pieces by cluster bombs and du bombs and kids losing their moms and dads and arms and innocence because of the invasion.

 

That's pretty grim too.

[sexual_chocolate]

And the latter seem to outnumber the "hostages" by oh, about a thousand to one.

 

That's also pretty grim.

[JayB]

I just want to give SC a big high five for his unrivalled determination to put scare quotes around 40% of the "nouns" he's been "using" in his "posts" "today."

Great stuff.

 

While we are on the scare quote issue, SC - here's a question for you. Has there ever been a single event in the past thirty years that you would acknowledge as an act of terrorism, or is it all just "terrorism."?

 

I am fully expecting to hear you reply that terrorism per se doesn't actually exist, and that every deliberate slaughter of civilians is a morally legitimate means of redressing some political grievance, no matter how trivial, and no matter how incongruous the ends are with the means employed. Exhibit A, should you need a place to begin, might be the deliberate slaughter of hundreds of Russian schoolkids by Chechen "terrorists."

[jjd]

jon, the question is i suppose what the fuck are americans doing in iraq in the first place! in the meantime this coutry is declared "safe" by departing asscrapt. let me point out the fact, that since sep 11 2001 none of the citizens of soudi arabia are required to obtain a visa before entering united states!!! let me remind you, that none of the terrorists-hijackers were iraqis. more- 18 out of 19 were sauduis. and the whole operation was masterminded by saudis. so where is the logic? even more- there are theletons in soudi arabia auctioning art, gold and juwery to raise money, which goes directly to organizations like hamas. and what saudi officials do? nothing. to make it clear to you seems like soudis are the real enemy of this coutry, yet i don't see this administration talking about solving problem of arab terrorism in saudi arabia. wonder why.

even more- this administration treats their allays like crap. while turkey- a coutry that did not allow US troops into their contry- received over 2 billion $$ in military aid, while poland (we have over 2500 soldiers and over 100 dead) recived only 200 milion at the same time. where is the logic and fairness in that? try a direct and straight answer to these questions for one.

my answer is that this administration treats this coutry like their own private idaho and they are taking the nation for a nice ride. because if their interest was the same as most of the poeple here the sollutions are quite obvious to me.

 

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU WHINY BITCH