NationStates Jolt Archive

Now everyone's going to see how inhumane they can be to everyone else, military or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3705409.stm

and what was this man's crime besides being American and possibly Jewish?

Disgusting. No body should be put up with that kind of evil middle-age type of execution.

eeeeek....

He is an american contractor in Iraq. That is probably enough for them. They said it was retaliation for those detainees abuses/tortured/killed

They tried to exchange him for some detained Iraqi's but the coalition forces refused.



Poor guy. That is aweful

Anyone who expected this to be humane when we went into it is an idiot.

We went in based upon poor presumptions and poor intelligence. Our men are dying without need or profit, and we should get the hell back out again and fuck the damned Iraqis. If they can't be arsed to get their nation in gear then they can go to hell.

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.

True. This appears to be Al Qaeda acting in Iraq and claiming it is punishment both for the prison abuses and for refusing to turn over Al Qaeda operatives in Abu Ghraib. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. However, it is still interesting timing considering bin Laden just sent released that tape offering gold for the heads of US and UK Citizens.

well I hope Bin Laden left an address where we could pick up the gold.

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

Look on the bright side: One less mouth to feed in this world, so the more food to go around for the rest of us. :roll:

well I hope Bin Laden left an address where we could pick up the gold.

...I'll just not comment on how revolting your post is, then, shall I?

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

Who's blaming either? We're blaming Al-Qaeda here

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

Who's blaming either? We're blaming Al-Qaeda here

Yeah, you know my stance by now.. I am totally against the war in Iraq.. with I believe good reason. The war on Al Qaeda is a whole other ball game. The Americans have every right to go after these scum. They are the people who killed almost 3000 innocent people on 9/11, they're the ones that pose a threat to America and all of us who hold freedom dear. Al Qaeda are the Jim Jones's of the Islamic world. Don't drink the Kool Aid!

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

My intention in posting this article was never to blame the Iraqis and I suppose I should have made that clearer. I posted this to show the reprisals have begun and that, despite a media push to the contrary, Al Qaeda remains a vital and relevant terror organization and we are, in fact, no safer since 9/11 and certainly not since the invasion of Iraq.

DP

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.


The Americans do not have a “cold russian winter” that they can retreat into and let it win the battle for them like the russians did during Hitler's march to Moscow. No, the americans have to accually fight there own battles. And in battle you are either advancing or retreating, The radical factions of Islam started the war long before 9-11 and they started with the Americans since the knew they are the only ones with enough pride to fight back. Iraq is a beach head for this war and it is also a reminder that americans stick to their words(unless there a Democrat in office). Don't forget that after the '91 war Iraq agreed to a list of demands provided by Colistion Forces to keep the Americans out of Baghdad. Iraq(and the UN) had 12 years to enforce this treaty and failed to do so, hence the Americans went to Baghdad. 8)

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

Ever watch Joe Millionaire?

Now that show was tragic.

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.



More serious: I think they should have changed Rummy or "Ehrenburg" Wolfowitz for him. Then the kill could still be usefull and do some good in the world.

his poor family, to have to see something so horrible

i think the video is about a month old so the excuse that its in retaliation for the abuse of prisoners may be BS

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A US guy who was over there helping rebuild and wasn't contracted through the Pentagon or Halliburton. Yeah, he really had it coming. The second part of your justification, that since 25% of Americans condone torture that means you have some right to enjoy this just sickens me. Sometimes you raise good points, but it's a shame you have to trash your credibility by proving yourself to be no better than the monsters who did this and who tortured those Iraqi prisons.


More serious: I think they should have changed Rummy or "Ehrenburg" Wolfowitz for him. Then the kill could still be usefull and do some good in the world.

What are you, 12? :roll:

I hope that shows all of them people saying that the war on terror is a load of crap... Al-Quaida is killing people trying to help their comrades. What the hell is wrong in their heads!?!?!!?!

THey, terrorists, should all be slowly tortured until they die in agony. I'd like to have Bin Laden's head on a silver plater. This video made me sick and I've seen a hell loat of other stuff like that. Man, I hope those hippies realises that the money they're sending to third world muslim countries is used to teach children how to decapitate a man. Sick bastards...

Sorry, had to relieve myself of some anger.

What makes these thugs think that they will get what they want. IT seems that this will result in the US taking more action, not less. It will make life harder for everybody, and most Americans aren't going to be sacred, they're going to be angry.
P.S. This was written befor the post above mine, I hadn't read it.

THey, terrorists, should all be slowly tortured until they die in agony. I'd like to have Bin Laden's head on a silver plater. This video made me sick and I've seen a hell loat of other stuff like that. Man, I hope those hippies realises that the money they're sending to third world muslim countries is used to teach children how to decapitate a man. Sick bastards...


Becaus that would definately give you the moral high ground and prove that good has triumphed over evil.

Man, I hope those hippies realises that the money they're sending to third world muslim countries is used to teach children how to decapitate a man.

so that's what they mean when they talk about the 'head start' program...

(sorry, but the line was there)

Such action, as stated above,would be bad. It is necessary to react in a way that discourages this, or anything like it, from happening again (as well as punish the perps). However, it is equally important to maintain the stance of being the one acting from a moral, thoght out position. NOT random, bloody, humiliating violence that only serves to lower ourselves to their level while making the criminals that do these things seem to be aceptable, because powerful nations also act innappropriately. The prison abuse cannot be used to condone anything of this nature. Remember, they want us to appear evil, and that torturing and beheading a terrorist is not the way to prevent such an image.

they held his severed head up to the camera.

HIS SEVERED HEAD.

i guess i'm not totally desensitized to violence after all.

One large reason the US is such a large target for terrorism is that they mess in everyone's business and they are above all others. They are allowed to have nukes, and noone else is, despite historical fact that they are the only country to actually use them. Also, you're much more safe than you think. The chances of falling victim to a terrorist attack are very low. You'd probably have a higher chance of falling victim to a hate crime if you were Middle Eastern in the US.

i guess i'm not totally desensitized to violence after all.

the sad thing is that we have to get to that level now. and if we see enough of it, we'll get desensitized to that as well.

They are allowed to have nukes, and noone else is, despite historical fact that they are the only country to actually use them.

:roll:

Yes and since when did war say you can't use a weapon?

But hey why not share?

Let's give Nukes to everybody!

Why not start with the ME? They will be responsible with them!

:roll:

The death of this man has nothing to do with the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. He was a target because he was not military and was trying to help rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. The one thing these terrorists do not want to see happen is for Iraq to stabilize. The Iraqi citizens are of no consequence. By keeping things in chaos they can more easily recruit from a disillusioned populace.

Al Qaeda cares for no nation; they are dedicated to a cause. They are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to forward their cause (except for the leaders of course who are more than willing to talk others into becoming human bombs for the cause but are themselves noticeably absent).

The death of this man has nothing to do with the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. He was a target because he was not military and was trying to help rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. The one thing these terrorists do not want to see happen is for Iraq to stabilize. The Iraqi citizens are of no consequence. By keeping things in chaos they can more easily recruit from a disillusioned populace.

Al Qaeda cares for no nation; they are dedicated to a cause. They are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to forward their cause (except for the leaders of course who are more than willing to talk others into becoming human bombs for the cause but are themselves noticeably absent).

Add on to the fact that will not go away even if Palistine was solved and the US left Saudi.

Hmmmm I wonder what their next Jihaaaaaaaddddd! would be?

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.majoryly wrong, im afraid. think of everything the al quida could have done if the united states hadnt done anything in iraq and afghanistan

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.



More serious: I think they should have changed Rummy or "Ehrenburg" Wolfowitz for him. Then the kill could still be usefull and do some good in the world.
Congratulations, Silly Mountain Walks, you just discussed the slow, torturous and utterly terrifying death of a 26 year old man in nearly the exact same cold-blooded way as a group of foaming-at-the mouth, stone cold fanatical maniacs I just read on Stormfront.

---Edited By Nationstates Moderator----

A little too graphic. Google it.. but please don't link to it. Thank You.

his poor family, to have to see something so horrible

i think the video is about a month old so the excuse that its in retaliation for the abuse of prisoners may be BS

Given that the family was only informed that the body was found Monday - on what do you base your assumption that it happened a month ago?

Holy donkey testicles! It's like some sort of war over there.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

If you watch it enough, it's not awful at all.

It's happened to me, I can look at that stuff all day and not feel a twinge.

Just shows you how easy it is for those people to do something like that, they grew up with it, it doesn't bother them.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

If you watch it enough, it's not awful at all.

It's happened to me, I can look at that stuff all day and not feel a twinge.

Just shows you how easy it is for those people to do something like that, they grew up with it, it doesn't bother them.

It doesn't bother me either. Hell, I worked/studied at a "body farm" for a few years. If you don't know what a body farm is, it is where they examine causes of death and decomposition. I've seen decapitations from shotgun blasts to the head, beheadings via axes, and one case where a man tried to hang himself with piano wiring. Death isn't scary.

It is a tragedy, and people who find it funny are utterly sick. On the other hand, people who think "Ooh, useful lubricant for our "Kill all muslims because look at this!" political agenda" are not much less sick.

Is this worse than what certain American soldiers have been doing to prisoners in Iraq? The simple answer is that I don't know. Nor do the rest of the peanut gallery, so stow it. We don't know the full facts about the latter, whereas this has been given to us whether we wanted it or not.

Would it be a justified action if the soldiers in question have been killing prisoners and torturing them to death? Of course not. Two wrongs don't make a right, and unless this man had been walking around wearing a t-shirt saying "Yay, stick electrodes on their genitals!", which I sort of doubt, it wasn't his fault anyway. Being in Iraq at all is foolhardy at this time, but ritual execution is not a reasonable punishment for foolishness.

I despise and am disgusted by the mentality of the people who did this- but people who use that disgust to try to inflate support and acceptance of political and military actions which are also supportive or conducive to torture, murder, mass murder, and subjugation are indirectly condoning the act itself, so may I respectfully suggest that certain people here just shut up.

It is a tragedy, and people who find it funny are utterly sick. On the other hand, people who think "Ooh, useful lubricant for our "Kill all muslims because look at this!" political agenda" are not much less sick.

Is this worse than what certain American soldiers have been doing to prisoners in Iraq? The simple answer is that I don't know. Nor do the rest of the peanut gallery, so stow it. We don't know the full facts about the latter, whereas this has been given to us whether we wanted it or not.

Would it be a justified action if the soldiers in question have been killing prisoners and torturing them to death? Of course not. Two wrongs don't make a right, and unless this man had been walking around wearing a t-shirt saying "Yay, stick electrodes on their genitals!", which I sort of doubt, it wasn't his fault anyway. Being in Iraq at all is foolhardy at this time, but ritual execution is not a reasonable punishment for foolishness.

I despise and am disgusted by the mentality of the people who did this- but people who use that disgust to try to inflate support and acceptance of political and military actions which are also supportive or conducive to torture, murder, mass murder, and subjugation are indirectly condoning the act itself, so may I respectfully suggest that certain people here just shut up.

One thing is abundantly clear from this-someone will use it for nefarious purposes. Whether that someone is in the Middle East, or the United States, or even Europe, doesn't matter as much as the fact that someone will use it, and innocent bystanders will die because of it.

Bet on it. If the objective was to escalate the conflict, it's been accomplished.

Is this worse than what certain American soldiers have been doing to prisoners in Iraq?

Yes, because the Americans are not killing the Iraqi prisoners. On TV.

It is a tragedy, and people who find it funny are utterly sick. On the other hand, people who think "Ooh, useful lubricant for our "Kill all muslims because look at this!" political agenda" are not much less sick.

Is this worse than what certain American soldiers have been doing to prisoners in Iraq? The simple answer is that I don't know. Nor do the rest of the peanut gallery, so stow it. We don't know the full facts about the latter, whereas this has been given to us whether we wanted it or not.

Would it be a justified action if the soldiers in question have been killing prisoners and torturing them to death? Of course not. Two wrongs don't make a right, and unless this man had been walking around wearing a t-shirt saying "Yay, stick electrodes on their genitals!", which I sort of doubt, it wasn't his fault anyway. Being in Iraq at all is foolhardy at this time, but ritual execution is not a reasonable punishment for foolishness.

I despise and am disgusted by the mentality of the people who did this- but people who use that disgust to try to inflate support and acceptance of political and military actions which are also supportive or conducive to torture, murder, mass murder, and subjugation are indirectly condoning the act itself, so may I respectfully suggest that certain people here just shut up.
For one thing get over this "stow it" nonsense, stop posturing.

Who the hell is using it as an excuse to justify the war or anything else? The fact of the matter is that nothing, absolutely nothing that has been done during the war approaches the singularly methodical and savage act in that video. You are the only one that is even approaching using the killing as a thinly veiled political agenda. You are stopping just short of saying the war is unjust so nobody even has the right to speak out against a bunch of depraved butchers. Anybody that could watch that and not feel outrage, simply because "we don't know the whole story" is missing a part of their soul. I say this coming from the perspective of someone you would probably consider to the far right, too.

I think the world must have turned upside down while I wasn't looking because I'm feeling pity for Jews and remorse for even knowing people who feel they should be slaughtered like you wouldn't slaughter an animal. This is the first time I've understood where they are coming from and the nature of the people they are up against.

Who the hell is using it as an excuse to justify the war or anything else?

[snip]

I think the world must have turned upside down while I wasn't looking because I'm feeling pity for Jews and remorse for even knowing people who feel they should be slaughtered like you wouldn't slaughter an animal. This is the first time I've understood where they are coming from and the nature of the people they are up against.

Um...just about anyone who was in favor of the war in the first place? Or at least that's the way it seems to me when I look at various internet forums :roll: .

You know people who think all Jews should be slaughtered? :shock: That's...disturbing, I guess, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

This video made me sick

Apparently so:

They, terrorists, should all be slowly tortured until they die in agony. I'd like to have Bin Laden's head on a silver plater.

Your essentially saying you would like to kill people in a manner more brutal then this poor guy has been killed. Nice.

Man, I hope those hippies realises that the money they're sending to third world muslim countries is used to teach children how to decapitate a man. Sick bastards...

Yeah, all us 'hippies' (how quaint) sending blank checks payable to Al-Quadia are kicking ourselves now...

Sorry, had to relieve myself of some anger.

Sorry, had to relieve myself of the pervassive stupidity that plagues society and causes the friction betwen societies to begin with.

Who the hell is using it as an excuse to justify the war or anything else?

[snip]

I think the world must have turned upside down while I wasn't looking because I'm feeling pity for Jews and remorse for even knowing people who feel they should be slaughtered like you wouldn't slaughter an animal. This is the first time I've understood where they are coming from and the nature of the people they are up against.

Um...just about anyone who was in favor of the war in the first place? Or at least that's the way it seems to me when I look at various internet forums :roll: .

You know people who think all Jews should be slaughtered? :shock: That's...disturbing, I guess, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
If you are more concerned about someone that may use it as an excuse than you are about what happened and who did it, then your priorities are screwed.

What does it have to do with the topic? Everything that I've read and watched so far is saying that he was a Jew and was probably targetted because he was a Jew first and foremost, and American secondly. I'm saying now maybe I can see that the Jews aren't the only ones at fault. It was a Jew that was killed, you know. Is that hard to understand, somehow?

They are allowed to have nukes, and noone else is, despite historical fact that they are the only country to actually use them.

:roll:

Yes and since when did war say you can't use a weapon?

But hey why not share?

Let's give Nukes to everybody!

Why not start with the ME? They will be responsible with them!

:roll:

You are completly missing me... I think nukes should be illegal throughout the entire world.

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.majoryly wrong, im afraid. think of everything the al quida could have done if the united states hadnt done anything in iraq and afghanistan

I'm thinking... and I'm drawing a blank? Tell me, what did Iraq do that supported "terrorism"? You are aware that the US hired and funded Osama bin Laden at one time, are you not?

well I hope Bin Laden left an address where we could pick up the gold.

...I'll just not comment on how revolting your post is, then, shall I?



I was implying that if we had an address we could go get ourselves this Osama character. LMAO!

Disturbing

Television really is powerful stuff.

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A US guy who was over there helping rebuild and wasn't contracted through the Pentagon or Halliburton.



Wow, you did not die from your first lie did not you, you are a professional. According CNN, the guy was not rebuilding tyhe country that was ruined by yours but looking for a job and making a profit althus from your fucking war.

The complete story of Berg: [URL EDITED OUT] (rather shoking)

They are allowed to have nukes, and noone else is, despite historical fact that they are the only country to actually use them.

:roll:

Yes and since when did war say you can't use a weapon?

But hey why not share?

Let's give Nukes to everybody!

Why not start with the ME? They will be responsible with them!

:roll:

You are completly missing me... I think nukes should be illegal throughout the entire world.


That's fine but it's pandoras box. Man opened it and will not be able to close it.

The only way nukes will be "controlled" is when the planet unifies itself.

Not going to happen for a VERY long time as it will take a new age of enlightenment for that to happen.

The complete story of Berg: [URL EDITED OUT] (rather shoking)

Wish I hadn't of looked.

That convinces me that Al-Q has to be exterminated.

The complete story of Berg: [URL EDITED OUT] (rather shoking)

:shock:
I wish I hadn't clicked that link

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

*sigh*

Glad to see the lines between tragedy and entertainment are getting increasingly blurry. :roll:

[URL EDITED OUT]

It's disgusting!

He had it coming to him. He deserved it.

This shows us we're being too damn soft in the Middle East.

To repeat something from earlier, this is nothing we haven't dealt with before. After WWII, plenty of Nazis resisted allied control of Germany, and violently too. Know what we did when we caught them? Publically tried them and sentanced them to death. The U.S. and France executed them by firing squad and hangings, Britain beheaded them.

Now, what valid psychological motivation is behind this?

The Nazis used fear to control the people, much like Saddam and Islamofascists. Anyone who cooperated with the allies felt they were in danger, because so many important collaboraters were assassinated. The allies responded with harsh punishments for resistance, why?

1. To instill their own version of fear in the populace: This is what you get for resisting the U.S.

2. To take the power of fear away from the "Werwolf", showing that these fighters were nothing the U.S. couldn't handle.

This process was called De-Nazification, and would work just as well in the middle east, re-named De-Al-Qaedafication or perhaps De-Baathification. The people there don't stand up against these horrible actions for one reason: fear. They fear the fundamentalists, they fear the saddamites, they fear the various factions vying for control of Iraq because they know these factions will kill anyone to gain power. These people need to know that we are willing to defend their lives, and take away the lives of the people who would destroy them all in the name of gaining power.

He had it coming to him. He deserved it.
To take this statement to it's conclusion so do you. As I assume you live in one of the democracies that is in Iraq now (you can lie now and say your not). So as a member of that society and therefore partialy responsible for it's action you should die the same way then?
Get a life, a brain, so moral fibre! Even if the war is wrong, there now exist a moral resposibility to put things right. Those that do this do not deserve to be murdered.

It's really not hard to understand the vicious cycles gripping the Iraqi situation:

1. American soldiers stressed to the brim in Iraq, living in constant fear of being attacked
2. Stress release includes torturing Iraqi prisoners, disrepectint their culture, and raping their women
3. Iraqis very furious over the occupation and hatred is enhanced by the atrocities
4. Iraqis attack American soldiers/civilians.
5. American soldiers stressed to the brim in Iraq, living in constant fear of being attacked
6. Stress release includes torturing Iraqi prisoners, disrepectint their culture, and raping their women

and etc.

Who's to blame? God knows.

They are allowed to have nukes, and noone else is, despite historical fact that they are the only country to actually use them.

:roll:

Yes and since when did war say you can't use a weapon?

But hey why not share?

Let's give Nukes to everybody!

Why not start with the ME? They will be responsible with them!

:roll:

You are completly missing me... I think nukes should be illegal throughout the entire world.

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.majoryly wrong, im afraid. think of everything the al quida could have done if the united states hadnt done anything in iraq and afghanistan

I'm thinking... and I'm drawing a blank? Tell me, what did Iraq do that supported "terrorism"? You are aware that the US hired and funded Osama bin Laden at one time, are you not?

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Sure I can..it's called free will..Osama went to Afghanistan on his own free will...just as every foreign mujahadeen who went to the aid of their brethren there.....all we did was make it possible for them to fight the Soviets...

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Sure I can..it's called free will..Osama went to Afghanistan on his own free will...just as every foreign mujahadeen who went to the aid of their brethren there.....all we did was make it possible for them to fight the Soviets...

Well, so it's their free will to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Why isn't it free will to go to Iraq and fight the invaders?

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Sure I can..it's called free will..Osama went to Afghanistan on his own free will...just as every foreign mujahadeen who went to the aid of their brethren there.....all we did was make it possible for them to fight the Soviets...

Well, so it's their free will to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Why isn't it free will to go to Iraq and fight the invaders?

I'd accept the term invader if that was the case..but seeing as how 1/3 of the Iraqi people (Kurds) welcomed us with open arms and continue to do so. and the other 1/3 (Shiites) didn't engage us until an Iranian-backed iman by the name of Al-Sadr desired to enforce an Iranian-style theocracy on the other 2/3's of the nation. while the other 1/3 (sunnis) were beholden to Saddam for the power and influence he gave them...so no..the term "invader" doesn't apply here.

I'd accept the term invader if that was the case..but seeing as how 1/3 of the Iraqi people (Kurds) welcomed us with open arms and continue to do so. and the other 1/3 (Shiites) didn't engage us until an Iranian-backed iman by the name of Al-Sadr desired to enforce an Iranian-style theocracy on the other 2/3's of the nation. while the other 1/3 (sunnis) were beholden to Saddam for the power and influence he gave them...so no..the term "invader" doesn't apply here.

Haha, liberator for one, invader for another.

In June 1940 Nazi German tanks rolled into Paris. The poor, conquered Parisians formed the Resistance movement. To the French, the Resistance was a freedom fighter, a potential liberator of France from German rule. They were summoned together by a general named Charles de Gaulle. The Germans in France weren't too happy about the Resistance, because they were always trying to blow up German tanks and soldiers. They began torturing French and British spies. To the Germans the Resistance were horrible terrorists.

*dub*

In May 2004 American and British tanks rolled into Baghdad. The poor, conquered Iraqis formed numerous jihadish groups. To many Iraqis, these groups were consisted of freedom fighters, a potential liberator of Iraq from American rule. They were summoned together by a spiritual leader named Al-Sadr. The Americans in Iraq weren't too happy about the Resistance, because they were always trying to blow up American tanks and soldiers. They began torturing prisoners in Iraqi prisons. To the Americans the jihadist groups were horrible terrorists.

Please make a comparison.

I'd accept the term invader if that was the case..but seeing as how 1/3 of the Iraqi people (Kurds) welcomed us with open arms and continue to do so.

Salishe, what the Kurds think is some what irrelevant. They make up less then 10% of Iraq's population. Saying the Kurds favour this, is like saying less then 10% of the American population should decide what goes on in America. That is simply put, hogwash!

I'd accept the term invader if that was the case..but seeing as how 1/3 of the Iraqi people (Kurds) welcomed us with open arms and continue to do so. and the other 1/3 (Shiites) didn't engage us until an Iranian-backed iman by the name of Al-Sadr desired to enforce an Iranian-style theocracy on the other 2/3's of the nation. while the other 1/3 (sunnis) were beholden to Saddam for the power and influence he gave them...so no..the term "invader" doesn't apply here.

Haha, liberator for one, invader for another.

In June 1940 Nazi German tanks rolled into Paris. The poor, conquered Parisians formed the Resistance movement. To the French, the Resistance was a freedom fighter, a potential liberator of France from German rule. They were summoned together by a general named Charles de Gaulle. The Germans in France weren't too happy about the Resistance, because they were always trying to blow up German tanks and soldiers. They began torturing French and British spies. To the Germans the Resistance were horrible terrorists.

*dub*

In May 2004 American and British tanks rolled into Baghdad. The poor, conquered Iraqis formed numerous jihadish groups. To many Iraqis, these groups were consisted of freedom fighters, a potential liberator of Iraq from American rule. They were summoned together by a spiritual leader named Al-Sadr. The Americans in Iraq weren't too happy about the Resistance, because they were always trying to blow up American tanks and soldiers. They began torturing prisoners in Iraqi prisons. To the Americans the jihadist groups were horrible terrorists.

Please make a comparison.

Poor conquered Iraqis?...Yes..those darn Republican Guard units that we demolished...ahmm..those wouldn't be the very Republican Guard that had orders to shoot the families of retreating Regular Army soldiers..those Republican Guard.....or did you mean the Kurds who after being gassed by Saddam assisted Army Special Force units consolidate a relatively quick victory in the North of Iraq..the very ones who the Americans and British had kept safe from Saddam's depradations....those poor Iraqis?..

Or perhaps you're referring to the mass graves with totals of upwards of 250,000 of slain political opponents of Saddam's regime or just anyone that pissed them off?...you mean those poor Iraqis?

As for Sadr..he'd been in Exile in Iran because he had been pressing for a theocracy like Iran..and Iraq was solidly in the secular camp..of course that ticked off Iran..so they pumped money and arms into Sadr and then said....Ok..the stupid Americans got rid of your only stumbling block to total power in Iraq..now go make Iraq just like us...you mean those poor Iraqis who would have had to live under another oppressive regime..only this time instead of secular it would have been religous?

Poor conquered Iraqis?...Yes..those darn Republican Guard units that we demolished...ahmm..those wouldn't be the very Republican Guard that had orders to shoot the families of retreating Regular Army soldiers..those Republican Guard.....or did you mean the Kurds who after being gassed by Saddam assisted Army Special Force units consolidate a relatively quick victory in the North of Iraq..the very ones who the Americans and British had kept safe from Saddam's depradations....those poor Iraqis?..

Or perhaps you're referring to the mass graves with totals of upwards of 250,000 of slain political opponents of Saddam's regime or just anyone that pissed them off?...you mean those poor Iraqis?

As for Sadr..he'd been in Exile in Iran because he had been pressing for a theocracy like Iran..and Iraq was solidly in the secular camp..of course that ticked off Iran..so they pumped money and arms into Sadr and then said....Ok..the stupid Americans got rid of your only stumbling block to total power in Iraq..now go make Iraq just like us...you mean those poor Iraqis who would have had to live under another oppressive regime..only this time instead of secular it would have been religous?

Oh come on. One sadistic regime cannot translate into another from the "liberators"

Poor conquered Iraqis?...Yes..those darn Republican Guard units that we demolished...ahmm..those wouldn't be the very Republican Guard that had orders to shoot the families of retreating Regular Army soldiers..those Republican Guard.....or did you mean the Kurds who after being gassed by Saddam assisted Army Special Force units consolidate a relatively quick victory in the North of Iraq..the very ones who the Americans and British had kept safe from Saddam's depradations....those poor Iraqis?..

Or perhaps you're referring to the mass graves with totals of upwards of 250,000 of slain political opponents of Saddam's regime or just anyone that pissed them off?...you mean those poor Iraqis?

As for Sadr..he'd been in Exile in Iran because he had been pressing for a theocracy like Iran..and Iraq was solidly in the secular camp..of course that ticked off Iran..so they pumped money and arms into Sadr and then said....Ok..the stupid Americans got rid of your only stumbling block to total power in Iraq..now go make Iraq just like us...you mean those poor Iraqis who would have had to live under another oppressive regime..only this time instead of secular it would have been religous?

Oh come on. One sadistic regime cannot translate into another from the "liberators"

Ahmm...you didn't exactly answer any of the points I brought up in my last post even though you copied the entire thing..how bout addressing my points?

Here are some bottom line points.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

2) Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda pre the American invasion.

3) Iraq had no WMD, nor was this any type of attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi's

4) Iraq did not at any time in the past or is there any evidence to support they would of in the future posed any threat to America.

5) The treatment of Iraqi's being detained by the Americans is deplorable

6) The beheading of Berg was the act of animals

7) The USA has created more terrorists

8 ) The war for the hearts and minds of Iraqi's is lost.

9) The Americans should clean up their mess and get out of Iraq.

10) Last but not least, this is proof that the PNAC doctrine is wrong. This is proof that Bush must go.

Here are some bottom line points.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

2) Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda pre the American invasion.

3) Iraq had no WMD, nor was this any type of attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi's

4) Iraq did not at any time in the past or is there any evidence to support they would of in the future posed any threat to America.

5) The treatment of Iraqi's being detained by the Americans is deplorable

6) The beheading of Berg was the act of animals

7) The USA has created more terrorists

8 ) The war for the hearts and minds of Iraqi's is lost.

9) The Americans should clean up their mess and get out of Iraq.

10) Last but not least, this is proof that the PNAC doctrine is wrong. This is proof that Bush must go.

Oh..I see Steph..your points are valid and "bottom-line" but mine can be brushed aside as immaterial?

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A US guy who was over there helping rebuild and wasn't contracted through the Pentagon or Halliburton.



Wow, you did not die from your first lie did not you, you are a professional. According CNN, the guy was not rebuilding tyhe country that was ruined by yours but looking for a job and making a profit althus from your f--- war.

I have no idea what your first scentence even means, so I'm skipping over it. Now, moving on, I don't get my news from CNN without cross checking the stories. The fact of Nick Berg is that he owned a small communications equipment company and was over there independent from Halliburton and the US forces working to rebuild Iraq. He tried to leave the country about two weeks before he was kidnapped but because he wasn't contracted through Halliburton, his leaving was defferred by the US military. Also, as he wasn't working for Halliburton, he wasn't provieded a bodyguard of National Guardsmen (which is what all those called up National Guardsmen appear to be doing, serving as bodyguards for independent contractors).

Now, if you're finished sounding idiotic, lemme break this down for you. Yes, my country started this foolish war and that's a stain we're going to have to live with on our records for a very long time. However, it's not "my f--- war" and I try everyday to stop it. What our soliders did to those Iraqis was just as shocking and revolting as this action and just proves that no one has the moral high ground over there. Any moral superiority you may have, though (refer back to the whole "your f--- war" comment), is shot when you claim to enjoy watching anyone, guilty of making a profit or not, beheaded so you are just as guilty of spreading hatred and evilness as those Iraqis and our power-mad government. Grow up.

Here are some bottom line points.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

2) Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda pre the American invasion.

3) Iraq had no WMD, nor was this any type of attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi's

4) Iraq did not at any time in the past or is there any evidence to support they would of in the future posed any threat to America.

5) The treatment of Iraqi's being detained by the Americans is deplorable

6) The beheading of Berg was the act of animals

7) The USA has created more terrorists

8 ) The war for the hearts and minds of Iraqi's is lost.

9) The Americans should clean up their mess and get out of Iraq.

10) Last but not least, this is proof that the PNAC doctrine is wrong. This is proof that Bush must go.

Oh..I see Steph..your points are valid and "bottom-line" but mine can be brushed aside as immaterial?

Salishe, I believe you want to believe what you're saying, in many respects I believe you believe it. However, most of your arguments are obviously based on emotion and do not reflect the evidence. My "points" are what the evidence supports as we know it. Your arguments seem to support what you'd like to believe despite all evidence suggesting quite the opposite.

Lets just do a fore instance here, a foregn army from a much bigger country invaded the USA. They have better tachnology, better weapons, and so on. They go through without any real resitance. But then they start being heavy handed, shooting people. What would you do. You'd fight back, you'd kill the enermy. You'd call those people who did that Patriots.

Well thats what the Iraqies are doing, the US have been over heavy handed, falluja was wrong and terrable, people don't like it. Just cause the Iraqies are not american dosn't mean they don't have rights.

The video of Nick Berg’s murder is one of the most demonic things I’ve ever seen. It’s available here: Northeast Intelligence Network. (The site is getting heavy traffic and is occasionally down.)

It opens with Berg sitting on a plastic chair, reciting his own name and the names of his parents and family members. The scene changes and he’s tied up on the floor in front of five masked mujahideen, as one reads a long droning Arabic statement from a piece of paper. The audio is a few seconds ahead of the video; suddenly you hear a chorus of screams and shouts that don’t match the video. Then, as the yelling and keening intensifies, the one who read the statement puts away the paper, pulls a long knife out of his shirt, leaps onto Nick Berg and begins sawing his head off. Another one jumps on Nick’s back and pins his arms as he dies. The others caper and dance, calling out “Allahu Akhbar!”

The screaming and gagging is nightmarish. And it’s not quick.

The video ends with one of these creatures holding up Berg’s head while the camera pans in for closeups of the head and body. And the lake of blood.

I’m describing this in detail because I don’t want anyone to watch this without being really prepared.

When the Daniel Pearl video was making the rounds on the web, I refused to post a link because it was so soul-wrenching that I thought people didn’t need to see it. I thought September 11 was a big enough shock to the American public that we wouldn’t dare go back to sleep.

Unfortunately, I no longer believe that, and that’s why I’m posting a link to this goddamned obscenity. Watch it, if you think you can. It’s going to make you sick, and it’s going to make you mad.

And remember this: what you see in this video is what the mujahideen would like to do to each and every one of us.

- Charles Johnson - http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/TheGoodTheBadTheMedia-X.gif

And that is the exact reason, Islamo Facism, that I own guns. That's the reason I practice riflery at least every other day. That's the reason I march two miles with a heavily weighted back pack. That's the reason I run so hard and so fast that toward the end I nearly black out because my heart can't keep up with the physical demands. How does that apply? I now view all muslims as butchers. They alienated moderates such as myself, moderates who had a live and let live policy, and pushed me into this new direction.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
"I have my guns, have you yours?"

Here are some bottom line points.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 No but it has everything to do with State sponsored terror links of which Iraq has

2) Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda pre the American invasion. admittedly no links of operational tempo, but certainly of anti-Western/anti-American beliefs

3) Iraq had no WMD, nor was this any type of attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi'sIraq certainly did have WMD's, and I don't recall ever seeing the destruction of what the UN stated he had, not to mention the various documents we've discovered, the nuclear program documents we found buried. As for "liberate"..the Kurds will disagree with you, so would the 300,000 bodies in mass graves Saddam has spread over Iraq

4) Iraq did not at any time in the past or is there any evidence to support they would of in the future posed any threat to America.No evidence?..the man said on state-run television he would destroy us if given the chance, what more do you want?

5) The treatment of Iraqi's being detained by the Americans is deplorable
Agree...and they have been charged, and will be tried for that behavior, it's the benefits of our society, we at least try to clean up our messes, can you say the same of Saddam's torturers?..when do the Iraqis get to try those men?

6) The beheading of Berg was the act of animalsHow do I know that?, for all I know it was Iraqis who kidnapped him and then falsely stated they were Al-Queda to throw us off the scent, unless you have proof otherwise?

7) The USA has created more terroristsCreate them if we do nothing, create them if we do do something..moot point, if they hate us, nothing we do or don't will convince them otherwise

8 ) The war for the hearts and minds of Iraqi's is lost.again..talk to the Kurds...they don't seem to think so, and remember the sunni triangle is only one portion of Iraq..there is more to the country ya know

9) The Americans should clean up their mess and get out of Iraq.agree wholeheartedly, as soon as they stop shooting at us we can get around to cleaning up the mess

10) Last but not least, this is proof that the PNAC doctrine is wrong. This is proof that Bush must go. that is still open for debate

You're rationalizing Salishe. The Kurds don't even make up 10% of the Iraqi population, the numbers you quote are over a 30 year period. Saddam had not used WMD since the 80's (all ok'd by the Americans I might add) .. I know you're older.. a lot on this forum are not.. I always sit back and shake my head when they say "He gassed his own people" Ya, before most of you were born, granted not you. You have to READ the PNAC doctrine to understand the motivation behind the Iraq war.. I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that you don't get it. You are allowing yourself to be sucked into the propaganda.. that's all.

You're rationalizing Salishe. The Kurds don't even make up 10% of the Iraqi population, the numbers you quote are over a 30 year period. Saddam had not used WMD since the 80's (all ok'd by the Americans I might add) .. I know you're older.. a lot on this forum are not.. I always sit back and shake my head when they say "He gassed his own people" Ya, before most of you were born, granted not you. You have to READ the PNAC doctrine to understand the motivation behind the Iraq war.. I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that you don't get it. You are allowing yourself to be sucked into the propaganda.. that's all.

Rationalizing?...on the contrary...I think I'm rather well-grounded..so because the Kurds at best make up 10% their opinions don't count?...As for the number of dead in those mass graves..the largest concentration occured after the last Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam slaughtered them in the thousands in retaliation for their attempt to overthrow him.

As for when he gassed the Kurds....I've always had it thrown up in America's face that we are the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in combat...and that was over 50 yrs ago..so I can't go back 20? and document Saddam's own usage of WoMD's?..

I get it...I see you rationalizing away Iraqi abuses and atrocities and detailing American abuses and atrocities.....in a way I've seen this before from Canadians...when I returned from my first tour of duty in Vietnam I would see Canadians detailing American abuses and atrocities against the Vietnamese...but virtual nothing regarding Vietnamese abuses and atrocities against Americans....seems the torch was passed from one generation of Canadians to another....

You're rationalizing Salishe. The Kurds don't even make up 10% of the Iraqi population, the numbers you quote are over a 30 year period. Saddam had not used WMD since the 80's (all ok'd by the Americans I might add) .. I know you're older.. a lot on this forum are not.. I always sit back and shake my head when they say "He gassed his own people" Ya, before most of you were born, granted not you. You have to READ the PNAC doctrine to understand the motivation behind the Iraq war.. I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that you don't get it. You are allowing yourself to be sucked into the propaganda.. that's all.

Rationalizing?...on the contrary...I think I'm rather well-grounded..so because the Kurds at best make up 10% their opinions don't count?...As for the number of dead in those mass graves..the largest concentration occured after the last Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam slaughtered them in the thousands in retaliation for their attempt to overthrow him.

As for when he gassed the Kurds....I've always had it thrown up in America's face that we are the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in combat...and that was over 50 yrs ago..so I can't go back 20? and document Saddam's own usage of WoMD's?..

I get it...I see you rationalizing away Iraqi abuses and atrocities and detailing American abuses and atrocities.....in a way I've seen this before from Canadians...when I returned from my first tour of duty in Vietnam I would see Canadians detailing American abuses and atrocities against the Vietnamese...but virtual nothing regarding Vietnamese abuses and atrocities against Americans....seems the torch was passed from one generation of Canadians to another....

You're bitter obviously by your comments regarding the Vietnam war.. fine, I see that now.. Lets not forget that the Americans are the ones who waged an illegal war on Iraq.. they have every right to defend themselves, the Americans are the aggressors here. Look at Gitmo.. they declare war on these people and then they say they're not POW's *BULLSH*T* say the Geneva Conventions don't apply.. don't be so surprised at the lack of welcome you're getting by the Arab world. You never cared about winning no hearts and minds.. it's so obvious.. just READ the god damn PNAC doctrine for christ sakes.. doh!

Stephistan, don't you just spew your own propaganda? Don't you know that 'facts', yes even facts, are all relative? Case in point: At the Battle of Verdun, the French casualties included over 100,000 MIA. Now it's normal for people to go AWOL, to get lost, etc. etc. In truth, the majority of those 100,000 plus MIA were actually people who were directly hit with shells and thus turned to goo, or bodies that were allowed to decay so long that identification was not possible. So what is the 'fact' of that situation? By definition they were MIA, but in truth, most were KIA.

Yes, we gave WMD to Iraq. Of course, they were fighting a violent muslim theocracy which had already done the US wrong. Was it right for us to give them those weapons, or for the Iraqis to use them? Of course not. Is that fact? Perhaps. But was it right for Saddam to use them against Kurds? Is that fact? The UN has prevented a lot of conflicts and curbed the tide of violence in many nations. But at the same time, more people have died because of war since 1945 compared to 1900-1945. Given that information and the idea that the UN is considered a peace keeping body, is it factual to say the UN has created peace in the world? Is that fact?

Thanks to people like Nitzsche and Einstein, there are no absolutes. Fact is in the eye of the beholder. So, with that in mind, you are just spewing your own propaganda. You've been taught and learned from your own sources which have their own perspective on things. That is the same spoon feeding.

Bush said he expected Iraq to treat American prisoners as respectfully as we treated Iraqi prisoners.

Iraqis would rather die than be sexually humiliated in public.

I think the big difference is that the US is Invading other lands, they arent coming to the US

Bah, kids and bitter Vietnam vets.. haha why do I bother.. Think what you like.. :P

This just goes to show that things are not getting better in Iraq. They're getting much much worse. People should have seen this type of stuff coming. This is war. War is sick.

You're rationalizing Salishe. The Kurds don't even make up 10% of the Iraqi population, the numbers you quote are over a 30 year period. Saddam had not used WMD since the 80's (all ok'd by the Americans I might add) .. I know you're older.. a lot on this forum are not.. I always sit back and shake my head when they say "He gassed his own people" Ya, before most of you were born, granted not you. You have to READ the PNAC doctrine to understand the motivation behind the Iraq war.. I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that you don't get it. You are allowing yourself to be sucked into the propaganda.. that's all.

Rationalizing?...on the contrary...I think I'm rather well-grounded..so because the Kurds at best make up 10% their opinions don't count?...As for the number of dead in those mass graves..the largest concentration occured after the last Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam slaughtered them in the thousands in retaliation for their attempt to overthrow him.

As for when he gassed the Kurds....I've always had it thrown up in America's face that we are the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in combat...and that was over 50 yrs ago..so I can't go back 20? and document Saddam's own usage of WoMD's?..

I get it...I see you rationalizing away Iraqi abuses and atrocities and detailing American abuses and atrocities.....in a way I've seen this before from Canadians...when I returned from my first tour of duty in Vietnam I would see Canadians detailing American abuses and atrocities against the Vietnamese...but virtual nothing regarding Vietnamese abuses and atrocities against Americans....seems the torch was passed from one generation of Canadians to another....

You're bitter obviously by your comments regarding the Vietnam war.. fine, I see that now.. Lets not forget that the Americans are the ones who waged an illegal war on Iraq.. they have every right to defend themselves, the Americans are the aggressors here. Look at Gitmo.. they declare war on these people and then they say they're not POW's *BULLSH*T* say the Geneva Conventions don't apply.. don't be so surprised at the lack of welcome you're getting by the Arab world. You never cared about winning no hearts and minds.. it's so obvious.. just READ the god damn PNAC doctrine for christ sakes.. doh!

Not bitter..just that I've seen it before..and every right to defend themselves includes hacking the head off of a man who wasn't even remotely connected to the Bremer Administration or the US Military? Pray tell, just how were they defending themselves?....When they were dragging the bodies of the men around in Fallujah and then hanging them up so like so much dogmeat were they defending themselves then?...When they kill Iraqi police who are only wanting to regain control of their own country are they defending themselves?..When they violate the Geneva Conventions don't you dare to demand that we adhere to it.

They do not have the right to hack innocent civilians to death, to drag the bodies of burnt civilians around...to use mosques as places to coordinate attacks from..they do not have the right to use ambulances to transport weapons and personnel....they do not have the right to go about without uniforms thereby designating them as combatants..all these things are in your prescious Geneva Conventions..well...steph..from this old warhorse...if they don't want to follow the Conventions..why on Gods green earth must I?

Salishe, others, think whatever you like.. Of course I have no idea what I might be talking about.. I guess less then a year away from a Ph.D in political science was just to teach me "propaganda" :roll:

Believe what you like. I give up. I will return to my modding duties and you can all fight about it yourselves.

there are no absolutes.

You've just contradicted yourself.


Stephistan,

To believe that the US is the aggressor is an act of willful evasion. Iraq initiated force against the UN and the US when it broke the terms of its ceasefire from 1991. Saddam, on many occasions, declared that he would destroy America and murder Americans. He provided financing to the PLO for suicide bombers who murder Americans (among other Westerners) in Israel. America was the victim of Saddam’s and Iraq’s aggression for years; it is America that responded in self-defence. Those fighting against the coalition are not defending themselves or Iraq, they are murdering soldiers and civilians; you cannot turn the aggressor into the defender.

We're in iraq for a good reason.. we removed saddam from power.. that was one of the most important things, and among the genera populace of iraq, Theyre happy we have him out. The reason for all these other rebel groups is they were suppressed during saddams reign, Get rid of one evil, And 5 more come, That's the basic principle here, We're doing all we can to rid this country of those evils, To help the iraqi's finally advance towards democracy, A concept that they're all too ignorant off. They associate power with strength, and changing that is going to be difficult, I'm tired of seeing people saying " Pull out of Iraq, Let them alone. " For the most part it isn't the iraqis... except in the incident of the five americans being hung from the bridge.. We're there to rid the world of not only the terroist factions there, but to help iraq be truly free.

Salishe, others, think whatever you like.. Of course I have no idea what I might be talking about.. I guess less then a year away from a Ph.D in political science was just to teach me "propaganda" :roll:

Believe what you like. I give up. I will return to my modding duties and you can all fight about it yourselves.

Steph..first things first...OUTSTANDING WORK ON GETTING THE PH.D....but...if your professors were the same leftists who were students during my generation then you probably were taught some propaganda, that aside.....Second..I know a man who has a Ph.d in Agricultural Science, doesn't mean he knows how to work a farm...and it sure doesn't mean he could be better then my uncle who never went to college but has run his own farm for 50 yrs....get my drift?

He had it coming to him. He deserved it.
To take this statement to it's conclusion so do you. As I assume you live in one of the democracies that is in Iraq now (you can lie now and say your not). So as a member of that society and therefore partialy responsible for it's action you should die the same way then?
Get a life, a brain, so moral fibre! Even if the war is wrong, there now exist a moral resposibility to put things right. Those that do this do not deserve to be murdered.

Please don't feed the trolls! ;)

firstly -- there is no defense in heaven or on earth for such a crime.

secondly -- the golden rule still applies -- countries that abandon the Geneva Convention may anticipate that other countries will not accord them decent prisoner treatment in return. war criminals cannot escape retaliation by subsequent war crimes.

thirdly -- when the core of the apple is rotten, throw away the apple.

VOTE THIS YEAR, DAMMIT.

namaste,
Freelander
Reiki Practitioners

firstly -- there is no defense in heaven or on earth for such a crime.

secondly -- the golden rule still applies -- countries that abandon the Geneva Convention may anticipate that other countries will not accord them decent prisoner treatment in return. war criminals cannot escape retaliation by subsequent war crimes.

thirdly -- when the core of the apple is rotten, throw away the apple.

VOTE THIS YEAR, DAMMIT.

namaste,
Freelander
Reiki Practitioners

Mebbe you want to throw away the apple...I'm all for paring away the good parts and eating them...then toss away the rotten core.

Here are some bottom line points.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

2) Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda pre the American invasion.

3) Iraq had no WMD, nor was this any type of attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi's

4) Iraq did not at any time in the past or is there any evidence to support they would of in the future posed any threat to America.

5) The treatment of Iraqi's being detained by the Americans is deplorable

6) The beheading of Berg was the act of animals

7) The USA has created more terrorists

8 ) The war for the hearts and minds of Iraqi's is lost.

9) The Americans should clean up their mess and get out of Iraq.

10) Last but not least, this is proof that the PNAC doctrine is wrong. This is proof that Bush must go.

Oh..I see Steph..your points are valid and "bottom-line" but mine can be brushed aside as immaterial?

Becareful!

You are speaking to a *trumpets sound: dah dah dah dahhhh!!!!* PHD candidate so she knows more then you! :wink:

NBL Stephistan! :P

How in the name of God did this thread turn into a who's right/who's wrong in Iraq discussion? The only "bottom fact" here is that this was an atrocious crime, just as despicable and evil as the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Salishe, others, think whatever you like.. Of course I have no idea what I might be talking about.. I guess less then a year away from a Ph.D in political science was just to teach me "propaganda" :roll:


My my Steph! I am starting to wonder if you don't have a bad case of PhD disease. You haven't even finished and you are already showing signs of it.

It's a term I started using to describe brand new PhD graduates. I started noticing that friends and employees get this air of superiority just because they can use PhD in their name.

Never mind the fact that many can barely clean themselves. Well that is the engineering types! :lol:

It is an accomplishment but don't let it go to your head. In the science world, it does nothing for you but you are expected to have it.

If I am still around, I will congratulate you when you finally finish.

That is if you will still to talk to us simple minded low grade morons! :P

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Sure I can..it's called free will..Osama went to Afghanistan on his own free will...just as every foreign mujahadeen who went to the aid of their brethren there.....all we did was make it possible for them to fight the Soviets...
Yeah and you also helped Saddam fight Iran by giving him weapons, and chemicals. Just another "bullet stopper"?

In reference to Osama, since he didn't catch the bullet yet, he has been able to inflict a whole lot of damage. He must be one of those smarter "bullet stoppers?

Actaually...that's incorrect..Osama wasn't "hired and funded" by the US, at the time of his exposure to the Central Intelligence Agency, he was merely only one of thousands of Mujahadeen trained and given financial support in their war with the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan...he wasn't even a blip on the intellignece radar..he was just another bullet stopper.

So....you use a person, dump him later, then when he flips over and attacks you, you actually can blame him?

Sure I can..it's called free will..Osama went to Afghanistan on his own free will...just as every foreign mujahadeen who went to the aid of their brethren there.....all we did was make it possible for them to fight the Soviets...
Yeah and you also helped Saddam fight Iran by giving him weapons, and chemicals. Just another "bullet stopper"?

In reference to Osama, since he didn't catch the bullet yet, he has been able to inflict a whole lot of damage. He must be one of those smarter "bullet stoppers?

Well if I remember right, I belive it was mustard gas that was deployed. Not really part of the US arsonal anymore.

You got proof the stuff came from the US?

As to "bullet stopper?" Don't you remember your Falstaff? It's just another term for "food for powder, food for powder"

Are you sure he is still alive? I am not too convinced on that fact.

How in the name of God did this thread turn into a who's right/who's wrong in Iraq discussion? The only "bottom fact" here is that this was an atrocious crime, just as despicable and evil as the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Precisely, exactly, and spot on.

I think it made no sense to invade Iraq myself. They were secular; the terrorists were based in Pakistan, and it was a Fundamentalist terrorist group that committed the attack on 9/11. Ironically, now that Iraq has been invaded it has destabilized it to the point of allowing in or breeding the very people the U.S. government said they wanted to stop. Now the U.S. will truly be fighting Al-Queada and similar groups and will probably have to stay there longer in order to check the spread of these people they opened the door for in Iraq.

But none of that even matters when it is juxtaposed against what has happened and what they say they will continue to do to anybody they capture who they feel to be infidels, Western sympathizers, collaborators, etc.

Ahmm...you didn't exactly answer any of the points I brought up in my last post even though you copied the entire thing..how bout addressing my points?

Ah...sorry....I really really enjoy discussing this with you, but sadly my exams are going on and I'm here on NS on borrowed time... :oops: I'll spare you much more time later. :P SORRY!

How in the name of God did this thread turn into a who's right/who's wrong in Iraq discussion? The only "bottom fact" here is that this was an atrocious crime, just as despicable and evil as the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Precisely, exactly, and spot on.

I think it made no sense to invade Iraq myself. They were secular; the terrorists were based in Pakistan, and it was a Fundamentalist terrorist group that committed the attack on 9/11. Ironically, now that Iraq has been invaded it has destabilized it to the point of allowing in or breeding the very people the U.S. government said they wanted to stop. Now the U.S. will truly be fighting Al-Queada and similar groups and will probably have to stay there longer in order to check the spread of these people they opened the door for in Iraq.

But none of that even matters when it is juxtaposed against what has happened and what they say they will continue to do to anybody they capture who they feel to be infidels, Western sympathizers, collaborators, etc.

So basically, guirilla fighters will continue brutally executing Americans and prison guards will continue raping and torturing Iraqi prisoners...

He had it coming to him. He deserved it.
To take this statement to it's conclusion so do you. As I assume you live in one of the democracies that is in Iraq now (you can lie now and say your not). So as a member of that society and therefore partialy responsible for it's action you should die the same way then?
Get a life, a brain, so moral fibre! Even if the war is wrong, there now exist a moral resposibility to put things right. Those that do this do not deserve to be murdered.Yes they do. The killing can only stop when Emperor Bush is deposed once and for all.

Poor conquered Iraqis?...Yes..those darn Republican Guard units that we demolished...ahmm..those wouldn't be the very Republican Guard that had orders to shoot the families of retreating Regular Army soldiers..those Republican Guard.....or did you mean the Kurds who after being gassed by Saddam assisted Army Special Force units consolidate a relatively quick victory in the North of Iraq..the very ones who the Americans and British had kept safe from Saddam's depradations....those poor Iraqis?..

Or perhaps you're referring to the mass graves with totals of upwards of 250,000 of slain political opponents of Saddam's regime or just anyone that pissed them off?...you mean those poor Iraqis?

As for Sadr..he'd been in Exile in Iran because he had been pressing for a theocracy like Iran..and Iraq was solidly in the secular camp..of course that ticked off Iran..so they pumped money and arms into Sadr and then said....Ok..the stupid Americans got rid of your only stumbling block to total power in Iraq..now go make Iraq just like us...you mean those poor Iraqis who would have had to live under another oppressive regime..only this time instead of secular it would have been religous?
Well, my point by point conclusion for you is still:

one tyrannical dictatorship cannot translate into another. You claim how brutal Saddam was. Definitely. I'm very sure of that and I admit to that disgusting fact. But does that mean the Americans/British have the right to do the same thing? It's totally out of logic.

instead of fighting, has the US tried whole-hearted negotiation? One reason for all the stress in Iraq is because of the constant state of fear the poor soldiers are in. If the US is willing to negotiate whole-heartedly, or apologise for the atrocities and make sure those commitors are severly punished, it may come to a peaceful conclusion with the religious leaders, then the attacks will be less common, the soldiers can live in less stress, and they don't have to abuse/torture prisoners as stress release, then less people will be infuriated and join the militant groups. There. Perfect solution.

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this fucked up nation and this fucked up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

gees people, what does it matter where this guys from or if he deserved it or not, its bad, thats all

:edit:
go rachina!!!!!!!!!! lol

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

not actually american, and you know until this guys head was cut off i really was relitivly pro iraqi, you would never call me right wing

this just made me sick

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

not actually american, and you know until this guys head was cut off i really was relitivly pro iraqi, you would never call me right wing

this just made me sick
I agree that cutting somebody's head off is totally disgusting and inhumane, but nuking them won't solve the problem. What we direly need to do is the solve the root problem.

with no iraqis there is no problem in iraq,
maybe some environmental ones but im sure we can handle it

you think the problem starts and stops in iraq? my dear friend, you are misguided.

thats not what i said
read it again

with no iraqis there is no problem in iraq,
maybe some environmental ones but im sure we can handle it
you think the problem starts and stops in iraq? my dear friend, you have been misguided.

with no iraqis there is no problem in iraq,
maybe some environmental ones but im sure we can handle it

And, by extension, every other country? If we could only find a way of obliterating all complex organisms - all our problems would be over!!!
No lifeforms - No problem!

Cuh. :roll:

well you gotta start somewhere

this is getting old

well you gotta start somewhere

this is getting old

well, let's obliterate wherever you are first. wouldn't that be a good idea?

its almost scary how little id mind sometimes, but isnt that just a bit too dark?

My goodness. everybody wants to live in peace, but can never seem to achieve it. live and let live.

Poor conquered Iraqis?...Yes..those darn Republican Guard units that we demolished...ahmm..those wouldn't be the very Republican Guard that had orders to shoot the families of retreating Regular Army soldiers..those Republican Guard.....or did you mean the Kurds who after being gassed by Saddam assisted Army Special Force units consolidate a relatively quick victory in the North of Iraq..the very ones who the Americans and British had kept safe from Saddam's depradations....those poor Iraqis?..

Or perhaps you're referring to the mass graves with totals of upwards of 250,000 of slain political opponents of Saddam's regime or just anyone that pissed them off?...you mean those poor Iraqis?

As for Sadr..he'd been in Exile in Iran because he had been pressing for a theocracy like Iran..and Iraq was solidly in the secular camp..of course that ticked off Iran..so they pumped money and arms into Sadr and then said....Ok..the stupid Americans got rid of your only stumbling block to total power in Iraq..now go make Iraq just like us...you mean those poor Iraqis who would have had to live under another oppressive regime..only this time instead of secular it would have been religous?
Well, my point by point conclusion for you is still:

one tyrannical dictatorship cannot translate into another. You claim how brutal Saddam was. Definitely. I'm very sure of that and I admit to that disgusting fact. But does that mean the Americans/British have the right to do the same thing? It's totally out of logic.

instead of fighting, has the US tried whole-hearted negotiation? One reason for all the stress in Iraq is because of the constant state of fear the poor soldiers are in. If the US is willing to negotiate whole-heartedly, or apologise for the atrocities and make sure those commitors are severly punished, it may come to a peaceful conclusion with the religious leaders, then the attacks will be less common, the soldiers can live in less stress, and they don't have to abuse/torture prisoners as stress release, then less people will be infuriated and join the militant groups. There. Perfect solution.

In a perfect world your solution would work...but this is reality...We have tried negotiation..it doesn't work...you fail to realize one very simple thing. For decades the Shiites were denied equal power in Saddam's regime. In comes Sadr with his Iranian-backed friends, money, and arms. He tells the Shiites.."It's our time in the sun now..the stupid Americans got rid of our only stumbling block...the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard...so we'll take power now"...It's easily seen in the fact that a religous cleric...Al-Sistani actually was able to hold up the signing of the interim constitution...and he wasn't even on the friggin Governing Council...No...Sadr wants an Iranian-style theocracy just like his masters in Tehran want...what the Iranians couldn't win in 8 yrs of war with Saddam, they'll win now.

In a perfect world your solution would work...but this is reality...We have tried negotiation..it doesn't work...you fail to realize one very simple thing. For decades the Shiites were denied equal power in Saddam's regime. In comes Sadr with his Iranian-backed friends, money, and arms. He tells the Shiites.."It's our time in the sun now..the stupid Americans got rid of our only stumbling block...the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard...so we'll take power now"...It's easily seen in the fact that a religous cleric...Al-Sistani actually was able to hold up the signing of the interim constitution...and he wasn't even on the friggin Governing Council...No...Sadr wants an Iranian-style theocracy just like his masters in Tehran want...what the Iranians couldn't win in 8 yrs of war with Saddam, they'll win now.

Then instead of encouraging the Shi'ites to rebel against Americans, maybe the Americans can do more than laying siege to cities and massacring their inhabitants, or have some more respect for their cultures and dignity? If you're lovable your enemies will fall without a fight.

Letters to an independent news site about the Berg killing...Interesting...



With several news outlets reporting that Berg's family is angry from the US government over their son's violent death and revelations that "Berg was detained by Iraqi police at a checkpoint in Mosul on March 24. He was turned over to U.S. officials and detained for 13 days" (in other words, he was detained by the US military just prior to his death) -- (AP 5/11/04) we have to question what really happened and who was really behind Berg's horrific murder.

We have received several emails from listeners questioning what really happened including this one:

me and a friend were discussing recent news events and trying to piece together the information presented to us, thought you might want to look into this further, they said in the news that nicholas berg was killed 2 weeks ago (i think), however in the video the culprits who killed him said they were "avenging iraqi prisoner abuse" but those photos weren't released until last week, so my question is how is that even a possible motive if he was killed prior to the abuse photos being released?? maybe i am misinformed but thought id ask the question to someone who would look into it

And this one:

Hey Alex, I know people like me who have learned not to trust our government tend to see a conspiracy under every rock. With that said... The picture the media is now showing of the guy the terrorist beheaded as revenge for what went on in the Iraqi prisons looks odd to me. If you look at the men dressed in black, they all seem well fed. Actually most look fat. That bothers me, because these guys are fighting a war and eating on the run. They are constantly on the move and should be either very fit and trim or scrawny and malnourished because of the same reasons. One thing they should not be is fat like couch potatoes. If you look at all of the photos of the prisoners who were naked who supposedly were just plucked of the street, most of them are thin. Just an observation Alex

And this one:

1) extremely convenient "wag the dog" timing at the height of furor
regarding U.S. torture of Iraqis

2) CNN poll question: "Is the Berg killing a reason for withholding any
remaining Iraq prisoner abuse pictures?" Bush has been reported to be
struggling with question of whether Pentagon should release additional
torture photos. Given that the alleged decapitation of Berg was allegedly
prompted by the first wave of torture photos, Bush could now cite "national
security" issues for witholding additional materials.

3) Berg's last known whereabouts was in U.S. custody.

4) Berg shown in video wearing orange jumpsuit known to be of U.S. issue
(compare with pictures at Guantanamo).

5) Berg mysteriously captured by Al-Quaeda (still wearing jumpsuit). Either
he escaped from U.S. captors or U.S. let him out -- with orange suit and
all -- to be immediately apprehended by Al-Quaeda (before he had a chance to
change).

6) Tape obviously spliced together and heavily edited. Goes from a) Berg
sitting in chair talking about family, to b) Berg sitting on floor with
hooded "militants" behind, to c) blurry camera movement, to d) almost
motionless Berg on floor as head cut off.

7) Audio clearly dubbed in.

8) "Arab" reader flips through pages of "statement" and keeps ending up on
the same page. Perhaps doesn't even known enough Arabic to recognize what
page he's on?

9) "Arabs" have lily-white hands and (other exposed) skin.

10) "Arabs" have Western-style body posture and mannerisms.

11) When Berg decapitated, there was almost no blood. If Berg were still
alive at this point, with the cut starting at front of throat, blood would
have been spraying everywhere. Berg's severed head, the floor, Berg's
clothes, and even the hand of the "Arab" who decapitated Berg had no visible
blood on it.

12) Berg's body didn't move while on the ground. Although held down, Berg
would have tried to instinctively wiggle and writhe away from captor's grip.

13) Camera angle made it impossible to see if Berg's eyes were even open.

14) Alleged "scream" from Berg sounded to be that of a woman and was clearly
dubbed in.

15) Berg goes to great trouble to identify himself, providing information
about his family. Why? To elicit greater sympathy? Or to provide a
positive ID. FBI visited Berg family in an attempt to "verify his
identity". Guy in video looks very little like Berg photos provided by
family.

I believe that Berg (or this lookalike character) was first killed (perhaps
by lethal injection, poisoning, etc.), then decapitated after dead (explains
lack of blood spraying everywhere). Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to
be a CIA - Mossad joint venture). Berg video released at height of furor
over U.S. torture of Iraqis and just before Bush was to decide whether to
release additional torture videos. Now torture videos will be witheld from
public for reasons of national security. Now "patriots" everywhere will
laud the virtues of U.S. torture of "enemies". Sensitivity level of public
gets heightened in terms of what's acceptable treatment of prisoners.
Juxtaposed with decapitation, piling naked men into pyramid is nothing.
Such treatment will be considered more and more acceptable even in domestic
situations. George W. Bush sleeps well tonight while Berg family lives in
torture. Serves Berg's father right for opposing Bush and the war of
aggression against Iraq.

This is simple grotesque and a complete inhumanity but I cant say that the American pictures of mistreated iraqis had nothing to do with this.

Something needs to be done in Iraq and fast.

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore
Well that makes you just as f---- up as them?

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

not actually american, and you know until this guys head was cut off i really was relitivly pro iraqi, you would never call me right wing

this just made me sick
Well the guy was beheaded by Al-Queda, not an Iraqi, so you would blame all of Iraq for this action? You would puniosh all Iraqis for this? You are no better than the rest with this line of reasoning. Check that, you are sicker than all of them combined?

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

not actually american, and you know until this guys head was cut off i really was relitivly pro iraqi, you would never call me right wing

this just made me sick
Well the guy was beheaded by Al-Queda, not an Iraqi, so you would blame all of Iraq for this action? You would puniosh all Iraqis for this? You are no better than the rest with this line of reasoning. Check that, you are sicker than all of them combined?

CH..normally I would agree with you on this insistence that it was an Al-Queda run execution..but do we really know that it wasn't Iraqis who weren't members of Al-Queda??..Al-Queda is after all..an international group and there is a spliter cell of Al-Queda operating in Iraq...forget the name...so who is to say that the men who took him weren't Iraqis?

Now..would I nuke the place...no..that comment was foolish by the other poster..but I would leave....lock, stock, and barrel..we can't leave while we are being shot at..and we can't leave while it's a mess..catch-22. But personally...I would just leave..I'd order our units to just pack up and report to embarkation sites..have the civilians be told they stay at their own risk, pack up Bremer and his group..kiss the Iraqis on the cheek, say "It's been real..and fun and all..but not all of you want us here so we are going home with our toys and our money".."but don't worry..I'm sure the UN will come in to save the day"....and then I'd go home to lick my wounds.

all the forces occupying iraq should leave immediatly



now before you get the wrong impression...
the country should then be bombed with every nuke in existance. im sick of this f--- up nation and this f--- up war

i dont want them to exist anymore

No wonder so many people want to attack America. It's this kinda ideology that propels people. :roll:

not actually american, and you know until this guys head was cut off i really was relitivly pro iraqi, you would never call me right wing

this just made me sick
Well the guy was beheaded by Al-Queda, not an Iraqi, so you would blame all of Iraq for this action? You would puniosh all Iraqis for this? You are no better than the rest with this line of reasoning. Check that, you are sicker than all of them combined?

CH..normally I would agree with you on this insistence that it was an Al-Queda run execution..but do we really know that it wasn't Iraqis who weren't members of Al-Queda??..Al-Queda is after all..an international group and there is a spliter cell of Al-Queda operating in Iraq...forget the name...so who is to say that the men who took him weren't Iraqis?

Now..would I nuke the place...no..that comment was foolish by the other poster..but I would leave....lock, stock, and barrel..we can't leave while we are being shot at..and we can't leave while it's a mess..catch-22. But personally...I would just leave..I'd order our units to just pack up and report to embarkation sites..have the civilians be told they stay at their own risk, pack up Bremer and his group..kiss the Iraqis on the cheek, say "It's been real..and fun and all..but not all of you want us here so we are going home with our toys and our money".."but don't worry..I'm sure the UN will come in to save the day"....and then I'd go home to lick my wounds.
Salishe, you keep looking for ways to throw blame on the Iraqis. Al-Queda has claimed responsibility for this beheading, why are you trying to blame an Iraqi?

And to sidetrack for a moment, I am intrigued by the posting by Beloved and Hope. Perhaps it wasn't Al-Queda even? Conspiracy theory? There are some very plausible thoughts put forward on the subject, and at this point in time, some of those thoughts make sense.

I agree, we should leave, but we should give them money to rebuild since we did level the place.

We should also offer ideas on how they could have a strong economy and fair govt. but allow them to decide what to adopt. Maybe offer certain trades if they follow certain ideas.

I agree with Canuck. Those Iraqis suffering then and now are not to blame for this. Let us blame the fanatics from the Muslim world and American army.

:tantrum: It would be one thing if they just slit his throat or some way that would cause instant death but the way these Terrorists did is in excuseable. They dress him up in a nice orange silk shirt, grab him by the hair drag him to the ground and saw through the back of his neck all the while listening to the guy scream for about thirty seconds until they reach the spinal cord and saw through it and then grab his still bleeding head and put it and the knife they used on a pillow on a nearby bed. This is a very unforgiveable injustice to someone who's only crime was being an American and a contractor, he was not a soldier or even in the military. :tantrum:

:tantrum: It would be one thing if they just slit his throat or some way that would cause instant death but the way these Terrorists did is in excuseable. They dress him up in a nice orange silk shirt, grab him by the hair drag him to the ground and saw through the back of his neck all the while listening to the guy scream for about thirty seconds until they reach the spinal cord and saw through it and then grab his still bleeding head and put it and the knife they used on a pillow on a nearby bed. This is a very unforgiveable injustice to someone who's only crime was being an American and a contractor, he was not a soldier or even in the military. :tantrum:

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?
"What were their crimes." You are kidding right? Um, criminals=crimes. Nothing done there came even close to approaching the sadism and cruelty of the terrorists.

As far as other people have been mentioning Nuclear weapons; What about using them in an area of Iraq where the people are aiding and abetting the terrorists, but never indiscriminately? I don't think using a tactical Nuclear strike against people who shelter and provide resources and operatives to man terrorist cells is wrong. It would be preferable to letting Iraq spiral out of control into becoming another Fundamentalist terrorist state.

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?

Two wrongs never make a right. Period. What happened to Iraqi detainees was wrong. Hideously wrong. What happened to Nick Berg was wrong. Hideously wrong. Both deserve justice but neither will probably get it. Don't attempt to place a value on human suffering.

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?

Two wrongs never make a right. Period. What happened to Iraqi detainees was wrong. Hideously wrong. What happened to Nick Berg was wrong. Hideously wrong. Both deserve justice but neither will probably get it. Don't attempt to place a value on human suffering.

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?
"What were their crimes." You are kidding right? Um, criminals=crimes. Nothing done there came even close to approaching the sadism and cruelty of the terrorists.
Not all of them were criminals. Some just got arrested for looking suspicious.

As far as other people have been mentioning Nuclear weapons; What about using them in an area of Iraq where the people are aiding and abetting the terrorists, but never indiscriminately? I don't think using a tactical Nuclear strike against people who shelter and provide resources and operatives to man terrorist cells is wrong. It would be preferable to letting Iraq spiral out of control into becoming another Fundamentalist terrorist state.
Using nuclear weapons "not indiscriminately"? What are you smoking? Your solution, dare I say it, Final Solution, is nuts.

Berg was known to be an Iraqi sympathizer. That's a fact.

(Would that make the occupying Army want to look out for his well being? Hardly.)

Berg was reported to have been recently in US custody. That's a fact.

The US needs to distract attention away from the prison abuses and back to the "war on terror". That's obvious.

I draw my own conclusions from these facts, and it does not point to terrorist action.

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?
"What were their crimes." You are kidding right? Um, criminals=crimes. Nothing done there came even close to approaching the sadism and cruelty of the terrorists.
Not all of them were criminals. Some just got arrested for looking suspicious.

As far as other people have been mentioning Nuclear weapons; What about using them in an area of Iraq where the people are aiding and abetting the terrorists, but never indiscriminately? I don't think using a tactical Nuclear strike against people who shelter and provide resources and operatives to man terrorist cells is wrong. It would be preferable to letting Iraq spiral out of control into becoming another Fundamentalist terrorist state.
Using nuclear weapons "not indiscriminately"? What are you smoking? Your solution, dare I say it, Final Solution, is nuts.
You've never heard of extremely low mega-tonnage pinpoint nuclear strikes? There probably more varieties of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal than people have ever conceived of. The military probably still has Neutron bombs that were supposed to have been banned long ago. There are more than likely 'clean' versions of nuclear weapons that put out little radiation. It's so obvious you hate Americans. Why aren't you ever honest enough to admit it?

Mercy, Mr. Grace, isn't it nice to be able to say what you want to people because you have the benefit of your little modhood. But, anyway, I'm sure you would reason with them even as they were slowly sawing your head off. "You are all poor victimes of circumstances. I understand your need to kill me this way. I'm behind you all the way."

Look on the bright side: One less mouth to feed in this world, so the more food to go around for the rest of us. :roll:

YOU ARE A SICK TWISTED PERVERT. By saying that you have made that man's life worth nothing. As if that's all people are in the world: mouths to feed. We have such a greater purpose in life. People are worth so much more than that.

Man, you make me sick. I hope someday you experience something so vile, so disgusting, it gives you nightmares so bad that are straight from hell, it wreaks havoc on your soul until you cry to God and make yourself a pitiful, worthless human before Him so He has no choice but to help such a disgusting creatue such as you. Maybe then and only then will you realize what his family is going through. WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU, YOU WILL DESERVE IT!

You've never heard of extremely low mega-tonnage pinpoint nuclear strikes? There probably more varieties of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal than people have ever conceived of. The military probably still has Neutron bombs that were supposed to have been banned long ago. There are more than likely 'clean' versions of nuclear weapons that put out little radiation.
The lower the yield, the higher the fallout. You would end up turning a desert into a radioactive desert. I will not even bother describing the geopolitical implications of such an act, as you are clearly reaching for technological solutions in a situation of which you have little grasp.

It's so obvious you hate Americans. Why aren't you ever honest enough to admit it? Mercy, Mr. Grace, isn't it nice to be able to say what you want to people because you have the benefit of your little modhood. But, anyway, I'm sure you would reason with them even as they were slowly sawing your head off. "You are all poor victimes of circumstances. I understand your need to kill me this way. I'm behind you all the way."
This is a really quite lame attempt at provocation. :roll:

Look on the bright side: One less mouth to feed in this world, so the more food to go around for the rest of us. :roll:
YOU ARE A SICK TWISTED PERVERT. By saying that you have made that man's life worth nothing. As if that's all people are in the world: mouths to feed. We have such a greater purpose in life. People are worth so much more than that.

Man, you make me sick. I hope someday you experience something so vile, so disgusting, it gives you nightmares so bad that are straight from hell, it wreaks havoc on your soul until you cry to God and make yourself a pitiful, worthless human before Him so He has no choice but to help such a disgusting creatue such as you. Maybe then and only then will you realize what his family is going through. WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU, YOU WILL DESERVE IT!
Do not flame. This is an official warning.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

You've never heard of extremely low mega-tonnage pinpoint nuclear strikes? There probably more varieties of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal than people have ever conceived of. The military probably still has Neutron bombs that were supposed to have been banned long ago. There are more than likely 'clean' versions of nuclear weapons that put out little radiation.
The lower the yield, the higher the fallout. You would end up turning a desert into a radioactive desert. I will not even bother describing the geopolitical implications of such an act, as you are clearly reaching for technological solutions in a situation of which you have little grasp.

It's so obvious you hate Americans. Why aren't you ever honest enough to admit it? Mercy, Mr. Grace, isn't it nice to be able to say what you want to people because you have the benefit of your little modhood. But, anyway, I'm sure you would reason with them even as they were slowly sawing your head off. "You are all poor victimes of circumstances. I understand your need to kill me this way. I'm behind you all the way."
This is a really quite lame attempt at provocation. :roll:
Then, please, since you are the only person who has a grasp on the situation and the implications, tell me what your solution would be that wouldn't drag out the war or occupation for another year or two? How is it possible to leave the nation now without it turning into a country worse than Iran of the 1970s?

after what they did i just went and got enlisted. i start basic training in august. :twisted:

after what they did i just went and got enlisted. i start basic training in august. :twisted:

Hoorah...young recruit....keep your mouth shut, eyes open, and listen with your ears..you'll be fine.

Then, please, since you are the only person who has a grasp on the situation and the implications, tell me what your solution would be that wouldn't drag out the war or occupation for another year or two? How is it possible to leave the nation now without it turning into a country worse than Iran of the 1970s?
I would not have invaded to start with. I would have carried on with sanctions since they were obviously working, and then when Saddam Hussein inevitably died, tried to work with the inevitable coup / revolution to reach some stable settlement of the issue, through diplomacy.

Right now, it is so screwed up, I would cut my losses and allow the Kurds autonomy in the north and the Shias to elect a constitutional theocracy Iran-style in the south. I would limit peacekeeping duties to the central Sunni bits, and I would work towards containment rather than looking for a fight. Fewer people die, fewer people are provoked, and the oil is in the north and south which would be more stable. I wouldn't be trying to keep Iraq in one piece, it is an artificial British colonial construct which cannot be held together by anything other than a common enemy or dictatorial rule. Handover of power? I wouldn't bother with imposing a parliamentary structure, I would let them build that stuff along the tribal lines that are so much more familiar and acceptable to them.

Then, please, since you are the only person who has a grasp on the situation and the implications, tell me what your solution would be that wouldn't drag out the war or occupation for another year or two? How is it possible to leave the nation now without it turning into a country worse than Iran of the 1970s?
I would not have invaded to start with. I would have carried on with sanctions since they were obviously working, and then when Saddam Hussein inevitably died, tried to work with the inevitable coup / revolution to reach some stable settlement of the issue, through diplomacy.

Right now, it is so screwed up, I would cut my losses and allow the Kurds autonomy in the north and the Shias to elect a constitutional theocracy Iran-style in the south. I would limit peacekeeping duties to the central Sunni bits, and I would work towards containment rather than looking for a fight. Fewer people die, fewer people are provoked, and the oil is in the north and south which would be more stable. I wouldn't be trying to keep Iraq in one piece, it is an artificial British colonial construct which cannot be held together by anything other than a common enemy or dictatorial rule. Handover of power? I wouldn't bother with imposing a parliamentary structure, I would let them build that stuff along the tribal lines that are so much more familiar and acceptable to them.

The Kurd issue would not work as Turkey and I think Iran are dead set against it.

As to the theocracy? Well thats a tough one. Probably the worst form of goverment is goverment by Religion.

However, if we set up a "proper" election and the people freely vote for it? Then the best image improvement of the US would be the US to announce to the Muslim world. "It was decided by the people and so it shall be"

Many people would be stunned by that and I think we would see terrorist plans take a huge hit from it.

But I do live in a fantasy type of world! :wink:

allow the Kurds autonomy in the north

Umm you don't think Turkey might take great issue with that Tac? Hmmm

allow the Kurds autonomy in the north
Umm you don't think Turkey might take great issue with that Tac? Hmmm
They have de facto autonomy now. Simply carry on with that policy. I'm not talking about giving them their own sovereign state, no way.

allow the Kurds autonomy in the north
Umm you don't think Turkey might take great issue with that Tac? Hmmm
They have de facto autonomy now. Simply carry on with that policy. I'm not talking about giving them their own sovereign state, no way.

Ah, ok, but that would mean the Americans would have to maintain the no fly zone till the end of time wouldn't it?

As to the theocracy? Well thats a tough one. Probably the worst form of goverment is goverment by Religion.

However, if we set up a "proper" election and the people freely vote for it? Then the best image improvement of the US would be the US to announce to the Muslim world. "It was decided by the people and so it shall be"

Many people would be stunned by that and I think we would see terrorist plans take a huge hit from it.
If the Shias were given a free opportunity to run their chosen candidates in free elections, they would elect their local religious leaders. Their religious leaders fulfil the roles of councilmen anyway, so a national council of that nature would be only natural. I suspect that this is what the US fears - that if they were given free and fair elections, they would choose a constitutional theocracy, which would be less prone to subsequent US influence.

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

Who's blaming either? We're blaming Al-Qaeda here

Yeah, you're blaming Al-Qaeda, but Iraq is the country getting blown up. Doesn't matter who you blame, the consequences are clear: The United States is attacking another country. Bush is simply using the Al-Qaeda as an excuse, and you're believing it.

allow the Kurds autonomy in the north
Umm you don't think Turkey might take great issue with that Tac? Hmmm
They have de facto autonomy now. Simply carry on with that policy. I'm not talking about giving them their own sovereign state, no way.

Ah, ok, but that would mean the Americans would have to maintain the no fly zone till the end of time wouldn't it?

Not with a puppet goverment! :wink:

Tac: If that was allowed then isn't the next logical step the desire of a state?

They have de facto autonomy now. Simply carry on with that policy. I'm not talking about giving them their own sovereign state, no way.
Ah, ok, but that would mean the Americans would have to maintain the no fly zone till the end of time wouldn't it?
This time to prevent the Turks from going in and crushing them? Maybe that's unavoidable. Unless one was willing to let the struggle play out, but that would take out a third of the country's oil exports.

Not with a puppet goverment! :wink:

Iraqi's are never going to allow a puppet government in the long run, I know you know that.. ;)

Tac: If that was allowed then isn't the next logical step the desire of a state?
In the interests of regional stability, I would deny them that for the immediate future.

As to the theocracy? Well thats a tough one. Probably the worst form of goverment is goverment by Religion.

However, if we set up a "proper" election and the people freely vote for it? Then the best image improvement of the US would be the US to announce to the Muslim world. "It was decided by the people and so it shall be"

Many people would be stunned by that and I think we would see terrorist plans take a huge hit from it.
If the Shias were given a free opportunity to run their chosen candidates in free elections, they would elect their local religious leaders. Their religious leaders fulfil the roles of councilmen anyway, so a national council of that nature would be only natural. I suspect that this is what the US fears - that if they were given free and fair elections, they would choose a constitutional theocracy, which would be less prone to subsequent US influence.

That's true. I think the US's biggest fear is a Iran style goverment. If they could do their own thing, then what the heck.

The US would have influence as the major consumer of oil.

It always points back to money. ;)

Not with a puppet goverment! :wink:

Iraqi's are never going to allow a puppet government in the long run, I know you know that.. ;)David Brooks of the NY Times--a conservtive commentator and Bush apologist (until recently)wrote an op-ed piece earlier this week that argued essentially that the US needs to find a way to lose with dignity in order for the Iraqis to accept whatever government emerges.

Here's the theory. It's obvious that any government that has the US seal of approval won't be accepted by a significant portion of the Iraqi populace. Ever. So what the US ought to do is find whoever emerges as the popular leader of the revolt and slowly lose to him, pulling out troops and allowing him to claim victory as "the liberator of Iraq."

Let me say that I don't buy this solution completely. It seems to me that the end result is far more likely to produce a second Saddam than a democratic state, but if the goal is to get out of Iraq, first and foremost, then it might work.

Berg was known to be an Iraqi sympathizer. That's a fact.

(Would that make the occupying Army want to look out for his well being? Hardly.)

Berg was reported to have been recently in US custody. That's a fact.

The US needs to distract attention away from the prison abuses and back to the "war on terror". That's obvious.

I draw my own conclusions from these facts, and it does not point to terrorist action.

Well, if this is true, it's blown-up in their faces spectacularly. Perhaps there's something to the idea of instant karma after all.

Then, please, since you are the only person who has a grasp on the situation and the implications, tell me what your solution would be that wouldn't drag out the war or occupation for another year or two? How is it possible to leave the nation now without it turning into a country worse than Iran of the 1970s?
I would not have invaded to start with. I would have carried on with sanctions since they were obviously working, and then when Saddam Hussein inevitably died, tried to work with the inevitable coup / revolution to reach some stable settlement of the issue, through diplomacy.

Right now, it is so screwed up, I would cut my losses and allow the Kurds autonomy in the north and the Shias to elect a constitutional theocracy Iran-style in the south. I would limit peacekeeping duties to the central Sunni bits, and I would work towards containment rather than looking for a fight. Fewer people die, fewer people are provoked, and the oil is in the north and south which would be more stable. I wouldn't be trying to keep Iraq in one piece, it is an artificial British colonial construct which cannot be held together by anything other than a common enemy or dictatorial rule. Handover of power? I wouldn't bother with imposing a parliamentary structure, I would let them build that stuff along the tribal lines that are so much more familiar and acceptable to them.
But the sanctions were far more destructive to the entire nation of Iraq, including people who would never have supported Saddam, than to Saddam or the Ba'athist party. People who may have even wanted the U.S. to topple Saddam would have been starved to death. There were children that had died as a result of not having access to medicines and good nutrition. That's not as cold-blooded as other tactics? Why would there have been many Iraqis that would want to work with the U.S. in a coup, when they would have blamed us for punishing them, as well, with sanctions? I don't think they would have looked upon us as liberators through diplomacy under those circumstances either.

What makes you think the Shias would settle for just the south? What if they want the whole country and continue to fight toward that goal? What if the various tribes and ethnic groups weren't satisfied with the new boundary lines drawn and insisted on some ancient line that had been drawn long ago? I don't think any of the ethnic groups there believe the Kurds have any claim on any part of Iraq. What if the Sunnis decide they have more of a claim of ownership of the north?

Not with a puppet goverment! :wink:

Iraqi's are never going to allow a puppet government in the long run, I know you know that.. ;)David Brooks of the NY Times--a conservtive commentator and Bush apologist (until recently)wrote an op-ed piece earlier this week that argued essentially that the US needs to find a way to lose with dignity in order for the Iraqis to accept whatever government emerges.

Here's the theory. It's obvious that any government that has the US seal of approval won't be accepted by a significant portion of the Iraqi populace. Ever. So what the US ought to do is find whoever emerges as the popular leader of the revolt and slowly lose to him, pulling out troops and allowing him to claim victory as "the liberator of Iraq."

Let me say that I don't buy this solution completely. It seems to me that the end result is far more likely to produce a second Saddam than a democratic state, but if the goal is to get out of Iraq, first and foremost, then it might work.

Hmm very interesting.. However, wouldn't this play badly for the shrub?

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.

More serious: I think they should have changed Rummy or "Ehrenburg" Wolfowitz for him. Then the kill could still be usefull and do some good in the world.
You sick bastard. Go join Al-Qaeda, America doesn't need people like you.

Well if the US enjoys the images (25% of the US citizens)or agrees with the toturing of Iraqi citizens, I want my part of pleasure to: seeing a US guy killed...by the resistance.

More serious: I think they should have changed Rummy or "Ehrenburg" Wolfowitz for him. Then the kill could still be usefull and do some good in the world.
You sick bastard. Go join Al-Qaeda, America doesn't need people like you.

I don't think he's American, but I could be wrong. Either way, he's a little too bloodthirsty.

The US should have never even went to war with Iraq. Don't blame the Iraqis, blame the Americans.

Who's blaming either? We're blaming Al-Qaeda here

I blame Bush and Blair. There both idiots and should both be shot. It was Bush's idea to go to Iraq, and Blair, being a twat, followed. I think Iraq was a bad idea from the start. Its going to be our Vietnam, and Americas second.

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.

Someone has a link to the decapitation itself, would like to see it :lol:

That's really disgusting...

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.

Er, no. It proves, if anything, that Al Qaeda will take up whatever banner is handy to justify their terror. It in no way, shape or form proves that Al Qaeda had ties in Iraq that justified US invasion.

You sick bastard. Go join Al-Qaeda, America doesn't need people like you.
Do not flame.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.

Er, no. It proves, if anything, that Al Qaeda will take up whatever banner is handy to justify their terror. It in no way, shape or form proves that Al Qaeda had ties in Iraq that justified US invasion.

Well, in fact they've all but proved there was no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the American led invasion. Then again, why would there of been? OBL and Saddam hated each other. No one argues they're there now. But there is zero, nadda evidence to say they were before, in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to say in fact they weren't.

But the sanctions were far more destructive to the entire nation of Iraq, including people who would never have supported Saddam, than to Saddam or the Ba'athist party. People who may have even wanted the U.S. to topple Saddam would have been starved to death. There were children that had died as a result of not having access to medicines and good nutrition. That's not as cold-blooded as other tactics? Why would there have been many Iraqis that would want to work with the U.S. in a coup, when they would have blamed us for punishing them, as well, with sanctions? I don't think they would have looked upon us as liberators through diplomacy under those circumstances either.
It's a raw deal, but it is a whole lot better than the nuclear strikes you were suggesting earlier. What chance would those give to people?

What makes you think the Shias would settle for just the south? What if they want the whole country and continue to fight toward that goal? What if the various tribes and ethnic groups weren't satisfied with the new boundary lines drawn and insisted on some ancient line that had been drawn long ago? I don't think any of the ethnic groups there believe the Kurds have any claim on any part of Iraq. What if the Sunnis decide they have more of a claim of ownership of the north?
The Shias are not by and large an expansionist people. They just want independence on their terms on their land. It is the Sunnis who are more prone to expansionist tendencies, but their will has been broken I think, right now in the new Iraq, they are fighting for political survival. The Kurds need protecting from the Turks and Sunnis, not the Shias.

i heard that on npr... i feel absolutely sick every time i think about it.

It's a raw deal, but it is a whole lot better than the nuclear strikes you were suggesting earlier. What chance would those give to people?


But think of the great tans you can get!


The Shias are not by and large an expansionist people. They just want independence on their terms on their land. It is the Sunnis who are more prone to expansionist tendencies, but their will has been broken I think, right now in the new Iraq, they are fighting for political survival. The Kurds need protecting from the Turks and Sunnis, not the Shias.

Aren't the Iranians against the Kurds as well?

It's a raw deal, but it is a whole lot better than the nuclear strikes you were suggesting earlier. What chance would those give to people?

The Kurds need protecting from the Turks and Sunnis, not the Shias.
Granted, I got carried away when I mentioned nuclear weapons. That was a simplisitic reflex on my part without enough thought behind it. I was only making an impulsive response to an act I never thought I would see in my life.

I know the Kurds need the most aid in defending themselves from the Sunnis. That's why I brought up the idea that the Sunnis may not appreciate the idea of giving the Kurds the north.

The Shias do subscribe to the most extreme form of a religion that has a history of being expansionist. Also, if they had their own state it wouldn't necessarily keep terrorists from calling it home. The Shias would still maintain ties with terrorists

And what about those poor criminals abused, disrespected, tortured, and even murdered in, not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What were their crimes?
"What were their crimes." You are kidding right? Um, criminals=crimes. Nothing done there came even close to approaching the sadism and cruelty of the terrorists.

As far as other people have been mentioning Nuclear weapons; What about using them in an area of Iraq where the people are aiding and abetting the terrorists, but never indiscriminately? I don't think using a tactical Nuclear strike against people who shelter and provide resources and operatives to man terrorist cells is wrong. It would be preferable to letting Iraq spiral out of control into becoming another Fundamentalist terrorist state.


Oh yeah. That's a solution. In fact a final solution. Sharp thinking. We could do it at night so nobody would know it us, eh? It wouldn't radicalize the ENTIRE PLANET INCLUDING ABOUT 90% OF THE US or anything that way.

SHL

PS - I now see you called off the nukes. An understandable emotional response if it stays just that. **Offers hand of conciliation**

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.I've mentioned this elsewhere and think it bears repeating here.

Pre-war, the only connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was Ansar al Islam, a group based in the northern no-fly zone, far from the influence of Hussein, who would have wiped them out given the chance, seeing as they were after his overthrow. The US had at least 3 chances to get Zarqawi, the leader of the group, while he was in northern Iraq before the war started, and they passed them up in order to try to make their case for war more convincing.

Now the group is in the middle of Iraq. Whose fault is that again?

So to sum up--under Hussein, no al Qaeda connection. Post Hussein, al Qaeda connection. Got it?

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.

Er, no. It proves, if anything, that Al Qaeda will take up whatever banner is handy to justify their terror. It in no way, shape or form proves that Al Qaeda had ties in Iraq that justified US invasion.

Well, in fact they've all but proved there was no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the American led invasion. Then again, why would there of been? OBL and Saddam hated each other. No one argues they're there now. But there is zero, nadda evidence to say they were before, in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to say in fact they weren't.

The missing key to why is found in the most obvious place, money. OBL also hates the Saud family and has taken issue with them allowing non-Islamics into the country. Part of the reason that OBL had not attacked them is that they paid OBL for peace.

Since this blackmail style fundraising is a modus operandi of OBL, why wouldn't Saddam Hussein do likewise?

Some Sources
http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000373.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29584
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/218.html

SHL

It is my understanding that this wasn't Iraqi's that did this, but Al Qaeda.. and I agree, Al Qaeda should be wiped off the face of the earth.Yeah... sorta proves the Iraq-Al Quada connection, though, doesn't it?

I mean, we should look into it more before we cut and run.

It's a fact that there was no Al Qeda presence in Iraq before the invasion...Now there is.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

Some people were watching it in school today, and someone laughed. It was at that point I lost faith in most people.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

Some people were watching it in school today, and someone laughed. It was at that point I lost faith in most people.

they're human: end of story

The Shias do subscribe to the most extreme form of a religion that has a history of being expansionist. Also, if they had their own state it wouldn't necessarily keep terrorists from calling it home. The Shias would still maintain ties with terrorists
No, the "most extreme form" is Wahabism, which is quite different. That's the stuff you get in Saudi Arabia. Shias actually aren't that bad. Looking at the Middle East, you see that Iran has not really been much of a bad guy. Historically, most of the terrorist backing has come from Syria (kind of Baathist), Saudi Arabia, and some less important countries in the region. Iraq wasn't much of a source of terrorism before, although there is a growing problem now thanks to the invasion. But it will be the Sunnis, not the Shias who will fight the hardest.

God that was an awful thing to watch...I had to turn away after a second or too it was just too awful.

War is an ugly thing.

Some people were watching it in school today, and someone laughed. It was at that point I lost faith in most people.

Back when Ceasar wore knickers I dated a girl who always laughed uncontrollably when she was nervous or upset. Also black humor often serves as a psychic shield. This might have been a similar response. Keep the faith - most people are decent enough - as humans go.

SHL

Some people were watching it in school today, and someone laughed.

That video is a joke...very amateur...

ABANDON ALL HOPE! HUMANS ARE EVIL, COLD-BLOODED MURDERERS! EVERYONE OF US!

Terrorists are pretty disgusting people. What is bias in my opinion is that you can find tons of pictures about prisoner abuse, which is wrong nonetheless, but none of soldiers being hugged and thanked by Iraqi citizens. Those exist too you know.

Mr. Berg certainly gave his life for the US and should not have had to. he was a civilian, not a soldier but to a terrorist any American is the devil!

ABANDON ALL HOPE! HUMANS ARE EVIL, COLD-BLOODED MURDERERS! EVERYONE OF US!

i'm just plain evil

ABANDON ALL HOPE! HUMANS ARE EVIL, COLD-BLOODED MURDERERS! EVERYONE OF US!

i'm just plain evil

i think you're more than that. :wink:

no, just kidding.

*hugs TAR*

Terrorists are pretty disgusting people. What is bias in my opinion is that you can find tons of pictures about prisoner abuse, which is wrong nonetheless, but none of soldiers being hugged and thanked by Iraqi citizens. Those exist too you know.

Mr. Berg certainly gave his life for the US and should not have had to. he was a civilian, not a soldier but to a terrorist any American is the devil!

Yeah... I've seen a photo of Lynndie England being hugged by a muslim lady. And after I saw that photo everything changed...I looked at that photo and said "no way is that woman responsible for torture! Look! She's being hugged by an Iraqi lady!"

i have a website where you can see the whole video if ya want the link...

I've seen the video and its sick. The poor guy. I won't go into immense detail but watching him squirm on the floor while he is tied up and held down is pretty horrible. Its must have been terrible for his family.

Now everyone's going to see how inhumane they can be to everyone else, military or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3705409.stm

Is that the link to the Video? I think you should warn people before they view it, most likely themost graphc thing they have ever seen!

Its a link to a news website, not the video itself. Next up is some poor guy from South Korea.

Some people were watching it in school today, and someone laughed.

That video is a joke...very amateur...
Hard to laugh at someone's severed head, don't you think?

Then imagine what its be like to be a helpless civilian in a war with machinery used such as the one from the US... who wants to "Shock and Awe" the people. I guess what goes around, comes around... in some way or another.

Then imagine what its be like to be a helpless civilian in a war with machinery used such as the one from the US... who wants to "Shock and Awe" the people. I guess what goes around, comes around... in some way or another.

Violence begets more violence begets more violence ad nauseum. This will serve to strengthen resolve not dissipate it. It will push many undecideds further to the right.

SHL