Al-Jazeera bombed....

[Alfred]

I would like to condemm the bombing of the Al-Jazeera media headquarters in Baghdad.

Clearly, this was an attempt to terrorize and inflict wounds upon the Al Jazerra network for their support of freedom loving Muslim patriots like Sadaam, Bin Laden, Arafat and Assad.

The US used poor judgement in bombing this faciltiy, and in fact needlessly injured several Al-Jazeera operatives.

To be humaine, the Americans should have used a bigger bomb.

I hope this error in judgement will not occur again.

[Am Yisrael]

I know of a man who dished out on getting world-wide Sattelite channels (I mean probably MOST of the worlds channels). Anyway this guy is another Iraqi exile who has made a good living here in Britain. He took me round to his house the other day and showed me the TV. Not only did it contain Al Jazeera but it also had Saddams very own TV network. Anyway, this channel must be the best damn propoganda channel I had ever seen. Saddam on the adverts.. Saddam in the documentaries... Saddam doing a speech... the feckin channel was full of this guy. I couldnt stand it. So then the guy showed me Al Jazeera.. and guess what??? the same adverts on "Channel Saddam" was being showed on Al Jazeera. No wonder so many arabs are volunteering to die. Its like hell having a big fat ugly ogre on your TV screen for 30yrs flat. They could at least make new films now and again. I couldnt even last 10 mins watching that sh!t!!

[Northlander]

Dont worry Alfred. Your beloved US army is doing a good job in killing and terrorising the international media in Iraq.

12 dead journalists so far from US/British fire.

Al Jazera, Abu Dhabi and the hotel palestine hit at the same day.
Coincidence? Harldy.

A swedish jounalist at hotel palestine says today that Al jazera are leaving iraq. The spanish Tele 5 is considering leaving too after their loss of Jose Couso.

However, many of the international journalists are more afraid of moving since they claim that convoys leaving Baghdad are targeted deliberately by the americans.

This was cold blooded murder according to many of the journalists in place. There was no chance that the camera was misstaken for a sniper rifle. And regardless, the 3 buildings full of media should be well known by the american soldiers by now and therefore not targeted.

[Mediocrates]

I heard a rep from the Int'l Journalists'....group, that agency that coordinates Journalists around the world. At any rate he said that while it was a legitimate journalistic decision for al Jazeera to be there in order to collect the Iraq perspective on the war, they, more than anyone knew they were in an area that was going to be targeted. That is, they sought out an extremely dangerous place to be. Not and excuse mind you simply a statement of fact.

[unbiased]

From what I can tell Al-Jazeera is perhaps the most liberal muslim news media center that exists.

Do they actually lend support to terrorists?

Didn't the Iraqi's even ask them to leave?

I am not so sure....

Do you have evidence of this?

Unbiased


Originally posted by Alfred
I would like to condemm the bombing of the Al-Jazeera media headquarters in Baghdad.

Clearly, this was an attempt to terrorize and inflict wounds upon the Al Jazerra network for their support of freedom loving Muslim patriots like Sadaam, Bin Laden, Arafat and Assad.

The US used poor judgement in bombing this faciltiy, and in fact needlessly injured several Al-Jazeera operatives.

To be humaine, the Americans should have used a bigger bomb.

I hope this error in judgement will not occur again.

[Alfred]

Some things to think about....even Northlander might be able to understand..


1. Somebody starts shooting at you from the Palestinian Hotel. You look up and see, 300 meters away, somebody pointing a black thing at you from the 15th floor. You shoot back. You just shot a cameraman pointing his camera at you.

2. The Press was told...before the war...that they should leave and that there were no "safe zones" in a war.

3. The wonderful, brave Iraqi soldiers...who hold up children in front of them and fire at the Americans, would NEVER think of shooting from the area of the Media.

4. If I were Sadaam, I would be hiding in a tunnel underneath the quasi safe Palestinian Hotel...or under the big Mosque that we all see every day.


The statue of Sadaam fell today. I would like to dedicate its fall to Northlander, Yehudi, Mimil and Takeo.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Alfred
The statue of Sadaam fell today. I would like to dedicate its fall to Northlander, Yehudi, Mimil and Takeo.

:D Without their valiant efforts and support, it never would have happened.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
I know of a man who dished out on getting world-wide Sattelite channels (I mean probably MOST of the worlds channels). Anyway this guy is another Iraqi exile who has made a good living here in Britain. He took me round to his house the other day and showed me the TV. Not only did it contain Al Jazeera but it also had Saddams very own TV network. Anyway, this channel must be the best damn propoganda channel I had ever seen. Saddam on the adverts.. Saddam in the documentaries... Saddam doing a speech... the feckin channel was full of this guy. I couldnt stand it. So then the guy showed me Al Jazeera.. and guess what??? the same adverts on "Channel Saddam" was being showed on Al Jazeera. No wonder so many arabs are volunteering to die. Its like hell having a big fat ugly ogre on your TV screen for 30yrs flat. They could at least make new films now and again. I couldnt even last 10 mins watching that sh!t!!

I get pretty much the same feeling when I watch Fox news.

[Northlander]

1. Somebody starts shooting at you from the Palestinian Hotel. You look up and see, 300 meters away, somebody pointing a black thing at you from the 15th floor. You shoot back. You just shot a cameraman pointing his camera at you.

BS,BS,BS. You enter the bridge in a tank. You perfectly well knows which building is the Palestine hotel. Its to you right a few hundred meters away. Clearly you know that.
A sniper rifle cant hurt you inside a tank as you perfectly well know. It was not a RPG 7 you know. No one else saw fire from the hotel, its the soldiers words against a whole bunch of journalists on this. I belive the journalists. HAD there been fire, 300 meter is no lenght with optical equipment to see that the journalists with the camera were not in a aggressive posture.


2. The Press was told...before the war...that they should leave and that there were no "safe zones" in a war.

The press as you know should never leave becasue then your soldiers as well as the iraqis would have free hands to do what they like with civilians. "Safe zones" are one thing but deliberate targeting is another.

3. The wonderful, brave Iraqi soldiers...who hold up children in front of them and fire at the Americans, would NEVER think of shooting from the area of the Media.

Im sure they would. But this time they didnt so its irrelevant.

4. If I were Sadaam, I would be hiding in a tunnel underneath the quasi safe Palestinian Hotel...or under the big Mosque that we all see every day.
That Im sure you would but then they would find you.


The statue of Sadaam fell today. I would like to dedicate its fall to Northlander, Yehudi, Mimil and Takeo.

That you can do how much you like. I kinda enjoyed seeing it fall.

What I will do is dedicate the next terrorist attack on americans to you and you likes Alfred. The world will be so much safer from now on. Any news on Osama? Im sure he is busy as hell reading thousands of job applications right now while you are destroying statues in iraq.

[cerulean]

Although the journalists would have no one but themselves to blame for staying in the midst of a war zone, it appears the US didn't kill them. The Iraqis did. Even the Guardian says this.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,932481,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilligan casts doubt on source of hotel attack
Ciar Byrne
Tuesday April 8, 2003
Palestine Hotel: two journalists died after today's attack


The BBC's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan has cast doubt on whether the missile that killed two journalists in Baghdad today was fired by a US tank, speculating that Iraqi soldiers may have launched the lethal attack.
The US military has admitted one of its tanks fired on the Palestine Hotel, the centre for most of the foreign media in the Iraqi capital.

However, Gilligan said reports from central command in Qatar were starting to suggest US tank fire was not responsible for the deaths of Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman with the Spanish TV network Telecinco.

Three other Reuters journalists and an Abu Dhabi TV staff member were injured when an explosion hit their room on the 15th floor of the hotel.

"I may be right in saying we're hearing from central command that they're starting to retract their apology for this incident," Gilligan told Radio 5 Live's drivetime show.

He added that after examining the scene he concluded it was virtually impossible for the US tank to have fired on the 15th floor room.

"I have to say I rather doubt it and, having been underneath it and looking up now just before it got dark at the hole again in the side of the hotel, I still doubt it. . . .

[Northlander]

Interesting.

However we saw the tank fire and it seem strange that they should have missed the whole hotel. So where did the grenade go?

Maybe both sides fired at the hotel at the same time but then we would have got two hits on the hotel. Strange to say the least.
Im sure we havent seen the last of this.

[Mediocrates]

No you probably have. For the most part. Last year over 50 journalists were killed covering brush wars and conflicts. It DOES come with the job.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
BS,BS,BS. You enter the bridge in a tank. You perfectly well knows which building is the Palestine hotel. Its to you right a few hundred meters away. Clearly you know that.[quote]

How do you know that they knew that? Wouldn't it be more apparent that someone was shooting at you from "a building", first? You forget that these troops aren't in a tour bus on a sightseeing trip...

[quote]A sniper rifle cant hurt you inside a tank as you perfectly well know. It was not a RPG 7 you know.

The sniper takes a few shots, lays down his weapon, and picks up the RPG. Why would they wait for that to happen?


No one else saw fire from the hotel, its the soldiers words against a whole bunch of journalists on this. I belive the journalists.

It is irrelevant what you or the journalists believe or disbelieve about that combat situation. Best advice to the journalists; don't be in Baghdad, as they were told. It's dangerous there....


HAD there been fire, 300 meter is no lenght with optical equipment to see that the journalists with the camera were not in a aggressive posture.

Journalists in agressive postures?


The press as you know should never leave becasue then your soldiers as well as the iraqis would have free hands to do what they like with civilians.

So you are saying the Iraqi civilians were throwing flowers and kissing the troops for the benefit of Al Jazeera cameramen? I'm wondering why the citizens of Basra we're beating the hell out of the Al Jazeera reporters and then chased them by car, all the way back to the Kuwait border, yesterday? You think it was because we told them to?


"Safe zones" are one thing but deliberate targeting is another.

If we were deliberately targeting civilians and journalists in Baghdad, there wouldn't be any there, right now.....


What I will do is dedicate the next terrorist attack on americans to you and you likes Alfred.

So you now reveal your stance on terrorism? I think this pretty much removes any of the last bit of credibility have displayed on this forum.


The world will be so much safer from now on. Any news on Osama?

He's still the number one t*rd on the parade and we're still looking to congratulate him on his leading of the band. Also, he could use a smart guy like you on his team. Since lots of them are now taking dirt naps, he's understaffed. Why don't you go join him? Who knows? You might even float up enough to become number two.

[Northlander]

The sniper takes a few shots, lays down his weapon, and picks up the RPG. Why would they wait for that to happen?

The journalist takes a few shots, lays down his camera and picks up the RPG you mean?


It is irrelevant what you or the journalists believe or disbelieve about that combat situation. Best advice to the journalists; don't be in Baghdad, as they were told. It's dangerous there....

Its even more dangerous when both sides deliberately target them and try to scare them away. 3 hits the same day on media targets by US army.


Journalists in agressive postures?

I ask you. Your flyers told iraqis to not enter aggressive postures.
Maybe you should have told media cause just holding the camera is clearly aggressive.


So you are saying the Iraqi civilians were throwing flowers and kissing the troops for the benefit of Al Jazeera cameramen? I'm wondering why the citizens of Basra we're beating the hell out of the Al Jazeera reporters and then chased them by car, all the way back to the Kuwait border, yesterday? You think it was because we told them to?

No Im not saying all that.


If we were deliberately targeting civilians and journalists in Baghdad, there wouldn't be any there, right now.....

Agreed, but you could also agree that if you just target them on one single day, three rapid blows, its possible to scare them all away without having a international crisis on your hands. Accidents happens so easily in a dangerous situation wouldnt you say?


So you now reveal your stance on terrorism? I think this pretty much removes any of the last bit of credibility have displayed on this forum.

It doesnt reveal my stance on terrorism at all. I just pointed out that supporters of this war is responsible for future attacks on USA and others. Cause events like those we see now will turn into hatred and fear and in some instances violence in the future.
Maybe the father we saw crying over his dead daughter on TV.
Alfred and others keep this hatred alive. Im not in a position to dedicate anything to alfred I havent done myself and that goes for his dedication to me as well. Its just playing with words. This you know and you just wasting our time on cheap claims I am a terrorist supporter.

He's still the number one t*rd on the parade and we're still looking to congratulate him on his leading of the band. Also, he could use a smart guy like you on his team. Since lots of them are now taking dirt naps, he's understaffed. Why don't you go join him? Who knows? You might even float up enough to become number two.

Now we are talking, a whole sentence about Osama without mentioning Iraq. Progress I must say.
Im sure he wont be understaffed for long. There are probably thousands of ex-fadayeen, baath party members, anti-war protestors from Amman or what have you that are ready to fill the gaps now.
Cheap shot again on me joining Al-qaeda. Its like you giving up your comfortable life for anything totally futile. You and I are not that different remember? I enjoy sipping on the Bombay or the single malt far to much for all that stuff. Also its not my fight as long as you wont make reality of your childish threats on France and some others. Lets just play the boycott game for now and Im sure relations will get back to normal eventually without having all that.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
I enjoy sipping on the Bombay or the single malt far to much for all that stuff. Also its not my fight as long as you wont make reality of your childish threats on France and some others. Lets just play the boycott game for now and Im sure relations will get back to normal eventually without having all that.


I believe I know why the world wishes to portray the United States in such negative terms that we all know are not true. It's becoming apparent to me.

France and Germany created Iraq out of the collapse of the Ottoman Turks. From that time hence, Iraq has been a client state of France and Germany. That, I suspect, is the major reason France did not want America in Iraq. France had a good thing going, with Saddam's foot firmly on the neck of the Iraqi people. Saddam was able to "tame" the various tribes and France was able to reap the profits, from Saddam's insatiable desire for military might by supplying him with weapons, and, from the Iraqi oil fields.

France has orchestrated a propaganda campaign with a part of the model portraying America as colonialist country, knowing full well that is not true, and believing that America will withdraw from Iraq in order to prove to the world that it does not have colonial aspirations. France sees Iraq as hers, and is the one who drools over the Iraqi oil fields and the wealth to be derived from the same.

Oh. I've been meaning to ask you something, Northlander. How much involvement does Sweden have with France or French companies applicable to the Caspian Sea oil and gas reservoir? Does Sweden have any maritime contracts with France, Russia, or China in regards to oil exploration or shipping?

[Northlander]

Oh. I've been meaning to ask you something, Northlander. How much involvement does Sweden have with France or French companies applicable to the Caspian Sea oil and gas reservoir? Does Sweden have any maritime contracts with France, Russia, or China in regards to oil exploration or shipping?

Good point and a valid arguement if true. I will not pretend that I know for sure but will gladly look more into it. If anyone knows better feel free to inform me. Oil exploration is not something we have traditions in to say the least. The norwegians and the brits are far better equipped to get the contracts. But its not impossible we are involved in some way. A small involvement if any.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I believe I know the world wishes to portray the United States in such negative terms that we all know are not true. It's becoming apparent to me. Let us be realistic Johnny.

The US just took over a country with huge oil resources.

I know it did it in the name of:
- "overthrowing a cruel dictator", but the US themselves did put many cruel dictators in powers.
- "finding WMD" did you find them ? I'm still looking for all of these. I do not doubt you might find some but nothing worrying compared to what plenty of other countries have
- "link with ben laden and the twin towers". You know Baa'th and religious fanatics like BL are ennemies and I'm still looking for any proof saddam is behind the twin towers (Afghanistan did - the world supported you in eliminating the talibans -, Saudi Arabia did - but it's still a big ally of yours -.
- "preventative war" which is a brilliant brand new concept allowing to strike a country "because it could be menacing in the future".


but what I still see, is "the US squashed pretty easily a weak country and ... took over control of huge oil fields".
Ok let's say I'm sure this has nothing to do with any kind of imperalism and it is only love of democracy and freedom.

Are you as sure of this as I am, Johnny?

.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Let us be realistic Johnny.

Shall we?..... ;)


The US just took over a country with huge oil resources.

I know it did it in the name of:
- "overthrowing a cruel dictator", but the US themselves did put many cruel dictators in powers.

.... and you also know that we remove them; Samoza, Noriega, and on, and on, and on.



- "finding WMD" did you find them ? I'm still looking for all of these. I do not doubt you might find some but nothing worrying compared to what plenty of other countries have

... and if we find those countries giving them to those who would use them against us, what then?


- "link with ben laden and the twin towers". You know Baa'th and religious fanatics like BL are ennemies and I'm still looking for any proof saddam is behind the twin towers

I thought he already took credit for doing that; in his own words, I mean. Perhaps my memory fades.... Anyone else want to weigh in on that?


(Afghanistan did - the world supported you in eliminating the talibans -, Saudi Arabia did - but it's still a big ally of yours -.

I don't know how much of an ally Saudi Arabia will be, from this point forward. A representative government in the region presents a huge threat to the royal family.


- "preventative war" which is a brilliant brand new concept allowing to strike a country "because it could be menacing in the future".

I read, somewhere, there is nothing new under the sun, and I am finding it difficult to believe we have set a historical precedent; perhaps one for us, in view of how we have campaigned in the past, but I doubt it is the first time. But the fact remains that Saddam's regime and the Baa'th parties (as in Syria) in general, have direct links to terrorist organizations and we "are" in a war on terrorism, already. So in the strict definition of "preemptive strikes", I think this is not. It could be argued that this is a continuation of what is sure to be a long line of strikes against states that sponsor terrorism, post 9/11. But ask yourself, "Why are there terrorists from other Arab states fighting, even now, in Iraq, if Saddam's regime has no ties to terrorists? And why does he grant $25,000 rewards to families of suicide bombers, if he does not support terrorist activities? And why does he have terrorist training camps in Iraq, if he does not support them?".

But.... you told me to be realistic, so I will: We went to war with Iraq for all the reasons you have outlined, except that, it is a coincidence that their only natural resources are sand and oil. We don't need either. We have all the sand we need, right here, and we can buy our oil from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Russia. So why did we go into Afghanistan? Because they have nice dogs? Why did we go into Panama? Because they have nice hats that we wanted? It certainly wasn't for control of the canal; we already had that; hell, we built it, and we gave it to the Panamanians.... And why did we support the Contras and the eventual overthrow of the Sandinistas? Because Nicaragua has good cigars (which they do, BTW)? We can grow better tobacco (or at least we used to be able to, before the anti-tobacco people railed ) here in the Carolinas. So why would it be any different in Iraq? Do you realize how much oil we have off-shore in the lower 48 and also in Alaska, not to mention how many wells are capped off in Texas, California, and Oklahoma? Terrorism! It's all about the threat Hussein's regime posed to the region and his support of terrorism, and the threat terrorists pose to us. Liberating the people was a natural by-product of removing him.....


but what I still see, is "the US squashed pretty easily a weak country and ... took over control of huge oil fields".
Ok let's say I'm sure this has nothing to do with any kind of imperalism and it is only love of democracy and freedom.. Are you as sure of this as I am, Johnny?.

Weak country huh? As I recall, at the beginning of this conflict, many around the world and on this forum were claiming that the US was in for a much stiffer fight than what it actually turned out to be, or what the media portrayed it to be. I should also add that the media portrayals are very small slices of a big picture. I would not presume to try and tell those soldiers and marines that continue to fight that they have it "easy".

As far as our involvement having nothing to do with imperialism, yes, I am convinced that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I find myself continually repeating that we are there to A) eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, B) remove the regime of Saddam Hussein, and C) liberate the people of Iraq, help them set up a representative government and rebuild their infrastructure.

Even though helping them set up this representative government and rebuilding Iraq will be characterized as an occupation, so be it. We know why we are there and we will not allow other countries to swoop in and take advantage of the Iraqi people, while they are vulnerable. I'm sure all the European countries will have their opportunities to take advantage of them in the future, "after" we have helped Iraq rebuild and taught them how not to allow themselves to be so easily used.

[minusthejihad]

I love it! Damn straight. And realistic. It seems some can't handle the fact that we can do it and we can do it better than the rest. I love America and Israel!

[Mediocrates]

If anything America is guilty of not owning up to its colonialist responsibilities - not the other way around. The world was demanding we patronize, bribe, coerce and play up the big white bwanna role INSTEAD of moving in and kicking over the bazaar stalls. The Arab states aren't furious at us because we invaded Iraq. They're furious at us because we had to, because it highlights in perfect contrast their perfect subservient status and utter inability to master their own problems.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
If anything America is guilty of not owning up to its colonialist responsibilities - not the other way around.

I can still remember, when I was in Britain as a young boy, hearing adults referring to America as "the colonies". I was too young to understand the implication of what they meant, although my parents explained as best they could to a boy of nine. Still, I did not like the tone they used, when the limeys :rolleyes: spoke the word. It had a condescending ring to it. (Almost a half century later, that is still imprinted on those things easily recalled. Amazing...)

When we returned to "the States", and I learned American history, I understood the tyranny these "colonies" had withstood from "the crown" (yes... they brutalized the citizenry), and how we had shrugged off the yoke, with blood and guns.

So.... today, as an American, I personally am repulsed by the word "colonial"; it wreaks of tyranny and strikes deeply into the American psyche. It is the very reason 'why' it's being used in the propaganda model to try and keep us out of Iraq and the region.


The world was demanding we patronize, bribe, coerce and play up the big white bwanna role INSTEAD of moving in and kicking over the bazaar stalls.

..... as they play the game. Word games. I get sick and tired of hearing "it's a game". Damnit! It's not a game. It's peoples' lives. I think most Americans are least happy when they believe someone is "gaming" them. I know I am. Well now I suppose the world sees what happens when we finally get "gamed" enough.....



The Arab states aren't furious at us because we invaded Iraq. They're furious at us because we had to, because it highlights in perfect contrast their perfect subservient status and utter inability to master their own problems.

Good show, mate! Jolly good show!

Yesterday, I heard a foreign policy analyst say that it is rare for Arabs from one country visit another. He said, for the most part, they visit anywhere else "but" another Arab country, and because of that, the people -the little guys on the street- are ill-informed of what is happening just across their borders. They are spoon fed information and that is why those impromptu interviews on the Arab streets reveal the real "shock and awe" that Baghdad was overun. (Notice the omission of the word "fell"? The fighting is far from over. We have lots of terrorists to dispatch.) (Damn I'm glad they crashed the party. I hope more show up! We've got lots of guys with empty dance cards....)

[andak01]

Here are some photos of the war, from Al Jazeera and from the Pentagon. Which ones more accurately reflects the damage from the level of munitions that we claim to have dropped on Iraq? Incidently, it is almost impossible to find the photos of damage and death on the net anymore. The hackers have done a rather thorough job.

In the Pentagon's version of war coverage, nobody dies. Yet we know from their own account that over 2000 were killed in a day. No homes are blown up, everybody's happy. That's a great trick to take out the power supply and water pumps and sanitation in a city larger than Houston, allow looting of museums, libraries and hospitals and get nothing but smiling faces. It must be a war unlike any ever waged against a people that bear no resemblance to human beings.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/792615.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/785679.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/780429.jpg


http://www.regulareverydaypeople.com/burnedchild.jpg
http://www.regulareverydaypeople.com/injuredyoungIraqiboy.jpg
http://warrations.com/_tDeadIraqis100.jpg
http://warrations.com/_tDeadIraqis101.jpg
http://warrations.com/_tDeadIraqis103.jpg
http://warrations.com/_tDeadIraqis104.jpg

These from the L.A. Times
http://images.latimes.com/media/photo/2003-03/7127951.jpg
http://images.latimes.com/media/photo/2003-04/7402433.jpg

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by andak01
It must be a war unlike any ever waged against a people that bear no resemblance to human beings.


Really? Don't they all? I don't think anyone seeing the photog of the naked flaming Vietnamese orphan screaming down the road 30 years ago (Kim Phuc, June 8, 1972)were deluded into believing that war is nice.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_10/photoshr/45.htm


BTW that photog lead in a small way to the Pentagon eventually removing Napalm from their portfolio.

[Northlander]

You guys dont want to know how I feel about USA when I see pictures like that.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys dont want to know how I feel about USA when I see pictures like that.

How many saved? How many children would have rot in Saddams prisons? How many iraqis would be toture with electric cables? How many mutilated? It is the problem with some people that they feel if they can't see it, it does not exists. Millions of Iraqis have prayed and their prayer have been answer. It is "pro peace" (LOL LOL & LOL) camp that was ready to let them rot in Iraq because they where too chicken to confront tyrants. Sure the US did not do it solely to liberate the Iraqis, but the side effect of this policies is far better for the Iraqis that the anti-semitic, anti-american, anti-war, anti-anything and everything camp.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys dont want to know how I feel about USA when I see pictures like that.


That girl is now a woman and the last I heard she lives in Houston, Texas. She has rec'd numerous plastic surgery procedures and has much less scarring now.

Meanwhile is Lt. Calley still locked up? I thought Capt. Medina was released but I forget about Calley.

[Northlander]

...or UK for that matter.

Saddam is the creation of USA,Britain and France more than anything else. The iraqis can thank you all for their time with Saddam. For the torture and mutilation. Im perfectly aware of what he was about.
Now you kill their children to save them. Yeah right.
You are the chickens. You are pathetic wankers all of you.
Clusterbombs on a few cells of resistance in Basra. Some brave army you brits have. These pictures are the results.
If you support you wars that much at least have the guts to fight them out yourselves.

I think its fair to say that the iraqis would have been better of without any interference by west from the beginning.

You know nada about the side effects from this war yet.

[yoyo]

You "anti-everything" people are so obnoxious, it is unbelievable. You know there is no arm in saying "I was wrong", say it, you were wrong. And I am sure that Iraqis actually will prefer US or UK companies over European - especially French. Yes the west created frankeinstein, but it is up to the creator of frankeinstein to destroy it. The US not accepting Oil-for-Food, not wanting to give more money to a tyrant and on the over side, France having the majority of the oil-for-food programs ready to keep tyrannies in place to feel important. Who do you think Iraqis are going to choose?


Of course the "anti-war-pro-coward" camp would have prefer to sacrifice the Iraqis to Saddam. The same people are willingly, like in 1939, ready to sell the Jews - this time to the arabs to preserve...how did France put it..."peace and security". I think it was Franklin that once said "be very careful to sacrifice liberty for security"


Originally posted by Northlander
...or UK for that matter.

Saddam is the creation of USA,Britain and France more than anything else. The iraqis can thank you all for their time with Saddam. For the torture and mutilation. Im perfectly aware of what he was about.
Now you kill their children to save them. Yeah right.
You are the chickens. You are pathetic wankers all of you.
Clusterbombs on a few cells of resistance in Basra. Some brave army you brits have. These pictures are the results.
If you support you wars that much at least have the guts to fight them out yourselves.

I think its fair to say that the iraqis would have been better of without any interference by west from the beginning.

You know nada about the side effects from this war yet.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Really? Don't they all? I don't think anyone seeing the photog of the naked flaming Vietnamese orphan screaming down the road 30 years ago (Kim Phuc, June 8, 1972)were deluded into believing that war is nice.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_10/photoshr/45.htm

BTW that photog lead in a small way to the Pentagon eventually removing Napalm from their portfolio.

Vietnam was not a war with 'in bed with' journalists. BTW, each embedded journalist is given the rank of Major and eats and sleeps with the same accomodations.

My cousin took us to dinner the other night in her SUV. She says she's happy that the people of Iraq will finally know freedom. Would that it were true! Let's see how our country would survive for a week with no police or fire department. That's true freedom, blow your neighbor's brains out if they don't get you first. Vietnam wasn't ever nearly as developed as Baghdad. It had history, but it couldn't claim to be the cradle of civilization of the world.

But I'll say it again in case anyone gets me wrong. If all the thousands that died there prevented that many plus one from dying of WMDs, I would be the first to applaud our efforts. I didn't see the evidence going in, and I don't see it now.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by andak01 But I'll say it again in case anyone gets me wrong. If all the thousands that died there prevented that many plus one from dying of WMDs, I would be the first to applaud our efforts.

In other words, andak01 judges morality to be about numbers-not the petty and inconvenient difference between right and wrong. He will applaud the sacrifice of 999 people if it will save 1000 people. (I wish I could tell the future of what would have happened if only... Where does andak get his numbers, maybe a special crystal ball?) Apparently it makes no difference who is threatening who, self-defense or invader, murderer or a child. He apparently will applaud the sacrifice of 1000 innocent children to prevent the deaths of 1001 murderers. (at least using andak01’s calculator method). Ironically, or rather fittingly, andak’s only exception regards anything to do with Israel. Since the latest outbreak of intifada, the reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza has halted dozens of terrorist attacks EVERY DAY (or many thousands of terror victims lives + the lives of the murderers-otherwise known as 'myrters') have saved tens of thousands dead, but apparently this IDF enforced saving of +10,000's of lives is not worth the present death toll at 2250 people. Further, in andak's reasoning the Palestinians are 3x more peaceful than the Israeli's since the Palestinian casualty rate is 3x higher.

Since the Earth has about 6 billion people, it is therefore worth 6,000,000,000 human lives. Simply use a calculator to figure the rest.

As the Holy Koran proclaims “whosoever murders one innocent person is like killing the whole world, and whosoever saves an innocent life is like saving the whole of mankind“.(5:39) Therefore andak01, you are wrong. God has granted every single human life with infinite value. If I saved even andak01’s life (assuming he is an innocent person) it is as if I saved the whole world. Any heroic act which saves even a single innocent noncombatant is thus credited as if they have saved the whole world). The flipside is that the intentional targeting and killing of noncombatants, such as the murder a single 3 year old Israeli settler, would make one as evil and vile as the destroyer of the world.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by elreason4
Since the latest outbreak of intifada, the reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza has halted dozens of terrorist attacks EVERY DAY Did it ever occur to you that you are in fact that the occupation is producing dozens more terrorists every day....

Once you've made people jobless, when they are poor, they have no right to travel to look for a job or meet their family, when you have cut their electricity, drained their water... once they are finally hopeless they have nothing else to do than to blow themselves up trying to take some of their persecutors with them..




So let's make the calculation. There are one million people living in Gaza alone, dozens turn to terrorists and are 'eliminated' every day.

How long does it take to kill them all on the ground they are terrorists ?

.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
Did it ever occur to you that you are in fact that the occupation is producing dozens more terrorists every day.... This is essentially your unfounded opinion. And, even if true, you might go on to speculate about how fast those idiots will be killed. There's a lot of firepower present that didn't use to have such easy access to them.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys dont want to know how I feel about USA when I see pictures like that.

But of course, you now never have to see the pictures of another Kurdish town gassed, or another of Saddam's attrocities. But that's the crux of the problem. Doing something risks these kinds of images. And doing nothing guarantees them, but without the bad PR. For surely we would not have been able to blame the French (say) for NOT invading and the casualties which would have resulted from that.



You guys dont want to know how I feel about USA when I see pictures like that.

I've got another one:

Maybe you feel close to what Israelis do when they see pictures of little chilren killed ON PRUPOSE by Palestinian terorists, or when they see pictures of the terorists portrayed as heros, with streets named after them;

close?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Did it ever occur to you that you are in fact that the occupation is producing dozens more terrorists every day....

Once you've made people jobless, when they are poor, they have no right to travel to look for a job or meet their family, when you have cut their electricity, drained their water... once they are finally hopeless they have nothing else to do than to blow themselves up trying to take some of their persecutors with them..




So let's make the calculation. There are one million people living in Gaza alone, dozens turn to terrorists and are 'eliminated' every day.

How long does it take to kill them all on the ground they are terrorists ?

.

.................................... :confused: .....................................

...................Hmmmm.... Remember this?...................


Originally posted by yehudi
But I feel numbers are a monstruosity when talking about people dying.

.... but only when others are making the calculations. ;)

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
but only when others are making the calculations Well I gladly admit I can lack coherence sometimes, but I do not see any contradiction with my previous posts.



I meant to show the logic of turning people into terrorists and killing them twelve by twelve is meaningless. I did really not think anyone would be pervert enough to make the calculation.

So you DID calculate that Johnny? How many days it would take to exterminate everyone in Gaza.........I'm a bit worried with what is actually in your mind. Amongst the many people on this forum you were not the one I was expecting to get into that kind of monstruous calculations, Johnny

.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Well I gladly admit I can lack coherence sometimes, but I do not see any contradiction with my previous posts.



I meant to show the logic of turning people into terrorists and killing them twelve by twelve is meaningless. I did really not think anyone would be pervert enough to make the calculation.

So you DID calculate that Johnny? How many days it would take to exterminate everyone in Gaza.........I'm a bit worried with what is actually in your mind. Amongst the many people on this forum you were not the one I was expecting to get into that kind of monstruous calculations, Johnny

.

Well... at least you were right about one thing. I didn't try. Your equation was too vague.... (damn I wish there was a smilie that had "the finger" on it..)