NationStates Jolt Archive

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

When you start brutally mutilating non-military personnel is mass riots, then order news crews to cover it... you VOID YOUR RIGHTS.

When people do crap like that, they lose their right to gather, they lose their right to speak freely, they lose their right to stay up late, everything.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

When you start brutally mutilating non-military personnel is mass riots, then order news crews to cover it... you VOID YOUR RIGHTS.

When people do crap like that, they lose their right to gather, they lose their right to speak freely, they lose their right to stay up late, everything.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

You've got the right to remain occupied. Anything you say can or will cause your death... :roll:

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

That's a stretch Anbar. You know I'm against this war, and you know I'm a critic of many actions and policies that have been put in place in Iraq, but if the US wanted to "kill anything that moves", the city would have been overrun by now.

That being said, I think that using gunships over urban areas is a certain recipe for collateral damage that should be avoided.

-Z-

And the fact that Fallujah is full of hundreds of militants seizing the city and attacking US Marines (not exactly intelligent) might not indicate that the vast majority of those 450 (in a city of 200,000) were insurgents? Considering that these people are firing at US forces from inside occupied buildings and mosques, might make some civilian losses unavoidable, even though we did call a ceasefire and allowed women and children to leave the city, and anti-us supporters to bring supplies in? How dare you accuse us of that....shame on you!

That few? I'd think thousands would be dead by now, if it really is genocide. Civilian killings are deeply regretful, but I'm sure little can be argued that the coalition is doing the most it can to reduce civilian casualties. Besides, I'm sure quite a few of those 450 killed were militants that did have it coming.
And consider this. There's a cease-fire right now. I don't know if it broke, as I heard reports that gunfire was heard on April 9 (a year after the fall of Baghdad). But the fact that we're willing to negotiate with these people, the scum that some of them are, is really quite amazing.

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

That's a stretch Anbar. You know I'm against this war, and you know I'm a critic of many actions and policies that have been put in place in Iraq, but if the US wanted to "kill anything that moves", the city would have been overrun by now.

That being said, I think that using gunships over urban areas is a certain recipe for collateral damage that should be avoided.

-Z-
True, true. If we were really interested in genocide, let's just say we have a few thousand nukes left over from the Cold War. We could've very easily blown every square inch of Iraq to a wasteland right now, but I think you'll agree that we haven't, and most Americans don't even want to consider the thought of doing that (including myself).

When you start brutally mutilating non-military personnel is mass riots, then order news crews to cover it... you VOID YOUR RIGHTS.

When people do crap like that, they lose their right to gather, they lose their right to speak freely, they lose their right to stay up late, everything.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

So Charles Manson's crimes were reason enough to declare martial law and shoot everyone in sight?

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

Wow Al Anbar, that is un-freaking real. I guess the Iraqi's are really enjoying American style liberation.. too much.

Oh and for Raysia - those 4 guys were not "civilians" exactly either, they were paid mercenaries.. not exactly innocent civilians.. not that I think what happened to them was ok or any thing because I don't. It was downright wrong. However, this response is way over the top. 450 killed and 1000 wounded is not liberation, it's mass murder.

When you start brutally mutilating non-military personnel is mass riots, then order news crews to cover it... you VOID YOUR RIGHTS.

When people do crap like that, they lose their right to gather, they lose their right to speak freely, they lose their right to stay up late, everything.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

You've got the right to remain occupied. Anything you say can or will cause your death... :roll:

Exactly.

These people don't want to be occupied. The people in the south don't want to be occupied. Only the idiot Kurds want the US. The US should move to Kurdistan (borders prior to war in Iraq, Kirkuk and Mosul and such still Iraqi) and go live there again. The US has caused so much death, destruction, and problems in Iraq.

Go help Afghanistan, the really backwards country where al-Qaida and Taliban still fight and exist. Go help them who live in real poverty. Go spend $87 billion in Afghanistan, not the $4 or so billion you spend there now.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

I agree this isn't genocide, but it is turning into a total quagmire. I suggest if you want some one to blame for all this you should be putting it where it belongs.. in your next vote for president.. and take the mad man out of office who put all you good guys and gals over there to die for a cause that was based on a lie. You want some one to blame, you've already got him, his name is George W. Bush! ..

I know you're severing your country.. and kudos to you for doing so.. an honorable thing. However, your president has you good people over there dying for a war that didn't need to happen. I bet your friends would of much rather died trying to catch Al Qaeda and bin Laden, the people who actually attacked America!

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

When you start brutally mutilating non-military personnel is mass riots, then order news crews to cover it... you VOID YOUR RIGHTS.

When people do crap like that, they lose their right to gather, they lose their right to speak freely, they lose their right to stay up late, everything.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

You've got the right to remain occupied. Anything you say can or will cause your death... :roll:

No, you see Americans shooting at people discourages those being shot at from feeling happy when Americans get killed...

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.


No, I will not. They joined up to kill and be killed. Simple. There is no honour in taking lifes of over people or dying for retardedness. If they were conscripted, then it would be different, but when they join up to kill and be killed, too bad.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

Don't forget - those men and women serve to protect things like freedom of speech. You may disagree with Anbar on this one, but starting your response with "just shut up" is not terribly constructive either.

-Z-

I AM a United States Marine.

OK, gunboy, prove it.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

You forget that not everyone here is American and therefore they aren't "our service people", and no, I don't honor your service people, nor do I respect them.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

You forget that not everyone here is American and therefore they aren't "our service people", and no, I don't honor your service people, nor do I respect them.

Isn't Tumaniaa the nation from Charlie Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'?

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

Don't forget - those men and women serve to protect things like freedom of speech. You may disagree with Anbar on this one, but starting your response with "just shut up" is not terribly constructive either.

-Z-

Fair enough, But he's more asking him to show some basic respect and human decency. Good lord, imagine what the Iranian army would have done to Iraq if they had occupied the sunni areas and faced insurgents? I respect and support Liberty Fighters for his service... God bless you...

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

You forget that not everyone here is American and therefore they aren't "our service people", and no, I don't honor your service people, nor do I respect them.

Isn't Tumaniaa the nation from Charlie Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'?

Yes it is :D

Heil Hinkel

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

While not fair, this is the most completely true statement.
Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.

Would this kind of resistance or any kind have been posibile under Sadam. Surely the mere fact they are able to rebel is evidence they are able better off under the US and coallition.
Also show some respect to the marine. He doesn't have to prove who he is to any of you. No matter what you may think of the war it does not give you any excuse to insult any man that way. Especially a man who has fought for his country. I am British and I want to say thankyou to the marines as well as every other serviceman out their well done, Iraq and the rest of the world is a better place without Sadam.

Apparently Fallujah is being beseiged because the US forces want to flush out and arrest or kill those responsible for the killing and mutilation of four US civilians last week...

...if we're to agree that the situation in Iraq is still on a 'war' footing, whether 'high-intensity' (all-out war) or 'low-intensity' (civil war, guerrilla conflict), then from my point of view, I can say only this: it's a tragedy that those men lost their lives, and what was done to their bodies was depraved, but they were idiots. Sorry, it had to be said- there were many US marines at a nearby base interviewed by reporters who said as much and more. Being ex-military, those guys should really have known better. However they did not deserve to die like that.

Now if they had been serving military, it might have been a different matter, but I don't think it's proportionate to lay a whole city to siege to 'avenge' those guys. Yes, there were many people who took part in the killing and aftermath, as pictures show, but in past wars these things have happened and the generals and politicians have not allowed it to divert their plans. The difference now is that the media are everywhere- you could say the killings represent a challenge to the Americans, as if Fallujah was saying "look what we do to your men, come here and fight us, we dare you", whilst the American public, having seen the pictures (or at least had the horror described to them) put pressure on the Armed Forces and politicians to avenge the deaths with a vengeance.

Fallujah might be a basket case compared with the rest of Iraq, though I doubt it, but one thing the Americans could have done is to let the people of Fallujah see the successes elsewhere, and let them decide if they want to carry on as they are or share in the prosperity of the rest of Iraq. Sadly, it seems the response was entirely as Fallujah wanted, and now dignitaries are getting involved and using terms like 'genocide', which is whooly unwarranted but paints a picture of the inhabitants as victims (though the vast majority probably are, having had nothing to do with the killing or mutilation). On the whole, I don't think those men's deaths deserved such a heavy response, and I don't think the response itself adds anything to the US aim in Iraq, and may in fact hinder it.

The likes of Eisenhower might have let this one go... I don't think CNN, FOX, the BBC and Al-Jazeera will let today's generals do that though. Is that a good or a bad thing?

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

While not fair, this is the most completely true statement.
Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.

That's about the stupiest thing I've ever heard.

Might does not equal right. I'm not even going to bother. Bah! :roll:

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.
Please, Al Anbar, the worse thing to say is that people have died in vain. They didn't. And as you and I probably will agree on, not even the Iraqis died in vain. Despite whether or not I agree with their cause, or think of them as horrible, they have not died in vain. No one does, if you think about it.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

While not fair, this is the most completely true statement.
Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.

Well then, I have a knife.
Give me your wallet then get on your knees and smile like a donut.

Apparently you aren't allowed to do anything about this, because I have a knife and you're unarmed.

I heard the twelve soldiers who died the other day was the highest single-day death toll since the beginning of the conflict, including the rush to Baghdad. ~ Michael.

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.While not fair, this is the most completely true statement. Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.Well then, I have a knife. Give me your wallet then get on your knees and smile like a donut. Apparently you aren't allowed to do anything about this, because I have a knife and you're unarmed.That's not a knife. *pulls out a Bowie knife* Now that's a knife. ~ Michael.

Would this kind of resistance or any kind have been posibile under Sadam. Surely the mere fact they are able to rebel is evidence they are able better off under the US and coallition.


Ummm, not buying that one. After all, the no-fly zones were put in place because Saddam was smacking down the revolts by the Shi'ites and the Kurds.

The only diference now is that both Sunnis and some Shi'ites are rebelling against occupation, while the Kurds are rather smartly standing back, consolidating their hold on their territory, and biding their time until after the US leaves to press for independance. They also have the advantage of having almost no US troops stationed in their region.

-Z-

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.While not fair, this is the most completely true statement. Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.Well then, I have a knife. Give me your wallet then get on your knees and smile like a donut. Apparently you aren't allowed to do anything about this, because I have a knife and you're unarmed.That's not a knife. *pulls out a Bowie knife* Now that's a knife. ~ Michael.

*points his 12 inch dagger*

Now, you were commenting on my knife being inferior?

Don't piss off the guys with the bombs.

While not fair, this is the most completely true statement.
Welcome to reality kids, Might makes Right.

That's about the stupiest thing I've ever heard.

Might does not equal right. I'm not even going to bother. Bah! :roll:

Don't piss off the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives in plane crashes, suicide bombs etc. for their cause. Long live Saddam.

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

Wow Al Anbar, that is un-freaking real. I guess the Iraqi's are really enjoying American style liberation.. too much.

Oh and for Raysia - those 4 guys were not "civilians" exactly either, they were paid mercenaries.. not exactly innocent civilians.. not that I think what happened to them was ok or any thing because I don't. It was downright wrong. However, this response is way over the top. 450 killed and 1000 wounded is not liberation, it's mass murder.

You ban Raysia for trolling, yet you troll more than anyone. You try to explain and justify the killings. The one thing missing is that over 90% were terrorists who will not harm us again.

Last I heard, Sadr's militia was about 10 000 guns. 450 dead and 1000 wounded doesn't sound like too high a number in this context. For a battle as big as the one in Fallujah, against a force like Sadr's, its a fairly low number, actually. Assuming no intent to harm civilians on purpose (which I do not believe US forces have), plus a high-yet-reasonable ammount of collateral damage (let's say 20%), we can roughly estimate civilian casualties at 50-60 dead and around 200 wounded. Genocide? Give me a friggin break.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Al Anbar, that is low. I am offended you call a brave man a war criminal and tell him to go to hell. THis man and his sons fought to give you the right of free speech. I hope the mods see what you are posting

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.
The US troops are just defending theirsleves.

During a Baghdad news conference, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Combined Joint Task Force 7, echoed Bremer's assertion that coalition forces retain the right to defend themselves. "If they are fired on, they will fire back," he said.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Al Anbar, that is low. I am offended you call a brave man a war criminal and tell him to go to hell. THis man and his sons fought to give you the right of free speech. I hope the mods see what you are posting

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

after reading this post, i realize that the non-Americans in this forum clearly do not understand the American way of life. We may not have invented freedom, but it is our freedom to own as many guns as we want, and to drive the biggest SUV possible.

That is the American way of life.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Al Anbar, that is low. I am offended you call a brave man a war criminal and tell him to go to hell. THis man and his sons fought to give you the right of free speech. I hope the mods see what you are posting

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

And, yes, I'm not American. I'm Canadian.

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

after reading this post, i realize that the non-Americans in this forum clearly do not understand the American way of life. We may not have invented freedom, but it is our freedom to own as many guns as we want, and to drive the biggest SUV possible.

That is the American way of life.

That's the most retarded thing ever. You have no real freedom as you are still ruled by big corporations. You shouldn't have guns. You shouldn't have SUVs. That's just retarded.

that would explain a lot of things,,,,

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

after reading this post, i realize that the non-Americans in this forum clearly do not understand the American way of life. We may not have invented freedom, but it is our freedom to own as many guns as we want, and to drive the biggest SUV possible.

That is the American way of life.

Yes...you see...Alot of other people have that freedom, but still they aren't nuts like you guys.

Oh I understand the American way of life, it's poster child would be a grossly obese television addict with a big gun whose greatest nightmare is to walk a couple of blocks.

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

after reading this post, i realize that the non-Americans in this forum clearly do not understand the American way of life. We may not have invented freedom, but it is our freedom to own as many guns as we want, and to drive the biggest SUV possible.

That is the American way of life.

That's the most retarded thing ever. You have no real freedom as you are still ruled by big corporations. You shouldn't have guns. You shouldn't have SUVs. That's just retarded.

And running around calling everything retarded, especially being redundent with the word retarded, isn't very intelligent either.

I AM a United States Marine.

OK, gunboy, prove it.

prove that American troops are in Iraq. Right here, right now. Photos can be doctored, news stations and governments lie. Give me hard proof using otherwise. were you in Iraq? do you know anyone in Iraq? can you really 100% prove that they're actually there? no. sorry, you lose.

:tantrum:
You realize that there is a chance Al Anbar isn't an American...In which case american deaths have no effect on him.

Actually I'm quite sick of this "we invented freedom" bullshit of yours. Everything would be quite allright if SUV's and guns weren't a direct extension of your sex-lives.

after reading this post, i realize that the non-Americans in this forum clearly do not understand the American way of life. We may not have invented freedom, but it is our freedom to own as many guns as we want, and to drive the biggest SUV possible.

That is the American way of life.

That's the most retarded thing ever. You have no real freedom as you are still ruled by big corporations. You shouldn't have guns. You shouldn't have SUVs. That's just retarded.

So having the freedom to buy what you want with the money you earn is retarded eh?
What abooot free speech eh?

That's the most retarded thing ever. You have no real freedom as you are still ruled by big corporations. You shouldn't have guns. You shouldn't have SUVs. That's just retarded.

I am not ruled by anyone or anything. If i dont want to go to work, I DONT, and nothing will happen to me. If I dont want to go to class, I DONT, and nothing happens. If i want to go out and shoot my .30-06, I can, and nothing will happen to me. If I want to go drive my 4Runner, I do, and nothing happens to me.

thats freedom. we may have no invented it, but we sure as hell enjoy it.

And freedom isnt retarded, its a great thing to enjoy.

I just want to know why Al Anbar is flaming a brave marine and telling him to go to hell

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

give us a source saying all are civilian. From what I here they were people with guns firing at soldiers. that is not a civilian but a legitimate target that needs to be fired at.

I just want to know why Al Anbar is flaming a brave marine and telling him to go to hell

Go away, IDF. I don't like you. :roll:

He is brave because he is able to kill civilians and help invade countries. :roll:

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.
Are you confident they were all indeed civilians? And is this really an example of genocide, as your title suggests? I think if genocide were meant, well, Fallujah would be a crater by now.

Ya know what pisses me off the most? Arrogants! There are so many anti american people they say that they ahte america but what do they do? Buy american Stuff american inventions created by america.The only Countries that seem to have a problem with the american inavsion had something to loose when Saddam lost. How many of those guys can honestly belive Iraq was a better place when saddam was in power? They make me sick. If they have such a problem then lets see what they can do about it if they are to do nothing then they better learn to hold their tongues until they can get their facts strait not disrespect those in the Military of ANY nation. Chances are people who hate america only hate us for they only know what their leaders tell them wich is only the bad things. I dont mind when there is some one who has legitament reason to respectfully disagree but you dont see Americans showing disrespect to you defenders! If it were some kind of genocide all we would have to do is count how many cities there are and nuke each one. Hey at least we now know who are our REAL allies and who REALLY deserves the right of free speach :evil: GOD BLESS AMERICA! GOD BLESS BRITAIN! GOD BLESS JAPAN! GOD BLESS THE REST OF OUR ALLIES! God have pitty on our enemies!
____________________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________

I just want to know why Al Anbar is flaming a brave marine and telling him to go to hell

Go away, IDF. I don't like you. :roll:

He is brave because he is able to kill civilians and help invade countries. :roll:

This is a general thread, you don't ignore here unless you are a spineless man who can't defend his views. This man enlisted years ago if he had sons in the military. If people like him didn't enlist, the USSR would kick our ass and of course Canada because you are dependent upon us for defense of major threats like the Nazis and the communist.

If that man you told to go to hell didn't fight, you would now be saying oaths to Stalin or living in a Gulag

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.
Are you confident they were all indeed civilians? And is this really an example of genocide, as your title suggests? I think if genocide were meant, well, Fallujah would be a crater by now.

The majority are civilians. The only reason more aren't dead is because even their own 'Governing Council' is not even in agreement with what they are doing and their own 'Governing Council' has called it a genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm

The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has called for an immediate ceasefire, as US forces battle Sunni militants for a sixth day in Falluja.
The council said a political solution needed to be found to the crisis in the besieged city, west of Baghdad.

One member called the Falluja operation "genocide" after doctors there reported 450 deaths and 1,000 injured this week.

I just want to know why Al Anbar is flaming a brave marine and telling him to go to hell

Go away, IDF. I don't like you. :roll:

He is brave because he is able to kill civilians and help invade countries. :roll:

This is a general thread, you don't ignore here unless you are a spineless man who can't defend his views. This man enlisted years ago if he had sons in the military. If people like him didn't enlist, the USSR would kick our ass and of course Canada because you are dependent upon us for defense of major threats like the Nazis and the communist.

If that man you told to go to hell didn't fight, you would now be saying oaths to Stalin or living in a Gulag

I am a Communist, you know. I would have no problem with speaking Russian. :)

And I don't like you. IC and OOCly. Go away.

you say like the whole governing council when only 1 of 100 says it is genocide. If the civilians are angry maybe we should let Saddam kill them again. See what they like better. If we wanted to commit genocide the whole Mid-East except Israel would be gone.

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.
Are you confident they were all indeed civilians? And is this really an example of genocide, as your title suggests? I think if genocide were meant, well, Fallujah would be a crater by now.

The majority are civilians. The only reason more aren't dead is because even their own 'Governing Council' is not even in agreement with what they are doing and their own 'Governing Council' has called it a genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm

The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has called for an immediate ceasefire, as US forces battle Sunni militants for a sixth day in Falluja.
The council said a political solution needed to be found to the crisis in the besieged city, west of Baghdad.

One member called the Falluja operation "genocide" after doctors there reported 450 deaths and 1,000 injured this week.
How do you know the majority are civilians?

:D There is no ignore in General. This is a debate and if you ignore the other side, then you prove you are a panzie

you say like the whole governing council when only 1 of 100 says it is genocide. If the civilians are angry maybe we should let Saddam kill them again. See what they like better. If we wanted to commit genocide the whole Mid-East except Israel would be gone.

There are 25 members of the Governing Council, idiot.

They all have spoken out against the US, including the Kurdish members. Another one has resigned.

It's funny since the US cannot even control their own puppets. :P

they had it coming. THose people are evil. We destroy them we destroy terrorism once and for all.

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.

again, you're telling us what to think. and again, these troops were FORCED to go to Iraq. do you think they just voluntarily bought a couple rifles, booked some flights, and took a "nice" trip. and people don't join the military just to kill. ever heard of getting through college? the army will pay for it. some people don't have the money to afford a top-notch college. my dad was in the army. does he agree with president bush? no. but does that mean he should be disregarded as a human being because he was in the military and the greatest sin of all ( :roll: ) being born american?

and it's disgusting that you disregard american deaths as "too bad." it's not their fault an incompetent president sent them over there. it's too bad that Saddam pissed off america. does that justify iraqi deaths?

you're bigoted against americans. face it. it's not about human beings being killed; it's just about arabs being killed with you. because if you were actually concerned about people dying in Iraq you'd include the american, british, and australian soldiers (as well as post-war allies) who have died. did they deserve to die? did they deserve to be victim of a suicide bombing? saying, "it's too bad, it's their fault" is bullshit. I can say, "it's too bad those iraqis were living there. it's their fault" right back at you.

Ya know what pisses me off the most? Arrogants! There are so many anti american people they say that they ahte america but what do they do? Buy american Stuff american inventions created by america.The only Countries that seem to have a problem with the american inavsion had something to loose when Saddam lost. How many of those guys can honestly belive Iraq was a better place when saddam was in power? They make me sick. If they have such a problem then lets see what they can do about it if they are to do nothing then they better learn to hold their tongues until they can get their facts strait not disrespect those in the Military of ANY nation. Chances are people who hate america only hate us for they only know what their leaders tell them wich is only the bad things. I dont mind when there is some one who has legitament reason to respectfully disagree but you dont see Americans showing disrespect to you defenders! If it were some kind of genocide all we would have to do is count how many cities there are and nuke each one. Hey at least we now know who are our REAL allies and who REALLY deserves the right of free speach :evil: GOD BLESS AMERICA! GOD BLESS BRITAIN! GOD BLESS JAPAN! GOD BLESS THE REST OF OUR ALLIES! God have pitty on our enemies!
____________________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
**********__________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________

Yeah dude, the Icelandic government is really badmouthing you guys, that's why I hate you.

:D There is no ignore in General. This is a debate and if you ignore the other side, then you prove you are a panzie

You are HS87, aren't you?

You show the same trait as him: stupidity.

You can't even understand the sentence "I don't like you."

:roll:

If I had a time machine, I would have you go back to Saddam's Iraq and have you see the torture and then hear you try to defend it

:D There is no ignore in General. This is a debate and if you ignore the other side, then you prove you are a panzie

yet noone has answered me...

:D There is no ignore in General. This is a debate and if you ignore the other side, then you prove you are a panzie

You are HS87, aren't you?

You show the same trait as him: stupidity.

You can't even understand the sentence "I don't like you."

:roll:

No I'm not

you are a flaming troll

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently,

Says a real armchair hero. Quit the propaganda Rummy, go back to father Goebels, what a bs, you should shame yourself for pretending that you ever fired a gun.

very little brain power as well.
Since you are unpollite to a person wich intellectual capacity compares to yours as a Australopiticus (you) to modern men, we can conclude that you are the worlds only living braindonnor.
Don't speak about things you really don't know.
A good advise.

SMW, trainer of marines adn mercanaries in survival and mountainwar, conqueror of Mustagh Atha with real US and Legionair soldiers (BTW, they all skied down of 7580m.) Really those people are talking completely different about conflicts then so called "soldiers".
Enjoy your phantasies. :D

IDF and AA have telegrams.

450 dead is hardly genocide. It's more like shooting the guys that are shooting at you and hitting the woman and children they are hiding behind.

I don't support the war in Iraq, it's a big freakin mess. But please, the US is not trying to kill civilians on purpose.

IDF and AA have telegrams.

And so do you.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently,

Says a real armchair hero. Quit the propaganda Rummy, go back to father Goebels, what a bs, you should shame yourself for pretending that you ever fired a gun.

prove he isn't a marine.

oh wait, i forgot, in the real world soldiers are banned from the internet. my bad. thanks for reminding me.

that would explain a lot of things,,,,

Why aren't you posting in the IC war thread?

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

Wow, a real coward that takes his fantasies for real. Come on everything in your BS propaganda shows us a 50 year old fascist republican. Shame on you :cry: for pretending that you were there.

prove he isn't a marine.

Euh, let's prove that the coward is one ..

very little brain power as well.
Since you are unpollite to a person wich intellectual capacity compares to yours as a Australopiticus (you) to modern men, we can conclude that you are the worlds only living braindonnor.
Don't speak about things you really don't know.
A good advise.




Nice to see that you know the Australopiticus and the great Al Anbar (indeed a good comparission)

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

Also, having a gun is not "freedom". Owning a SUV that kills people and the enviroment is not "freedom" but a stupid thing.
Are you confident they were all indeed civilians? And is this really an example of genocide, as your title suggests? I think if genocide were meant, well, Fallujah would be a crater by now.

The majority are civilians. The only reason more aren't dead is because even their own 'Governing Council' is not even in agreement with what they are doing and their own 'Governing Council' has called it a genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3615189.stm

The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has called for an immediate ceasefire, as US forces battle Sunni militants for a sixth day in Falluja.
The council said a political solution needed to be found to the crisis in the besieged city, west of Baghdad.

One member called the Falluja operation "genocide" after doctors there reported 450 deaths and 1,000 injured this week.
How do you know the majority are civilians?
Al-Anbar, I wished that you'd answer me. Your statements make it sound like that, by direct orders from the president, they're suppose to shoot civillians.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

I found Al Anbar's true identity. Enjoy the site, it is old, but still funny today. The quotes are priceless

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

I found Al Anbar's true identity. Enjoy the site, it is old, but still funny today. The quotes are priceless


Hey, are you aware of the comparissions between Rumsfeld and Al Sahaf in the Free World? 250 millions of Europeans are laughing with Rummy (" there is nothing going one in the streets") now. Guess you are missing something. Commical Rummy, just like (another "nothing going on, all under control" guy has been proposed to be the anchormen of a comical show by some major indepentent (yeah, be jalous, it still exist here in the free world) broadcasts. :P :P :P .

Nice to know that we in the West to have a white comical Alli :D

If we wanted to commit genocide why not just shoot everyone?

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

I found Al Anbar's true identity. Enjoy the site, it is old, but still funny today. The quotes are priceless


Hey, are you aware of the comparissions between Rumsfeld and Al Sahaf in the Free World? 250 millions of Europeans are laughing with Rummy (" there is nothing going one in the streets") now. Guess you are missing something. Commical Rummy, just like (another "nothing going on, all under control" guy has been proposed to be the anchormen of a comical show by some major indepentent (yeah, be jalous, it still exist here in the free world) broadcasts. :P :P :P .

Nice to know that we in the West to have a white comical Alli :D

They can make fun of Rummy all they want, but he never said nothing was going on.

the priceless of the IIm, was "there are no american infidels in Baghdad (in the background you hear American tanks and when the press leaves the building they see Americans

He still is no Chapelle, Cheech and Chong, Bernie Mac, Cedric, Eddie Murphy, George Carlin, Cris Rock, and any other comedian

Due to the current level of pontification in this thread, I felt the need to introduce some real information. So, I flew over to Iraq and asked 2,737 Iraqis about their opinions on everything :D. Here's what they said.
Complete Poll Here (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html)

The most interesting part is how the Iraqis feel compared to one year ago and the trend they see for the future: pretty much hopeful and improving across the board.

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.


That man is a United States soldier. He is risking his life in a place he may or may not want to be. He is actually out there being shot at to try to help the Iraqi people, and you call him a war criminal. Do you honestly beleive that he is glad to have lost two men in combat? You may not agree with the reason these soldiers are over there and I may not either, but this man did not decide that American troops or troops from our allies should be in Iraq. I have seen no evidence provided by you to support that this man is a war criminal. So I must say that if anyone deserves to go to hell it would be you

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

give us a source saying all are civilian. From what I here they were people with guns firing at soldiers. that is not a civilian but a legitimate target that needs to be fired at.

Well, not to be too nit picky.. but yes, they're all civilians.. the Americans disband any and all Iraqi military, technically that would make every Iraqi citizen a civilian at the moment. With the exception of those who the Iraqi governing council and Paul Bremmer have started to train for the new military.. but those aren't the people fighting, they're on the Americans side. So, Al Anbar is right that they are civilians technically.

By the way.. every one.. I mean every one who is flaming each other in this thread knock it off!

Thank you
Stephanie
Game Moderator

Alright, I did not expect this thread to grow so fast in a day. I was gone all today visiting my mother for Easter...
Anyways, New Genoa, it is nice to see you stand by me, but these little pricks will not listen to the truth, no matter if I showed up on thier door step.

All of you who take my word, thank you. All of you who do not, I am so sorry that you live in a world where you have come in contact with people who you would believe capable of lying like you accuse me.

1.) To clarify, I did not loose sons, I lost men under my command.

2.) Al Anbar, we did not invent freedom, we preserve it. Where were you born? What kind of computer are you on right now? What did you eat today? What kind of books etc do you read? The United States has most likely made all those things(or close to all) happen for you in one way or another.

You say that we only care about American lives. I was forced to fire upon and kill a man who would not stop comming towards me while I was assisting in a check point. I cannot get that mans face out of my head. Yet I am a war criminal for following orders. I do not like our president in any way what so ever, I personally feel he should not have been born.

I was called a phony, living in a fantasy(it is spelled with an f not a ph) well why don't you fly to the Middle East as I did, and have to see the worst sights you will ever see? Why don't you have a man the age of your younger brother die in your arms are you try to provide cover fire while you withdraw from an ambush.

Call me a war criminal, FINE. It is your RIGHT. Free Speech, Free Press. Call it whatever you want, but you will never find those rights more protected than by the United States of America. It may not be a good place to live, but its better than all the rest. So I will continue to do as it calls upon me to do. I swore an oath to protect the constitution of the United States, not an oath to the President.

But when it all comes down to it , Al Anbar, you are sitting at home, safe, while you point fingers and attack the ones who are there, the ones who know the WHOLE story, the ones who are forced to pull the trigger when ever thread of thier morality tells them it is the wrong thing to do. When you can say you have done that, THEN your words will hold water, until then, learn your place, learn respect. And never tell me to go to hell, for I have been there, and it was to protect the freedoms of innocents.

The saddest part is, I could one day be in the position of defending your liberties, I would do it in a heartbeat, and what do I get from all of you? disrespect.

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.


:roll:

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

Ahh Al-A glad to see you are as ignorant as ever.

1) With the firepower the US can muster the death count would be much higher if they were "shooting anything that moves."

2) Eww I guess the guys that let all the woman, children, and elderly through the lines during the cease-fire missed the orders to shoot on sight.

3) Cease-Fire :shock: Dang, I guess if they wanted to shoot anything that moved why bother with a cease fire?

:roll:

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

give us a source saying all are civilian. From what I here they were people with guns firing at soldiers. that is not a civilian but a legitimate target that needs to be fired at.

Well, not to be too nit picky.. but yes, they're all civilians.. the Americans disband any and all Iraqi military, technically that would make every Iraqi citizen a civilian at the moment. With the exception of those who the Iraqi governing council and Paul Bremmer have started to train for the new military.. but those aren't the people fighting, they're on the Americans side. So, Al Anbar is right that they are civilians technically.

Interesting? Were you not one of the ones that said the 4 guys that were mutitlated were not technically civilians?

If we wanted to commit genocide why not just shoot everyone?
Cause then there wouldn't be anyone left to give the GI's flowers and thank you notes, at gun point, for the camera's.

The press leaves out the "they were armed" part often when it comes to women and children.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.


:evil: You insult a Marine you insult members of my family.

I think a lot of people here have some vision that war is supposed to be this nice thing where nobody except the combatants get hurt, and that the combatants are all young men.

There are not many wars where civilians were not killed. Some of these were real genocides.

Now, Al Anbar, if this was a genocide, would the 'cowardly idiotic americans' send their actual troops in to kill everyone in Fallujah?

No. If the US wanted to destroy that town, they would have carpet bombed it. The fact that they are sending in actual soldiers means they have an intrest in making a more precise strike against specific targets, or possibly even arrest them without killing them (Something a guided bomb will not do.)

Simkaria, you say they are comitting limited genocide so they can get good press. If you want to kill an entire people, than you kill them. You do not care about making them look happy, because you want them dead. Anyone who tries to make a 'public opinion friendly' genocide is a complete moron, because to even attempt a genocide you have to cast away the media and the opinion of others completely. And this is the first genocide with attempted cease fire.

And furthermore, women and children probably did get killed. The fact they are young or women does not make them innocent. Ever heard of Mogadishu? The best way to keep the American military from shooting you when you're armed is to charge them in the midst of unarmed. By the time you're close enough to pick out the armed individuals, it's too late, and you're on the verge of being overun. I would not be surprised if this was happening, or if the women and children themselves were armed.

I think a lot of people here have some vision that war is supposed to be this nice thing where nobody except the combatants get hurt, and that the combatants are all young men.

There are not many wars where civilians were not killed. Some of these were real genocides.

Now, Al Anbar, if this was a genocide, would the 'cowardly idiotic americans' send their actual troops in to kill everyone in Fallujah?

No. If the US wanted to destroy that town, they would have carpet bombed it. The fact that they are sending in actual soldiers means they have an intrest in making a more precise strike against specific targets, or possibly even arrest them without killing them (Something a guided bomb will not do.)

Simkaria, you say they are comitting limited genocide so they can get good press. If you want to kill an entire people, than you kill them. You do not care about making them look happy, because you want them dead. Anyone who tries to make a 'public opinion friendly' genocide is a complete moron, because to even attempt a genocide you have to cast away the media and the opinion of others completely. And this is the first genocide with attempted cease fire.

And furthermore, women and children probably did get killed. The fact they are young or women does not make them innocent. Ever heard of Mogadishu? The best way to keep the American military from shooting you when you're armed is to charge them in the midst of unarmed. By the time you're close enough to pick out the armed individuals, it's too late, and you're on the verge of being overun. I would not be surprised if this was happening, or if the women and children themselves were armed.

The Palestinians do it all the time...I've even seen pictures of them setting up a rocket launcher in the midst of a teenage crowd...the teenage boys throw rocks at the Israelis or an IDF vehicle..the vehicle or troops chase them...right into the ambush by the rocket launcher...the troops or vehicle are hampered by firing due to the teenagers...just hampered long enough for the Palestinians to destroy the IDF vehicle or troops.

Exactly. It's been used in central Africa, Somalia, Palestine, the Balkans, probably SE Asia too.

It's a very effective tactic when you're fighting against nations like the US, where public opinion and the media can make or break a politcal effort.

funny thing is, al anbar posts Iraqi deaths without providing proof that they were indeed all civilians. oh, and forget that american troops died. they're just war criminals. it's not like people in the service are human beings. only arabs. :roll:

EDIT: al anbar speaks of freedom but tell us how we should think... ooh, I feel liberated already...

They are civilians. My word is my proof. :)

Now, US troops, well, too bad? They shouldn't be there. They joined the military to kill and be killed. Civilians are civilians. They didn't join up to be killed by Americans because they simply live in a country that the US decided to illegally invade.

give us a source saying all are civilian. From what I here they were people with guns firing at soldiers. that is not a civilian but a legitimate target that needs to be fired at.

Well, not to be too nit picky.. but yes, they're all civilians.. the Americans disband any and all Iraqi military, technically that would make every Iraqi citizen a civilian at the moment. With the exception of those who the Iraqi governing council and Paul Bremmer have started to train for the new military.. but those aren't the people fighting, they're on the Americans side. So, Al Anbar is right that they are civilians technically.

Interesting? Were you not one of the ones that said the 4 guys that were mutitlated were not technically civilians?

Yes, because they are paid mercenaries. Paid a lot too from what I understand. What we see going on are "uprisings" not paid members of any type of army.. (although I don't discount that there maybe Al Qaeda and other foreigners in Iraq now and that's different) but just average Jon Doe citizen is not being paid $200,000 by the American government to provide security.. all those guys were ex-special ops etc.. no matter , I certainly thought it was still a terrible thing that happened.. paid mercenaries or not. I don't ever believe killing any one is ever a good thing. It's just that people seemed to be under the misunderstanding that they were aid workers or some thing.. I was just pointing out that they weren't.

However, I have been hearing some of the Iraqi citizens referred to as "insurgents" and "terrorists" which neither are true. They are native Iraqi's. How can the natives been the insurgents? They can't. The insurgents would be the kidnappers.. (which by their name would certainly imply Al Qaeda)and in fact the Americans themselves.. they are the foreign fighters. Thus they're the insurgents.. the Iraqi's themselves are the rightful owners and natives of Iraq.

They're at war. Them fighting in their native home against the Americans doesn't make them "insurgents" or "terrorists" Kidnapping is different it's against the Geneva Conventions of war.. but then again so was when the Americans kidnapped Baathist party leaders families to get them to turn themselves in. A lot wrong with this war.. a lot.

The Iraqis aren't insurgents, but some of them are terrorists. Just because they're fighting in their homeland doesn't make it any different. They are using the tactics of terrorism, performing specific acts to try and make the occupying forces leave out of fear and intimidation.

Majority of Iraqis do not care much about oil they want security. They want to see americans leave the cities not the country otherwise there would be a civil war and they are afraid of that. Now sunits and shiits are uniting against common enemy and if they pull-out they will fight between themselves.

In last few days 450 Iraqis died and 1000 were wounded. Real number is probably a bit higher. Each time Americans kill some iraqi they are causing more anger and hatred towards them. Noone there do not like americans anymore.

US government really screwed the country with the attack. For many Iraqis was better under Saddam Husein as compared to now.
The government could have made analysis what consequences attack would have. They did not bothered to do that. They did not have any plan what to do as do not have it now also. That really shows their arrogance.

Majority of Iraqis do not care much about oil they want security. They want to see americans leave the cities not the country otherwise there would be a civil war and they are afraid of that. Now sunits and shiits are uniting against common enemy and if they pull-out they will fight between themselves.

In last few days 450 Iraqis died and 1000 were wounded. Real number is probably a bit higher. Each time Americans kill some iraqi they are causing more anger and hatred towards them. Noone there do not like americans anymore.

US government really screwed the country with the attack. For many Iraqis was better under Saddam Husein as compared to now.
The government could have made analysis what consequences attack would have. They did not bothered to do that. They did not have any plan what to do as do not have it now also. That really shows their arrogance.

You've got to be kidding....some of the Iraqis were better off under Saddam?..oh yes..I suppose if you are indicating the Sunni Iraqis who had it good under Saddam...they had the power...the financial benefits..military...you name it....they were either in charge of it, or influeneced it.

Yes, those many Iraqis who had it better under Saddam Hussein would be the Baath Sunnis. They are a minority. Meanwhile, Saddam was killing off the Shi'ites and Kurds at his own leisure. The militant Shi'ites do not want Saddam back, they want a muslim Theocracy, similar to Iran. Saddam was a secular dictator, which the Shi'ite fundementalists do not like.

The Iraqis aren't insurgents, but some of them are terrorists. Just because they're fighting in their homeland doesn't make it any different. They are using the tactics of terrorism, performing specific acts to try and make the occupying forces leave out of fear and intimidation.

Given this would be considered war time.. wouldn't breaches of the Hague or Geneva Conventions put them in the category of "war criminal" and not terrorists though? There is a difference, I find ever since 9/11 that the word terrorists sure gets thrown around a lot to describe any thing that is illegal. I don't believe we can call them "terrorists" during war time. They can however been held accountable for war crimes. For example suicide bombings were a very common and not illegal tactic in WWII. It was not a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. now what does make it a breach is when they target only civilians.. however, if they are trying to target the Americans.. that's fair game. If some civilians get killed, well that in war is called collateral damage, you can't have it both ways.. the Americans have killed many civilians.. was this collateral damage? Or terrorism? I think you see where I'm going with this.

Majority of Iraqis do not care much about oil they want security. They want to see americans leave the cities not the country otherwise there would be a civil war and they are afraid of that. Now sunits and shiits are uniting against common enemy and if they pull-out they will fight between themselves.

Its foolish to think that We are immune to rhetoricand Iraqi's arent.
There is a lot of politics involved. Often politicians steer people onto issues that arent nessicerally Number one. One of the problems is likey American military policy of jealously Guarding Information.

The Iraqis aren't insurgents, but some of them are terrorists. Just because they're fighting in their homeland doesn't make it any different. They are using the tactics of terrorism, performing specific acts to try and make the occupying forces leave out of fear and intimidation.

Given this would be considered war time.. wouldn't breaches of the Hague or Geneva Conventions put them in the category of "war criminal" and not terrorists though? There is a difference, I find ever since 9/11 that the word terrorists sure gets thrown around a lot to describe any thing that is illegal. I don't believe we can call them "terrorists" during war time. They can however been held accountable for war crimes. For example suicide bombings were a very common and not illegal tactic in WWII. It was not a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. now what does make it a breach is when they target only civilians.. however, if they are trying to target the Americans.. that's fair game. If some civilians get killed, well that in war is called collateral damage, you can't have it both ways.. the Americans have killed many civilians.. was this collateral damage? Or terrorism? I think you see where I'm going with this.
I think for them to be war criminals, they must be in uniform of a combatant nation... I'll have to check the convention laws. Because Iraq's 'government' does not have soldiers fighting America, than these people are technically 'rebels'. Because they aren't fighting on the behalf of any (recognized) nation, they are not war criminals, but terrorists because of their use of terrorist tactics. Now, terrorism isn't always about killing civilians. Terrorism can be effectively used against military targets, but in this case, they benefit from attacking civilians only. As for the American actions, I guess they could be called collateral damage, since the strikes were supposed to be on military or paramiltiary targets. However, there's no way to tell if it was just faulty intelligence or some kind of order behind the scenes.

Really, I think the very idea of having things 'legal' and 'illegal' in war is a nice thought, but not very effective. (Not that I disagree with these rules.) War isn't a game, you can't expect to have it work like one.

The Iraqis aren't insurgents, but some of them are terrorists. Just because they're fighting in their homeland doesn't make it any different. They are using the tactics of terrorism, performing specific acts to try and make the occupying forces leave out of fear and intimidation.

Given this would be considered war time.. wouldn't breaches of the Hague or Geneva Conventions put them in the category of "war criminal" and not terrorists though? There is a difference, I find ever since 9/11 that the word terrorists sure gets thrown around a lot to describe any thing that is illegal. I don't believe we can call them "terrorists" during war time. They can however been held accountable for war crimes. For example suicide bombings were a very common and not illegal tactic in WWII. It was not a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. now what does make it a breach is when they target only civilians.. however, if they are trying to target the Americans.. that's fair game. If some civilians get killed, well that in war is called collateral damage, you can't have it both ways.. the Americans have killed many civilians.. was this collateral damage? Or terrorism? I think you see where I'm going with this.
I think for them to be war criminals, they must be in uniform of a combatant nation... I'll have to check the convention laws. Because Iraq's 'government' does not have soldiers fighting America, than these people are technically 'rebels'. Because they aren't fighting on the behalf of any (recognized) nation, they are not war criminals, but terrorists because of their use of terrorist tactics. Now, terrorism isn't always about killing civilians. Terrorism can be effectively used against military targets, but in this case, they benefit from attacking civilians only. As for the American actions, I guess they could be called collateral damage, since the strikes were supposed to be on military or paramiltiary targets. However, there's no way to tell if it was just faulty intelligence or some kind of order behind the scenes.

Really, I think the very idea of having things 'legal' and 'illegal' in war is a nice thought, but not very effective. (Not that I disagree with these rules.) War isn't a game, you can't expect to have it work like one.

Umm I have not heard that Saddam has signed any surrender order. Therefore the Iraqi's are most certainly within there rights to combat the foreign insurgency (Americans and co.) Also to speak to foreign fighters coming from other countries such as Iran and Syria etc.. I'm personally having trouble with them being called terrorists as well.. the Americans have allies.. who says the Iraqi's can't?

Has it ever dawned on any one that the Iraqi's didn't want to take the Americans on using conventional war? As they knew they didn't stand a chance, but knew that Americans were not considered highly trained in Gorilla warfare and decided to take that route? I'm not saying that's what is happening but it is possible.

Also, you don't have to be military to be guilty of war crimes.. or for crimes against humanity for that matter.

The Iraqis aren't insurgents, but some of them are terrorists. Just because they're fighting in their homeland doesn't make it any different. They are using the tactics of terrorism, performing specific acts to try and make the occupying forces leave out of fear and intimidation.

Given this would be considered war time.. wouldn't breaches of the Hague or Geneva Conventions put them in the category of "war criminal" and not terrorists though?
Depends. As the war is not being waged by an Iraqi government, but by irregulars, terrorism is the term to be applied, I think. Not for their actions against US military or administration (that would be guerilla warfare), but for actions like taking civilian hostages and blowing up UN and Red Cross headquarters.


There is a difference, I find ever since 9/11 that the word terrorists sure gets thrown around a lot to describe any thing that is illegal.
Oh yes. Yes, yes, yes. First time I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you. Some people deliberately mess up the terms to either vilify the opponent or trivialize terrorism. Some people seem to think that any act of war is automatically terrorism :roll:


I don't believe we can call them "terrorists" during war time. They can however been held accountable for war crimes.
It is not only the context that matters, but also targets, methods and the attacker's identity. The way I see it, war crimes fits acts of state sanctioned organized violence that breach the war regulations, while terrorism describes similar actions of the irregulars. Does that make sense to you?


For example suicide bombings were a very common and not illegal tactic in WWII. It was not a breach of the Geneva Conventions.. now what does make it a breach is when they target only civilians.. however, if they are trying to target the Americans.. that's fair game. If some civilians get killed, well that in war is called collateral damage, you can't have it both ways.. the Americans have killed many civilians.. was this collateral damage? Or terrorism? I think you see where I'm going with this.
Not really. The big difference is that collateral damage describes fatalities who were not the direct targets of the attack. There was no intent to kill them. Targeting civilians as primary objective is an act immesurably more evil and immoral than unintended killing of civilians while attacking a legitimate military target. The difference is more or less the same as between the actions of a serial killer and those of a S.W.A.T. team member who chooses to shoot through hostages to kill their captor. The S.W.A.T. guy might get charged with a lot of things after such an act, but a first degree murder will not be one of them.

I think for them to be war criminals, they must be in uniform of a combatant nation... I'll have to check the convention laws. Because Iraq's 'government' does not have soldiers fighting America, than these people are technically 'rebels'. Because they aren't fighting on the behalf of any (recognized) nation, they are not war criminals, but terrorists because of their use of terrorist tactics. Now, terrorism isn't always about killing civilians. Terrorism can be effectively used against military targets, but in this case, they benefit from attacking civilians only. As for the American actions, I guess they could be called collateral damage, since the strikes were supposed to be on military or paramiltiary targets. However, there's no way to tell if it was just faulty intelligence or some kind of order behind the scenes.

Really, I think the very idea of having things 'legal' and 'illegal' in war is a nice thought, but not very effective. (Not that I disagree with these rules.) War isn't a game, you can't expect to have it work like one.

There is a difference between resistance to occupation, and terrorism. Otherwise you would have to label all of the Resistance groups in Europe during WWII as terrorists.

As to what crimes may be attached, it could be qualified under War Crimes, or under Crimes Against Humanity, however it should be noted regarding what qualifies a lawfull combattant under the Geneva Conventions includes:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


The pics I have seen clearly show open carrying of weapons. the command structure and whether they are wearing an armband I haven't really noted.

However it could be debated that Falluja was NOT occupied as there was no coalition pressence there, and that these fighters would qualify given the circumstances of the seige.

However, I have not heard of anything that qualifies as "war crimes" during the seige besides the kidnappings - and clearly those did not happen in Falluja.

fighting back against an occupying force is not intrinsically criminal - especially given the fact that war was never officially declared nor officially ended.

GW never received a surrender nor declared the war over. Only "major combat operations".

As such, I do not believe that guerilla techniques such as ambushes are intrinsically illegal.

-Z-

Edit: Your contention that Iraqi resistance is not fighting for a "recognized nation" seems very suspect.

Iraq is very much a nation. The fact that an invading army has replaced the government notwithstanding.

It should also be pointed out that many of the civillian contracters are also considered part of the armed forces. For example, the following qualify as combattants entitled to full POW protections:

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

So when the objection is to attacks on civillians during a war still deemed as continuing, bear in mind that they are NOT considered civilians for legal purposes.

-Z-

Majority of Iraqis do not care much about oil they want security. They want to see americans leave the cities not the country otherwise there would be a civil war and they are afraid of that. Now sunits and shiits are uniting against common enemy and if they pull-out they will fight between themselves.

That was pulled from TV interview with a Iraqi who lives in Slovenia but goes to Iraq once a month, lately every 3 months.

What he also said was that: "After first gulf war Saddam rebuild 117 bridges from 127 destroyed in one year."

Now compare that to americans. They didn't rebuild almost anything.

Well, it's situations like these where the lines blur... The western world recognizes the Governing Council as the government of Iraq... So that would make them (The Iraqi militants) 'rebels'. Now, the problem is that only the Baathist Sunnis get that tag of being part of the former government. However, the Shi'te militia of that cleric does not. Terrorism is a tactic. It doesn't mean anything other than the way they fight. I never said they couldn't have allies.

I know they aren't engaging in conventional war. That's the point I was trying to make in my first post. This is not a 'get your soldiers, I'll get mine, and we'll fight' kind of affair. The fact is that the various militant factions in Iraq can't fight conventionally.

Shi'ite militants-Never part of former Iraqi government, not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

Sunni militants- Part of former government or fighting for it, not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Could be considered as part of a nation's military. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

Al Qaeda/Other self-proclaimed terrorist organizations-Possibly representative of other governments not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

I think that sums up what I'm saying.

(Unless my memory fails me, the Geneva Convention and War crimes stuff only applies to 'legal combatants'. I think that's why the US can get away with interrogations and such of Taliban, militants.)

There is a difference between resistance to occupation, and terrorism. Otherwise you would have to label all of the Resistance groups in Europe during WWII as terrorists.

That is not what makes the difference. If the French Resistance during World war II began blowing up restaurants in Erfurt and Hamburg, killing German civilians with no justification other than the justness of their overall cause, I would have no problem classifying them as terrorists.

Not really. The big difference is that collateral damage describes fatalities who were not the direct targets of the attack. There was no intent to kill them. Targeting civilians as primary objective is an act immesurably more evil and immoral than unintended killing of civilians while attacking a legitimate military target. The difference is more or less the same as between the actions of a serial killer and those of a S.W.A.T. team member who chooses to shoot through hostages to kill their captor. The S.W.A.T. guy might get charged with a lot of things after such an act, but a first degree murder will not be one of them.

Yes, that is what I meant.. sorry if I didn't sound clear. Directly targeting civilians is always against the rules of engagement.

Technically. . . I don't think the term insurgents (as I saw earlier) is the right term for Iraqis fighting in Iraq.

in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

There is no established authority in Iraq yet. I guess I think the right term for them would be:

freedom fighter
n.
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government

The oppressive government being the United States.

I like to compare it to the young colonialists fighting the British. Were the young colonialists terrorists or insurgents? That's just un-American!

There is a difference between resistance to occupation, and terrorism. Otherwise you would have to label all of the Resistance groups in Europe during WWII as terrorists.

And you certainly could. But because of the negative connotations of such a word, the western world does not label them so.

The pics I have seen clearly show open carrying of weapons. the command structure and whether they are wearing an armband I haven't really noted.

However it could be debated that Falluja was NOT occupied as there was no coalition pressence there, and that these fighters would qualify given the circumstances of the seige.

However, I have not heard of anything that qualifies as "war crimes" during the seige besides the kidnappings - and clearly those did not happen in Falluja.

fighting back against an occupying force is not intrinsically criminal - especially given the fact that war was never officially declared nor officially ended.

GW never received a surrender nor declared the war over. Only "major combat operations".

As such, I do not believe that guerilla techniques such as ambushes are intrinsically illegal.

I'm not trying to say that it's illegal. Who's to say that anything is legal? But many of the groups in Iraq are not representative of the Iraqi government, or the former one. Only one group is.
EDIT:You got me on the convention stuff. They could be considered 'legal' combatants, depending on perspective.
-Z-

Edit: Your contention that Iraqi resistance is not fighting for a "recognized nation" seems very suspect.

Iraq is very much a nation. The fact that an invading army has replaced the government notwithstanding.

It's not a nation recognized by the Coalition, so I doubt they'd count it as one. But you are right that some of them represent a nation.

Well, it's situations like these where the lines blur... The western world recognizes the Governing Council as the government of Iraq... So that would make them (The Iraqi militants) 'rebels'. Now, the problem is that only the Baathist Sunnis get that tag of being part of the former government. However, the Shi'te militia of that cleric does not. Terrorism is a tactic. It doesn't mean anything other than the way they fight. I never said they couldn't have allies.

I know they aren't engaging in conventional war. That's the point I was trying to make in my first post. This is not a 'get your soldiers, I'll get mine, and we'll fight' kind of affair. The fact is that the various militant factions in Iraq can't fight conventionally.

Shi'ite militants-Never part of former Iraqi government, not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

Sunni militants- Part of former government or fighting for it, not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Could be considered as part of a nation's military. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

Al Qaeda/Other self-proclaimed terrorist organizations-Possibly representative of other governments not representative of current Governing Council or the forces commanded by it. Have used terrorist tactics, making some of them terrorists.

I think that sums up what I'm saying.

(Unless my memory fails me, the Geneva Convention and War crimes stuff only applies to 'legal combatants'. I think that's why the US can get away with interrogations and such of Taliban, militants.)

You do not have to be "part of the government" to fight for your country. Domestic discord does not abrogate your right to put aside those idferences in the face of an external invasion.

After all, nurses captured in WWI were accorded POW status despite not being entitled to vote in their own countries.

And the laws of war do NOT require the use of conventional war in all instances. As mentioned before, the resistance groups in WWI were not considered terrorists or war criminals.

Hit and run, ambush, etc. are all perfectly legitimate tactics under law.

-Z-

Not really. The big difference is that collateral damage describes fatalities who were not the direct targets of the attack. There was no intent to kill them. Targeting civilians as primary objective is an act immesurably more evil and immoral than unintended killing of civilians while attacking a legitimate military target. The difference is more or less the same as between the actions of a serial killer and those of a S.W.A.T. team member who chooses to shoot through hostages to kill their captor. The S.W.A.T. guy might get charged with a lot of things after such an act, but a first degree murder will not be one of them.

Yes, that is what I meant.. sorry if I didn't sound clear. Directly targeting civilians is always against the rules of engagement.
Hmm, today is a strange day. This is the second time we agree on something. Did the world turn upside down and I didn't notice? :wink:

Why do you have the impression that I think such tactics are illegal? I believe that they are legal, whether those who aer performing them are legally considered Iraq's military or not.

I'm not trying to say that it's illegal. Who's to say that anything is legal? But many of the groups in Iraq are not representative of the Iraqi government, or the former one. Only one group is.



It's not a nation recognized by the Coalition, so I doubt they'd count it as one. But you are right that some of them represent a nation.

Since when does the coalition not recognize it's own country? And you seem not to understand the point that an invaded people did not have to be representative of the pre-existing government to be allowed to resist.

Based on that argument, the black troops used in the US civil war, WWI, and even WWII were not lawfull combattants because they were not representative of the government.


And since when does the invading army get to decide who represents that nation? There may have been ethnic divides in IRaq, but you can't just walk in and then pick and choose which are considered real IRaqis who can fight back to oust you! That is a rediculous concept!

-Z-

what US and Israel are doing is called state terrorism.
Iraqi and Palestinians dont have tanks, aircraft so they are using different tactics. It's all terrorism if we are using that word in terme of killing civilians.

Why do you have the impression that I think such tactics are illegal? I believe that they are legal, whether those who aer performing them are legally considered Iraq's military or not.

Fair enough. But my point is only that the laws of war allow civilians to spontaneously band together to resist the invasion - regardless of whether they were deemed as military personel before.

Which is to say - the law recognizes that ANY group of civilians can make themselves a legal military group in the face of an invading force, at which point they also must follow the rules of war or face the consequences.

Defense of house and hearth is an intrinsic right under law.

-Z-

Terrorism is the act of "instilling fear in the mass population". War itself would be terrorism.

Not really. The big difference is that collateral damage describes fatalities who were not the direct targets of the attack. There was no intent to kill them. Targeting civilians as primary objective is an act immesurably more evil and immoral than unintended killing of civilians while attacking a legitimate military target. The difference is more or less the same as between the actions of a serial killer and those of a S.W.A.T. team member who chooses to shoot through hostages to kill their captor. The S.W.A.T. guy might get charged with a lot of things after such an act, but a first degree murder will not be one of them.

Yes, that is what I meant.. sorry if I didn't sound clear. Directly targeting civilians is always against the rules of engagement.
Hmm, today is a strange day. This is the second time we agree on something. Did the world turn upside down and I didn't notice? :wink:

hehe, well I suppose the law of probabilities, it had to happen sooner or later..lol :P

So if we kill whatever moves in Fallujah it is a genocide, if we don't and our soldiers get killed in droves its Bush's Vietnam. :?

what US and Israel are doing is called state terrorism.
Iraqi and Palestinians dont have tanks, aircraft so they are using different tactics. It's all terrorism if we are using that word in terme of killing civilians.
And we aren't. I'm using it in the sense of using action against ANY kind of target to achieve specific goals through fear. Of course, depending on perspective, that can apply to just about any conflict, except for those im which the goal from the start was to kill everyone.

However, because one of these militant groups have attacked civilian targets specifically (While the police aren't civilians, those standing in lines outside the station to apply are.) some could be considered terrorists.

Uhm 600 dead isn't even close to Vietnam, and I don't think it should be compared to Vietnam. If you have to compare it with anything it'd be the Phillipnes. It's probably one of the lowest casualty rates for invading and occupying a enemy country.

Uhm 600 dead isn't even close to Vietnam, and I don't think it should be compared to Vietnam.

Vietnam was 7 years.

Iraq is 14 months.

It's not "comparable", but definitely growing to be so.

So if we kill whatever moves in Fallujah it is a genocide, if we don't and our soldiers get killed in droves its Bush's Vietnam. :?
War is not a fun thing to be involved in. These things happen. Fallujah is not a genocide. As has been shown today, there's plenty moving in Fallujah.

Actually, there were instances in Vietnam where both happened. Americans got killed in droves and killed whatever moved plenty of times.

what US and Israel are doing is called state terrorism.
Iraqi and Palestinians dont have tanks, aircraft so they are using different tactics. It's all terrorism if we are using that word in terme of killing civilians.
And we aren't. I'm using it in the sense of using action against ANY kind of target to achieve specific goals through fear. Of course, depending on perspective, that can apply to just about any conflict, except for those im which the goal from the start was to kill everyone.

However, because one of these militant groups have attacked civilian targets specifically (While the police aren't civilians, those standing in lines outside the station to apply are.) some could be considered terrorists.

I would agree that there has been some questionable targetting, however again I would tend to call those potential war crimes rather than instances of terrorism. But then again, no one has ever come up with a generally accepted definition of terrorism as a measuring stick agains which to measure things. I could also see the argument that the police station could be construed a legitimate target, and anyone silly enough to hang out next to one was putting themselves in harm's way.


Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see a dirty war. But then again war itself in inherently unclean. and when faced with such a technology gap as they do, it's no wonder they resort to such means.


-Z-

So if we kill whatever moves in Fallujah it is a genocide, if we don't and our soldiers get killed in droves its Bush's Vietnam. :?
War is not a fun thing to be involved in. These things happen. Fallujah is not a genocide. As has been shown today, there's plenty moving in Fallujah.

Actually, there were instances in Vietnam where both happened. Americans got killed in droves and killed whatever moved plenty of times.

I must have lost you somewhere, I am showing that you can't make any of those who were against freeing the Iraqi people happy. No matter what happens they will find some minor detail to bemoan the entire liberation.

So if we kill whatever moves in Fallujah it is a genocide, if we don't and our soldiers get killed in droves its Bush's Vietnam. :?
War is not a fun thing to be involved in. These things happen. Fallujah is not a genocide. As has been shown today, there's plenty moving in Fallujah.

Actually, there were instances in Vietnam where both happened. Americans got killed in droves and killed whatever moved plenty of times.

I must have lost you somewhere, I am showing that you can't make any of those who were against freeing the Iraqi people happy. No matter what happens they will find some minor detail to bemoan the entire liberation.

invasion and liberation are an oxymorn when used in the same sentence.

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

That's a stretch Anbar. You know I'm against this war, and you know I'm a critic of many actions and policies that have been put in place in Iraq, but if the US wanted to "kill anything that moves", the city would have been overrun by now.

That being said, I think that using gunships over urban areas is a certain recipe for collateral damage that should be avoided.

-Z-
their doing it the Ben Gurion/Meir/Sharon(to name only a few) way: a few at a time, to make the pleasure last. Or to talk more accurately about their mtovies, their using civillians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their weapons. Sad, but true; just the latest twist in theatrical micromilitarism.

their doing it the Ben Gurion/Meir/Sharon(to name only a few) way: a few at a time, to make the pleasure last. Or to talk more accurately about their mtovies, their using civillians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their weapons. Sad, but true; just the latest twist in theatrical micromilitarism.

So - you are saying that they ENJOY killing a few Iraqis at a time, and that they are doing this only to test their weapons? Because the world in unaware of American small arms effectiveness?

That is one hell of an accusation that is just beneath contempt.

-Z-

At least 450 Iraqis killed in Falluja this week

Reuters

Falluja, Iraq, April 9: At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city of Falluja this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters.

US Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The US military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=30194

450 Iraqis killed and 1,000 wounded, including women and children. They US is killing anything that moves.

That's a stretch Anbar. You know I'm against this war, and you know I'm a critic of many actions and policies that have been put in place in Iraq, but if the US wanted to "kill anything that moves", the city would have been overrun by now.

That being said, I think that using gunships over urban areas is a certain recipe for collateral damage that should be avoided.

-Z-
their doing it the Ben Gurion/Meir/Sharon(to name only a few) way: a few at a time, to make the pleasure last. Or to talk more accurately about their mtovies, their using civillians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their weapons. Sad, but true; just the latest twist in theatrical micromilitarism.
They are doing it in the only way there is.

What is your obsession with helicopter gunships??? Just because they are advanced tools of war, you assume that they are used for sheer killing power?
They are used for PRECISION. No weapon class to date is more accurate than anti-tank rockets, and if you want to minimize the probability of hitting the wrong target, helicopters armed with tank killers are the safest and most effective way to do so. Infantry operations are NOT safer for bystanders; in fact, they are more dangerous, because one's chances of surviving sniper fire because of mistaken identification are MUCH lower than one's chances of surviving a missile strike that wrecks his house. The use of helicopters is to minimize, not maximize, the collateral damage. If they wanted to cause some serious destruction in Fallujah, they would use not modern "smart weaponry", but things more powerful and cost effective- heavy artillery and anti-personnel bombs.

Fallujah is certainly not another My Lai. The citizens in My Lai were killed indiscriminatly, while in Fallujah it is strategic targeting. Casualty figures in Iraq are incredably low compared with most wars over 20 years ago making it certainly not another Vietnam.

I'm sorry, but the people of Fallujah are just asking for it. When you burn Americans, threaten to burn Japanese Tourists , hang the corpses of dead Americans from a bridge, and threaten to mutilate hostages, you are asking to be eliminated. I would have much preferred to US to stay out of Iraq altogether, but since we're in there, we won't lie down and accept Iraqi citizens doing this to our people.

What must Saddam have done to these people to make them behave in this way? It really isn't better than savages.

Civilian Casualties / Collateral Damage - Other countries kill civilians. America only damages them.

--from the Newspeak Dictionary (www.newspeakdictionary.com)

What must Saddam have done to these people to make them behave in this way? It really isn't better than savages.

Rrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht.

Who says the americans are killing all those people, atleast they are trained not too kill civ's i would bet that the insurgents were dogin atleast half of the killing of civs

Alright, boy you really should learn to make comments on things you know even the slightest about. I AM a United States Marine, I lost 2 boys exactly a year ago from the 7th, to damn insurgents pretending to be civs. This isnt genocide, if anything, those damn bastards are getting it easy. I could take my company and flatten the city. We are doing quite well all considered. They claim to be looking out for thier own people, yet by firing at our boys from buildings in which non-combatants are located, they are showing exactly how little they care about civillian deaths. WE care more than they do. Until you have had to call an airstrike down on a building that held the neemy, as well as civillians, you should keep your little trap shut, because you have no idea what it is like, and evidently, very little brain power as well.

"Alright, boy"? "Very little brain power"? Go to hell, war criminal.

Jesus, some people never learn.

I'm sure your so happy that your sons died "serving your country" by attacking Iraq and killing its people. A people who never asked for the US to come there.

Just shut up. We need to honor to our armed service people. You and I might not support the war, but you can at least show some respect for the people over there who are fighting and dieing.

You forget that not everyone here is American and therefore they aren't "our service people", and no, I don't honor your service people, nor do I respect them.

Firstly can I say that I sypathise with all the views expressed within this forum, and elsewhere, over this deeply emotive issue. As my log on name suggests I am a serving member of the armed forces, however I didnt join up to kill or be killed, quite the reverse. I am a firefighter, my daily role is to serve the public and protect them, just like any other firefighter in your home towns. Occasionally I must serve my country overseas when there is trouble brewing.

We have all heard of Operation desert storm and operation enduring freedom, but have you heard of operation florian? This is a military operation to reinstall fire services and paramedic capabilities in countries ravaged by war. I have served on this operation in 18 of the worlds war torn countries, including Iraq. Within three days of the invasion we were recruiting prospective firefighters from the native Iraqi poulation, even though the fighting continued in many areas, and training them to the highest standards so that they could save and preserve lives whenver necessary. Just like the firefighters who serve YOU.

During this operation I lived with an Iraqi family. I spent long hours talking with them and their community, I visited the mass graves of over three hundred men women and children murdered by the 'secret police' and I learnt so much about so many of the issues in Iraq during this time. It is true that they never asked for the coalition to come there...

...Because they too could have ended up in the mass graves near the edges of the town if they had dared ask for Saddam to be toppled.

Sometimes, just occasionally we need to look at ourselves, to understand others. A person may join the armed forces of their country to serve that country, but they stay for their friends. Ask any one who has been in combat and im sure they will say that they didnt fight for the politicians, statesmen, or flag wavers back home. They fought for their freinds who were with them. Its true that American servicemen may not be yours, but then what about the, British, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Spanish, Australian, French, Norwegian, German, Turkish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Russian, Argentinian, Canadian, New Zealand, South African, Liberian, Estonian, Latvian, Chilean, Fijian, Swedish, Mexican, Brazilian, Uraguain, Croatian, Eygyptian, Botswanan or any of the other countries that have supplied troops to the coalition invasion or peacekeeping forces? are they yours? could they be employed to protect YOU at some point? could they even be your own freinds and family? Dont any of them deserve respect?

Im not American, I dont agree with many American politics, I dont agree with many of the decisions of my own government, But I am sure that, whether it was right to invade or not, Iraq is a more stable country to live in now. The coalition cant simply pull out, neither can it stay. The handing over of government is continuing and in a few months Iraq will have its own democratic process.

whether we agree with the war or not, I think that we all agree that rogue nations, genocide, international terrorism and drugs running are global problems that must be dealt with by the global community. The right of all of us to read each others views, and express our own is a basic right that so many people in the world do not have. That is the crux of the matter for me. Freedom of speech.

Hopefully, All Iraqi's will be able to enjoy this right with us soon.

I think it is a bit ridiculous for anyone to state "the fact that we're willing to negotiate with these people, some of whom are scumbags, is absurd."Certainly we have our fair share of "scumbags" in the United States. We invaded their country on false pretenses- surely we ought to be willing to negotiate. Then we'd best get the Iraqis some sense of stability and get the hell out of there before anymore nations in the world recognize how corrupt our current administration is. Bush and his cronies will surely go down in history as the worst ever.

Fallujah is certainly not another My Lai. The citizens in My Lai were killed indiscriminatly, while in Fallujah it is strategic targeting. Casualty figures in Iraq are incredably low compared with most wars over 20 years ago making it certainly not another Vietnam.

I agree, this persistent comparison with vietnem is not only unnecessary it is greatly inaccurate. As I understand it there has been 600 death in 14 months of US troops. Though i am not entirely literate with the fatalities of servicemen throughout the world in the last twenty years or so, I can quote the loss of 252 British servicemen and almost 1000 Argentinian's in only two months during the Falklands war. Though death isnt a 'nice' thing for anyone, surely it is easy to see that death caused during this 'war and peace' could be far greater, and the ever present statistics bear this out.

This isnt another vietnam. The bueracrats havent ordered enough flags and coffins for it to be considered as such.

their doing it the Ben Gurion/Meir/Sharon(to name only a few) way: a few at a time, to make the pleasure last. Or to talk more accurately about their mtovies, their using civillians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their weapons. Sad, but true; just the latest twist in theatrical micromilitarism.

So - you are saying that they ENJOY killing a few Iraqis at a time, and that they are doing this only to test their weapons? Because the world in unaware of American small arms effectiveness?

That is one hell of an accusation that is just beneath contempt.

-Z-
their doing it to prove the US can kill who it wants, when it wants, and get away with it-a way of putting Brzezinsky's ideas into practice for a nation no longer capable of trully doing so.

their doing it the Ben Gurion/Meir/Sharon(to name only a few) way: a few at a time, to make the pleasure last. Or to talk more accurately about their mtovies, their using civillians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their weapons. Sad, but true; just the latest twist in theatrical micromilitarism.

So - you are saying that they ENJOY killing a few Iraqis at a time, and that they are doing this only to test their weapons? Because the world in unaware of American small arms effectiveness?

That is one hell of an accusation that is just beneath contempt.

-Z-
their doing it to prove the US can kill who it wants, when it wants, and get away with it-a way of putting Brzezinsky's ideas into practice for a nation no longer capable of trully doing so.

Though my country, and therfore myself, are allied to the Us, i feel i must agree with you. One day the US will realise that its role as international polceforce is usually more of a hinderence than help, if only because of the good old 'anti yank' feeling. However i DO NOT feel that targetting civvies is the reason, motive or modus operandi of the Americans.