My take on the mosque killing incident

[hasan]

I tried to post this yesterday but the forum ws just too slow.

The embedded journalists can't say anything if the Americans don't aprove it, if the report got out, it was approved.
Frist conclusion: American army let this incident leak. (aka be known to the public)

I think they are making a scapegoat out of one soldier.
They want to reduce the massacres in Falluja to a tiny small incident, and don't forget that they are "investigating", and the soldier will get punished (5 monthes in jail maybe?).

The amount of atrocities committed by the americans in Fallujah is very big .. we can only hear about it through eyewitnesses who manage to survive.
Ofcourse, I don't think anyone publishes these testimonies other than Al Jazeera and a few other media.
Some of what they said: bodies in the street, snipers targetting any moving object, tanks squashing dead and injured.
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/browse.asp?hGuestID=fq276O
http://www.empirenotes.org/index.html
(Al Jazeera video) http://www.mrafe.com/upload/uploading/123.zip
I will tryo translate what's said:

.... boys are in the street, injured, and there are martyres. tanks cross over the injured, there were six injured in one house, the tank came over them from here and there, and destroyed the house over them. my nephew was thrown on the street, we couldn't go to bring him, two nephews of mine were injured, I don't know where they are. [....]
and I call all the humanitarian organizations, and any human with the least bit of conscience, to help the people of Fallujah, the situation is hard, boys are bleeding in the houses, there are families, bodies outside .. they started lifting them .. lifting them and throwing them in the river .. so that no one can recognize his son or his brother

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK18Ak03.html

The refugees tell horror stories - including confirmation, already reported by Asia Times Online, of the Americans using cluster bombs and spraying white phosphorus, a banned chemical weapon.

now now .. before you say this is all lies, I'm gonna ask you ..

Whom are you going to trust: Fallujah civilians who risked their lives to escape, witnesses such as Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, hospital doctors, Amnesty International, top United Nations human-rights official Louise Arbour, the International Committee of the Red Cross; or the Pentagon and US-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi?

anyway .. I'm just saying, all this fuss about this incident is meant to make people forget about all the atrocities and reduce the massacre into a single isolated incident.
With all the fuss, it's going to look like this is the onyl incident, ofcourse idiots will argue that if Americans published this, why wouldn't they publish any other attrocities?
My answer is: this incident is not much compared to wht has been done in Fallujah, by leaking just this one, they are trying to say that they are committing no attrocities. They are going to claim that they respect the geneva conventions and the proof is they are invistigating the incident and will punish the soldier.

Now, I'm saying it's a conspircy, but who knows, maybe the report leaked because the military didn't pay attention to it, which I doubt, because I don't knwo if they just look into everysingle report, I think they already told the journalists of what they can and cannot broadcast. Any voilation would probably result in kicking the journalist out of Falluja.

I know there is already a thread about the incident, but this threadis not about the incident .. it's about alerting people not to fall in the trap of thinking this is the worst thing that happened.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I dont think thats true. Soldiers under General Patton, had killed 28 German Officers on an Italian airfield. While not directed under his command to execute those men, the soldiers responsible traced to his record due to its bearing his units name.

The incident, was photographed, and published in America -- Roosevelt suppressed this, because he was worried the American public might change their perspectives about the objectives for war.

In this case, I can argue that this leaking out, is'int really meant to be. I dont believe its a scapegoat at all, and if further Massacre had occured, I dont believe that Camera-men would've been allowed to follow the unit to begin with.

 

[hasan]

The fact that camera men/man were allowed to follow the troops in the first place aloen concerns me.
also, if you look at the first report
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&p=Source_Nightly News&i=c83e2fb5-3e2c-4cf4-9508-bd37ab9a5673
(I blieve this was the first one ever?)
the amricans were already investigating .. before the report even got broadcasted. What does that mean?

anyway, whether my theory is right or not, the video will be used in the way I described.
it'll probably be also used to claim that fighters really do use mosques to attack americans.
because you see, you either believe the whole video, or you don't believe it, you can't say the report was honest in one part (shooting the wounded) and dishonest in another (fighters using mosques during battle), because that's a double standard.
now, one could assume that since the video footage doesn't show any shooting form the mosque, it could be said that the reporter got this info from the military.
but anyway, I already saw people arguing "see .. we put those soldiers to trial, do iraqis do that? no!"

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The report is always broadcasted late after the incident. You have to prepare the report, you have to prepare the clip with the nessecary censorship and edits, you also have to prepare an alotted time for TV Scheduling to air the message.

Technically, if 8 million people die over there, it will get here in roughly 4-5 hours times difference, or 1-2 days time difference.

It depends upon whose their, or if the report was prepared overseas. If it is prepared oversea's, it might be quicker to establish itself, but it would still be longer then instant.

Furthermore, you have to write a report on whats going on, and usually, publisher's get this news right in places their working at. You have to wait for the news to come from oversea's first.

 

[hasan]

I was pointing to the fact that this time, they didn't wait for tthe report to be published before they act, like in abu gharib

 

[Gray Fox]

Hasan you need pictured or other evidence, Most people like me don't trust eyewitnisess.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yea...same here.

 

[gh0st]

i agree hasan, keep fighting the good fight, repelling the evil empire.

 

[hasan]

we can't get many pictures .. the military isn't letting media in.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(copy and paste if one doesn't work)

but then why wouldn't the military let anyone in? because they took lessons from last time (the first battle in april)
I think there should be plenty of evidence for attrocities that happened in April .. just you wait!!!1111oneone

gh0st ...

America > Earth

yes I will

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Too bad you did'nt keep the images real names. I just found the sources for those -- and im laughing.

1.

1, shows a downed 16 year old terrorist, and under his cloth, is what appears to be a bullet shattered AK47. Around his belt, Grenades are visible, but the shading from the body makes it look like bricks. It appears he took a burst of shots from accross his chest. The blood stains are real muddy brown, which means his blood would be flowing pretty quick. I'd guess adrenaline -- as it appears from how the body was, he was either running too, or running from.

Their are multiple shatters in the ground from around the body. Only two weapons that could do it like that, would be a Bradleys 20mm weapon, or an M2 .50 Calibre.

To my point: This person is not a dead civilian, or apart of the claimed attrocities. He is a dead insurgent, and if you look further back, you'll see an empty clip Must've been one of his buddies.

2.

Look closely in the hands of the Marine on Number 2. He's carrying that dead mans AK47. Pitty, he should'nt have been carrying one to begin with, let alone, try to attack a marine contingent.

Theres evidence the man was facing the advancement of US Forces, and the weapon being held by the Marine, has a chip in the wood around the barrel. Fragments from bullets, I'd guess. The shot, also appears like it was incoming from the front ... which suggest to me, this man was perceived as a threat to whoever he was shooting at.

Theres dispensed casings from the AK47 aswell. Look around the mans body, and up against the wall. He took multiple shots, and must've been gunned down really quickly.

The wounds dont show an exact proximity, so its hard to tell just how close the marines were when he started firing. Judging from how he landed, I'd imagine he was still in pain. He probably bled to death on the inside.

To my point: Dead insurgent, number two. Not apart of the attrocities you claimed him to be.

3.

This ones been all over the place, and its were a bunch'a terrorists tried to escape all through one hole. The first man was killed from behind, with three shots to his back. The next man, who is seen to be carrying an ammunition's vest, was killed from a spray to the chest and left arm. He probably died right there.

The other men, look to be have been firing from that position. Judging from the holes, and the bricks from around them, they must've been fired on for a very long time. One of the men died like he was crouching, and the other man, looks lent over, like he was trying to pick something up.

To my point: Four dead insurgents. Theres another picture of this, and a video. There was a total of seven dead insurgents, and in the biggest picture, you can see a dispensed toobing of somekind. Probably an implemented RPG.

4.

I dont have an answer for number four. He was probably killed during the nightraids -- I cant see any weapons visible. From that, their exists the possibility his munitions were already picked up.

The Marines in Fallujah have been doing this, to ensure more weapons dont fall into insurgent hands -- see your picture, ... number two.

To my point: Unknown -- could've been killed by a US Bombing.
His status as an insurgent is unknown.

5.

Number Five is either propaganda, or those kids are sleeping. No blood stains, no bullet holes, and the girl closest to the camera appears to be sleeping on some kind of sheet.

Needless to say, their is no evidence to support these children were killed. ...and that Abrams in the backround? Its not American. Guess what country its from?

To my point: This is just cute. One of them is also smiling.

6.

Collected bodies from dead insurgents along that road. Notice the flak jackets and stereotypical Ammo pouch vests carried on several of them.

A pistol is still visible on one of the insurgents. Can you guess which one? Also, the marines appear to have AK's and varied munitions loaded into their APC. Look hard, on the back far right corner of the APC.

To my point: Lots'a dead insurgents -- not apart of the attrocities claimed. Also, notice the adidas shirt on one of them. An Insurgent tactic to lure marines into thinking they were in safe zones, was to wear some American merchandise.

When americans passed by the men who were wearing these clothes, these same people, would either signal their buddies to attack the convoy, or go gather their weapons from hiding, and fire on the convoy themselves.

7.

Same person as in number four, just a different angle.

I still have no idea how it happened--there does'nt appear to be gunshot wounds on the body.

To my point: Still disputed. On all fronts.

8.

You are not authorized to view this page. Its a sad message to be getting.

To my point: This host is blocking my access.

9.

Dead insurgent, his weapon is in the bottom left hand corner. Its a small pistol, and it has his finger on it. Notice in the mans right hand, is still clenched like he was carrying a smaller weapon.

Whats more, it appears he was shot in the chest, and suffered from some kind of munitions scarring--like a rocket or grenade. Notice also, the bullet holes behind him are coming from varying calibres.

Must've been shot from an advancing convoy.

To my point: Simply put, dont shoot at Marines, and they wont shoot at you.

...got anymore?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edits

Their are multiple shatters in the ground from around the body. Only two weapons that could do it like that, would be a Bradleys 20mm weapon, or an M2 .50 Calibre.

Their are multiple shatters in the ground from around the body. Only two weapons could make impact craters as wide as that. The first one, being an M2 .50 Calibre Machinegun. The second, being a Bradleys 20mm Cannon. The rounds must've been AP. Theres no scorching to suggest an HE Burst.

 

[gh0st]

hasan youve got to be joking, those pictures are laughable, and your attempt to hide the sources (aljazeera, and a bunch of random uploads) is rediculous. haha it looks like you just went through google and typed "dead people" or something. the american media reports on "atrocities" and they get out regardless of military intervention. the fact they arent means there simply arent any.

edit: HAHA i noticed you just said that the military isnt letting the media in. i wonder how we know about that marine who shot that poor poor defenseless insurgent. i wonder how we constantly see video of combat, i wonder why we have these things called IMBEDDED ****ING JOURNALISTS. youre a propogandist of the worst kind.

 

[The Monkey]

Hasan, you are from Iraq, right?

 

[CptStern]

edit: HAHA i noticed you just said that the military isnt letting the media in. i wonder how we know about that marine who shot that poor poor defenseless insurgent. i wonder how we constantly see video of combat, i wonder why we have these things called IMBEDDED ****ING JOURNALISTS. youre a propogandist of the worst kind.

ummm do you think there's any embedded journalists that are canadian or irish or chinese? the only jornalists embedded in iraq are from the mainstream US networks ..in other words the "homegrown" web: easily controlled. You dont think they'd allow free access to non-american journalists do you? They learned the hard way during vietnam how public opinion can flip flop if there's free access to media from the front lines. Frankly I'm not so sure the US networks are all the willing to show american casualties or atrocities because they have share holders to answer to, who ultimately decide their editorial slante.

 

[gh0st]

irrelevant given the pictures he showed us, stern. the fact that there are only US journalists is a given, i dont need to be spoon fed that kind of information. i for sure know we wont have embedded al jazeera reporters. there are numerous reporters in iraq right now from italy, canada, etc, thats more than they deserve.

 

[Eg.]

Too bad you did'nt keep the images real names. I just found the sources for those -- and im laughing.



1, shows a downed 16 year old terrorist, and under his cloth, is what appears to be a bullet shattered AK47. Around his belt, Grenades are visible, but the shading from the body makes it look like bricks. It appears he took a burst of shots from accross his chest. The blood stains are real muddy brown, which means his blood would be flowing pretty quick. I'd guess adrenaline -- as it appears from how the body was, he was either running too, or running from.

Their are multiple shatters in the ground from around the body. Only two weapons that could do it like that, would be a Bradleys 20mm weapon, or an M2 .50 Calibre.

To my point: This person is not a dead civilian, or apart of the claimed attrocities. He is a dead insurgent, and if you look further back, you'll see an empty clip Must've been one of his buddies.



Look closely in the hands of the Marine on Number 2. He's carrying that dead mans AK47. Pitty, he should'nt have been carrying one to begin with, let alone, try to attack a marine contingent.

Theres evidence the man was facing the advancement of US Forces, and the weapon being held by the Marine, has a chip in the wood around the barrel. Fragments from bullets, I'd guess. The shot, also appears like it was incoming from the front ... which suggest to me, this man was perceived as a threat to whoever he was shooting at.

Theres dispensed casings from the AK47 aswell. Look around the mans body, and up against the wall. He took multiple shots, and must've been gunned down really quickly.

The wounds dont show an exact proximity, so its hard to tell just how close the marines were when he started firing. Judging from how he landed, I'd imagine he was still in pain. He probably bled to death on the inside.

To my point: Dead insurgent, number two. Not apart of the attrocities you claimed him to be.



This ones been all over the place, and its were a bunch'a terrorists tried to escape all through one hole. The first man was killed from behind, with three shots to his back. The next man, who is seen to be carrying an ammunition's vest, was killed from a spray to the chest and left arm. He probably died right there.

The other men, look to be have been firing from that position. Judging from the holes, and the bricks from around them, they must've been fired on for a very long time. One of the men died like he was crouching, and the other man, looks lent over, like he was trying to pick something up.

To my point: Four dead insurgents. Theres another picture of this, and a video. There was a total of seven dead insurgents, and in the biggest picture, you can see a dispensed toobing of somekind. Probably an implemented RPG.



I dont have an answer for number four. He was probably killed during the nightraids -- I cant see any weapons visible. From that, their exists the possibility his munitions were already picked up.

The Marines in Fallujah have been doing this, to ensure more weapons dont fall into insurgent hands -- see your picture, ... number two.

To my point: Unknown -- could've been killed by a US Bombing.
His status as an insurgent is unknown.



Number Five is either propaganda, or those kids are sleeping. No blood stains, no bullet holes, and the girl closest to the camera appears to be sleeping on some kind of sheet.

Needless to say, their is no evidence to support these children were killed. ...and that Abrams in the backround? Its not American. Guess what country its from?

To my point: This is just cute. One of them is also smiling.



Collected bodies from dead insurgents along that road. Notice the flak jackets and stereotypical Ammo pouch vests carried on several of them.

A pistol is still visible on one of the insurgents. Can you guess which one? Also, the marines appear to have AK's and varied munitions loaded into their APC. Look hard, on the back far right corner of the APC.

To my point: Lots'a dead insurgents -- not apart of the attrocities claimed. Also, notice the adidas shirt on one of them. An Insurgent tactic to lure marines into thinking they were in safe zones, was to wear some American merchandise.

When americans passed by the men who were wearing these clothes, these same people, would either signal their buddies to attack the convoy, or go gather their weapons from hiding, and fire on the convoy themselves.



Same person as in number four, just a different angle.

I still have no idea how it happened--there does'nt appear to be gunshot wounds on the body.

To my point: Still disputed. On all fronts.



You are not authorized to view this page. Its a sad message to be getting.

To my point: This host is blocking my access.



Dead insurgent, his weapon is in the bottom left hand corner. Its a small pistol, and it has his finger on it. Notice in the mans right hand, is still clenched like he was carrying a smaller weapon.

Whats more, it appears he was shot in the chest, and suffered from some kind of munitions scarring--like a rocket or grenade. Notice also, the bullet holes behind him are coming from varying calibres.

Must've been shot from an advancing convoy.

To my point: Simply put, dont shoot at Marines, and they wont shoot at you.

...got anymore?

damn straight

 

[hasan]

look son, these are the pictures that the americans allowed .. ofcourse they have all to look 'ok',
but regardless of anything, it looks kinda similar to eyewitness testimonies.

The Americans aren't alowing free media in Fallujah.

looks like you don't understand something: the embedded journalists aren't free in what they report, everything is censored.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3998049.stm

However, they later came under sustained fire from the minaret of a mosque, says our correspondent, whose reports are subject to military restrictions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4011743.stm

An AFP news agency journalist embedded with a unit of the marines - and speaking under military restrictions - told the BBC that American soldiers were searching every street corner, house and flat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3987329.stm

Our correspondent, who is working under US military censorship,

that's just the result of a quick google news search on military restrictions and military censorship.

The_Monkey: Yes, I am from Iraq, but I live in Canada.

 

[gh0st]

The Americans aren't alowing free media in Fallujah.

no shit, where did i say they arent? things like "genocide" get reported, it isnt a matter of military censorship. dont call me son either, im probably older than you are.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

However, they later came under sustained fire from the minaret of a mosque, says our correspondent, whose reports are subject to military restrictions.

Because two correspondents have already been killed from Insurgent return fire. Between the Battle going on, and the people their following, restrictions encompass only that these people dont record their own deaths or make specific, the positions of US Personel.

Notice now, that most of the wartime correspondants are wearing Kevlar Jackets and Shells [Helmets]. For the situation their in, despite the gunfire being exchanged, Insurgent Snipers have been targeting media personel recording the raid into the city.

Fallujahs insurgents are targeting these civilian personel, especially if their from an outside media outlet [besides Al-Jazeera], because if their defeat is recorded by National Televisions, they're might be reprissals for their image.

However, on topic,

War Correspondants and their material, wether video or otherwise text or sound, are'nt subject to military restrictions on the grounds they could leak something terrible. War is Terrible -- and their still recording the whole events worth. Today on Ogrish, their having a Fallujah Friday, were people send in multiple videos all accounted from during the raid. [It was requested by the administrator -- Combat footage is interesting]

I cant say, that kind of open sourced media, were people are submitting downloaded or sent "home" videos on a page whose goal is to show the gorey effects of violence and death, proofs a restriction.

An AFP news agency journalist embedded with a unit of the marines - and speaking under military restrictions - told the BBC that American soldiers were searching every street corner, house and flat.

Because he did'nt want to give American Positions away, as the Captain had ordered.

Military Restrictions, also ensure you dont pull a Heraldo Riverra.

Our correspondent, who is working under US military censorship,

Military Censorship does not mean, censored from capturing live footage of people being killed.

I have multiple videos on my hard-drive, showing insurgents being killed plain as day. Infact, heres one from Fallujah now.

http://www.ogrish.com/index.php?class=submission&action=view&id=16254

Im pretty sure you've seen this one -- if your not familiar with it, two months ago this occured.

However, there's still more graphic content that floats around everyday accross Television, Internet, or Readable outlets, so how you think the US restrictions involve whats on national television is beyond me.

 

[hasan]

Because two correspondents have already been killed from Insurgent return fire. Between the Battle going on, and the people their following, restrictions encompass only that these people dont record their own deaths or make specific, the positions of US Personel.

Notice now, that most of the wartime correspondants are wearing Kevlar Jackets and Shells [Helmets]. For the situation their in, despite the gunfire being exchanged, Insurgent Snipers have been targeting media personel recording the raid into the city.

Fallujahs insurgents are targeting these civilian personel, especially if their from an outside media outlet [besides Al-Jazeera], because if their defeat is recorded by National Televisions, they're might be reprissals for their image.

How can the resistance diffirintiate journalists from soldiers if they are wearing the same clothes?
you're funny, insurgents are targetting media cuz they don't thier defeat to be recorded .. hmm .. How about some proof?
It's the Americans who target the free media, because htey don't want them to report thier attrocities.
Aljazeeras offices have been bombed in both Afghanstan and Baghdad.

the reports that come from embedded journalists are always way different than ones coming from independent journalists.

This guy http://www.empirenotes.org/index.html has been in fallujah in april. he's a journliast. he knows what he is talking about.

The aljazeera correspondent who was there in april didn't do much more than showing the world what the Americans didn't want them to see. Thta's all really, aljazeera don't talk out of their ass like most western media, everything is supported with video footage.
When americans bomb civillian houses and claim they killed zarqawi group members, most western media repeats it like parrots without having a clue.
Aljazeera is almost the only one that actually goes to the attacked place and shows you with video evidence that what's been hit is just a rehular home of a regular family; they also show the anger of people over it.

The Americans' only reply is "propaganda!!11" even though everything is supported with evidence.
it's the Americans who spew propaganda.

Americans right now are controlling pretty much all pictures coming out of Fallujah.

 

[gh0st]

How can the resistance diffirintiate journalists from soldiers if they are wearing the same clothes?

the reports that come from embedded journalists are always way different than ones coming from independent journalists.

The Americans' only reply is "propaganda!!11" even though everything is supported with evidence.
it's the Americans who spew propaganda.
.

- the resistance can differentiate journalists because they wear blue flack jackets with the white words "PRESS" on it. but terrorist insurgents dont differentiate between enemy bystander.

-independent? but you just said only american journalists were permitted to be embedded with troops. how would the independant journalists even have access to this information to give "different" accounts

-my reply was "propaganda" because thats exactly what your pictures are. you depict several dead people, when we have no background information or any legitimate source to back those photos up.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ Summed my next post up.

 

[hasan]

- the resistance can differentiate journalists because they wear blue flack jackets with the white words "PRESS" on it. but terrorist insurgents dont differentiate between enemy bystander.

-independent? but you just said only american journalists were permitted to be embedded with troops. how would the independant journalists even have access to this information to give "different" accounts

-my reply was "propaganda" because thats exactly what your pictures are. you depict several dead people, when we have no background information or any legitimate source to back those photos up.

heheh .. you didn't even provide proof that the mujahideen are targetting journalists in the first place.

but you just said only american journalists were permitted to be embedded with troops

don't put words in my mouth. I never said or implied that.
what I mean by independt journalists are journalists who are NOT embedded.

did you reply "propaganda"? I don't remember. I was talking about aljazeera. my son.

eyewitness testimonies are not propaganda. military statements are.

 

[gh0st]

heheh .. you didn't even provide proof that the mujahideen are targetting journalists in the first place.


don't put words in my mouth. I never said or implied that.
what I mean by independt journalists are journalists who are NOT embedded.

did you reply "propaganda"? I don't remember. I was talking about aljazeera. my son.

eyewitness testimonies are not propaganda. military statements are.

you didnt provide any proof that those pictures you quotes and tried to hide the links to are credible. journalists are dying, and its not marines shooting them. we arent targetting civilians but they die anyway, so thats wrong while killing journalists is right? i guess they ran out of peoples heads to saw off.

its pronounced "terrorists" not mujahadeen. you said embedded journalists and independant journalists in the same sentance, i dont need to put words in your mouth theres plenty there already.

your mastery of the english language makes it nearly impossible to reply to "did you reply 'propaganda,'" so i just wont bother. any statement can be propaganda, it just depends how its used. muslim terrorists like your butt buddies in iraq like to use suffering of innocents as a rational for attacking US soldiers, so they get a bunch of pictures of dead people that may or may not be related to their cross fire or our own. fact is hasan, you or i, or most of the people on this board, dont REALLY know whats going on. you just choose to use bullshit sources like al jazeera and random uploads, with no credibility attached to them. THAT is propaganda.

 

[polypod]

I just have two points:
Embedding the journalists is a brilliant way to keep them where you want them. It allows the commanding officer to look at a map of the conflict and decide exactly where he wants that unit with the journalists.
I think it's interesting that when the Abu Garaib(sp?) prison scandel broke, Rumsfeld seemed most upset that someone had taken pictures then the actual crime committed! I'll bet there are many incidents that simply weren't photographed.
As for the execution by the marine, seems fairly obvious he murdered him in cold blood. I understand the argument he could have been booby-trapped, but if you listen to what he says: "This one's still breathing. *Bang* Not any more!" It doesn't sound like it..
(there's another incident with an Apache gunship where the gunner shoots a man who's wounded on the ground presenting no threat)
Pointing out insurgent atrocities is no excuse for our soldiers committing them. We know they target civilians and we've heard about the beheadings. But we're supposed to have the high moral ground, to justify the occupation, and we're blowing it!

 

[hasan]

didnt provide any proof that those pictures you quotes and tried to hide the links to are credible.

let me teach you something: when you put the mouse over a link, the target address apears in the status bar.
It's getty images, a website with high quality photos.
http://www.gettyimages.com/
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState|0|0|30|0|0|0|1|||0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|7|Fallujah|0|0|0|0&p=7

we arent targetting civilians but they die anyway

You know, I used to laugh when people say that .. but it's not funny anymore.

so thats wrong while killing journalists is right?

dude .. it's you who kill journalists.
The ones you don't like anyway.

so i just wont bother

pffft .. I don't know why I'm bothering with you. probably cuz you are the only one replying anyway. and kerboros ..

its pronounced "terrorists" not mujahadeen.

well, it can be pronounced Mujahideen, Mojahideen, Mogahideen .. it's an arabic word so there isn't one specific way to write it in English.
but it's definetly not "terrorists".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

let me teach you something: when you put the mouse over a link, the target address apears in the status bar.
It's getty images, a website with high quality photos.
http://www.gettyimages.com/
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchSt ate|0|0|30|0|0|0|1|||0|0|0|0|0 |0|0|0|7|Fallujah|0|0|0|0&p=7

So, we dont care? We were discussing the photographs having faked storylines around them. The actual content names, and the sources they come from, are'nt exactly cited from the discussions you associate to the images.

Thats what we were talking about. So ... where did you get the images from?

You know, I used to laugh when people say that .. but it's not funny anymore.

Truth hurts eh?

dude .. it's you who kill journalists.
The ones you don't like anyway.

Source ... ?

Oh wait, let me guess the future in this one (your not going to do this since I'm posting it anyway):

"But leik teh US Governments liek "Nein, no comin in '[ere! dhen deh apache comes SWOOOOOOPING downa nd kills teh journalists OMFG CANADIAN COMBINE!!1"

... source? Still?

pffft .. I don't know why I'm bothering with you. probably cuz you are the only one replying anyway. and kerboros ..

I mean, none of us here have to debate this topic, since we've all made up our minds on whats correct, and whats not correct -- but im just doing this to see if I can add anything else to that databank in my mind, "Teh Fallujah Storage".

well, it can be pronounced Mujahideen, Mojahideen, Mogahideen .. it's an arabic word so there isn't one specific way to write it in English.
but it's definetly not "terrorists".

Unfortunately, Mujahideen is being associated with terrorists, by terrorists. ... as Mujahideen is a rank from within the terrorists.

Here's what I could say about anything:

Unfortunately, Obersturmfuehrer is being associated with SS, by SS ... as Obersturmfuehrer is a rank from within the SS.

 

[hasan]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...UJAH?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/international/middleeast/20family.html?oref=login

"But leik teh US Governments liek "Nein, no comin in '[ere! dhen deh apache comes SWOOOOOOPING downa nd kills teh journalists OMFG CANADIAN COMBINE!!1"

you talk like n00bs .. n00b.
you're really pathetic, resorting to such mockery.

We were discussing the photographs having faked storylines around them. The actual content names, and the sources they come from, are'nt exactly cited from the discussions you associate to the images.

What part of "Fallujah is under a media-blackout by the Americans" don't you understand?

 

[Eg.]

if its in a media blackout, how come i hear it on the news every 1 hour?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you talk like n00bs .. n00b.
you're really pathetic, resorting to such mockery.

Wow, if you believe "OMFG NOOBS" was mockery, not only was I correct about you with my own assumptions, but now feel sorry for you.

if its in a media blackout, how come i hear it on the news every 1 hour?

Remember? Its the Canadian Combine -- watch out for Apachi's and Suicide bombers! Your news, could be propaganda! /sarcasm

 

[Eg.]

its spelled Apache, not i. lol

 

[hasan]

if its in a media blackout, how come i hear it on the news every 1 hour?

because the military keeps spewing propaganda?

 

[Eg.]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...rev=/images?q=Iraqi+propaganda&hl=en&lr=&sa=N


google Iraqi propoganda, and also, al jeezera is nothing but objective repoting, oh yeah hasan, what about the terrorists taking that muslim lady, Hassan was her name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hassan

 

[hasan]

google Iraqi propoganda, and also, al jeezera is nothing but objective repoting, oh yeah hasan, what about the terrorists taking that muslim lady, Hassan was her name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hassan

eh? please explain what the F are you talking about. what does aljazeera have to do with margret hasan, and what does that has to do with the resistance?

read the link you posted idiot:

Patients of an Iraqi hospital (where her work had some effect) have taken to the streets in protest against the hostage takers' actions. On 25 October, between 100 and 200 Iraqis protested outside CARE's offices in Baghdad, demanding her release. Prominent elements of the Iraqi resistance, such as the Shura Council of Fallujah Mujahedeen, condemned the kidnapping and called for her release.

hell, even Zarqawi was against that ..

On 2 November, Al Jazeera reported that the kidnappers threatened to hand her over to the group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who were responsible for the murder of Kenneth Bigley. However, on 6 November, a statement purportedly from al-Zarqawi appeared on an Islamist website calling for the release of Ms. Hassan unless the kidnappers had information she was aligned with the invading coalition. However, the statement could not immediately be authenticated. Ms. Hassan's whereabouts were unknown in the video.

 

[Eg.]

umm, but still. so im an idiot, for saying they killed ms Hassan, ok...the Hassan comment was to show how terrible these terrorists are, and how u shouldnt be supporting them

 

[Raziaar]

umm, but still. so im an idiot, for saying they killed ms Hassan, ok...the Hassan comment was to show how terrible these terrorists are, and how u shouldnt be supporting them

Yep. I was surprised to read what happened in that story. They killed her... and she was married to an iraqi man, converted to islam a long time ago, and has been working to better the way of life for iraqi people. Guess those terrorists who killed her didn't like any of that.

 

[hasan]

are you blind or am I on your ignore list?

Prominent elements of the Iraqi resistance, such as the Shura Council of Fallujah Mujahedeen, condemned the kidnapping and called for her release.

The "Shura Council of Fallujah Mujahideen" is the "official" council of the resistance in Fallujah.

 

[Eg.]

Mujahedeen=Terrorists

wow, thank god we settled that

 

[K e r b e r o s]

because the military keeps spewing propaganda?

Its much better as a declaritive, but since you asked that question, let me give you the answer ... No.

Its not because of the military. A good portion of our media is Liberal -- why our people wont shutup, is because the information were seeking or that comes in, is in great detail or perportion. We have a lot to report.

Yep. I was surprised to read what happened in that story. They killed her... and she was married to an iraqi man, converted to islam a long time ago, and has been working to better the way of life for iraqi people. Guess those terrorists who killed her didn't like any of that.

Sorry, Canada, Britain, France, Germany ... Poland, I could'nt forget you; when the Arab world states they want the elimination of the "Western World", they pretty much mean everyone of European dissent.

Your only safe, if your Mexican.

eh? please explain what the F are you talking about. what does aljazeera have to do with margret hasan, and what does that has to do with the resistance?

He's talking about Al-Jazeera is all about showing the marine shooting, but is not about showing Margeret Hassan being executed.

What does that have to do with the Iraqi resistance? Simple. It used to be Al-Jazeera would report anything; now its only reporting what is indeed, important to the militants propaganda.

I told you, she goes for the highest bidder.

hell, even Zarqawi was against that ..

No, he was the one who promoted the killing. She's evidentally dead, and due to the Resistance.

Who knew? I sure did! I betted my family 20 bucks she would either die quickly, or in a lot of pain. Noone took me up on that bet, because we all knew she would die. No. Matter. What.

 

[hasan]

He's talking about Al-Jazeera is all about showing the marine shooting, but is not about showing Margeret Hassan being executed.

eh? do you watch aljazeera? who told you such bs?
that's entirely not true.

actually, all the reports about hostages are taken form aljazeera. they are THE ONES who report it first. everyone else takes it from them.