The Iraq Thread 2

[Badgerboy 0]

Yeah, thats my reaction aswell. I can understand the first death. Accidents do happen, no matter how stupid or terrible. But the second shot and the following beating is just to much.

I suppose this is the reason British troops are not getting shot to bits regulary. I know their ROE's are very stringent, but they seem to be working.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

That is too simple to say!

The Americans are controlling baghdad, which is definetly the tougher challenge!

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]1. indedependant press? I suppose many of the information gathered in Iraq comes from arabian correspondants/journalists.

Source is AFP and TT, quite respected news agencies.

Quote[/b] ]The country is not safe/stable enough for western non-war journalists to step in and assess the situation. Since we know Al Jazeera we have learned that the Arab press is seeing many things from a very "different perspective"..

Different doesnt mean its automatically wrong...

Quote[/b] ]2. Since we know terorism we know that those slick bastards chose any possible way, brake every rule of morality and sacrifice innocent lifes to get what they want. We have had warnings already weeks ago that ambush attacks on US soldiers might be carried out by people dressed in police uniforms!.

So? They must have known this was a possibility from day 1. Enemies posing as police, firefighters, paramedics and what ever. This still doesnt give them the right to shoot people that are surrendering.

Quote[/b] ]3. Shooting someone is the correct action if you have reason to believe that High explosives are wrapped around the other person's body. Adrenalin may give you a very blurred and overreactive estimation of the situation. Pulling the trigger is often not an action of agression but of anxiety. .

I would say that this depends on how close the target is to you or what you are protecting. The IDF for example are very used to the threat of suicide bombers, yet they often apprehend suspects alive. They couldnt do that if they shot them all on sight.

Quote[/b] ] 4. Kicking someone and only causing wounds and bruises. After MINUTES OF AGRESSIVE BEATINGS you will see bones come sticking out of the skin and the person being basically braindamaged for the rest of his life (a german Nazi-hooligan didnt even need more than 30 seconds to nearly beat up a french police officer to death.)

I may assume that the Iraqi could have been moving while a soldier tried to keep him on the ground..

So? You can beat up a guy for a good time without breaking bones, if you just have a clue about what you are doing. I have seen guys worked on with batons, with just bruises and quite a lot of pain. Its a matter of where you hit, and how.

And if I am thinking about the same hooligan, he had a lead or iron pipe with which he beat the policeman. His intention was probably to kill him, so he went for the head, back and so on.

If this had been done by Iraqi police officers, and the victims had been US soldiers. Had you defended the Iraqis the same way?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am not defending. But I think from a country so far away we have to be careful about the information we get, and we do not need to believe any inflowing information .

There was a a time when sailors returned home and proclaime d that in Australia there are  birds with horns. Then there were two presidents that tried to cnvince us with @evidence@ that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction. And now we have a lot of information material being published by arab press agencies. I am not being racist when I say that the entire arab word believes that the americans should get the hell away from islamic soil! And this general attitude might blurr the views of even the most objective journalists. (dont forget demand/supply. You give the people what they want to hear!)

I am not defending I am just telling you to examine the evidence before you close the case!

[bn880 5]

I don't know Albert, if that story is even nearly true then case is closed. No excuse. Sounds like the soldiers are totally freaked out and acting like wild animals.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I don't know Albert, if that story is even nearly true then case is closed.  No excuse.  Sounds like the soldiers are totally freaked out and acting like wild animals.  

If it is true...then I agree. But we dont know the circumstances.

[Schoeler 0]

I wonder where all the forum - hawks have dissapeared to.

Neither Napalm, nor the EO brought up any reaction of the pro-Bush, pro-war faction. Do you stop debating when things become obviouse or are you playing dead till the storm is over ?

If that is the case prepare for a long break because things are really not getting better as Bush said on friday, and the goals of this illegitim war become more and more clear every day.

You never missed a chance to direct a spotlight at the "Euro commies" when we brought up the oil issue for example very very soon, same with the WMD question or the AQ links, but now ? What is left ?

EDIT: Schoeler of course is exceptional to this  

Well hey now, I'm not exactly a hawk. I supported the war for the general benefit of the Iraqi people, despite what I thought my governments actual intentions were, so incidents like this only serve to fulfill my prediction that TBA would win the war and lose the peace.

I'm only a hawk when it comes to warfare in general. I don't believe in killing, but if we can't abandon it as a policy instrument, then I don't see any good reason to civilize warfare. I think trying to do that is a mistake in that it makes warfare more acceptable and tolerable, and thus more likely to be used as a means for solving our differences. I just want total warfare (Between combatants of course, civilians should be excluded) so that war becomes a completely intolerable practice for mankind. It should be so horrible as to be inconcievable to the rational human mind. By trying to make warfare nice, civilized and governed by rules, I believe we are doing ourselves a grave disservice as human beings. This is what I mean when I said, that if we must resort to killing one another, we should do it a quickly and efficiently as possible. If both sides had WMD and could kill massive numbers of their enemy quickly and efficeiently, I think a lot of our self-serving politicians would lack the guts to drum up support for war, and to use it as a tool for fulfilling their agenda.

[Warin 0]

U.S. Fines Woman for Being 'Human Shield'

-=Die Alive=-

So much for freedom of speech and expression.

One more example of a neocon government perpetrating stupidity on people.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Did everyone see my link in the middle of this large scale humanitarian war? Just wanted to point it out so no one will have to repeat it.

*edit*

New Anti-Coalition Iraqi Army forming

[denoir 0]

1. indedependant press? I suppose many of the information gathered in Iraq comes from arabian correspondants/journalists. The country is not safe/stable enough for western non-war journalists to step in and assess the situation. Since we know Al Jazeera we have learned that the Arab press is seeing many things from a very "different perspective".

BBC Article

[DracoPaladore 0]

Page not found error, Denoir.

[The Frenchman 0]

So much for freedom of speech and expression.

Almost too much freedom.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I just want total warfare (Between combatants of course, civilians should be excluded) so that war becomes a completely intolerable practice for mankind.  It should be so horrible as to be inconcievable to the rational human mind.

That's what Mr. Gatling and the Brothers Wright had in mind, and look what that got us- many of the most efficient lifetaking devices ever designed, and a whole lot of extremely violent wars which, at last tabulation, did indeed happen rather than failing to occur because someone came to their senses.

[Tamme 0]

Quote[/b] ]Goddamn nazis.

No ! Nazis are something COMPLETELY different !  

I know. Sorry. I should think before I post. I should also calm down before I post.

[bn880 5]

1. indedependant press? I suppose many of the information gathered in Iraq comes from arabian correspondants/journalists. The country is not safe/stable enough for western non-war journalists to step in and assess the situation. Since we know Al Jazeera we have learned that the Arab press is seeing many things from a very "different perspective".

BBC Article

Quote[/b] ]"It is a very bad action from them and I feel it is very sad for us," police officer Ali Mosleh said.

"I feel it is very difficult to continue working with them if these things continue to happen."

I think that's an understatement. No one takes lightly something like shooting a man who puts his hands up in that situation.

But I can see how they opened fire on a car chasing a police car, still no excuse for what happened after.

[Balschoiw 0]

The inquiry taking place in GB about Kelly´s death and the lies in the british intel papers on Iraq´s weapon program unfold nothing special.

I guess some heads will roll very soon. Unfortunally not the ones of the persons responsible for such betrayal of public.

Monday inquiry, check out links on right side for more detailed info

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]A U.S. soldier was killed and two were wounded today when their convoy struck three improvised explosive devices, a U.S. military spokesman said. Meanwhile, the Bush administration plans to introduce a draft resolution this week seeking U.N. backing for U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, according to U.N. diplomats.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]But I can see how they opened fire on a car chasing a police car, still no excuse for what happened after.

Actually, there wasnt any cars chasing the police cars. The unmarked police cars were chasing a van with criminals. They fired on it in an attempt to stop it, and thats when the US troops got involved.

[Schoeler 0]

@ Aug. 11 2003,22:17)]

I just want total warfare (Between combatants of course, civilians should be excluded) so that war becomes a completely intolerable practice for mankind.  It should be so horrible as to be inconcievable to the rational human mind.

That's what Mr. Gatling and the Brothers Wright had in mind, and look what that got us- many of the most efficient lifetaking devices ever designed, and a whole lot of extremely violent wars which, at last tabulation, did indeed happen rather than failing to occur because someone came to their senses.

Yes, but the level of destruction I'm talking about is the eradication of all life as we know it (on Battlefields, not cities, so just mid-level nukes or WMD's).  If you knew your enemy possessed that kind of firepower and he knew you did too, then you have a deterrent to war, just as the U.S. and the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Aug. 11 2003,22:17)]

I just want total warfare (Between combatants of course, civilians should be excluded) so that war becomes a completely intolerable practice for mankind.  It should be so horrible as to be inconcievable to the rational human mind.

That's what Mr. Gatling and the Brothers Wright had in mind, and look what that got us- many of the most efficient lifetaking devices ever designed, and a whole lot of extremely violent wars which, at last tabulation, did indeed happen rather than failing to occur because someone came to their senses.

Yes, but the level of destruction I'm talking about is the eradication of life as we know it.  If you knew your enemy possessed that kind of firepower and he knew you did too, then you have a deterrent to war, just as the U.S. and the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.

It's a question of relatives- if we possess weapons that can end life as we know it, we just won't use 'em (see the hot parts of the Cold War for proof of that). I don't disagree with you, but the idea that we'd ever stop fighting wars because the consequences wouldn't be worth it is flawed. In fact, we love war so much as a species that we'd actively downgrade our killing power just to get to participate in one (see 'low-intensity conflict' in a glossary near you ). And besides, since when did consequences stop a human from doing anything? We're inherently irrational decisionmakers, we bet against the odds, and we do things because our emotions tell us to. But probably the wierdest part of our behavior is that for all it's irregularity, we are still ultimately predictable when grouped in large enough numbers. I say we just go with it, rather than trying to manipulate our behavior through adjustments of weapons arsenals.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]But I can see how they opened fire on a car chasing a police car, still no excuse for what happened after.

Actually, there wasnt any cars chasing the police cars. The unmarked police cars were chasing a van with criminals. They fired on it in an attempt to stop it, and thats when the US troops got involved.

Well here is the likely situation from that story:

unmarked Police (chasing Van) > marked Police Car (chasing Van) > Van (running away)

Soldiers see Police car in the middle and hear shooting, (from the unmarked car?). They think the unmarked car is chasing cop car and shooting.

Other situation is 2 unmarked cars apparently being chased by police car.

The point is, what is going through the occupants minds and what happened seconds before a car chase is not what you see as they drive by.

[Schoeler 0]

@ Aug. 12 2003,14:14)]

@ Aug. 11 2003,22:17)]

I just want total warfare (Between combatants of course, civilians should be excluded) so that war becomes a completely intolerable practice for mankind.  It should be so horrible as to be inconcievable to the rational human mind.

That's what Mr. Gatling and the Brothers Wright had in mind, and look what that got us- many of the most efficient lifetaking devices ever designed, and a whole lot of extremely violent wars which, at last tabulation, did indeed happen rather than failing to occur because someone came to their senses.

Yes, but the level of destruction I'm talking about is the eradication of life as we know it.  If you knew your enemy possessed that kind of firepower and he knew you did too, then you have a deterrent to war, just as the U.S. and the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.

It's a question of relatives- if we possess weapons that can end life as we know it, we just won't use 'em (see the hot parts of the Cold War for proof of that). I don't disagree with you, but the idea that we'd ever stop fighting wars because the consequences wouldn't be worth it is flawed. In fact, we love war so much as a species that we'd actively downgrade our killing power just to get to participate in one (see 'low-intensity conflict' in a glossary near you   ). And besides, since when did consequences stop a human from doing anything? We're inherently irrational decisionmakers, we bet against the odds, and we do things because our emotions tell us to. But probably the wierdest part of our behavior is that for all it's irregularity, we are still ultimately predictable when grouped in large enough numbers. I say we just go with it, rather than trying to manipulate our behavior through adjustments of weapons arsenals.

Tex, I'm taking this discussion to a new topic.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The point is, what is going through the occupants minds and what happened seconds before a car chase is not what you see as they drive by.

Of course not. Its easy to make mistakes. But the thing that suprises me is:

1. The police in the unmarked car had uniforms. There was a marked police car close to it, participating in the chase. The US soldiers could obviously see the occupants of the car. Whats the deal here?

2. Isnt there such a thing as properly identifying your targets? Would they have fired just as recklessly if it was an American marked police car / military vehicle and not an Iraqi one?

3. This still does not explain the second kill and the assault on the third police officer.

[bn880 5]

I know, that's why I understand they could have opened fire in the first seconds of what htey saw (you know by not identifying targets as usual) but after that, it's pure hatred or fear or both running through their veins. Maybe terrible training?

[Tamme 0]

Should the US troops get involved if they see cops chasing someone? I think they shouldn't get mixed in the Iraqi police affairs unless they're asked to.