Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

The Iraq thread 3

Recommended Posts

Nice to see you're on the side of cutthroats and savages.

Hey, are you related to Kipling?

No, I'm on the side of ArabNews.com.

Quote[/b] ]Editorial: Savagery

2 April 2004

The spectacle of the mutilated remains of four American contractors being paraded through the streets of Fallujah will have turned the stomachs of all who saw this savagery on their television screens. This was mob violence at its worst.

Those who participated in the butchery must be punished. The mob may oppose the Coalition occupation. They may support the insurgents. They may count the death of soldiers as victories. But there is no understanding the brutish slaughter of four unarmed men who were working to rebuild their country. It was a senseless crime of great barbarity.

The Fallujah mob has soiled the reputation of Iraqis. It also appears to misrepresent the true feelings of most Iraqis, if an independent opinion poll commissioned by the BBC is to be believed. Some 70 percent of Iraqis thought their lives were better since the ouster of Saddam. A majority was optimistic, though perhaps significantly the least optimistic people were the citizens of Baghdad. There was also a preponderance of Iraqis who said that while they did not like the coalition being around, they wanted the troops to stay for the foreseeable future to combat the tide of violence.

It is Iraqis who are the main victims of common criminals as well as terrorists. The murders of occupation troops, foreign contractors or aid workers earn world headlines, but the killing of Iraqis is often treated by international correspondents as incidental. Likewise when tens of thousands of Iraqis recently filled the streets of Baghdad to demonstrate against the hidden killers and call for peace and reconciliation among all Iraqis, there was scant international media attention.

Baghdad is still a city for flak-jacketed reporters. Stories which highlight the unpredictable dangers of sudden violence make excellent television. Though the military authorities would dearly like better news to report, at the moment they are happy to play up the lawlessness. It still appears to be stiffening civilian resolve back home to see the job through and return Iraq to peace and independence.

But many Americans will take the crazed mob in Fallujah as typical of all Iraqis. Their government has told them too often that Iraq equals terrorism, that Muslims are terrorists. We must not allow that to happen. Many people in Iraq may hate the American-led occupation, but that does not mean they can behave like rabid dogs and tear apart the bodies of innocent civilians who were there to build up, not beat down, Iraq. It is hard at such times for the voice of moderation to make itself heard. Nevertheless, honest Iraqis, including those in the city of Fallujah, and all honest Arabs, owe it to themselves to say loudly that Wednesday’s carnage was wrong.

edit: Miles and Denoir, please point out where I called all Iraqis or even all residents of Fallujah savages.

Or is burning dead bodies and hanging the smoldering parts from the town bridge simply acceptable cultured behavior in your neck of the woods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avon that link isnt working rock.gif

Btw avon do you think theres a difference in death if people get killed by a cluster bomb or a daisy cutter or if there killed by hand then there bodies trashed? rock.gif

The bodies are also mutilated by a bomb too or dont they? The bombs dropped by a USAF planes? So how big a difference is that the Iraqis did it by hand rather then from 20,000ft in the air from a plane? rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t like polls.

I prefer facts:

US soldier killed, five injured north of Baghdad

Quote[/b] ]A US soldier has been killed and five wounded in two separate roadside bombing attacks near the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, the military said Thursday
Quote[/b] ]Also on Wednesday, it emerged that Washington had given its blessing to a British invitation to Iran to send a diplomatic team to Iraq in a bid to calm the volatile security situation in the south.

"They were invited by the British," a senior State Department official said, referring to the Iranian delegation that arrived in Baghdad earlier in the day. "Obviously, we did not object."

The official said Washington had not asked London to extend the invitation but added that the United States hoped the Iranians would be helpful in ending the standoff between the US-led coalition and Shiite Muslim radical leader Moqtada Sadr.

Ummm well,

U.S. Will Be Forced to Leave Iraq in Humiliation: Leader

Quote[/b] ]Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said that according to all humanitarian values and standards, the U.S. measures in Iraq are condemned and doomed to failure, adding that the U.S. troops will be forced to leave Iraq in humiliation.

Ayatollah Khamenei stated that it is a tenet of Islam that all people will be held accountable for their actions and accountability means responsibility.

Speaking at a meeting with thousands of people from all walks of life here on Wednesday, the Supreme Leader referred to verses from the Holy Qur’an on the necessity and value of being responsible and accountable, stressing that all officials in the country, regardless of their rank, should be held accountable for their decisions and actions.

He said that the situation in the world and especially the chaotic situation in Iraq are the result of the United States' irresponsibility and the fact that it believes it is accountable to no one.

He added that the harsh, brutal, and unbelievable crimes being committed in Iraq are motivated by the U.S. desire to protect its political and economic interests there.

He stated that the United States believes that it is not accountable to the international community, even though it has occupied a foreign land through committing crimes and murders only to enrich Zionists and oil companies.

The Supreme Leader said the current situation in Iraq was the result of the understandable reaction of its people toward the humiliating measures of the occupiers.

He also noted that U.S officials are accusing others of provoking the Iraqi nation and intervening in its affairs, while it is a proven fact that their own crimes and humiliating treatment of Iraqi women and youth have driven the brave nation of Iraq, both the Sunnis and the Shias, to respond to the occupiers, resulting in the current situation, which was predicted a long time ago.

Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the objections of the international community, including a number of U.S figures, to the lies the U.S. administration has been telling regarding its campaign against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and said such reactions indicate that the true nature of the U.S. administration has now been revealed to all.

The U.S. forces arrived in Iraq claiming that they would establish “democracy†there but actually started killing people, sullying their public image more than ever before, he added.

The Supreme Leader pointed out that the U.S. policy in Iraq resembles the ironfisted policy of the Zionist regime toward the Palestinian nation.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that through vigilance and unity the Iraqi nation can shorten the duration of the occupation. He added that Iraqis can speed up the process of establishing a free, independent, and democratic state by relying on Islam, maintaining unity, and avoiding the plots of the U.S. and the UK to sow ethnic and sectarian discord.

More info than unreliant, non-representative polls can provide.

Polls are shiznit, even my maths teacher told me so.

I only need to read the daily briefings to see that polls don´t represent daily reality in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Could They Be So Ungrateful?

Linda S. Heard, Arab News

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO, 13 April 2004 — Why are the Iraqi people being so obstructionist? What can they be thinking of ruining the plot like that? A year after they gained their freedom from that romance-story-reading cross between Attila the Hun, Hitler and Genghis Khan — famous for his mass graves and rape rooms, those Bush will never let us forget — they should be throwing a grand countrywide party. After all, they have so much for which to be thankful, including...Er!...um! Must have slipped my mind but it will come to me.

Ah! Yes. For the first time they’ve the right to gather and speak out. Those who are proficient in dodging coalition bullets and tank shells that is.

Now, I’ve got it: Freedom of the media. Perhaps that should be rephrased to freedom of the coalition media. Arab media, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya risk getting their offices bombed, their reporters shot at or jailed, while the present incumbent of Saddam’s main palace shut down Iraq’s pro-Sadr paper for inciting violence. Since Bremer did that, of course, Iraq has become a veritable sanctuary for meditation.

Nevertheless, Iraqis should be looking forward to getting their country back at the end of June, courtesy of the affable Americans who swept in on their metal chargers to save them. After all, those nice members of the Iraqi Governing Council, including Rumsfeld’s buddy the embezzler and his nephew Nouri Badran, who is the brother-in-law of Iyad Allawi, the cousin of Ali Allawi, the newly-appointed interim defense minister — all council members. This is called “keeping it in the family†which as everyone knows is one of the main principles of democracies since time immemorial. Or am I getting my democracies confused with oligarchies?

And why are those ungrateful Iraqis complaining because coalition troops will remain on their soil after the handover? Don’t they understand that they will stay there for their own protection in the same way they did a year ago when their hospitals, schools, ministries (except for the Ministry of Oil) were looted? Without the American and British presence, Iraq will descend into turmoil and chaos. We all know that. What’s that you say? It already has?

You don’t understand. Iraqis love their foreign saviors. You obviously haven’t seen those jolly pictures put out by the Pentagon showing US troops dispensing candy to kids and waving to the occupied hurrying with jerry cans to find running water. It’s those darned Saddam remnants who are causing all the trouble, don’t you know. They’ve been deprived of their cigars and torturing sessions for far too long, and now they’ve gone on the rampage, along with gangs of Shiite fundamentalists, who ridiculously resent having their leaders threatened, and a ragtag of troglodyte Al-Qaeda wallahs eager to experience the afterlife. That motley crew of terrorists are jealous of America’s freedoms and bent on destroying Iraq’s.

Without those few human vermin, foreign mercenaries could get on with protecting compassionate American soldiers as they deliver foodstuffs and medicines to the population. Without insurgents’ rocket-propelled grenades and mortars US-appointed reconstruction companies could get on with the job of building the biggest — and most fortified — American Embassy in the world and continue with repairing the oil pipelines, so that it can flow to Haifa. If they would hand in their weapons, and fly over to Guantanamo like all good repentant terrorists, America’s 120 odd thousand troops can retire behind high walls when at least Iraq would give the impression of being freed. George Bush’s portrait can then tower over Baghdad Firdous Square, where Moqtada Sadr’s now is, and where Saddam’s statue once held pride of place. All would be right in the best of all possible worlds.

But all is not lost. Bush’s “man of peace†aka the “Butcher of Beirut†has sent his advisors to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, so as to advise US Special Forces how to pacify the natives. After all Vietnam is long past and memories fade. They’ve already received lessons in sealing off errant towns with razor wire and house demolitions, and apparently, some of their brightest and best — termed as hunter-killer teams — are on Iraq’s border with Syria poised to neutralize foreign terrorists. As Bush himself said, he is tired of “swatting fliesâ€. Terrorists are, indeed, bigger and badder than your average bluebottle and so much more satisfying for America’s macho leader and his testosterone-filled armies.

My advice to the Iraqi people is this: Listen to your British friend Tony Blair putting his own reputation on the line from a beach in the West Indies where he was vacationing. “We are locked in an historic struggle in Iraqâ€, he said. “Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than the ‘power of America’ that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance would be snuffed outâ€. The families of those killed by a US missile while praying in a Fallujah mosque on April 7 will just have to agree to differ as will Shiite pilgrims attacked on the road to the holy city of Najaf.

One day the Iraqis will no doubt see the light, understand the errors of their ways; little Ali’s arms will grow back, Iraq’s WMD will be found, and the moon really will be green cheese.

— Linda S. Heard welcomes feedback at morgandewales@yahoo.co.uk .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avon that link isnt working  rock.gif

Link fixed and fully quoted.

Quote[/b] ]Btw avon do you think theres a difference in death if people get killed by a cluster bomb or a daisy cutter or if there killed by hand then there bodies trashed?  rock.gif

Yes.

Are you condemning the use of any bomb in legitimate warfare?

Or are you condoning the intentional separate act of mutilation of bodies in either legitimate or ilegitimate warfare?

Quote[/b] ]The bodies are also mutilated by a bomb too or dont they?

It's you equation. Not mine.

Quote[/b] ]So how big a difference is that the Iraqis did it by hand rather then from 20,000ft in the air from a plane? rock.gif

Did the US drop these bombs on already dead bodies in order to reenact some dark ages equivalent of puting heads on pikes and displaying them in the town square?

Not being able to discern the difference also says plenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Are you condemning the use of any bomb in legitimate warfare?

Or are you condoning the intentional separate act of mutilation of bodies in either legitimate or ilegitimate warfare?

I am for neither but i want you tell me the difference ? That was my question you didnt answer?

Quote[/b] ]It's you equation. Not mine.

Ok then you tell us what happens to a body when a Dasiy cutter or cluster bomb drops on someone? crazy_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Did the US drop these bombs on already dead bodies in order to reenact some dark ages equivalent of puting heads on pikes and displaying them in the town square?

Yes they probably do technically speaking that is , the USN always usually drops 2-3 Tomahawks on a strike on one building or so i read about it , which might be something along those lines of what you said.

However the fact remains same parade or not the person gets killed and body mutilated or are you implying that US bombs when falling down carefully severe one artery and then go down calmly? crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article:

How Kofi Annan Inflamed the Iraq Crisis by Backing the US Over Elections

Salim Lone, The Guardian

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK, 15 April 2004 — US policy-makers and commentators have been left reeling by the breadth and speed of Iraq’s April rebellion. Particularly crushing have been the absence of any public Iraqi support for the US during these stunning setbacks, the decision by the country’s security forces to step aside or even join the insurgents, and the resignations from the US-appointed Governing Council. Some US pundits have now accused Iraqis of not having the stomach to fight for democracy, and US spokesmen have condemned the “thugs†they claim are fighting to prevent democracy taking root in Iraq.

The reality is in fact diametrically opposite. It is the US that has refused to allow elections to choose a government after June 30 in order to continue to exercise control over Iraq. Even before the latest crisis, Paul Bremer, the American proconsul, had trouble enough with his hand-picked Governing Council. Dealing with an elected body that would demand a real say in running the country would be an endless battle.

So the coalition has put democracy on hold until it can be safely managed. That must change, with a policy shift that embraces national aspirations, since no Iraqis will countenance anything less than a full political engagement after a war and occupation whose only acceptable rationale for them was the promise of democracy.

In sticking to his anti-elections position, and maneuvering to limit Iraqis’ freedom to adopt a democratically agreed constitution, Bremer has wounded the credibility of both UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ali Al-Sistani, the grand ayatollah who helped keep Iraqi Shiites from using force to challenge the occupation.

This is not to take away from the centrality of coalition blunders in the upheaval —the results of which have undercut, once and for all, the US mantra that only a few Iraqis oppose their presence. They show how utterly out of touch the coalition has been with the anti-occupation passions harbored by the vast majority of Iraqis. They were bound to be ignited into a national firestorm by the decision to go after the Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, just as a terrible collective punishment was being meted out to Fallujah. The onslaught on that blockaded city, which has killed between 600 and 1,000 mostly civilian Iraqis, has intensified worldwide Muslim anger against the US.

It was in January and February, though, that the groundwork was laid for the rebellion. The coalition then refused the repeated demand by Sistani that a new Iraqi government must emerge through elections. The immediate crisis was only resolved when the ayatollah turned to Kofi Annan to determine whether credible elections could be held by the June 30 date the US had picked for the handover of sovereignty. With the help of UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, Annan concluded that the June 30 date should not be postponed and that therefore there was not enough time to hold credible elections —which in turn meant that the new Iraqi government would be picked by the Americans.

Sistani, and most of Iraq, was astounded at being so comprehensively undercut by the UN. The man who had restrained the Shiite revolt had been made to look powerless to deliver for Iraqis. Thus was the basis laid for the current Shiite uprising, along with the increasingly public US debate about the need to station US troops for years to come to ensure Iraq stays on the “right†path. In a polarizing environment of impoverishment, insecurity, disenfranchisement and suspicion, it was clear that it would not take much for Iraq to explode.

Sistani will no doubt recover the support he enjoyed if US policy shifts in favor of a politically negotiated settlement to end occupation. But the damage inflicted on the UN in Iraq is long-term and will seriously hobble its ability to play the role of an honest broker.

It was astonishing that Annan backed the US position on elections and the June sovereignty date when it was so overwhelmingly opposed by Sistani and the majority of Iraqis. There was a strong anti-UN outcry within Iraq, even from the Governing Council, and Sistani, who rarely departs from his cautious tone, made public his fury and threatened not to meet Brahimi when he returned.

The UN ended up intensifying the crisis it needed to resolve, again appearing pro-US, anti-Iraqi and anti-democratic to boot — a terrible mistake if the UN is to return to Iraq with any measure of safety.

The UN image has fallen to abysmally low levels in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and it must correct its excessive pro-US tilt if it is to function there with the people’s support. But doing this will only be possible if the US itself recognizes that the legitimacy it seeks from UN imprimaturs is becoming less and less meaningful, and relieves the excessive pressure it places on the secretary-general.

— Salim Lone was director of communications for the UN in Iraq until last autumn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for a people that has spent the last 10 years or so under the rule of a fierce dictator, with bombs regulary dropped on them from their new liberator I would be surprised if some of them didnt become quite savage when given a chance to strike back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cluster bombs and daisy cutters are in no way comparable to what happened to the 4 contract workers. and if they were used, whats your point? do you think the result of a road side bomb exploding under a hummer is going to be any more or less humane for it occupants? you all saw the photos. what about those marines in the APC that was hit by a couple RPG's early in the war? i very much doubt those guys got a open casket, in fact after looking at what remained that that APC i wouldn't be surprise that they couldn't find enough remains of those marines to even have a single corpse. what happened to the 4 contracters wasn't the result of weapons, it was the result of a mob and i don't see how anybody could remotly justify this even when sunni arabs who said they didn't like the Americans but didn't approve of what happened to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for a people that has spent the last 10 years or so under the rule of a fierce dictator, with bombs regulary dropped on them from their new liberator I would be surprised if some of them didnt become quite savage when given a chance to strike back.

He came into power in 1979 and then started to kill anyone who oppose the regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or are you condoning the intentional separate act of mutilation of bodies in either legitimate or ilegitimate warfare?

You mean illegitimate like the use of area submunition dispersal (cluster bombs etc) and other ordenance that has explicitly been banned by numerous international conventions?

Quote[/b] ]Or is burning dead bodies and hanging the smoldering parts from the town bridge simply acceptable cultured behavior in your neck of the woods?

Not at all, but neither is dropping bombs in residential areas.

Quote[/b] ]Are you condemning the use of any bomb in legitimate warfare?

Define legitimate warfare. The contractors killed in Fallujah were private security guards i.e technically mercs. They're not covered by Geneva and you can basically do anything to them without violating any international agreement.

Furthermore although by our standards the treatement of the dead contractors was brutal and uncivilized in reality there's no substancial difference between a 'legitimate' bomb and that. Intent is irrelevant - the end results are what counts. And in both cases you have mutilated bodies.

What I find interesting in the Fallujah case is that you could see in the footage realtively young children kicking the dead bodies etc Regardless of culture or whatever it requires an abnormal state of mind to do that. So you can imagine the rage it takes for a mob to do something like that.

But that's war for you. You only have your cultural flavours of the madness. In ex-Yugoslavia it was done in a 'European' systematic way, as it was by the Nazis in WW2. Does it make it more civilized for that? My answer is a strong NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is difference ebtween traditional mercs and contractors. mercs may attack the emplyer's enemy, while contractors act as body guards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is difference ebtween traditional mercs and contractors. mercs may attack the emplyer's enemy, while contractors act as body guards.

....but there's a crucial similarity in my opinion. They both do it for money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

money is everywhere and just because one recieves payment doesn't mean that person is same as the other.

militay pays its soldiers, so I guess that makes them as same as shopping mall security guards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'

Quote[/b] ]Italy hails "hero" murdered hostage

Thu 15 April, 2004 18:43

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPac....on=news

By Crispian Balmer

ROME (Reuters) - An Italian hostage killed in Iraq is being hailed as a hero who in his last moments told his kidnappers defiantly: "I'm going to show you how an Italian dies."

Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of four Italian security guards abducted earlier this week, was shot dead on Wednesday after Italy refused to bow to the kidnappers' demands and withdraw some 3,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said a video recording of the killing showed that Quattrocchi was hooded when his kidnappers put a gun to his head.

"When the murderers were pointing a pistol at him, this man tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'. And they killed him," Frattini said.

"He died a hero," he added.

Frattini came under attack from some quarters for breaking the news of Quattrocchi's death during a live television chat show on Wednesday night and the distraught families of the remaining three hostages urged talks with the abductors.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi called a meeting of top ministers to discuss the crisis, but his government made clear it would not yield to pressure to remove its forces from Iraq.

"It wouldn't just be vile, it would also damage us if we pulled out (of Iraq) with the job half done. We cannot give in," Defence Minister Antonio Martino told reporters.

Mainstream opposition leaders, many of them deeply critical of Berlusconi's unwavering support for U.S. President George W. Bush during the Iraq conflict, also ruled out negotiations.

"The vile blackmail by a band of criminal kidnappers must not be given the dignity of a political response. Italy is and must remain unified and together," said Francesco Rutelli, leader of a centre-left opposition group, the Daisy party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, mercs and contractors are actually, by definition, pretty much the same.

"mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (műrs-nr)

adj.

1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

2. Hired for service in a foreign army."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

con·trac·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntrktr, kn-trk-)

n.

One that agrees to furnish materials or perform services at a specified price, especially for construction work.

Something, especially a muscle, that contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3009851/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]Pentagon Stops Plans To Send 20,000 Troops Home

Rumsfeld 'Would Not Have Estimated' Losses 1 Year Ago

POSTED: 2:57 p.m. EDT April 15, 2004

UPDATED: 4:07 p.m. EDT April 15, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military has extended the deployment of about 20,000 troops in Iraq, stopping the planned return of many involved in a suddenly more violent postwar campaign.

The move is aimed at giving commanders the extra firepower they believe necessary to confront an insurgency that is taking a mounting toll on the U.S.-led coalition, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday.

The troops had expected to return home this month after completing 12 months in Iraq.

"We regret having to extend those individuals," Rumsfeld said, adding that the troops are performing "noble work."

The United States has about 137,000 troops in Iraq now, Rumsfeld said. That number was supposed to have dipped to 115,000 by May, but Rumsfeld said Gen. John Abizaid, the lead U.S. commander in Iraq, decided he needs to keep the force level at about 135,000 troops.

Asked about the reason for more troops being needed in Iraq, Rumsfeld said the situation is different than he would have envisioned a year ago.

"I certainly would not have estimated that we would not have had lost the number we have had lost," Rumsfeld said.

Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the 20,000 soldiers are mainly from the Army's 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

translation: Rummy f!@#ed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'
Quote[/b] ]Italy hails "hero" murdered hostage

Thu 15 April, 2004 18:43

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPac....on=news

By Crispian Balmer

ROME (Reuters) - An Italian hostage killed in Iraq is being hailed as a hero who in his last moments told his kidnappers defiantly: "I'm going to show you how an Italian dies."

Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of four Italian security guards abducted earlier this week, was shot dead on Wednesday after Italy refused to bow to the kidnappers' demands and withdraw some 3,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said a video recording of the killing showed that Quattrocchi was hooded when his kidnappers put a gun to his head.

"When the murderers were pointing a pistol at him, this man tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'. And they killed him," Frattini said.

"He died a hero," he added.

Frattini came under attack from some quarters for breaking the news of Quattrocchi's death during a live television chat show on Wednesday night and the distraught families of the remaining three hostages urged talks with the abductors.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi called a meeting of top ministers to discuss the crisis, but his government made clear it would not yield to pressure to remove its forces from Iraq.

"It wouldn't just be vile, it would also damage us if we pulled out (of Iraq) with the job half done. We cannot give in," Defence Minister Antonio Martino told reporters.

Mainstream opposition leaders, many of them deeply critical of Berlusconi's unwavering support for U.S. President George W. Bush during the Iraq conflict, also ruled out negotiations.

"The vile blackmail by a band of criminal kidnappers must not be given the dignity of a political response. Italy is and must remain unified and together," said Francesco Rutelli, leader of a centre-left opposition group, the Daisy party.

He shouldn't have had to die in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of bombs or cluster munitions is in no way parallel to the mutilation of bodies. Difference being? Once the people are dead, we don't come in and mutilate their corpses just for the hell of it. Regardless of our opinion of them, we try to at least show a little respect for the dead.

What purpose did mutilating the bodies have, other than to quench the mob's anger and hatred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mn_iraq_rocket.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....pe=news

U.S. Marine Lt. John Hood, from Athens, Ga., looks through the sights of a homemade Iraqi multiple rocket launcher after Marines from the 1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment found large caches of weapons in Fallujah. Associated Press photo by John Moore

Hahhaaaa biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol wtf is that? it looks sweet! i wouldn't mind carrying one of those around in the field biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the pic somewhere else, and i'm looking for the write up on it, I think it's something the army found while fighting recently.

here it is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....pe=news

U.S. Marine Lt. John Hood, from Athens, Ga., looks through the sights of a homemade Iraqi multiple rocket launcher after Marines from the 1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment found large caches of weapons in Fallujah. Associated Press photo by John Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight from the fight

Quote[/b] ]Two American soldiers have deserted, claiming asylum in Canada rather than serve in Iraq. They argue that the war is illegal under international law

Anne McIlroy

Tuesday April 13, 2004

The Guardian

Brandon Hughey is a teenager living among strangers, thousands of miles from his friends, family and home in San Angelo, Texas. The 18-year-old is one of two American servicemen who recently deserted their units and fled to Canada to claim asylum as refugees. "We plan to argue that the war in Iraq is illegal under international law and that I have a right not to choose to participate," he says.

Hughey, who has been taken in by a Quaker couple in the Ontario city of St Catharines, spends his days preparing his legal case. For breaks, he takes solitary walks downtown. He seems mature, composed, and hopeful that he will be able to build a new life for himself in Canada.

Hughey signed up for the army when he was 17, during his final year in high school. "I joined because it was the only way I was going to get a college education," he says. He went through basic training, and in his spare time began learning about the campaign in Iraq on the internet. He says he became increasingly uncomfortable about the mission, then so disturbed that he considered killing himself. He brought his questions to a commanding officer, who told him to stop thinking so much.

Then, through the internet, he met a stranger who offered help getting to Canada. He decided to leave and drove away from his base on March 2, the night before his unit was due to ship out for the Middle East. Now he was a deserter, terrified he would be stopped for speeding as he drove for 17 hours to meet a peace activist who took him across the Canadian border. They pretended to be basketball fans, on their way to a game in Toronto.

Through the Quaker church he met his lawyer, Jeffry House, who came to Canada from the US in 1970 after he was drafted to fight in Vietnam. He had graduated from college by then, and went on to earn a reputation in Toronto as a lawyer with a strong sense of social justice. Representing Hughey, who he says is "really just a sweet kid", and Jeremy Hinzman, 25, a private who fled to Canada with his wife and child in January, has brought back memories for him.

But it will take more than youthful appeal to win over the Canadian immigration and refugee board. Last year, a record 317 Americans applied for refugee status in Canada. Some were marijuana smokers claiming persecution. Others were Muslims who said they faced human rights abuses in the US. None was accepted as a legitimate refugee. In fact, only one American has ever been accepted as having a well-founded fear of persecution, and the courts overturned that decision.

House, however, believes the soldiers have a fair chance. He plans to make his case by producing at least one high-profile expert - possibly one of the British international law specialists who have condemned the Iraq war as illegal - to argue that the campaign there violates international law and cannot be justified. He says his clients are using the same legitimate legal grounds to refuse as soldiers throughout history have used when their superior officers order them to do something illegal - such as shooting civilian children.

House knows of only been one similar case argued before the refugee board. An Iranian soldier who deserted claimed refugee status because he didn't want to use poison gas on the Kurds during his country's war with Iraq. The board was unsympathetic, but the Canadian courts eventually ruled in his favour, and he was permitted to stay.

He also plans to cite a ruling of the English court of appeal two months ago in the case of a Russian conscript, Andrey Krotov, who deserted from the Russian army after he was sent to Grozny to fight in the Chechen war. The court ruled that refugee status could be available to a conscript who refused to serve when the service would require him to violate basic rules of human conduct as defined by international law.

House is hoping that Canada's stand on the invasion of Iraq will help his clients. The prime minister at the time, Jean Chrétien, never said the war was illegal under international law, but Canada decided not to participate.

To win refugee status in Canada, as in Britain, applicants have to convince the refugee board that they face a well-founded fear of persecution at home. This can be difficult for people from countries where arbitrary arrest and torture are routine, let alone for citizens of the US, Canada's closet ally. The law also specifies that fear of persecution is not the same as fear of prosecution.

In the past, says House, the board has accepted that refugees face persecution if they risk, for example, years in jail simply for reading a banned book. "It all comes down to whether it is justified to prosecute in these circumstances."

House points out that in the US the maximum penalty for desertion during a time of war is death. He concedes that the death penalty hasn't been used since the second world war, and his clients are more likely to face five years in jail if they return home. "But there is no guarantee," he says. In Canada the courts have ruled that someone cannot be deported to another country where they face the death penalty.

He doesn't see much difference between dodging the draft, as he did in 1970, and deserting the military when you joined voluntarily, as his two clients did. "It's hard to argue that you give up your entire moral personality once you are employed as a soldier."

Jeremy Hinzman, the other soldier claiming refugee status in Canada, agrees. He enlisted on January 17 2001, four months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but before it became clear that President Bush would go to war in Iraq. He joined the army shortly after he got married, hoping, like Hughey, to earn money for college.

He had dabbled in Zen, and in January 2002 he and his wife Nga Nguyen began attending church at the Quaker House. He felt at home with the Quaker philosophy of non-violence, and was uncomfortable with the idea that his basic army training seemed to be about breaking down the natural human inhibition against killing. He began preparing his application for conscientious objector status. Then his unit was deployed to Afghanistan, where he worked in the kitchen. Last April, his commanding officer suddenly pulled him aside at Kandahar airport and told him it was time for his hearing. Hinzman was not allowed to have a lawyer or witnesses present. The hearing took 20 minutes and his application was rejected.

Hinzman's unit returned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, last April, but in December he received his orders to go to Iraq. In January he, his wife and their 21-month-old son Liam fled to Toronto. They too were taken in by Quakers, but now have an apartment of their own. Hinzman has become active in the peace movement in Canada, speaking at anti-war rallies. Hughey is contemplating a similiar role.

As in Britain, the process of seeking refugee status can take years, if the applicant wants to draw it out. Refugee applicants can appeal against rulings in the federal court. There is also the possibility that the minister of immigration will intervene and issue a permit to allow a rejected applicant to stay in Canada. This is thought to be unlikely under the current government, led by Paul Martin, who is trying to rebuild relations with Washington.

It was a lot simpler in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when House and around 60,000 other US citizens opposed to the Vietnam war were able simply to sign up for landed immigrant status once they crossed the border. House, however, says he is confident of getting a fair hearing for his clients, and believes they may be the first of many. He has already received an email from a US woman soldier planning to go to the west coast city of Vancouver, asking for the names of lawyers there.

Iraq, some say, could turn out to be Bush's Vietnam. How many more will follow the path to permanent exile blazed this time round by Hinzman and Hughey? House is not expecting many at the moment, but there are rumblings in the US media about the possibility of a draft in 2005 if defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate. "If there is a draft," says House, "I would say the numbers could be massive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The use of bombs or cluster munitions is in no way parallel to the mutilation of bodies.  Difference being?  Once the people are dead, we don't come in and mutilate their corpses just for the hell of it.  Regardless of our opinion of them, we try to at least show a little respect for the dead.

What purpose did mutilating the bodies have, other than to quench the mob's anger and hatred?

Actually it served a very powerful purpose when shown in the Western press. Despite the refusal of the US press to show the video of the bodies, many Americans saw the video and pictures of the mobs mutilating the bodies through the Internet. In addition it was heavily talked about in the media here in the US. The result was a sense of shock amongst Americans much as what happened in Somalia when mobs there mutilated American corpses.

To me it was not strange. Savagery is part of warfare. To me the US troops pumping round after round into a wounded Iraqi militant who is not resisting is far more horrific then a mob mutilating a body that is DEAD. Now if they mutilated the bodies while the individuals were still living, then that would be truly horrific and I would not put it past many of those mobs to do so...but again, that's warfare for you.

The US is not fighting a conventional army that respects the Geneva convention. In addition the US has not abided by the Geneva convention in this war and the Iraqi people are well aware of such things as the bombing of rural areas with cluster bombs.

I am not defending these mobs for mutilating these bodies. That was wrong, but so are many things wrong during war.

It's the nature of warfare and that is what many civilians don't understand. It is true that good professional conduct and discipline by soldiers can do much to prevent war attrocities, but sadly these things still happen in even the most professional armies in the world. Furthermore, the militants the US is fighting in Iraq are not professional soldiers...most are just civilians who feel that they are uniting against US oppression (successfully so far I might add).

So right now you just have a bloody mess and the pacification of Fellujah will not occur without the slaughter of many thousands of residents in Fellujah who will resist the US forces.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×