The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not having high regard form someone while stating that she did good is NO respect for the "good she did"?

Twist things around a little more, please.

The only things you posted about her had a bad touch. I was not able to find a post by you about her that honored her work. I don´t need to twist anything. It´s all there, written by Avon.

Now you want to sell us that you honored her work and did respect her for the good things she did ?

Let´s talk about you twisting facts.

[theavonlady 2]

The only things you posted about her had a bad touch. I was not able to find a post by you about her that honored her work.

The only things you posted here about her had a good touch. Sorry I posted additional information about her that mars her sainthood.

This is not her personal family site.

Quote[/b] ]I don´t need to twist anything.

But you already have.

Quote[/b] ]Now you want to sell us that you honored her work

I didn't say that. I did not deny that she has done good work. The only one in denial here is you.

Quote[/b] ]Let´s talk about you twisting facts.

I already have - twice.

[miles teg 1]

AL, you don't need to say anything directly. By simply posting links and other people's quotes that basically call her a traitor (rallied against her country) and a commie (she liked Castro), you don't need to put that you dispise this girl directly. Your motives become self-evident. If you believe these things then don't hide behind the words of others.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]At least she uncovered another US lie just before she died. BTW Avon, you are somehow funny. You have a nice, political correct link in your sig

Quote[/b] ]In a news conference at Bagram air base in Afghanistan in March 2002, General Tommy Franks said: "We don't do body counts." His words outraged the Arab world.

During the Iraq war, as US troops pushed toward Baghdad, counting civilian casualties was not a priority for the military. Since 1 May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations over and the US military moved into "stability operations", most units began to keep track of civilians killed at checkpoints or during patrols by US soldiers.

Here in Baghdad, a brigadier general explained to me that it is standard procedure for US troops to file a spot report when they shoot a non-combatant. It is in the military's interest to release these statistics.

Called a liar because of what? I do not understand how she "forced" the US military in to telling her because, by that article, she asked the question and got a response. Furthermore, Franks statement was in 2002 and the article admits that US did not keep track during the Iraq conflict. Hello, policy change.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] posted here about her had a good touch.

I judge people by their actions. And yes, for that he had a very good record. So what ?

I excluded her personality in my SINGLE post about her, simply for the cause that I didn´t know her. I don´t judge a book by it´s cover but by it´s content.

This women did very good things for people who had no voice. She improved life of people who lost their homes who suffered and got herself into danger by doing so. She questioned military behaviour and gave the people a future and a perspective. I don´t mind if she was opposing this or that. It´s not relevant as her actions count.

As I said in my first post about her:

Quote[/b] ]Civil aid workers are often a pain in the ass for local military contingents as they do monitor what they do. But their primary motivation is and was to help those who don´t have the voice to make themselves heard. This is what she did and she was very good in her job. So my respect goes to to the actions she did. To undermine her personality has nothing to do with the good things she actually achieved. Maybe you can separate that one day....

Maybe it just doesn´t fit into scheme, but I don´t care. Narrow minded would be the right expression for your efforts to put her into a bad light. Ask the people she helped, what they have to say about her. That´s what counts as she died while serving the Iraqi people and not some national interests or ideology.

When soldiers were honoured in Iraq, did you ask for their personality ? Did you dive into their political attitude ?

No, you didn´t. I wonder why.

You would have been the first to claim that their ideology is not relevant as their action were good, brave or whatever. So don´t come up with that reasoning here, just because you can´t confess that she gave her life for a very noble reason.

Quote[/b] ]But you already have.

No.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say that. I did not deny that she has done good work. The only one in denial here is you.

Bullshit. I guess everyone can read and see what image of her you want to sell us here.

Quote[/b] ]I already have - twice.

True, you´re twisting. Thx for admitting that.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I do not understand how she "forced" the US military in to telling her because, by that article, she asked the question and got a response.

Too lazy to read ?

Quote[/b] ]a Brigadier General told her it was "standard operating procedure" for US troops to file a report when they shoot a non-combatant.

She obtained figures for the number of civilians killed in Baghdad between 28 February and 5 April, and discovered that 29 had been killed in firefights involving US forces and insurgents. This was four times the number of Iraqi police killed.

"These statistics demonstrate that the US military can and does track civilian casualties," she wrote. "Troops on the ground keep these records because they recognise they have a responsibility to review each action taken and that it is in their interest to minimise mistakes, especially since winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis is a key component of their strategy."

Sam Zia-Zarifi, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, the group for which Ms Ruzicka wrote the report, said her discovery "was very important because it allows the victims to start demanding compensation". He added: "At a policy level they have never admitted they keep these figures."

...

Dr Richard Garfield, professor of nursing at Columbia University, said: "Of course they keep records and of course they pretend they don't. Why is it important to keep the numbers of those killed? Well, why was it important to record the names of those people killed in the World Trade Centre? It would have been inconceivable not to. These people have lives of value.

...

Meanwhile the Pentagon maintained its position that it did not keep numbers of civilians killed in Iraq.

...

So to bring it to billybob level:

Pentagon says they dont count, active brigade general in Iraq say they do, and politicians of the TBA say they don´t while they obviously do count as she found out.

Clear enough ?

Quote[/b] ]Hello, policy change.

Really ? Must have missed the latest numbers from Centcom...

Besides that your sig is really infantile. I don´t think it´s ok to flame a moderator that public, but that´s not my business anyway...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So to bring it to billybob level:

Pentagon says they dont count, active brigade general in Iraq say they do, and politicians of the TBA say they don´t while they obviously do count as she found out.

Clear enough ?

What she said makes it like a policy change and Pentagon said they did not. He said, she said story. Furthermore, their are not a lot of BGs in Iraq and the BG should be easy to id where she got the info from. If it was a cover-up, would not the Pentagon tell generals to shut up about this.

Quote[/b] ]Besides that your sig is really infantile. I don´t think it´s ok to flame a moderator that public, but that´s not my business anyway...

It is a running joke to my favorite mod. Damn that Hello Kitty!!!

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]What she said makes it like a policy change and Pentagon said they did not. He said, she said story. Furthermore, their are not a lot of BGs in Iraq and the BG should be easy to id where she got the info from. If it was a cover-up, would not the Pentagon tell generals to shut up about this.

What are you talking about? She doesn't make it sound like a policy change. She said she got from a source that the US has always kept a body count, even though the Pentagon says they don't, which I find highly likely. And furthermore, despite what your previous posts state about her being against the military, if you read the section she says she was told and believes that the commanders are truely sorry for civilian casualties:

Quote[/b] ]"In my dealings with the US military officials here, they have shown regret and remorse for the deaths and injuries of civilians. Systematically recording and publicly releasing civilian casualty numbers would assist in helping the victims who survive to piece their lives back together."

And:

Quote[/b] ] "Troops on the ground keep these records because they recognise they have a responsibility to review each action taken and that it is in their interest to minimise mistakes, especially since winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis is a key component of their strategy."

Doesn't seem like she demonizes the US or the military nearly as much as the right wing loyalists are trying to demonize her.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]What are you talking about? She doesn't make it sound like a policy change. She said she got from a source that the US has always kept a body count, even though the Pentagon says they don't, which I find highly likely.

Quote[/b] ]In a news conference at Bagram air base in Afghanistan in March 2002, General Tommy Franks said: "We don't do body counts." His words outraged the Arab world.

During the Iraq war, as US troops pushed toward Baghdad, counting civilian casualties was not a priority for the military. Since 1 May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations over and the US military moved into "stability operations", most units began to keep track of civilians killed at checkpoints or during patrols by US soldiers.

....

Quote[/b] ]And furthermore, despite what your previous posts state about her being against the military, if you read the section she says she was told and believes that the commanders are truely sorry for civilian casualties:

Did I deny that in my post?

[Akira 0]

I sooooooo don't even know what your point is Mr. Ellipsis.

[brother_bob_wallace 0]

I'm personnally totally agree with what Terox said !!!!!!!!

I don't get why you get upset against this guy.

Are you all dictatorship fans who don't like right of expression ?

Bah anyway......... Soon no oil left, then no wars in middle east !

With Pope Adolph Benedict Hitler 16th now rising to power with ambitions to unite all religions into one brotherhood of man

I was wondering just how the various religions in Iraq would approach the problem of the bastard children derived from copulation between muslim women and the defiled US invaders.

Would they happily accept these children into their midst, or would they, as I expect the Pope to Exterminate all opposition.

Bye kids !

Kisses

[IceShade 0]

At least the church will now know something about defending factories with flak guns!

Yaay.

I guess discussing, or whatever you people are doing in this thread, is really going to help the poor and battered soldiers in Iraq! Terox is absolutely right.

Now it's up to you to find the sarcasm in, and the obvious relevance of, this post.

[brother_bob_wallace 0]

Yeah, exactly i do not see how this thread helps american soldiers.

It seems to help "fox-news" a lot.... But the poor american soldiers, i don't think so

[Akira 0]

Yeah. We should all just shut up and accept whatever happens in the world. We should never let our voices be heard or our dissent. We should never have a free discussion about geo-political current events. Yeah thats just stupid.

One thing is for sure. There wouldn't be "poor battered soldiers in Iraq" if Bush hadn't started a needless war based on lies and deception.

Quote[/b] ]At least the church will Know something about defending factories with flak guns!

Correction mine

Wrong thread.

Now go back to your CS. If you don't like the free flow of ideas, I suggest you not participate and keep letting your brain turn to jelly.

[IceShade 0]

Quote[/b] ]

At least the church will Know something about defending factories with flak guns!

Obviously you didn't even notice it wasn't a typo, I just forgot the word 'Know'. The word 'Now' was spelt correctly, although I doubt you would understand that.

And I don't play CS.

If you really wanted to help the soldiers, well.. do something instead of posting in an utter useless thread.

[brother_bob_wallace 0]

Quote[/b] ]We should never have a free discussion about geo-political current events. Yeah thats just stupid.

And a guy have been banned of this forum for saying something realistic and different from 1000% of the idea of this thread !

So a free discussion.... i'm just laughing !

[Balschoiw 0]

Reported all 3 posts to the mods. Not the right place, not the right words and obviously a lack of basic education.

Edit: Or Baron again ?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

At least the church will Know something about defending factories with flak guns!

Obviously you didn't even notice it wasn't a typo, I just forgot the word 'Know'. The word 'Now' was spelt correctly, although I doubt you would understand that.

And I don't play CS.

'Now' was spelt correctly alright. Too bad your context structure needed 'know.' But obviously you don't know that.

[IceShade 0]

Reported all 3 posts to the mods. Not the right place, not the right words and obviously a lack of basic education.

Edit: Or Baron again ?

Wait, you're reporting all these 3 posts to the mods because we don't agree with you? So if we agree with someone who disagrees, we're not allowed to take part in this FREE DISCUSSION anymore?

At least I wasn't flaming someone until someone unrightfully corrected my sentence. Which he didn't correct properly anyway.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]'Now' was spelt correctly alright. Too bad your context structure needed 'know.' But obviously you don't know that.

Well, here I see the relevance of! It obviously contributes to this discussion. Oh, no, wait, it doesn't. Should I report this post too?

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe you should read the forum rules before you spit your venom here.

[brother_bob_wallace 0]

And anyway what is the relation between BIS and this "politic unilateral way of mind" thread ?

Only sexfrustrated teenagers are reading this forum anyway (maybe a personnal opinion).

[Akira 0]

You seem to lack basic English skills. Why would you add an extra word when you just needed a 'k'? It seems you unrightfully added an extra word.

Quote[/b] ]Wait, you're reporting all these 3 posts to the mods because we don't agree with you? So if we agree with someone who disagrees, we're not allowed to take part in this FREE DISCUSSION anymore?

Someone who joined 2 years ago and just made their first post is quite suspicious

Oh...and the free flow of ideas depends on those participating A) Staying on the topic discussed and B) Having a basic grasp of the common language used.

[IceShade 0]

Maybe you should read the forum rules before you spit your venom here.

My venom? Venom?

I guess my opinion is venom in your eyes, but you could also say, in a proper way, that you disagree with me.

But anyway, enough with the piss-stick, please explain to me why posting here would be beneficial to the Coalition forces and those that have been taken hostage by Iraqis, and so on.

And why is it that when I agree with Bob, and Terox for that matter, I get directed to the rules? Is it because of the amount of posts I have? My registration date?

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]You seem to lack basic English skills. Why would you add an extra word when you just needed a 'k'? It seems you unrightfully added an extra word.

I guess you could just shut your mouth about the typo now. The 'joke' has been made, and I edited my post before you 'corrected' me. And I don't think I 'lack basic English skills'.

Quote[/b] ]Someone who joined 2 years ago and just made their first post is quite suspicious

2005 - 2004 = How much again? Oh, I guess the joke's on me now.

[Akira 0]

Please explain why any discussion relating to Iraq has to "benefit the Coalition forces and those that have been taken hostage..."

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]I guess you could just shut your mouth about the typo now.

There ya go crossing the rules again. You won't be around long enough for me to correct a second time I'm afraid.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] but you could also say, in a proper way, that you disagree with me.

What could I disagree or agree with ?

Your posts lack contributions to the thread wich is about the Iraq war, so there is nothing to agree or disagree with.

Quote[/b] ]

But anyway, enough with the piss-stick, please explain to me why posting here would be beneficial to the Coalition forces and those that have been taken hostage by Iraqis, and so on.

What the hell are you talking about ?

...wait, I guess I don´t want an answer. It´s just to stupid to keep that going.