The Iraq thread 3

[SpongeBob 0]

There's the pics of the beheading on the net already.

And within minutes the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork and hint that possible "US operatives" beheaded Paul Johnson because he had on an orange jump suit, just like those in Abu Ghraib

[python3 0]

seems like the muqrin guy who has been behind a lot of the violence in SA and the beheading has been killed by the saudi's.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/index.html

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

The torture orders came from the top that is according to Brig Gen Janis Karpinski Quote  

The US commander at the centre of the Iraqi prisoner scandal says she was told to treat detainees like dogs.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3806713.stm

with the finger of blame once again pointing up the chain of command the future of many top members of TBA are looking very dire.

The question of whether George Bush Jnr. gave the civilian interigators a get out of jail free card to commit pedophile activites as part of the interigation techniques used in Iraq has still not been answered. As the interigator who raped the young boy has still not been charged by any US court nor is there any sign even of an investigation this depite Taguba's wish to charge the man.

The aledged pedophile may be back in the US now; in walking distance of a school near you and nothing is being done because George Bush Jnr. seems to have said they have exemption from the law.

What happened to swift American Justice?

Seriously p**sed off this is still dragging on walker

It called she is covering her ass because she was a not effective commander....remember the Army report?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi homerj

When should we invade the Banana Republic of Florida to oust Papa Doc Jeb Bush?

How can we restore democracy in the USA so that it can once again elect its presidents and not have it foisted on them by judges aledgedly bought and paid for by the NeoConMen?

What should we do about removing the un-President of the USA?

How can we jail the NeoConMen carpet baggers who have stolen the US Republican party?

What should be done to stop the US mass media telling lies to and censoring the minds of the american people?

Kind Regards Walker

Stop crying about the 2000 elections because there is another coming up.

You mean like how the hardcore liberals have stolen the democratic party?

Edit: shit.....

[homerj 0]

African nations arent carrying out massive campaign of genocide like iraq did, nor does it commit attrocities on that large of a scale. When they do we do something about it(rawanda).

Arent you forgettting that prisoners of the coalition dont just disapeer off the face of the earth by the thousands like under saddam, nor do we use acid baths or anything. But you dont give a fuck.

And of course theres more criminals to jail when we they dont get shot anymore. Thats what happens.

Hey tex this is for you:

[denoir 0]

African nations arent carrying out massive campaign of genocide like iraq did, nor does it commit attrocities on that large of a scale. When they do we do something about it(rawanda).

Nobody did anything about Rwanda. A million or so murdered within a month or two.

Nobody is doing anything about Sudan.

Oh, and btw Saddam did not commit genocide. Mass murder, yes, genocide, no. Genocide is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnical or religious group.

Quote[/b] ]nor do we use acid baths or anything.

Nope, you use guard dogs, sexual humiliation and beatings to death instead.

[homerj 0]

Walker nice conspiracy theory, but no proof.

Whats the big deal? Your just call the Bush admin liers, what about the french, germans, and the un? They all had similar conclusions, we all did.

Nukes or not the guy was still hiding something, NONE of you has yet to tell me why he would rather be attacked than to come clean.

Walker we are killing al queda terrorists, in iraq. You have to understand that we cant send all those guys to afghanistan, it would do more harm than good. Look at operation anaconda, one of the largest US offensives in afghanistan. It failed, why? They had to build up all the troops in the region and of course the terrorists fled. Thats why tons of troops wont do anygood over there. Were better of with light fighters like the marines, sf, rangers, and seals, cause everyone else is either not trained or equipt to fight in the mountains of afghanistan. They are needed in iraq where they are able to kill terrorists with ease.

This whole beheading thing is BS. They get pissed cause we put panties on some guys head, yet they cut off our guys head. What more reasons do you want to go in there and kill these animals and stopp more from spawning?

[homerj 0]

We did go to rawanda, a bit too late, but better late than never, and we still were able to save lives. Rawanda is a good example of how much a joke the un is.

What are you talking about, the gassing of the kurds with the intention to wipe them out is genocide.

Gee you make it seem like either way its no big deal.

All that stuff was ABUSE from a few sadistic fucks that dont represent us all. IT was investigated as far back as january for fucks sake. We investigated and put a stop to it, did saddam? NO, so dont compare us to him.

[denoir 0]

They get pissed cause we put panties on some guys head, yet they cut off our guys head.

So you feel that your troops should be compared to and treated as terrorists? You don't think we should have some form of higher requirements on US troops?

Why do you hate America so much? What possible motivation could you have making equal comparisons between AQ and the US military?

[denoir 0]

What are you talking about, the gassing of the kurds with the intention to wipe them out is genocide.

He gassed a couple of rebel villages. He did not try to wipe out the Kurdish nation.

Quote[/b] ]We did go to rawanda, a bit too late, but better late than never, and we still were able to save lives. Rawanda is a good example of how much a joke the un is.

No you didn't go to Rwanda. You're confusing it with Somalia, or something (a failure btw).

Quote[/b] ]All that stuff was ABUSE from a few sadistic fucks that dont represent us all. IT was investigated as far back as january for fucks sake. We investigated and put a stop to it, did saddam? NO, so dont compare us to him.

Gee you make it seem like either way its no big deal.

[homerj 0]

What the few troops involved did was wrong, they were punished.

But where is the outcry from europe, liberals and the mid east when they cut our heads off?

All im saying is that you always blow thing out of proportion when it makes us look bad. Those pics are still on the news, but news of the beheadings fade in a cuple of days. WTF? Where is your outrage now?

I dont know where the fuck you think im comparing our troops to terrorists. All im saying is that everyone gets so upset when we do something, yet fix it, but noone cares that the other guys are cutting peoples heads off.

[denoir 0]

What the few troops involved did was wrong, they were punished.

But where is the outcry from europe, liberals and the mid east when they cut our heads off?

All im saying is that you always blow thing out of proportion when it makes us look bad. Those pics are still on the news, but news of the beheadings fade in a cuple of days. WTF? Where is your outrage now?

I dont know where the fuck you think im comparing our troops to terrorists. All im saying is that everyone gets so upset when we do something, yet fix it, but noone cares that the other guys are cutting peoples heads off.

Of course everybody gets upset when you do something. You're supposed to be the "good guys" or at least you claim to be. From terrorists you expect to behave like terrorists. Or do you think we should lower our expectations on US troops to the level of our expectations of the terrorists?

Quote[/b] ]I dont know where the fuck you think im comparing our troops to terrorists.

Twice now. You're suggesting that we should hold your troops to the same standards as we hold AQ.

[Donnervogel 0]

We did go to rawanda, a bit too late, but better late than never, and we still were able to save lives. Rawanda is a good example of how much a joke the un is.

homej is good entertainment

1. "a bit too late" - erm... 1 million *coughcough*

2. remember why the UN didn't go to "rawanda"? Because of Somalia. Yes. Blackhawk down movie. The US, and other nations were scared to go to Rwanda after the US fucked up in Mogadishu.

3. UN being a joke? Indeed. The UN is a joke as long as key nations like the US keep ignoring it because most of the world shares other opinions. Also some of you american people often keep forgetting that the UN is not an equivalent to an international army under US control. It's an institution that wants to create peace. Of course it's naive to think it could do it when powerful nations keep boycotting it (US, Russia, China, etc). But it wouldn't even exist if it had real powers. So it's more a place for discussions. Still a very good institution IMHO. Communication between nations is something very important.

Let's also not forget that it was the US along with the other world powers that founded the UN as a weak institution.

[homerj 0]

Really not genocide? I think the thousands of dead kurds would disagree.

http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Anfal

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news031015b.html

http://www.khrw.org/torturesandgenocide.html

Failure cause of clinton.

It isnt, we put a stop to it in january, what more do you want?

[ran 0]

African nations arent carrying out massive campaign of genocide like iraq did, nor does it commit attrocities on that large of a scale. When they do we do something about it(rawanda).

hmm ... What can I say ? I'm totally speechless ...

Do you happen to be somekind of intelligent lifeform or some kind of dung-bettle piling up huge ammounts of bullshit to then feed yourself with ?

And it's spellt Rwanda you tard.

Rude and ignorant people call for rude and rough answers since wasting time trying to stuff some good sense inot them would be useless. Now just go away if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion other than false, retarded and ridiculous statements and assumptions. Now get a grip of what real life is, get out and socialize a bit. Come back only when your teenage crisis will be done and just a past memory.

[homerj 0]

So what? Its ok for them to cut our heads off but when we put some panties on a guys head were the bad guys?

We may be held to a higher standard and we keep it up. We arent cutting peoples heads off, what we did is nothing compared to what they did, so why do you make a big deal out of a problem we adressed months ago yet ignore terrorists chopping peoples heads off yesterday?

Where are you getting that from? Im saying that if what we did was so awful where is your outrage for saddam's genocide, terrorists brutality and all that?

Seems like you dont give a fuck what anyone but else does. Your just there waiting for us to mess up and when we do you jump on it regardless if other crap is going on that is 10 times worse.

[Donnervogel 0]

Failure cause of clinton.

Really? AFAIK the Mogadishu action was planed by the military and not by clinton. And what would Bush have done better? Send more troops? Killed more people? Would more military action have helped the Somali people that experienced nothing but war for over a decade? I think Clinton fucked it up partially because he got too scared. But Bushy-boy on the other side is too trigger happy.

EDIT: As for the behading. Of course everyone here in Europe is shoked about the brutallity the terrorists show. It's not at all ok. But there is no terrorist press conference where journalists could critisize them. Just read the newspapers. There is enough critic.

On the other hand one must say it's worse when the US, that calls itself "civilised" (spelling?) is abusing prisoners - ordered or tolerated by people in powerful positions.

[walker 0]

Hi homerj

How long have you been a Bin Laden suporter?

For your statements are exactly those I would expect of someone posting from an internet cafe in Queta while posing as the worst kind of characature of a redneck from somwhere out in the boonies of mythical banjo plucking, inbred squeal for me pigy land.

Sir your posts seem calculated to provide succor and support to Al Qaida by characterising americans as stupid imbeciles incapable of reason. Right down to your choice of inflamitory pictures and inacurate fictions laid before us as facts.

It does not impress me or any one else here.

Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Really not genocide? I think the thousands of dead kurds would disagree.

http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Anfal

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/news031015b.html

http://www.khrw.org/torturesandgenocide.html

Failure cause of clinton.

It isnt, we put a stop to it in january, what more do you want?

Hehe "Patriotic Union of Kurdistan", you know that they are terrorist listed, don't you? I was being sarcatic before about your terrorist sympathies, but now I'm starting to wonder.

And the "Kurdish Human Rights Watch" a bit biased wouldn't you say.

This is the definition of genocide:

Quote[/b] ]The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.  Thus, the imposition of restrictions during the nineteen-sixties and seventies on reproduction in India, through forced sterilization in many instances, or the continuing restrictions in China, do not constitute genocidal policies as the intent is to restrict the size of groups, not to destroy existing groups in whole or in part.   Policies implemented during the Third Reich respecting Jewish, Roma and Sinti groups, on the other hand, were quite clearly genocidal in terms of this article as there was a clearly stated policy indicating the presence of an intent to destroy them..   Members of all these groups were processed in extermination camps, were subjected to serious bodily and mental harm, and had conditions inflicted upon them intended to bring about their physical destruction, including starvation in ghettoes, and had measures applied to them intended to prevent births within the group (sterilization).  

Many experts, legal and academic, consider these criteria deficient in various respects.  Some consider that the criteria are insufficiently broad.  For instance, it excludes the physical destruction of certain sub-groups that have regularly been the victims of extensive killing programs.  Usually mentioned in this context are members of political or social classes, such as the bourgeoisie, the middle classes, the Kulaks and the intelligentsia.  Also, the definition focuses on the physical destruction of the group.  There have been many instances in which the group has physically survived but its cultural distinctiveness has been eradicated.  A contemporary example is the destruction of Tibetan culture by the Chinese, or that of indigenous tribes in certain countries in South America, Paraguay and Brazil, for instance.

These and other deficiencies need to be understood in the context of the background to the passage of this convention.   The term genocide is of recent derivation; etymologically, it combines the Greek for group, tribe-genos, with the Latin for killing-cide. In 1933, at a time when neither the extensiveness nor character of the barbarous practices subsequently carried out under the auspices of the Third Reich could have been foreseen,  the jurist Raphael Lemkin submitted to the International Conference for Unification of Criminal Law a proposal to declare the destruction of racial, religious or social collectivities a crime in international law.   In 1944 he published a monograph, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, in which he detailed the exterminatory and other practices and policies pursued by the Third Reich and its allies.  He went on to argue the case for the international regulation of the "practice of extermination of nations and ethnic groups," a practice which he referred to now as genocide.  Lemkin was also instrumental in lobbying United Nations officials and representatives to secure the passage of a resolution by the General Assembly affirming that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable."  The matter was referred for consideration to the UN Economic and Social Council, their deliberations culminating with the signing of the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide (UNCG).  

There are considerable disagreements among experts concerning whether a specific complex of behaviours merits the designation genocide, even leaving aside clear-cut instances of attempts at moral appropriation of the concept.  There are various reasons for this.  First, like any other legal instrument, it was the outcome of negotiations between parties that held conflicting views as to the proper scope of its constituent parts.  On this, see the analysis by Leo Kuper in his Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981, Chapter 2.  Although Article IX allows for disputes between parties to be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice, because accusations of genocide are invariable made by one state against another, this has never occurred.  Consequently, there is no body of international law to clarify the parameters of the convention.

A second reason for uncertainty as to how the concept can be fitted to particular complexes of behaviour derives from the fact that the "ideal-typical" genocidal complex that Lemkin had in mind was the destruction of European Jewry.  This instance of genocide was quite clearly also uppermost in the minds of those who drafted and negotiated the UNCG. Precisely because this particular instance was so central to the genesis of the UNCG, its application to other situations has been problematic.  It is quite clear that the programs devised by the Nazi regime for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question lie at the extreme of any continuum of types of mass violence aimed at inflicting significant loss on members of particular groups, whether these be religious, national, ethnical or racial.  Although the massacre of Armenians by the Turks during World War I, the destruction of the intelligentsia and others by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during 1975-1978, and the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s share some elements with the Nazi genocidal program, there are also important differences that call into question whether they meet the criteria specified by Article II of the UNCG.  

The only extravagant thing about the killing of the Kurds in the 80's was the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons. Something like the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in Basra last year.

Edit: Oh yeah, if you invaded Iraq to save the Kurds, you were over 20 years late. But I guess then you were busy dealing weapons to Saddam, so you didn't have time for the finer moral points of the enterprise.

[Frisbee 0]

Ahem : your vision, The American Wayâ„¢

Go in, stop the evil Saddam from killing and torturing people.

You cannot do this by killing and torturing people, well you can do it that way, but you'll just be doing what you went out there to stop.

Rwanda was massive genocide, millions died or mutilated, what Saddam did in those thirty years seems like an argument on a kindergarten playground by comparison.

Do not make yourself out to be the knight in shining white armor, you're only kidding yourself, or to put it better : you're just being kidded by your governement.

After 9/11 : Massive support for the US, after Bush :

Your allies disagree with you, and more people than ever would like to see you guys bleed.

I think no further explanation is necessary.

[homerj 0]

We didnt go to rawanda cause as usual the un pussed out. We did fine in somalia, but you would never know cause all you guys care about is one failure out of allot of sucess. WTF? There were un troops in rawanda, so dont tell me they didnt want to send them, cause they were there, and they still didnt do shit in true un fasion.

Yeah we were reaal late, thats what you get when you try to get the un to do its job. Same with iraq, with all the time it took to try to get them to do their job the wmds were probably in syria or buried already.

The un is a joke cause it has proven time and time again that it is unwilling to do its job. Our fault? No its teh french and others who refuse.

Without the US there would be no un. Just like the league of nations, we give them most of their troops and money, participate in most of their ops, the un is even in the US. And it is a force to be reckoned with, (korea, etc) when people actually do their jobs its very effective, but when they dont its utterly useless.

[Frisbee 0]

Yes, the United Nations, not the United Nations of America.

It is a cooperation, and if anyone has been uncooperative to the un it's been the Us, by veto'ing everything it didn't (as the only party that was against) like.

You cannot go on one hand go on about 'the UN not working', and then go 'There would be no UN without the US'.

You are a member, the UN's problem is your problem, don't just try to use them when it suits you, and toss them aside as 'useless' when things don't go in your favour.

You're winning :

"Oooh, this is a fun game!"

You're losing :

"This game sucks, I'm going home, you guys suck!"

[denoir 0]

So what? Its ok for them to cut our heads off but when we put some panties on a guys head were the bad guys?

We may be held to a higher standard and we keep it up. We arent cutting peoples heads off, what we did is nothing compared to what they did, so why do you make a big deal out of a problem we adressed months ago yet ignore terrorists chopping peoples heads off yesterday?

Where are you getting that from? Im saying that if what we did was so awful where is your outrage for saddam's genocide, terrorists brutality and all that?

Seems like you dont give a fuck what anyone but else does. Your just there waiting for us to mess up and when we do you jump on it regardless if other crap is going on that is 10 times worse.

Of course it's not ok to behead civilians. It's horrible, barbaric etc .. In short what you would expect from a terrorist.

Let me try another approach to get you to understand. Say a cop is busted for dealing drugs. Big scandal etc

Would you buy his defense if he was complaining that there are murderers out there who have comitted far worse crimes than he did and therefor he did not deserve the attention and accusations etc

Would you be more surprised if a criminal gang kills a person than if a group of cops robs a bank?

[walker 0]

Hi All

I remind every one that it was members of TBA and Donald Rumsfeld who sold Sadam the Chemical Weapons and even shook Sadams still bloody hand after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabjah. The ITN Reporter who broke the story was one of those killed soon after crossing the border at the beginning of GWII.

Kind Regards Walker

[ran 0]

We didnt go to rawanda WTF? There were un troops in rawanda

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>RWANDA</span> for fuck's sake