The Iraq Thread

[bn880 5]

Didn't I just see on the news that our favourite Information Minister is still alive in Baghdad (aunts house) trying to surrender. USA doesn't want him since he's not on their deck of cards.?

Or was it about someone else?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ 30 April 2003,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA doesn't want him since he's not on their deck of cards.?<span id='postcolor'>

Every deck comes with a joker.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 30 April 2003,18:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ 30 April 2003,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA doesn't want him since he's not on their deck of cards.?<span id='postcolor'>

Every deck comes with a joker.<span id='postcolor'>

[FallenPaladin 0]

The religious leader of Iran Ajatollah Ali Chamenei critizised the armistice between the USA and the radical islamic opposing-force Volksmudschahedin (I just haven`t the english name at hand) . That group shed blood of innocent Iraqi or Iranian civilians said Chamenei according to the Iranian TV channel IRIB. The armistice, which was reported about by The New York Times the day before, is further proof for the state of mind in the USA to see terrorism as good and useful, as long as it serves the interests of the USA. The Volksmudschahedin are since 1997 listed by the USA as terrorist organisation. According to the newspaper the armistice was made official on the 15th of April by the US foreign ministry. The Volksmudschahedin`s activities were so far directly supported by Saddam Hussein. The Volksmudschahedin, 10.000 strong, are responsible for a large number of murders on US-military members in the 70`s and supported the siege of the US ambassy in Teheran in 1979. Furtermore the organisation is probably connected to many dozens of bombings which killed Iranian politicians and civilians.

(This is a current report from the german internet news-network www.n24.de. I translated it myself, so please excuse my spelling or grammar mistakes)

The USA is fighting terrorism? Sure...

The USA`s double morale makes me sick.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ 30 April 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The USA is fighting terrorism? Sure...

The USA`s double morale makes me sick.<span id='postcolor'>

The US is dealing with the lesser of two evils.

Good morning. This was yesterday's news.

Regarding the joker, Comical Ali, read here.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 30 April 2003,19:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good morning. This was yesterday's news.<span id='postcolor'>

Dear lady, I wrote: ...The armistice, which was reported about by The New York Times the day before...

Don`t you read my posts or am I writing greek?

Nevertheless there are bad terrorists or not so bad (good) terrorists from the TBA`s point of view.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ 30 April 2003,18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The religious leader of Iran Ajatollah Ali Chamenei critizised the armistice between the USA and the radical islamic opposing-force Volksmudschahedin (I just haven`t the english name at hand) . That group shed blood of innocent Iraqi or Iranian civilians said Chamenei according to the Iranian TV channel IRIB. The armistice, which was reported about by The New York Times the day before, is further proof for the state of mind in the USA to see terrorism as good and useful, as long as it serves the interests of the USA. The Volksmudschahedin are since 1997 listed by the USA as terrorist organisation. According to the newspaper the armistice was made official on the 15th of April by the US foreign ministry. The Volksmudschahedin`s activities were so far directly supported by Saddam Hussein. The Volksmudschahedin, 10.000 strong, are responsible for a large number of murders on US-military members in the 70`s and supported the siege of the US ambassy in Teheran in 1979. Furtermore the organisation is probably connected to many dozens of bombings which killed Iranian politicians and civilians.

(This is a current report from the german internet news-network www.n24.de. I translated it myself, so please excuse my spelling or grammar mistakes)

The USA is fighting terrorism? Sure...

The USA`s double morale makes me sick.<span id='postcolor'>

Volksmudschahedin = People's Mujahadeen in English as far as I can tell (with my almost completely forgotten German!.

Well, I disagree. While I find any negotiation with terrorist groups distasteful, we can't just simply kill them all. Eventually, we are going to have to fight the war on terrorism by signing a truce with some groups. Is it better to have them still out there focused on killing us, or to convince them we aren't so bad and get them focused on something more useful?

I guess it boils down to this fundamental question:

Should the War on Terrorism be a total war? I mean a war with no quarter given. Should the terrorists, their families, friends, affiliates and anyone associated with them be eradicated without mercy?

My two cents:

No. Americans don't fight like that, even with the Nazis, we let some of them go home to their families. People can change their ways, be made to see that what they did was wrong, and reform themselves. Besides, a total war would require more assets then you fellows have been willing to give us in this fight so far. If you advocate no negotiation whatsoever with these groups, then you had better be willing to back that creed with the blood of your brothers and friends. Send us more troops and we'll destroy them all. If not, stand back and watch us fight the war our way. You can't criticize what we are doing if you are unwilling to do it alongside us.

[PitViper 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 30 April 2003,119)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have people been noting thecivilian deaths recently?

This has happened twice now, with one BBC reporter saying US forces returned fire after a convoy was attacked with rocks and shoes!

More restraint is needed,as blowing away the 'liberated' is a bad PR move. As for the 'under fire by 200 armed men', they point to a broken window as evidence of the attack! Reverse that, as we see machine gun riddled Iraqis, cars, walls, houses, and blood over the streets. Does that sound like 'well aimed fire'?

Frankly, if the troops are that nervous and trigger happy, they should get some in with a small amount of disipline. 18yr old Jimmy might loose his cool when people are throwing shoes and rocks at him, but if he goes rock and roll with a SAW, then innocent people die. As for the dozy bastard who called it 'defending the Alamo', I'm sure all those 'Mexicans' looked pretty fierce with their shoes and rocks!

Fucking gung ho hicks.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta love armchair soldiers who have the clairvoyance to understand what exactly happened without a hint of investigation before any official sources do.

also nice stereotyping you snaggletoothed brit

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 30 April 2003,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gotta love armchair soldiers who have the clairvoyance to understand what exactly happened without a hint of investigation before any official sources do.<span id='postcolor'>

They should send British troops across Iraq to train US troops. I'm not very surprised this is happening since the US military is not trained for this kind of assignement and havn't got enough experience.

And yes, PitViper, you can draw some conclusions. When was the last time you heard about British soldiers gunning down protesters?

Crowds are nasty, you have have some clue of what you are doing, especially in Iraq where vertical target practice is almost as popular as in Texas. The soldiers, kids most of them, freak out when they hear shots fired and start spraying the crowd.

Of course, the Iraqis should have learned by now that it is not a very bright idea to come to close to US troops armed, but that's no excuse.

I don't blame the US toops for this, it's not their fault that they are put in a situation they have not trained for. The military planners should have known better though..

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,14:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes, PitViper, you can draw some conclusions. When was the last time you heard about British soldiers gunning down protesters?<span id='postcolor'>

Bloody Sunday, Northern Ireland?

of course, we've never had a definitive answer as to what happened there to this very day.

speaking of soldiers and protests, anyone see the movie "rules of engagement"?

[Guest]

Bloody Sunday was in the '70s for crying out loud. You know, at the time when you were napalming Vietnamese villages  

I don't see you doing that in Iraq now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyone see the movie "rules of engagement<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, incredibly racist movie.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bloody Sunday was in the '70s for crying out loud. You know, at the time when you were napalming Vietnamese villages  

I don't see you doing that in Iraq now.<span id='postcolor'>

What does that have to do with Vietnam???

You asked a question, I gave you an answer.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyone see the movie "rules of engagement<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, incredibly racist movie.<span id='postcolor'>

Uhh.. how was it racist?  You totally missed the point.  You could have set the story in Sweden with all the pasty white swedes and the movie would still be trying to get you to think through such a situation.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 30 April 2003,21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You could have set the story in Sweden with all the pasty white swedes<span id='postcolor'>

They have LOD problems up there?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 30 April 2003,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Uhh.. how was it racist?  <span id='postcolor'>

Oh, please. It portrayed the Arabs as all being guilty and that gunning down women and children was A-ok since they would try to kill you the instant they got a chance.

Ah, here is a good review from IMDB, that exactly sums up what that movie was about:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The film starts with an evacuation of the American embassy in Yemen under attack by gunmen. This evacuation leads to a massacre on a group of demonstrators consisting of civilian men, women and children. Of course the officer in charge (Sam Jackson) is put on trial for this atrocity. During the course of this trial we revisit the scene of the massacre and each time more details are revealed.

The first time it is revealed that the crowd weren´t just demonstrators, they were working with the gunmen to confuse the Americans. Next time gunmen are in the crowd firing and finally, lo and behold, we are shown that the entire crowd were vicious terrorists, even the sweet little one-legged girl the good-guy lawyer (Tommy Lee Jones) met down in Yemen while investigating the case. And to think I actually pitied that wretched extremist for a while! The officer is freed and all ends well.

Lessons learned from this film:

-All arabs think all Americans should die. This is not for a specific reason it´s just a part of being Muslim (well, maybe because they hate values such as "freedom, tolerance, prosperity religious pluralism and universal suffrage" to quote NYT).

-All Arabs are ready to act on these beliefs by killing americans, even Arab children.

-It is morally correct to kill Arabs for these reasons, all of them.

-Next time you see some liberal sob-story on TV showing crippled children from Afghanistan, look in those kids eyes before feeling sorry. You´ll see a killer in there, just like in any other arab.

I might have expected a film like this after 9/11, but this is actually made before that sad day. Any respect I had for William Friedkin, Samuel L. Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones or anyone involved in this film is gone. That this movie was made and spent two weeks as #1 in the US goes to show the obvious disregard with which that nation treats the issues of the rest world, especially those stemming from culturally different areas.

If you watched this movie without at least reflecting on these issues, watch it again and ask yourself: -Do I really think this is a believable story? Do I really believe five-year old girls attack US Marines with guns? If not, why was this movie made, and made in such realistic way, almost giving the impression it was based on a true story?

<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

People's Mujahedeen is a known Iraqi terrorist group. For the past 15 years or so, Saddam used the PM to obliquely attack Iran's southern border provinces.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes, PitViper, you can draw some conclusions. When was the last time you heard about British soldiers gunning down protesters?<span id='postcolor'>

When was the last time British soldiers in Iraq were fired at from the crowd with live ammo and didn't return fire?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 30 April 2003,21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes, PitViper, you can draw some conclusions. When was the last time you heard about British soldiers gunning down protesters?<span id='postcolor'>

When was the last time British soldiers in Iraq were fired at from the crowd with live ammo and didn't return fire?<span id='postcolor'>

When was the last time US soldiers in Iraq were fired at from the crowd with live ammo?

There was a dozen reporters at the demonstration where they killed 13+ civilians, and they have all witnessed that the Iraqis were only firing in the air.

There is a very good transcript of the conversation between the troops that they showed on the news yesterday. It went something like this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

1st soldier: Uh, Sarge, do we fire?

Sgt: I don't know. Are they firing at us?

2nd soldier: Yes! They're firing at us, can't you hear it?

3rd  soldier: I don't think so.

1st soldier: Sarge, do we fire?

3rd soldier: I don't think they're firing at us.

Sgt: Yes, yes, fire! fire!

<span id='postcolor'>

Edit: Btw, it was CentCom that provided the transcript as proof that they waited longer than the ROE requires. I think that the transcript in combination with what the reporters in place said gives a pretty clear picture of what happened.

Apparently the US ROE these days is: "When in doubt, shoot!". I think also some Brits have experienced the effects of that ROE.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was a dozen reporters at the demonstration where they killed 13+ civilians, and they have all witnessed that the Iraqis were only firing in the air.<span id='postcolor'>

I haven't read this anywhere.

[Guest]

Damn, I can't find a link from Reuters that I intended to post yesterday - a report from their reporter that was covering the demonstration.... BBC had a representative in place too..

In other news:

War crime charges against Gen. Franks?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,22:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other news:

War crime charges against Gen. Franks?<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Even before I clicked on the link, I thought to myself what are those Belgians concocting now?

[Guest]

Exactly, they are so cute! Of course it's ridiculous that they claim the right to press war crime charges, but hey - It's Belgium so no harm done.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, they are so cute!<span id='postcolor'>

Been reading too many Agatha Cristie Hercule Poirot mysteries lately?

[FallenPaladin 0]

Crowds are dangerous to deal with, but you can do it if trained good. That`s the US troops problem. They are highly motivated (most of them sure are) and proud to be a Marine, Ranger or whatever "HOOOAAA!!" but I think they are trained not very well. You can see that leading to a higher FF rate than in other countries armies or in events when people get killed under unclear circumstances. No US troop bashing meant here, they only should be trained better. They sure have a good potential, but the leadership is [zensored].

Coming back to crowds. Our Military Police here in Germany that is in Kabul, Macedonia and so on gets a very special training. They learn all about aggression phases and how to react. The BW even has a village built to train such events in. Those roleplays can even last a day or longer and often lead to bloody noses, too.  

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 30 April 2003,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other news:

War crime charges against Gen. Franks?<span id='postcolor'>

Have Belgian lawyers ever heard the legal term forum non conveniens?

[PitViper 0]

Denoir,

Regarding the movie, I never got the impression that they were trying to depict all Muslims or Arabs or whatever as being terrorists. I think you are doing some projection there methinks. The focus was on Sam Jackson and the horrible consequence of the decision he made. Naturally, the whole story revolves around who saw what and whether or not he was justified in returning fired. Since you can't seem to get past the ethnic makeup of the particular groups, perhap they should refilm it in a fantasyland and paint the soldiers turquoise and the protestors magenta so you don't instantly attach biases to the groups in the movie.