British troops attack children

[Sheikah42]

They're what I like to call "iraqi rednecks." You know, like how after the civil war there were still a bunch o' southerners lynchin black folk? Yeah same type of people.

It's a world trend now to hate the U.S./British and it's really starting to make me sick.

 

[Cooper]

I have come to the realization that very few people in this forum actually know what is going on in Iraq. It is so easy to get lost in news reports and politics that many ignore the actual war. For example, there are reasons for so many civilian casualties. Of course, everybody likes to blame it on US bombs when reality is much different.

The military is made for one thing - killing. Anyone who thinks different automatically looses any credibility. Washington is trying to turn a killing machine (the most efficient on the planet some would argue) into a peace keeping force like police officers. The military isn't made for that and the soldiers are not trained for that. These men shout "kill!" on the first day of bootcamp and they don't stop until their dead or they retire. You can expect a certain conduct all you want but unless your expecting death your just going to be disappointed.

As stated already, bombs are not the primary death dealers. Bombs have played a fairly small role towards destroying the enemy, I really don't care what you see on TV. They are used mostly for destroying certain targets and for the most part our bombs are extremely accurate. We don't waste money on guided things that aren't guided. America's military takes destruction seriously. The primary indirect life taker in the Iraq war is mostly artillery. Which is not guided and can cause just as much destruction. The marines used artillery heavely in the battle of Al Gharraf and Nasiriyah and many other cities. You can get mad at them all you want for it, but to soldiers they think in very simple terms. Its either him or me.

Something that nobody ever mentions and yet its was so common during the first weeks of the invasion that the entire world should be upset. Instead its only the soldiers. Almost 80% of the Iraqi forces were (and are) dressed in civilian clothing. The original ROE was to shoot only after being shot at. Somalia taught us what a mistake that was so the men were told to shoot anyone with a gun. Many of these people with guns were kids. That is partly why there are so many children related deaths. I don't think anyone on this board knows what war is like, let alone a war where the enemy can be among the crowd you are handing MREs out too.

Many of the enemies forward observers never even carried a gun, they just walked around on cell phones acting like they were oblivious to the combat around them. Once the soldiers figured this out they started shooting anyone suspcious with a cell phone. Again, leading to many deaths. Children were also used as FOs.

Soldiers also discovered that the Fedayheen drove around in unmarked white vans used to scout and relay their positions to units futher in the country. Again, there were a lot of white vans in Iraq and after the first warning shots soldiers opened fired because of suicide bombers. Which is why you see so many burnt and destroyed vehicles in pictures. The soldiers had little patience for people who continued to drive towards them even after they fired a warning shot.

There have also been numerous reports of gunmen exposing themselves to direct fire and discharging there weapon while holding babies and women in front of them. Where was the public outcry against this? I never heard it.

Also many of the Iraqi Army deserters simply threw their weapons down and walked away into the desert. Once they found US forces they surrendered only to be turned away because the military didn't have enough room for all the prisoners. These men who were told to go elsewhere were shot by Fedayheen if they found them. Of course, these deaths are blamed on the US.

I have never seen any sort of credible count for civilian casualties that somehow claims a certain % died from this and another from that. Sure, 32,000 civilians deaths could be the correct number. But how many of these deaths were by US troops? I have read many of the sites methodologys such as iraqbodycount.org and I still can't figure out how could anyone possible know where each bullet or shrapnel wound came from? Or who fired what? Or for that matter if this body was actually a civilian. This is not WWII, there are no battle lines or clearly defined enemies. I understand the websites purpose, but I seriously question its accuracy. War is chaos. Many like to think it is some simple strategy game where at the end we can tally up the points and give defenitive answers. We cannot.

How do you determine a civilian from a soldier? Especially when people run around outside firing into the air during weddings?

A few of my sources:
Rick Atkinson - Staff Writer and Senior Editor at Washington Post - embedded with the 101st Airborne.

Evan Wright - Writer, Rolling Stone - embedded with Marines, 1st Recon.

David Zucchino - Los Angeles Times - embedded with 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID.

The thing I love about my sources, is that they are all reporters who are BTDTs. I respect them for that.

And your also saying there that its alright to beat prisoner of war.

Prisoners of War is a term made up by Europe and the U.S. to make everyone feel better about war. I'm not going to try and defend torturing people but the only countries who follow the Geneva Convention are the ones who aren't fighting. I don't like the idea of the US torturing anyone but I am not ignorant to think it doesn't happen. For that matter I am also not stupid enough to believe that the Iraqis ever followed it. If I were to ever be captured by the enemy I would expect to die. I would expect my fingernails to be pulled, gasoline poured into my anus, the female soldiers to be raped, limbs sawed off, etc. The things that our news outlets report like the pictures, sexual humilitations and beatings are nothing. SF, Recon, and pilots go through the same thing in SERE. Compaired to the torture that no one reports the stuff in most of the media is nothing. The movie at the beginning of this thread is merely showing the public the true face of war, and humanity. And that movie is mild to say the least.

Sadly idealism doesn't exist in war.

 

[Pajari]

Washington is trying to turn a killing machine (the most efficient on the planet some would argue) into a peace keeping force like police officers. The military isn't made for that and the soldiers are not trained for that. These men shout "kill!" on the first day of bootcamp and they don't stop until their dead or they retire. You can expect a certain conduct all you want but unless your expecting death your just going to be disappointed.

That's where I disagree. The US military has more experience with low-intensity peacekeeping operations than it does with steamrolling over the enemy, but we always choose to throw that experience out and prepare for big wars that rarely happen, if ever.

EDIT: Also, Solaris, are you (or anyone else) even going to respond to me?

 

[Eg.]

Solaris never repsonds, he acts this way in everythread about America/israel/iraq/iran. Go for Stern, as much as i find him as a nemisis, at least we will bring up a cogent response. Capt Stern, please humor Pajari.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I have come to the realization that very few people in this forum actually know what is going on in Iraq. It is so easy to get lost in news reports and politics that many ignore the actual war. For example, there are reasons for so many civilian casualties. Of course, everybody likes to blame it on US bombs when reality is much different.

The military is made for one thing - killing. Anyone who thinks different automatically looses any credibility. Washington is trying to turn a killing machine (the most efficient on the planet some would argue) into a peace keeping force like police officers. The military isn't made for that and the soldiers are not trained for that. These men shout "kill!" on the first day of bootcamp and they don't stop until their dead or they retire. You can expect a certain conduct all you want but unless your expecting death your just going to be disappointed.

As stated already, bombs are not the primary death dealers. Bombs have played a fairly small role towards destroying the enemy, I really don't care what you see on TV. They are used mostly for destroying certain targets and for the most part our bombs are extremely accurate. We don't waste money on guided things that aren't guided. America's military takes destruction seriously. The primary indirect life taker in the Iraq war is mostly artillery. Which is not guided and can cause just as much destruction. The marines used artillery heavely in the battle of Al Gharraf and Nasiriyah and many other cities. You can get mad at them all you want for it, but to soldiers they think in very simple terms. Its either him or me.

Something that nobody ever mentions and yet its was so common during the first weeks of the invasion that the entire world should be upset. Instead its only the soldiers. Almost 80% of the Iraqi forces were (and are) dressed in civilian clothing. The original ROE was to shoot only after being shot at. Somalia taught us what a mistake that was so the men were told to shoot anyone with a gun. Many of these people with guns were kids. That is partly why there are so many children related deaths. I don't think anyone on this board knows what war is like, let alone a war where the enemy can be among the crowd you are handing MREs out too.

Many of the enemies forward observers never even carried a gun, they just walked around on cell phones acting like they were oblivious to the combat around them. Once the soldiers figured this out they started shooting anyone suspcious with a cell phone. Again, leading to many deaths. Children were also used as FOs.

Soldiers also discovered that the Fedayheen drove around in unmarked white vans used to scout and relay their positions to units futher in the country. Again, there were a lot of white vans in Iraq and after the first warning shots soldiers opened fired because of suicide bombers. Which is why you see so many burnt and destroyed vehicles in pictures. The soldiers had little patience for people who continued to drive towards them even after they fired a warning shot.

There have also been numerous reports of gunmen exposing themselves to direct fire and discharging there weapon while holding babies and women in front of them. Where was the public outcry against this? I never heard it.

Also many of the Iraqi Army deserters simply threw their weapons down and walked away into the desert. Once they found US forces they surrendered only to be turned away because the military didn't have enough room for all the prisoners. These men who were told to go elsewhere were shot by Fedayheen if they found them. Of course, these deaths are blamed on the US.

I have never seen any sort of credible count for civilian casualties that somehow claims a certain % died from this and another from that. Sure, 32,000 civilians deaths could be the correct number. But how many of these deaths were by US troops? I have read many of the sites methodologys such as iraqbodycount.org and I still can't figure out how could anyone possible know where each bullet or shrapnel wound came from? Or who fired what? Or for that matter if this body was actually a civilian. This is not WWII, there are no battle lines or clearly defined enemies. I understand the websites purpose, but I seriously question its accuracy. War is chaos. Many like to think it is some simple strategy game where at the end we can tally up the points and give defenitive answers. We cannot.

How do you determine a civilian from a soldier? Especially when people run around outside firing into the air during weddings?

A few of my sources:
Rick Atkinson - Staff Writer and Senior Editor at Washington Post - embedded with the 101st Airborne.

Evan Wright - Writer, Rolling Stone - embedded with Marines, 1st Recon.

David Zucchino - Los Angeles Times - embedded with 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID.

The thing I love about my sources, is that they are all reporters who are BTDTs. I respect them for that.



Prisoners of War is a term made up by Europe and the U.S. to make everyone feel better about war. I'm not going to try and defend torturing people but the only countries who follow the Geneva Convention are the ones who aren't fighting. I don't like the idea of the US torturing anyone but I am not ignorant to think it doesn't happen. For that matter I am also not stupid enough to believe that the Iraqis ever followed it. If I were to ever be captured by the enemy I would expect to die. I would expect my fingernails to be pulled, gasoline poured into my anus, the female soldiers to be raped, limbs sawed off, etc. The things that our news outlets report like the pictures, sexual humilitations and beatings are nothing. SF, Recon, and pilots go through the same thing in SERE. Compaired to the torture that no one reports the stuff in most of the media is nothing. The movie at the beginning of this thread is merely showing the public the true face of war, and humanity. And that movie is mild to say the least.

Sadly idealism doesn't exist in war.

Firstly, nothing you have just said justifies anything the military has done.

Secondly, Yes it is a common fact that war is ugly and hard, but that doesnt make it okay in any respects. Especially when the coalition is there as an invading and occupying force (whats this crap about peacekeeping? the only reason they are still there is to ensure their 'rights' to iraqs oil). Maybe children wouldnt have to resort to throwing rocks and grenades at the soliders who are invading their country and looting their oil if they werent there in the first place.

 

[Ome_Vince]

lol, you guys, you cant put regular cops in Iraq!!! Man, cops wont even go into certain neighbourhoods in New York because its to dangerous.
With insurgents blowing up cars on a daily bases, attacking and overrunning soldiers, grenades being thrown etc etc, what you actually might need is cops in military uniform with some more advanced training...

Then there's the psychological aspect. Cops cant handle this pressure, and its even doubting that the soldiers can..

All in all, the situation is hell, and nobody deserves to be in it. Personally i hardly sympathize with insurgents in Iraq (hence most suicide bombers are FOREIGN islamic radicals from Syria, Iran or even Europe.. ) ->
Coalition transferred power, and are even planning to exit. They are training Iraq's new army and security forces, so the country wont fall into anarchy when they leave.
Attacking soldiers right now seems more like willing to create anarchy and destruction (+hatred +a miliatary response to smeer the coalition) rather than "lets free iraq" -> Free Iraq from what? The coalition is leaving, and Iraq has the power again...

 

[gick]

I think Dubyah needs to swallow his pride and get the UN to send in trained peacekeepers.

 

[Lemonking]

Firstly, nothing you have just said justifies anything the military has done.

Secondly, Yes it is a common fact that war is ugly and hard, but that doesnt make it okay in any respects. Especially when the coalition is there as an invading and occupying force (whats this crap about peacekeeping? the only reason they are still there is to ensure their 'rights' to iraqs oil). Maybe children wouldnt have to resort to throwing rocks and grenades at the soliders who are invading their country and looting their oil if they werent there in the first place.

yes I see the tankers coming in every day at the Long Beach port...they are filled to the top with Iraqi oil.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Firstly, nothing you have just said justifies anything the military has done.

Was he even trying to justify it? Or just explain it?

 

[Solaris]

What did those 2/3 kids do? Rocks/Grenade being thrown. You think those soldiers are enjoying their lives over there? Waking up every morning at 0400 to guard a post, not knowing whether they're gonna be sniped by some random insurgent. Not knowing whether they're gonna walk by a car loaded with explosives. Have you been to the middle east? Do you know how dangerous it is? Do you think anyone is happy over there? I don't know, you may just be a typical democratic liberal who is pro abortion yet at the same time calls our military "baby killers."

Life is no picnic for the kids either. Electrizity for like 1/2 hours a day, water often cut off, parents get/shot/bombed ect. Hospitals almost non-existant allbecuase of these troops, so we can see why they would throw rocks at them.

The last thing anyone wants, are rocks and grenades being thrown at them. "But no! They're kids! They should have the right to throw rocks and grenades! They should have the right to strap bombs to their chest and kill innocent shiite/sonne muslims! They should have the right to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent jewish families! They're young! That makes them totally innocent! Allah is great! Bis'Mil A' Rah' Mon' A' Rahim!"

No, I'm saying there right to do it becuase the troops are a legitamate target.

And cooper, all that stuff your saying about bombs is a bit :/
Didn't like 10,000 civillians die during the invasion due to bombs? And didn't one of these high presision bombs land in Isreal. And a while back when they bombed a village in syria, and it turned out they just killed 8 children and their mother or something. I'll find sources later, time for breakfast.

 

[bigburpco]

What if the grenade was thrown without a pin? :| lol, hahaha.

They should have issued a stern warning (...), and be frisked.

 

[Solaris]

You're defending the rights of kids to lob grenades and rocks at armed soldiers in the middle of a warzone. Good luck with that case, cheif. Also, you have an extremely loose definition of "indiscriminately".

I'm defending the rights of a people to resist an occupier. And I'm refering to the fact that the Coallition shoot people be they child man woman or elderly, Fallujah for instance:

"I was personally involved with escorting a commander to Fallujah for Operation Phantom Fury. We were told going into Fallujah, into the combat area, that every single person that was walking, talking, breathing was an enemy combatant. As such, every single person that was walking down the street or in a house was a target."
Source

When such brutallity is exerted you can see why Iraqis would want to rebel against the coallition.

The bigger shame here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. The imperialist machine is getting less oil out of Iraq than it was beforehand, and in case you hadn't noticed, gas prices are up after the invasion. And Britain and the US have all vollunteer armed forces. No one is getting drafted, everybody is there because they signed up to serve their country, something that I admit you probably will never understand.

Ah, now most of the oil goes through US companies, such as Haliburton whom Dick Cheney is on their payroll.
Yes I understand that they have vollunteer forces, which makes sending them to Iraq all the worse. Throwing away peoples lives, who vollunteered
to protect there country.

Kids throwing grenades at soldiers and lobbing rocks because they don't expect anything to happen are not noble heroes of guerilla warfare, but stupid jackasses that should have expected a volley of bullets in lieu of a beating (not saying its right, but they got off relatively easy for what amounts to attempted murder). What would you say if someone threw a grenade at Chavez? Is that person part of this mythical legitimate national liberation organization, or an imperialist lackey?

So by fighting your stupid? If theres a chance you could get shot at your stupid? I'd call them brave. And did they even throw a grenade? Becuase I can't see one.

The western forces want out of Iraq as soon as possible. Also, is the most liberal constitution ever drafted in a Middle Eastern country part of the west's "brutal oppressionist tactics"? How about the first democratically elected government of Iraq, ever? Where is your ridiculous by-the-numbers Marxist rhetoric in the face of the region's fairest democracy besides Israel and Afghanistan?

You can't have a democracy under occupation. There is an elected government yes, but who still has all the contracts? US companies. And the democracys a sham, who cares about democracy when your scared to leave your home, you don't hav enough food, no medical supplies and your police torture people to death regually.

Are you being sarcastic? This is the most ridiculous collection of pseudo-Maoist tripe I've ever seen in my life. Just because you think the "resistance" is attempting to create a new government, you think they're justified in playing with other people's lives? No amount of "national liberation" is going to change the fact that the insurgents are heinous, brutal criminals that show no moral qualms about blowing up dozens of completely innocent people.
Sorry to everyone else for so completely biting down on a troll's bait, but I had to do it.

The insurgency against the occupiers is a liberation force, there are also alot of people in Iraq who fight each other, like the catholic protastant situation in Northean Irealand, and the people bombing shiate mosques arn't the people I support. They should all stop fighting each other and direct it against the impossed state.

Sorry it took so long to reply, I forgot.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I'm defending the rights of a people to resist an occupier.

2 things
-Occupier? Power is in the hands of Iraq, and the coalition is leaving. This argument no longer works..
-The "occupiers" have the right to defend themselves..
If a kid shoots an AK47 at them, they have the right to return fire.

And if armed civilians mingle with regular civilians, regular civilians will get hit, and the armed "forces" share responsibility.

 

[Razor]

2 things
-Occupier? Power is in the hands of Iraq, and the coalition is leaving. This argument no longer works..
-The "occupiers" have the right to defend themselves..
If a kid shoots an AK47 at them, they have the right to return fire.

But as soon as the kid puts down the ak47 and no longer poses a threat, deadly force can not be used against them. They can be arrested, but not beaten or killed.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Ofcourse Although i understand the soldiers might still be pissed, it doesnt mean they were right to beat up the kids.

 

[Solaris]

2 things
-Occupier? Power is in the hands of Iraq, and the coalition is leaving. This argument no longer works..
-The "occupiers" have the right to defend themselves..
If a kid shoots an AK47 at them, they have the right to return fire.

And if armed civilians mingle with regular civilians, regular civilians will get hit, and the armed "forces" share responsibility.

Power isn't in the hands of Iraq at all, the people with the guns have the power, and thats the coallition.

 

[Ome_Vince]

You shouldnt watch to many Steven Seagal movies.
Power is transferred to Iraq, and although Coalition forces guard the government while the Iraqi forces are trained, the Coalition no longer controls the country.

Pretty soon the troops will leave, so any insurgency against troops on the "they are occupying our country" argument is relatively pointless, since they're on the move-out anyways..

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi:

"We will not forget who stood by and against us," Allawi said at the swearing-in ceremony, a clear warning to insurgents trying to topple the government.
But, he said, "the transformation from dictatorship to civil society" is "a major task" likely to take many years.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'd like to break this down a moment.

Solaris, you believe that the insurgents are justified in attacking soldiers. Now for a moment let's ignore the issure of individualism - that one soldier might be an evil sick **** and another might be a really nice guy who abhors all the killing he has to do. I'm part of the HL2.net staff but I'm not responsible for contraversial decisions or bans made by moderators.

You believe they are justified in attacking soldiers because the soldiers attack first, that right? We invaded their country, took out their leader, blowing shit up in the process and now we're squatting on top of their heads with a great big sledgehammer. So what you're saying is, essentially, that it's a good idea to fight violence with violence. I don't think that's a good idea in ideological terms (hey there Ghandi/MLK) and even in practical ones I don't think it ever works unless literally the entire populace is with you and really really going at it hammer and tongs. Then, maybe, they could push the Coalition out.

Because that's the only objective. Violence will get a violent-style outcome; things aren't going to get better but at least the evil Coalition will leave. Let's say they accomplish it. So now what happens? Well, now you've got the very same people who have been running around with guns and molotovs (or whatever) and a scared, confused populace, and no big force to control it. As you said, the people with the guns have the power. In this case, it would be the insurgents. Now are you really thinking that would be better than Coalition occupation?

Do you think that if enough soldiers get bombed and shot, the US is going to pull out and somehow, miraculously, magically, things are going to be better? Somehow a democracy is going to form? Hey, I thought you weren't religious, so how come you believe in miracles?

Now, let's look again at why each 'side' is doing what it does. The insurgents are resisting because they don't feel the US has the right to invade their country but mostly, if we are to believe you, because they are being killed indiscriminately. Now that's probably true to an extent - with the amount of horror stories coming out of Iraq it'd be ridiculous to say it isn't, although I daresay it's more complicated and many insurgents are just utter ****s as opposed to 'freedom fighters' (funny, because if by some crazyness they were able to banish their oppressors, true freedom would be the last thing on their minds).

So in summary, they're shooting back. Fighting fire with fire. Resistance, right? So that means if no-one was blowing them up they wouldn't react so violently.

Why are the Americans killing indiscriminately? Because they can never be sure who's trying to kill them and who's not? Because they're sick and tired of being shot at by insurgents? Because they're reacting to the atrocities committed by insurgents against them? The first two of these are horrible reasons but they all amount to the same reason the insurgents are fighting. 'We are shooting at them because they are shooting at us.' They're fighting violence with violence; fire with fire.

Let's say the insurgents were to stop fighting immediately. If they went cold turkey, so to speak. The US would stop killing them. Perhaps not immediately, because they'd have all that pent-up anger and aggression and good old American spirit, but they would stop.

Alright, what if the US suddenly stops its atrocities?
I doubt the insurgents would stop.

Let's say the US starts only killing those that are trying to kill them. So now they're only defending themselves. Do you think the insurgents are still justified? If you do, how does that work? If the US aren't slaughtering everybody and instead only attacking those that attack them, how exactly are they oppressing anybody?

Two wrongs don't make a right, except in maths.
There is no simple answer.
If both sides suddenly stopped, that would be awesome. They're not going to.
But niether side is justified in killing the other except in the literal sense of self-defence.
And if the US pull out, things are only going to get worse.

 

[Eg.]

And they want to leave, pay attention. Look, I know its hard to understand this coming from a pampered, 1st world nation, but the world cannot run on your view of politics. Maybe Scotland should start killing Brits because of the unlawful occupation of their lands, Sean Connery could be their leader. Democracies can work under occupations, after WWII, Japan and Germany BOTH became democracies. Japan was also a US military base for all intensive purposes after the war, and they still have a democracy, that works.

Violent "reisistance" of any kind is an outcropping of un-controlled hate and anger. These kids have no idea what are the long term effects are of an early pull out, and they are only making the situation worse for themselves. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

PS. If the US has truely an imperialistic goal in Iraq, we would not be pulling out, and their are much more effective ways in combating the violence that is occuring in Iraq. We could start starving them out and systematically killing them, but we are not. The British Empire knew how to control large populations: make sure they arent so large.

 

[Cooper]

Was he even trying to justify it? Or just explain it?

Thank you.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I'd like to break this down a moment.

Best. Breakdown. Ever.

Its only a shame that there are no hard and fast answers in this situation--things would be so much easier!

 

[Some_God]

Its even harder when there are people like Solaris and Stern who have unwavering support for the insurgents... if only they had an open mind.

 

[Solaris]

Its even harder when there are people like Solaris and Stern who have unwavering support for the insurgents... if only they had an open mind.

Oh thats just great. Open mind... ye, I suppose you watch fox everynight to help form a balanced opinion.

 

[Some_God]

Actually, no. I watch CNN, the WB11 10'o'Clock news and occasionally FOX to ponder at O'Rielly's flawed comments. I'll add that to the large list of things you generalize about.

 

[Raziaar]

yes I see the tankers coming in every day at the Long Beach port...they are filled to the top with Iraqi oil.

Get out of my hometown.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh thats just great. Open mind... ye, I suppose you watch fox everynight to help form a balanced opinion.

Oh, and I suppose you watch PATV to help form a balanced opinion.

 

[Solaris]

Oh, and I suppose you watch PATV to help form a balanced opinion.

I actually have a broad range of news sources.
PrisonPlanet (daily)
The Guardian (almost daily)
BBC News (Daily)

 

[Ome_Vince]

Solaris you forgot to add:
-Al Jazeera
-New world Order
-Hamas Today
j/k

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I actually have a broad range of news sources.

Oh, I can see the bias in them all. PrisonPlanet (US Conspiracies), The Guardian (US Conspiracies and Crimes), BBC News (Just recently changed its tone in light of its own countries terrorist attacks).

Now, if you also watched Fox, then the Bias would be balanced. Oh, you also admitted you watched PATV. So its no wonder your a theocratic nutjob for they're causes. A good counter to that? Televangelists. Christian. Televangelists.

 

[Solaris]

Oh, I can see the bias in them all. PrisonPlanet (US Conspiracies), The Guardian (US Conspiracies and Crimes), BBC News (Just recently changed its tone in light of its own countries terrorist attacks).

Now, if you also watched Fox, then the Bias would be balanced. Oh, you also admitted you watched PATV. So its no wonder your a theocratic nutjob for they're causes. A good counter to that? Televangelists. Christian. Televangelists.

The BBC is the most respected news institution in the world.

And the guardians damn fine as well.

 

[Lemonking]

Get out of my hometown.

lol l dont there....i live in cerritos much nicer

 

[Raziaar]

lol l dont there....i live in cerritos much nicer

I don't deny that the crime is awful in long beach. Had a little kid murdered on my street being ran over by a hostage taker evading the police who barricaded himself in a house.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

yes I see the tankers coming in every day at the Long Beach port...they are filled to the top with Iraqi oil.

If you still think that america invaded iraq for the freedom of the iraqi people....ahahahehah, you are in ladi dadi land my friend.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

If you still think that america invaded iraq for the freedom of the iraqi people....ahahahehah, you are in ladi dadi land my friend.

If you think we invaded 'for oil' you're in 'ladi dadi' land.

 

[SAJ]

If you think we invaded 'for oil' you're in 'ladi dadi' land.

Then what do you think the usa invaded Iraq for then ?
Just curious really.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

Then what do you think the usa invaded Iraq for then ?
Just curious really.

For oil of course! Why else would we bother?:thumbs:

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I'd like to break this down a moment.

Solaris, you believe that the insurgents are justified in attacking soldiers. Now for a moment let's ignore the issure of individualism - that one soldier might be an evil sick **** and another might be a really nice guy who abhors all the killing he has to do. I'm part of the HL2.net staff but I'm not responsible for contraversial decisions or bans made by moderators.

As part of the HL2.net staff, I would hold, that everything the HL2.net staff
do is partly your responisbility. If there is a controvertial banning by one of the HL2.net mods, then you, in your position of power, have the responisbility of preventing this kind of thing from happening again amoungst your staff. You're not a 'nice guy' when you let 'evil sick ****s' do what they want.
Hence, bringing this back to the orginial case, a 'nice guy' solider is responsible for what his fellow 'evil sick ****' soliders do.

We invaded their country, took out their leader, blowing shit up in the process and now we're squatting on top of their heads with a great big sledgehammer. So what you're saying is, essentially, that it's a good idea to fight violence with violence. I don't think that's a good idea in ideological terms (hey there Ghandi/MLK) and even in practical ones I don't think it ever works unless literally the entire populace is with you and really really going at it hammer and tongs.

You seriously can't be expecting the people of a newly wartorn country to throw off a ghandi...thats a ridiciulous notion. Also, through out history, revolt against an occupying force has, in almost all cases, come out of a minorty of insurgents. If it is the entire populace is to be mobilised to make the coalition leave, then they are certainly heading in the right direction.

Because that's the only objective. Violence will get a violent-style outcome; things aren't going to get better but at least the evil Coalition will leave. Let's say they accomplish it. So now what happens? Well, now you've got the very same people who have been running around with guns and molotovs (or whatever) and a scared, confused populace, and no big force to control it. As you said, the people with the guns have the power. In this case, it would be the insurgents. Now are you really thinking that would be better than Coalition occupation?

As you stated before, the only way the coalition would be leaving, is if the entire populace began to revolt against the coalition. Considering this did happen, the 'insurgents' will no longer be insurgents, as they will have nothing to insurge against. Yes, there may be disputes amoung the people, however, these disputes will eventually be pacified as the looming threat of occupation is no longer hanging over their heads.

Let's say the insurgents were to stop fighting immediately. If they went cold turkey, so to speak. The US would stop killing them. Perhaps not immediately, because they'd have all that pent-up anger and aggression and good old American spirit, but they would stop.

Alright, what if the US suddenly stops its atrocities?
I doubt the insurgents would stop.

Obviously if the insurgents surrenedered and stopped fighting, the americans will no longer have to fight them. How ever, that would be at the cost of surrenedering and letting the US do what ever they wish with their country (which would most likely be to exploit their nations resources).

Your hypothesis is incorrect here, because the only way the US can stop its atrocities in iraq is by leaving the country. Hence, the hypothetical question you should be asking is the following: what if the US and the institutions of governance suddenly leave Iraq? well considering the insurgents will have nothing to insurge against, they will obviously stop.

Let's say the US starts only killing those that are trying to kill them. So now they're only defending themselves. Do you think the insurgents are still justified? If you do, how does that work? If the US aren't slaughtering everybody and instead only attacking those that attack them, how exactly are they oppressing anybody?

You are hilarious. I think you are forgetting that this is happening in iraq. The insurgents are defending their soil by attacking the US. If I come into your house and tell you that from now on, things are run the way I want them to, and you come and hit me, you arent attacking me, your defending your home.
It's silly to expect you to think, after Ive come into your home, "Oh, well hitting this person who has come into my home is not justified because he isnt hitting me"

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

If you think we invaded 'for oil' you're in 'ladi dadi' land.

What the hell is the matter with you people? For goodness sake wake up! America isnt a great democratic country, bestowing its heavanly goodness upon the less fortunate. Thats bullshit. Like every other country, what the US is doing is pursuing its interests. Hence:the ensuing question follows, what interests can the US possibly have in Iraq? The US doesn't care about the well being of the iraqi people or the rest of the world unless they can attain benefits from them that serves their own interests. Thats what pursuing your nations interests MEANS.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

If the US left now the Insurgents would not stop, they would start fighting each other. The Sunni's would go for power, the Iranians would try to defeat the Sunni rebels and secure a power base while the Syrians do the same. Iraq has alot of resources, the reason the US went in for in the first place, and to think the Iranians and Syrians would pass up on an oppertunity like this is stupidity.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

If the US left now the Insurgents would not stop, they would start fighting each other. The Sunni's would go for power, the Iranians would try to defeat the Sunni rebels and secure a power base while the Syrians do the same. Iraq has alot of resources, the reason the US went in for in the first place, and to think the Iranians and Syrians would pass up on an oppertunity like this is stupidity.

True, however, I rather iranians and syrians exploit the oppurtunity than the US.
And also, I do think that the insurgency would be pacified to quite some extent after the US leave, because the occupation itself is catalysing the insurgency.