17 Civilians Killed In Iraq

[seinfeldrules]

Of course stories like these never get posted.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=55654&d=6&m=12&y=2004

Seventeen civilians were killed and 13 wounded in Tikrit yesterday as gunmen ambushed a bus full of Iraqis working for the US military, while a car bomb and a gun attack killed four members of the Iraqi security forces elsewhere in northern Iraq.

The violence was the latest in a string of deadly attacks targeting Iraqi forces and others allied with the US military that have killed at least 68 Iraqis since Friday. The surge in bloodshed has come despite major US offensives last month to suppress guerrillas ahead of elections set for Jan. 30

 

[Bait]

Of course stories like these never get posted.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=55654&d=6&m=12&y=2004

Bah, truth be told, I don't like it when the Iraqi's target other Iraqi's. They (Iraqi security forces) just want to try and secure the shaken country up as best as possible. It bothers me greatly when I hear about this kind of stuff, because it gives off a terrible show of how bad things are getting over there.

 

[Eg.]

evil america, this wouldnt happen if they all died!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

lol, I doubt our forum favorites wont bother posting here -- they cant go into someone else's territory, because they dont have a home field advantage of:

1. Boosting Post Count
2. Reigning Supreme as Thread Authors
3. The Points not theres.

 

[GiaOmerta]

We'll see more guerrilla warfare as January quickly approaches.

 

[smwScott]

I hear about stories like that quite frequently. Not too long ago there were two separate bombings on the same day killing 16 Iraqi policemen and many civilians, bringing the total deaths to about 30.

It just goes to show how bad the situation in Iraq truly is and how we have been unable to succeed post-war.

 

[el Chi]

lol, I doubt our forum favorites wont bother posting here -- they cant go into someone else's territory, because they dont have a home field advantage of:

1. Boosting Post Count
2. Reigning Supreme as Thread Authors
3. The Points not theres.

That's a very self-satisfied arrogant thing to say. If it turns out you're right, then it'll be justified of course but for God's sake... What a collective, self-righteous pat on the back.
You have assumed that any liberals/lefties/un-Americans/etc. are going to be fine with this kind of thing, not offended by the loss of life and - merely because it wasn't committed by Americans - not going to be interested or bothered at all. That's an extremely horribly judgmental accusation. If NOTHING ELSE, the reason US/Coalition brutality gets more attention, it's because THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO HELP. That doesn't mean that people think it's insignificant when something like this happens.
Get your head together and stop being so self-congratulatory.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Abuse photos at 27 already.

This at what, 8? And 3 of them are commenting on lack of posts or something related.

 

[el Chi]

Yes, except with news like this there's only so much debate one can have. Offer your condolences? Say it's sad and horrific? Because it is, of course.
Or perhaps one could make a self-righteous post that goes nowhere, except for insulting other members of the forum for disagreeing with your political outlook?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, except with news like this there's only so much debate one can have

Oh, but when US Soldiers kill Iraqis it never gets old? It seems people are only willing to debate things unless it favors their point of view.

 

[el Chi]

Oh, but when US Soldiers kill Iraqis it never gets old? It seems people are only willing to debate things unless it favors their point of view.

No, with that comes the debate of our presence, justification and of course most of all, our conduct in Iraq. Because of course the point is, that we are supposed to be in there being as far removed from the conduct of the insurgents as possible. That calls things into question, this is just very sad. Of course it displays the brutality of the insurgents, and it's atrocious, but there can be little to no debate about that.

 

[Korgoth]

What would you like me to say? That there wouldn't be this sensless violence if we hadn't invaded iraq? Because you know these insurgent groups wouldn't be attacking Iraq/US workers, if there were no US presence there to begin with.

(good enough for you)

 

[seinfeldrules]

What would you like me to say? That there wouldn't be this sensless violence if we hadn't invaded iraq? Because you know these insurgent groups wouldn't be attacking Iraq/US workers, if there were no US presence there to begin with.

(good enough for you)

Yeah, Blame America at its best.

 

[burner69]

Wow some of you guys are sick. What exactly do you think we debate for?

Iraqi killing Iraqis is sick. Wrong. Evil. Any killing is, I've personally said I don't think death is justifiable in any situation, except for immediate defense.

If this thread had a point, which I hope it did, what is it exactly? That we anti-bushists don't mind Iraqi's being killed if it's done by people other than americans? Is that it?
You're sick.

If you want to resort to suggesting that people who oppose war don't mind seeing people get killed, and only debate it to boost our post count, I suggest you f**k off because I don't want to debate with someone as sick as you.

On topic: It is a sad picture being painted, making the war effort seem hopeless, which I hope, now there's no turning back, it isn't. Yet I wouldn't call the killers Iraqis as such, I'd rather lump them in the box of terrorist (the word insurgant is used, which I believe is the new politically correct term).

 

[burner69]

Yeah, Blame America at its best.

He had a valid point

 

[seinfeldrules]

If this thread had a point, which I hope it did, what is it exactly? That we anti-bushists don't mind Iraqi's being killed if it's done by people other than americans? Is that it?

Its to point out that Americans arent the only ones killing in Iraq, not by a long shot. They will keep coming as you guys keep throwing out examples of every little thing the US does wrong.

If you want to resort to suggesting that people who oppose war don't mind seeing people get killed, and only debate it to boost our post count, I suggest you f**k off because I don't want to debate with someone as sick as you.

Well if you oppose war, how do think we should have dealt with Hitler back in WWII. Was it OK for him to continue and kill Jews within his own country, even though he wasnt at war at the time? Would you have argued against action at that time which would have taken Hitler out of power?

 

[burner69]

Its to point out that Americans arent the only ones killing in Iraq, not by a long shot. They will keep coming as you guys keep throwing out examples of every little thing the US does wrong.


Well if you oppose war, how do think we should have dealt with Hitler back in WWII. Was it OK for him to continue and kill Jews within his own country, even though he wasnt at war at the time? Would you have argued against action at that time which would have taken Hitler out of power?

We know this. Although the Coalition are killing far more civvys than insurgants. These points do not need to come, we are all agreed it is evil when it happens.
The ones about the coalition killing civvys/ using illegal weapons/ lying about countries weapon capabilities/ making up terrorist links to gain support/ torturing prisoners will keep coming because there is a debate to be had with them. There are differing viewpoints on them.

WW2 needed to happen.
It didn't until Nazis were about to take over Britains key French coal supply (forget the name), then we charged right in.

Saddam should never have gained power, everyone knew he was a bad man, but the CIA allowed him, and possibily helped (I'm saying possibily cuz there is evidence both ways) him into power. When he was the US's ally his evil doings were swept aside. Then we arm him. Then we fight him. Then we let him alone. Then when we need a) A head on a stick for the war on terror and b) Oil, we invade again, at the worst possible time; leaving Al-Quaeda free to regroup in Afghanistan, when our soliders are tired from battle, when it will further dampen the Coalitions image to anti-westerners, creating more terrorists, when in attacking the country more terrorists will be made, when we could barely handle the ones active before.

That is my problem with the war.
I'm not against doing what's right - saving lives. I'm for doing it straight away, when it needs to be done, and not waiting until doing so will fulfill other agendas, despite making it more dangerous and less likely to succeed.

 

[Korgoth]

Yeah, Blame America at its best.

You're taking the easy way out here seinfeld... Why don't you actually counter that remark with something usefull other than "ooh blame america at its best"...

You think i'm passing blame, i'm not, i'm passing truth... Sad but true my friend, open your eyes, come to grips with it, there would be no "insurgency" if we weren't there for them to rebel against.

You can try and argue that all you want. It won't change whats really happening. So close your eyes again, put your hands back over your ears and forget this ever happened just like you do with everything else.

 

[Gray Fox]

Wow some of you guys are sick. What exactly do you think we debate for?

Iraqi killing Iraqis is sick. Wrong. Evil. Any killing is, I've personally said I don't think death is justifiable in any situation, except for immediate defense.

If this thread had a point, which I hope it did, what is it exactly? That we anti-bushists don't mind Iraqi's being killed if it's done by people other than americans? Is that it?
You're sick.

If you want to resort to suggesting that people who oppose war don't mind seeing people get killed, and only debate it to boost our post count, I suggest you f**k off because I don't want to debate with someone as sick as you.

On topic: It is a sad picture being painted, making the war effort seem hopeless, which I hope, now there's no turning back, it isn't. Yet I wouldn't call the killers Iraqis as such, I'd rather lump them in the box of terrorist (the word insurgant is used, which I believe is the new politically correct term).

Quoted for emphesis

 

[Gray Fox]

We know this. Although the Coalition are killing far more civvys than insurgants. These points do not need to come, we are all agreed it is evil when it happens.
The ones about the coalition killing civvys/ using illegal weapons/ lying about countries weapon capabilities/ making up terrorist links to gain support/ torturing prisoners will keep coming because there is a debate to be had with them. There are differing viewpoints on them.

WW2 needed to happen.
It didn't until Nazis were about to take over Britains key French coal supply (forget the name), then we charged right in.

Saddam should never have gained power, everyone knew he was a bad man, but the CIA allowed him, and possibily helped (I'm saying possibily cuz there is evidence both ways) him into power. When he was the US's ally his evil doings were swept aside. Then we arm him. Then we fight him. Then we let him alone. Then when we need a) A head on a stick for the war on terror and b) Oil, we invade again, at the worst possible time; leaving Al-Quaeda free to regroup in Afghanistan, when our soliders are tired from battle, when it will further dampen the Coalitions image to anti-westerners, creating more terrorists, when in attacking the country more terrorists will be made, when we could barely handle the ones active before.

That is my problem with the war.
I'm not against doing what's right - saving lives. I'm for doing it straight away, when it needs to be done, and not waiting until doing so will fulfill other agendas, despite making it more dangerous and less likely to succeed.

And again Quoted for emphesis, damn you should have run against bush not kerry

 

[burner69]

Someone bloody needs to give Bush a run for his money, just a shame there's very little the average Joe can do, especially when you get called unpatriotic for doing so. Opposition to the war is met fiercely. BBC chiefs eing pressured to resign. MPs quitting after pressure. Daily Mirror published the first torture photos, revealing what was going on down there; ok they were shown to have been staged, but they were based on reports, and later other, genuine photos arose... the editor of the Daily Mail was forced to quit.

No dout about it, Bush and Blair are a mighty power.

 

[Gray Fox]

Someone bloody needs to give Bush a run for his money, just a shame there's very little the average Joe can do, especially when you get called unpatriotic for doing so. Opposition to the war is met fiercely. BBC chiefs eing pressured to resign. MPs quitting after pressure. Daily Mirror published the first torture photos, revealing what was going on down there; ok they were shown to have been staged, but they were based on reports, and later other, genuine photos arose... the editor of the Daily Mail was forced to quit.

No dout about it, Bush and Blair are a mighty power.

QFE, I never could figure out why the BBC guy needed to step down, he did his job properly, I was really amazed why no one protested, but maybe everyone thought like me, this can't be the only reason why he must step down, there must be something else, cause this is rediculous.

 

[burner69]

Certianly makes you think.
Governments can get away with murder, literally, and everyone else gets screwed if they oppose them.

That's why I'm glad there are people like Moore about, they aren't great, but at least they give popular culture some idea that the government don't only ever do good things, with good motives. Because, well, they don't.

The funny thing is we see it in history and laugh: "Ha ha! Look at that propaganda video from the 40's, can't believe anyone fell for that" then they just let history repeat itself by buying into some of the crap Bush tells um.

"Saddam has strong terrorist links" Pffft

 

[qckbeam]

Yeah, Blame America at its best.

Well he just so happens to be placing the blame on the correct country...so what's your problem?

 

[Gray Fox]

Certianly makes you think.
Governments can get away with murder, literally, and everyone else gets screwed if they oppose them.

That's why I'm glad there are people like Moore about, they aren't great, but at least they give popular culture some idea that the government don't only ever do good things, with good motives. Because, well, they don't.

The funny thing is we see it in history and laugh: "Ha ha! Look at that propaganda video from the 40's, can't believe anyone fell for that" then they just let history repeat itself by buying into some of the crap Bush tells um.

"Saddam has strong terrorist links" Pffft

So, so true. But you got to ask yourself is it really true that most people just don't see it, or is it that they just ignore it, and I'm not just talking about bush. I just wonder when I look at the societly around me, it's really wierd and scarie, They way I see it the US is lucky that it is so much scrutinized, I see people here in Holland saying bad stuff about the US while sometimes we here do the same or worse, it's just sad, it makes me wanna give up. I mean I always believe you should scrutinize yourself before you do another.

 

[Shad0hawK]

If this thread had a point, which I hope it did, what is it exactly? That we anti-bushists don't mind Iraqi's being killed if it's done by people other than americans? Is that it?
You're sick.

i did not see any demonstrations when saddam was killing tens of thousands of people and putting them in mass graves.

there were was no great outcry for it to stop. the UN (or rather those in control of the UN) and especially france germany nd even russia did not care because they were making tons of money from the suffering. there was no media focus on it.

vietnam is another great example. when the us was involved it was bad and evil imperialism, etc...etc.

but you do not hear about the genocide going on over there now that really got kicked into high gear when the US left..i wonder why?

so, YES. that is exactly what it seems like. many people on the left who really care more about their own political causes than people because they only seem to give a shit about "human rights" when it also aligns with their political beliefs.

THAT is what is %&$!# "sick"

back to work for me..millions on welfare are depending on me!

 

[Septih]

Oh, but when US Soldiers kill Iraqis it never gets old? It seems people are only willing to debate things unless it favors their point of view.

I'd say that its because the americans are fighting the terrorists, the world expects the terrorists to do atrocities such as this...and america, apparently trying to liberate this country, they are supposed to rise above such acts. That's why there is more outcry when american soldiers kill iraqi's.

 

[Absinthe]

vietnam is another great example. when the us was involved it was bad and evil imperialism, etc...etc.

but you do not hear about the genocide going on over there now that really got kicked into high gear when the US left..i wonder why?

Don't bullshit yourself into thinking we went there out of benevolence. It was a chess piece in the Cold War.

so, YES. that is exactly what it seems like. many people on the left who really care more about their own political causes than people because they only seem to give a shit about "human rights" when it also aligns with their political beliefs.

You know what's great about this?

i did not see any demonstrations when saddam was killing tens of thousands of people and putting them in mass graves.

there were was no great outcry for it to stop. the UN (or rather those in control of the UN) and especially france germany nd even russia did not care because they were making tons of money from the suffering. there was no media focus on it.

I certainly didn't see any people on the right making a huge fuss either.

Please stop acting like this some sort of left "thang".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Its both, actually. Both sides are making money off this -- but middle class and lower class America, is making enemies.

(Sorry, I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and im impressed!)

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well he just so happens to be placing the blame on the correct country...so what's your problem?

The terrorists that are doing this come from Iran and other foreign powers, as well as Iraq. Dont see many coming from the US...

 

[burner69]

i did not see any demonstrations when saddam was killing tens of thousands of people and putting them in mass graves.
QUOTE]

Because then, Saddam was your ally, and so such trivial things were swept out of the way. Until such a time they needed to be used to persuade public opinion.

 

[burner69]

The terrorists that are doing this come from Iran and other foreign powers, as well as Iraq. Dont see many coming from the US...

You've just said a very telling statement; "terrorists that do this come from Iran and other foreign powers." Other? Who are they? And where do you base your statement about Iran? If there are, dya think it might have something to do with our behaviour in the Gulf? Maybe?

There are many in the US. Oklahoma bombing. Many Al-Quaeda members are believed to be in america.

Then there's the shootings; the spate of postal shootings in the 90s. The school masacres, columbine.

These are just "unfortunate" if they're done by Americans. If the killers were foreign it'd be a terrorist activity... especially as being drunk and disorderly on a plane nowadays gets you put on the 'apprehended terrorist' figures.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Other? Who are they? And where do you base your statement about Iran?

Take Zarqawi for example, he is Jordanian.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041207/w120782.html

BAGHDAD (AP) - A top Iraqi official accused the country's neighbours Tuesday of doing too little to stop foreigners from joining the brutal insurgency, while the U.S. combat death toll neared 1,000 with the killing of an American soldier in Baghdad.

In a speech to the Iraqi National Council, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said he was losing patience with Iraq's neighbours. He didn't single out any governments, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives.

"There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us," Saleh said. "We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance."

Iraqi leaders have repeatedly called on their neighbours - particularly Syria and Iran - to guard their borders more closely against infiltration. Those countries have expressed concern that instability in Iraq poses a threat to the entire region.

Then there's the shootings; the spate of postal shootings in the 90s. The school masacres, columbine.

There are murderers and wackos in every country bud.

 

[burner69]

Good link, cheerz :thumbs:

It seems though that they're being a little hypocritical; they seem to be blaming the country, but then saying it's only a small minority doing anything bad.
Of course terrorists will slip through the system into Iraq, and there will be a lot of them trying; with them being close to such a terrorist hot-spot, where their enemy (coalition) is most vunderable.

As for Iran war:
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=091904124350
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2901689.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57465-2004Nov17.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/

It just seems so much like Iraq before the war, I admit it's not a dead cert, but certainly seems like the next stop in the 'war on terror'.

How many terrorists at the moment come from Iran I wonder? And how many will occur if we invade?

Sad times.

 

[burner69]

There are murderers and wackos in every country bud.

Yeah, humans can be nasty little creatures hey? ;(

I was making the point of how easily you can change between what's a terrorist activity, and the work of a wacko.

 

[seinfeldrules]

How many terrorists at the moment come from Iran I wonder? And how many will occur if we invade?

I think Iran would be much more welcome to invasion actually. There is a strong student mov't to replace the gov't there.

 

[CptStern]

Iran wont be as much of a pushover as it was in the 1950's. Last time the US overthrew the government of Iran: democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, they replaced him with dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlav whose secret police, CIA trained SAVAK, was as brutal as the Gestapo. They had inroads back then, it wont be a cake walk this time round

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3110509.stm

"I think the street demonstrations and protests that have been occurring over the last month or two provide yet additional evidence that there is a deep resentment, a deep alienation - a gulf really - between the regime and the population," he says.

"Having said that, it's also clear from the protests and demonstrations that the regime is resilient, resourceful, and prepared to use repression in order to make sure that the protests are kept more or less under control."

Mr Calabrese believes the weakness of the student demonstrators is their lack of leadership and organisation. He believes the prospects for "regime change" from within are low.

 

[burner69]

Iran wont be as much of a pushover as it was in the 1950's. Last time the US overthrew the government of Iran: democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, they replaced him with dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlav whose secret police, CIA trained SAVAK, was as brutal as the Gestapo. They had inroads back then, it wont be a cake walk this time round

^^ What happens again and again when US muscle in.

Change is needed in Iran, invasion is not the answer.