Fallujah Casualites: Michael Moore asked Bill O'Reilly
 

last summer if O'Reilly would send his own child to fight in Fallujah to "retake"
that city from "insurgents". Now that we know the "price" of our current
"progress" in Fallujah is 38 dead American troops and 275 wounded, and......
in view of the current conditions in Iraq, would you volunteer to go there to
fight for the "liberation" of another Iraqi city, or urge a member of your own
family to do so? Why, or why not?

I'd send a child of george bush to honorably serve our great country in a second.

O'Reilly was about to answer but he got a call from his producer that he had to take in private, with some kleenex, and some lube. Why would we send his children and not Bill himself? I'm not sure Bill could pass the mental health requirements for enlistees though, seeing as he's a pathological liar.

It's too bad that the responses have to start out snide.

To the point,

If a child of mine chose a military career, that would be fine with me.

hmmmm....38 dead americans, as compared to 1200 dead insurgents. That's one dead US troop for every 38 dead insurgents. Compare this with 2700 dead Americans and 19 dead insurgents, and Fallujah is a screaming bargain for the US.

I would, in fact, encourage some of my family members to join the military if they were considering it, because some of them are lazy bums that need some direction in their lives. Instead of wasting away their youth, they could help the world by serving our country. Things are most definitely not going as planned in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that we should just give up. Would I go over there?...no way, but that's because I know that I have something different to offer--I can be a supernerd. Many people--such as Bill O'Reilly--have different duties as Americans than those called to serve in the military.

What I'm saying is, for some people, despite the fact that we're in a time of war, the rewards outweigh the risks of being in the military.

You still believe that 9-11 involved Iraq? I weep for this nation.

What's the problem? I was serious.

I'd fight a justified war, and as for what i'd encourage my hypothetical children to do, i'd encourage them to think critically and make up their own damn mind.

I want to hear what ustwo would have to say, being a new daddy and all.

coppertop, nope. I also don't think that most of the insurgents in Fallujah are Iraqis either.

Then why the "19 dead insurgents?"

they're from the same pool....muslims willing to die to try and make their political point. It's a lot easier and safer for America to kill them on the ground in Iraq than to try and kill them on airplanes in the US.

We need to provide a place for people who "will die for Jihad" to go so that we can help them realize their dreams.

And I'm sure they feel the same about Americans who "will die for Bush." Glad to see we've evolved as a culture. :rolleyes:

most people in the US military don't sign up intending to die. They aren't promised 72 virgins if they die.

If those sound like such good odds then post your info, I'll help you get in touch with some recruiters. They'll be friendly, I promise.

loco, been there, done that, and am too old now.

when you think about killing those insurgents piecemeal, arresting them individually or letting them slide in and out of iraq at will over the next 10 years... the assault on fallujah is a resounding success. now that we're there... we certainly did the right thing by killing so many while using our conventional means of force as opposed to doing it by policing methods.

38 dead is still a somber figure but if you consider how many would have probably died during the rest of our time in iraq by those same insurgent fighters... we did a good thing, or at least a prudent thing.

i don't think many realize how incredibly well the fallujah assault went. you're facing a determined extremist enemy who:
1) knows the city and terrain well.
2) have had months to set up booby traps and barricades
3) are fighting from their chosen entrenched positions
4) have the advantage of defending an urban environment while the opposing force is mindful of civilian and collateral damage.

all that and the KIA casualty rate was over 42:1 in our favor. we should thank the lord it wasn't worse than it was... urban combat can get very messy. this was truly an ass kicking of the finest variety.

I think that's just the point, and it's what makes Moore's antics so moot. It's a volunteer/professional military. Adults sign up of their own free will to submit themselves to the orders given them.

Moore's attempt to portray it as only the children of the poor dying, is not only propagandist, but irrelevant because of this.

Asking a parent if they would send their child to war is just silly grandstanding, because the answer is almost invariably going to be no, regardless of the person asked, or the war fought. What parent would ever answer yes?

There are plenty of military conflicts I thought were "right", Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda (eventually), but if someone asked me if I'd "send" my child there...hell no I wouldn't. But I'd support him or her if they chose a military life.

I also think that some on the left think that a military career is somehow shameful, or a least somehow below them or their offspring (hence Moore and his bogus "getting killed for whitey" schtick.)

What they fail to realize is that most on the right of center don't feel that way at all.

Furthermore, once a child reaches the legal age of 18 (wich is required to join the military) a parent has no right to send their child anywhere against their free will.

I have served in the military and would be proud if any of my children (had I any) wanted to serve. BUT I would not be very happy with their decision to go and die not for honor or our country but for Haliburton's wallet. I would not be happy with that decision but I would honor and respect their choice in life.

My father didn't want me to join the Navy, but when I graduated bootcamp it was one of his proudest moments. As one of mine would be to see a child of mine graduate.

There's nothing shameful about a military career. That some poor young men are left with no option but to sign up for a four-year hitch and end up getting killed is a shame.

"Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up.

Born in the USA

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man."

You know, you would think the men were being forced into combat at gun point like it was the Russians at Stalingrad.

The concept being that the military is filled with poor saps who had no choice but to join and are now being forced into combat is as big as myth as the concept that combat troops are disproportionately minority in nature.

You might not be the only one. I saw yesterday that the Marines have met their recruiting quota, and apparently the Navy and Air Force are on track as well.

It doesn't strike you as odd how al Quaeda is all over Iraq? Beheading people, etc.?

Even if you want to claim the al Quaeda members went there after we arrived, isn't it better to have them there than in the US?

By the way, we've neutralized 75% of its members.

Yeah, but someone forgot to tell them it's 72 virgin camels.

If it's not too personal, when did you go to boot camp, and which one was it?

Only asking because I was stationed at a Navy boot camp for awhile.

They are there and here. I don't see why this either-or fallacy gets floated around and somehow retains currency. Possibly some of it has to do with the fact that the people most spouting it are not anywhere near a place that is most affected by immigration and terrorism.

For example, our nighly news has been running reports on the tens of thousands of suspected terrorists posing as mexicans and streaming across the border. and that doesn't even touch on the people already living here. damn, I would think that the military people here would be more conscious of how cells operate--after all, we fucking taught them how to organize into cells.

Nor the second notion: we neutralized 75% of al qaeda? no, the best I'd give you is that the US got 75% of the names it listed as those of interest.

How exactly do you figure out what percentage you've got if you don't know who is involved? That is, the government would need to know how many people were in al qaeda before you could even begin to believe it had gotten any percentage of them.

Odd? Not at all. They're there because there are a shitload of reporters there with a) heads to be removed and b) cameras to report it (among other nasty things that happen there) to the world. Not to mention US soldiers, whom I am sure they'd also love to get ahold of.

And about me "claiming" that they went there after we arrived, can you really be serious? You really think they were roaming about Iraq doing these things before the US arrived? Hussein and AQ had no more connection than Bush and AQ. That's been established already. bin Laden hated Hussein for him bringing US troops to the Gulf and Saudi Arabia (you know, his homeland) back in the first Gulf War.

And like it was mentioned before, how exactly did you come across the 75% figure? And again, knowing that would necessitate knowing the number of AQ in total. I find it odd that that information would be known to anyone, AQ included. That's not the way terrorists organizations work.

War Crimes in Fallujah

Nother Story

I'm not trying to discredit your entire argument ala strawman. I definately think we're killing a bunch of 'insurgents', though I hardly believe our justification for these attacks is right and true. However, I would be very careful on believing Pentagon numbers for 'insurgent deaths.' Widespread? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not even going to pretend to act like I know the details nor stories of Iraqi civilians.

There is a reason why you can't join the military until you are 18. You are old enough to make up your own mind. You sign the papers of commitment. Bill O'reilly wouldn't sign papers to send his kid to war his kid would sign the papers. IT is a great spin by a complete bastard. Has he taken down his completly disrespectful website yet with the pictures of deceased soilders?

Your opinion is that the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, was "absolutely necessary"? The <a href="http://www.house.gov/skelton/pr031029attachment.htm">hometowns</a> that the nearly 1200 dead American troops
come from belies the accuracy of the reference in the quote below.

Why are you linking Moore to some racial reference? Moore is obviously
projecting the message that the agenda of the wealthy, powerful, and
opportunity rich class in this country includes a state of perpetual fear
driven warfare that disproportionally recruits the poor, disadvantaged youth, who grow up in areas of the country where job opportunities, other than in the military, have vanished, largely as a result of the investment and political decisions of the ruling class. Moore protests the corrupt, unpatriotic, exploitive nature of the ruling class. They order our troops into harms way to achieve goals that, they themselves would never risk their own lives or those of their own children to achieve. Are you more angry about Moore's message, or his success in projecting it? Did you watch Farenheit 9/11?

If you disagree, tell me where you think I have misinterpreted Moore's
message.

Ahh finally someone else who gets it. Most of our soldiers support what they are doing, and Michael Moore doesn't realize that. Nevermind the fact that no one decides to 'sign someone else up'. You know, or should rather, what your getting into- acting like 'we' have betrayed our soldiers? How? By sending soldiers to war- thats their job, and their duty- to follow orders from the elected Commander in Chief.

By bring race into it- most people just tone out. What would we have America do? If its a 'fact' that blacks or other minorities cannot afford to go to college other than by joing the military, what are we to do about it? Is that America's leaders fault?

I'm wondering if there would be an investigation if this dumb soldier hadn't killed the man in front of a camera.

Moore realizes that there is overwhelming economic power and the political
influence that it can buy, earnestly and methodically redistributing the
most of this nation's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer entities......
......to the point that this transfer of wealth has been so damaging and
so successful, that a military draft is not even needed to "sign up" the
new recruits who are destined to be tomorrow's Bush regime's casualties.
In 1970, the wealthiest one percent controlled 13 percent of the nation's
total wealth. 3o years, later, the top one percent control 33 percent of the
wealth, and the wealthy are granted huge tax cuts, elimination of inheritance
taxes which were in effect when the top tier managed to shift an additional
20 percent of the total wealth of this nation from the rest of us, to.......
themselves......and our "all volunteer" military gets sent to fight "pre-emptive"
wars of choice. Most of America does not comprehend what the economic
impact studies and the wealth distribution trend data reveals.....and you
are convinced that 18 year old recruits can discern opportunity from
exploitation that has been ordained by the agenda of the political class's
wealthiest benefactors?
Read the conclusions of the study "Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty"
linked in bold type in the box below (On or about page 12)

OK, let's say we only killed 600 insurgents. Or even 300 insurgents. It's still a bargain for us.

Your argument is BS, because it is not supported by the facts, It is required,
though, to rationalize our disfunctional, national leadership and it's criminal
military aggression.

I think the "flypaper" strategy/theory is disgusting. "We're fighting them over there en-masse so we don't have to fight them 19 at a time as they hijack planes"

Iraq had nothing to do with anti-american terrorism. That has been established. It's so appalling that there are those who advoctate flypaper being performed in a country that wasn't threatening us. What about the millions of Iraqi's who have their lives disrupted and threatened now because we want to draw all the "terrorists" in to one place to fight them. Why not draw them to Texas instead of a country that has never had anything to do with these terrorists?
Also, you don't beat an organization like Al Qaeda with the "flypaper strategy" The organization is organic, and our actions like this help fuel their recruitment drive. We can draw them to a place all we want, but the result will be an unknown limit to recruiting more willing fighters.

If you are under 35, male, in the US, and pro war join.

My brother is in the army I ate dinner with one of the men from the "Letters Home" program, a good friend of my brothers.

Arguments that count lives like curency sicken me.

Who are you to call this soldier dumb? Shame on You! Whether you are against the war or not doesn't give you the right to slander an American Hero. Its a war. He had been shot in the face the day before and was right back out there on the battlefield killing the insurgents. In a war it comes down to split-second, life or death decisions. At the same time that video was shot, just one block away a booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent blew up, injuring 5 U.S. troops and killing one.

How can you expect a US soldier to do anything less than kill an insurgent who is faking dead when the possibility of that insurgent detonating a booby-trapped body or pulling the pin out of a grenade that is hidden under his clothes exists? It is the US troops who are trying to fight by the rules of "international law".

You never hear the international red cross or amnesty international criticize the insurgents from fighting from mosques, pretending to surrender and then opening fire? That is what outrages me.

It is not this marine who is dumb, but the self serving camera man who was thinking more of himself and a pulitzer prize than the effect this video would have. He knows the soldier was in the right but that didn't matter to him.

Perhaps this is a topic for another discussion. I'll see you there.

not sure, because I've heard a lot of strange vies here, but I hope you just tried to be ironic...

not sure about what? And no, I am serious.

I agree, there is no reason to insult this man by calling him dumb. He was in a hot zone and dealing with an unpredictable enemy. I don't know if he should be subject to discipline or not. I believe that an investigation should take place and should be conducted by people who know about the operation, the information avail. to the soldier that day, and the reasonable perceived risks to the soldier. I don't know if there would have been an investigation without the camera, but I doubt it.

But if you want to think of more names to call this guy, just remember, he probably voted for Bush.

well, I don't think it is very smart to commit war crimes in front of a camera, but you sure can disagree with me.

What about fighting from a mosque, is that not a war crime? What about blowing up innocent civillians, is that not a war crime? what about pretending to surrender and then opening fire, is that not a war crime?

The anti-war crowd likes to paint the picture that it is the Americans commiting the war crimes. I don't think I've heard from one news outlet criticizing the constant war crimes committed by the enemy. Open your eyes.

war crimes committed by the other side don't justify any war crime the US commits.
The US millitary should have higher morale standards than terrorists.

exactly! good god, exactly.

we have a volunteer army and it's absolutely ridiculous (and borderline disrespectful) to twist our soldiers' motives while they're overseas doing their jobs. if there are people who choose the armed forces solely for the paid education and job security it offers, then they made the wrong decision. it seems as if those who enlisted during peacetime are longing for the days when they could make an empty commitment and never see action. today's recruits all know what they're getting into, and support the cause more than past recruits. to say that we're sending poor kids into a war is extremely nearsighted and depicts a world where service is compulsory in the absense of money and opportunity. the truth is, the armed forces are not the sole source of money and opportunity for the non college bound crowd, service is an option, not the option.

how exactly do you know what motivations are in other people?
seriously--what puts you in a position to **know** how people sent to iraq feel about being there? do you really think that volunteering for the armed forces prevents those who do it from coming to the conclusion that they have been sent into harms way on absurd grounds?
do you really think that the chaos on the ground in iraq is somehow not something that would change anyone's mind about the situation there?
on what possible basis?

short of atual evidence and/or a rationale for your argument, it seems to me that yours is the patronizing position.

commentary on fallujah later, once it becomes cleare what went on. so far, it is pretty obvious that the claims about precision targeting were false, the number of civilian casualties quite high, and the publicly presented logic of the operation was more about the persistence of the apparent illusion that the americans are facing a vertically organized force in iraq that is at that level at least like their own than it was about anything to do with the actual operation.

it seems to me that the americans are headed down the path the french went down in algeria.

Heh. From the article you posted:

That means that only 15 of them were stupid enough to still have their foreign ID on them. Why would an insurgent ditch their foreign ID? Well, who knows. Maybe they would rather go to an Iraqi POW camp than Gitmo.

It's like the old Robin Williams bit from "Good Morning Vietnam"..."we go around and ask people if they are Charlie. If they say 'yes', we shoot them." Should it be a big surprise that they are saying "no"?

Established by whom? Ever hear of Leon Klinghoffer?

Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11? Probably not, despite the fact that he pretty much tried to claim he did/steal Al Queda's thunder.

<img src="http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/3rd-infantry-saddam-911.jpg" /img

Did Saddam have a LONG history of supporting terrorism? He sure as hell did.

It's called the 9-11 commission. I'd certainly give them more weight than a mural. Yes, Hussein has long since supported terrorism. But so has the US if you study its history.

And if they had found a weapon on him or if he had been boobytrapped or if shooting him was found to save the life of the soldier next to him or simply if he is found to have acted appropriately under all circumstances by a proper investigation? Not having been there, don't you think you are a little quick to judge him as both a war criminal and a dummy to boot?

What does that poster prove other than Saddam took pleasure in our tragedys?

He and Al Qaeda were enemies. Osama wanted to see Saddam deposed so the secular dictatorship of Iraq could become a fundamentalist theocracy.

The 9/11 report, as posted above, even reinforces this.

You can tell where someone is from by using more than just ID. It's hard to hide things like regional accents, lack of knowledge of local dialects, things like that. You can even start by finding out which dialect of arabic they speak.

Which would be of great use to the seven U.S soldiers in Iraq that actually speak the language.

Note Sarcasm

Marines rally round comrade
 

I am with you stevo.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...GATION-DC.html
U.S. Marines Rally Round Iraq Probe Comrade


Email this Story

Nov 16, 10:36 AM (ET)


A series of television pool images shot by NBC shows a U.S. Marine shooting dead a wounded and...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
Beneficial® Personal Loan - Pay Off Your Bills Without Using Your Home as Collateral. Apply Now!
www.beneficial.com

Consolidate Your Debt - One payment saves you time. Consolidate your bills today!
www.moneymanagement.org






By Michael Georgy

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. Marines rallied round a comrade under investigation for killing a wounded Iraqi during the offensive in Falluja, saying he was probably under combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances.

Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city.

"I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances," said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson.

"I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong."

The military command launched an investigation after video footage showed a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded and unarmed man in a mosque in the city on Saturday. The man was one of five wounded and left in the mosque after Marines fought their way through the area.

A pool report by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by insurgents to attack U.S. forces, who stormed it, killing 10 militants and wounding the five. Sites said the wounded had been left for others to pick up.

A second group of Marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be close to death, Sites said.

He said a Marine noticed one prisoner was still breathing.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's f***ing faking he's dead."

"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head," Sites said.

NBC said the Marine, who had reportedly been shot in the face himself the previous day, said immediately after the shooting: "Well, he's dead now."

THOROUGH PROBE PROMISED

The Marine commander in Falluja, Lieutenant General John Sattler, said his men followed the law of conflict and held themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved," he said.

Marines have repeatedly described the rebels they fought against in Falluja as ruthless fighters who didn't play by the rules. They say the investigation is politically motivated.

"It's all political. This Marine has been under attack for days. It has nothing to do with what he did," said Corporal Keith Hoy, 23.

Rights group Amnesty International said on Monday both sides in the Falluja fighting had broken the rules of war governing the protection of civilians and wounded combatants.

Gunnery Sergeant Christopher Garza, 30, favored an investigation but like other Marines said the Pentagon should weigh its decision carefully.

"He should have captured him. Maybe the insurgent had some valuable information. There may have been mitigating circumstances. Maybe his two buddies died in Falluja," he said.

Sites said: "I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least."

The U.S. military has been embarrassed by scandals in Iraq, most prominently the Abu Ghraib affair in which at least eight U.S. soldiers have been tried or face courts-martial over the abuse of prisoners at the jail outside Baghdad.

There have also been several cases in which soldiers have been charged with wrongfully killing Iraqis during operations.

The lessons of war are never learned. So it was in the times of Egypt, Greece and Rome . All through history the greed, cruelty and savagery of man is written in the blood of the children. So it is now. And so it will be in the far reaches of yet uncharted space.We continue to bear witness to the insanity of mankind.There is never true peace in this plane. Don't delude yourself into thinking that when this war is finished another will not begin. Is there any hope for mankind?

I can't believe you just called this soldier dumb. I thank god for every man and woman that has chosen to serve and provide the blanket of freedom that so many in this country take for granted.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

Wanna look at Saddam links to Terrorism and Al Qaeda collaboration, read up on Somalia.

Yeah, the lessons are never learnt. Everytime we make pledges to not forget the horror of war, and everytime we run back into it. We dont learn anything, we are stupid dumb creatures on that level. Its sickening.

That's right. History proves it over and over again. I feel so damn lucky to live here in Vancouver Canada. About as far away from war as one can get. I feel very blessed and fortunate that I am not in the midst of something as horrible as war. Many thousands of Canadians including my own Father gave up their precious lives so that I could be here today . I feel very sad that they had to die because of that piece of s--t Hitler.

I don't agree with what the soldier did...two wrongs do not make a right. He should be investigated for killing an unarmed, injured man inside of a mosque.

That said, I understand why he may have done it. Combat, especially when the enemy is doing things like hiding in mosques and pretending to be wounded or blowing themselves up after they've been wounded makes people do things very quickly. In his eyes, he probably thought he was saving the lives of himself and the others with him. Personally while I cannot imagine taking someone's life, I can't say I wouldn't have done differently if in his situation.

Stevo, as it was said by Thomas Jefferson, "You right to free speach end's where my fist touches your nose."
I have a god given right, not a right given by the US government, but a God given right to say what I feel. Likewise, you have a god given right to disagree and say what you feel.

I know many soldiers, and amongst them all I can give you the common reaction to your post, "He thinks every soldier is a hero who can do no wrong?!"
To re-itinerate, not ever soldier performs nobel actions, and in any group there are bad apples who should be removed from the gene pool. I make no judgement on this soldiers actions, but I truly hope you do not beleive that all military personel are are above reproach or questioning.
There where soldiers in Vietnam who handed live grenades to small children in ally villages and walked away before they exploded. Their justifacation? "They all looked the same to me."
Again, there are bad apples in any group of people and no man is inherantly above reproach for their actions, military included.

Do you think that questioning the actions of a soldier is akin to failing to support our troops? Becuase that statement is one that no true republican who cares for our country would ever say, nor would a democrat. Supporting our soldiers does not mean that we turn a blind eye to behavior that is not in line with our countries honor or meaning as laid out by our forfathers.

Being a soldier means that you must make hard choices regarding your actions that must be made quickly. That is what they are trained to do. Never has that meant that they where no accountable for their actions to both the American people and their superior officers. You simply choose to forget that our country did jail it's own for sick actions during WWII and that often soldiers who commited such actions where "killed by a misfired round" or other such things by their peers.

As for your portrait of the camera man, would you prefer he turned the camera off?
"Out of sight, out of mind" right Stevo?
Again, a soldier who performs actions inconsistent with what we stand for is no soldier at all as he failed to uphold our honor. It is not the job of the media to hid the actions of war, it is their job to show all of it, even the parts you think shouldn't be shown. The soldier didn't have the right to assume that his actions would not be videotaped. he was fully aware there was an embedded cameraman in his unit.

Ironicly the solider did the same thing Kerry did in Vietnam :)

Shot an unarmed, wounded man.

I do have a problem with the Iraq incident though.

Shooting was too good for him.

So I guess Kerry wasn't lying about war crimes in Vietnam.

I was thinking something similar. It's too bad the soldiers weapon didn't explode on him.


Oh my. How outrageous. It's funny how we here on TFP can get away with saying anything about someone fighting against a U.S. soldier, like, you know, dying being too good for them - but if someone says something about a U.S. soldier, it's shocking and disgusting.

Ustwo, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from posting
unsubstantiated and false garbage in your posts on threads that I initiate.
It is a blatant falshood that Senator Kerry "shot an unarmed. wounded, man":
The newspaper that William Rood is employed as an editor by.....the Chicago
Tribune, endorsed Bush for president approximately 8 weeks after Rood
published his first person account of the incident that Ustwo referred to,
in Rood's first public statment about that matter in 35 years.

Video of our latest war crime here:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/16/1611204

And another war crime here:

http://www.empirenotes.org/november04.html#13nov041

Boy don't we look hypocritical demanding our enemies abide by the Geneva Conventions while we frequently ignore them.

Then again, those treaties never made much sense to this administration. :rolleyes:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17155

I realize you're not a lawyer, so you're probably not aware of this. POW protections under the Geneva Conventions don't apply to enemy combatants of the type we're encountering in Fallujah. They don't have a proper command structure, they don't have identifying insignia, et cetera. There's a whole list of qualifications that a person must meet to get POW status, and these people ain't doing it. As such, they don't get the protections we normally think POWs would get. In your other "war crime", they are indeed allowing people that they KNOW are civilians (women and children) to leave. It's the people that they think are insurgents (men in that certain militarily-useful age group) that they're not allowing to leave.

Superbelt, look, it's very simple. DId Saddam support terrorists that killed Americans? The answer is indisputably "yes, he did". This is a war on terrorism. That's ALL terrorism, not just the one particular terrorist attack on 9/11. Saddam was INDISPUTABLY a player. He both sheltered and funded terrorist groups. Groups, I might add, that were indeed responsible for killing Americans. The fact that Saddam didn't order 9/11 is irrelevant. He supported other terrorists, and for that he deserves to die.

Complete bunkum, as usual.

The Qur'an does not promise anyone 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. The Haddith, which is just a collection of proverbs and is not considered a holy book, has the following:

"The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

This comes from a collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidh.

Oh, and for interest's sake, a recent book by Christoph Luxenberg (Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran), available only in German, argues that the translations of the original phrases used in the Qur'an and the Haddith were actually incorrect. Instead of "wives" (or "virgins"), the Arabic word houris actually refers to food; chilled raisins actually.

Luxenberg's book has been enthusiasticly received, particularly among those scholars with a knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin, Potsdam, Erlangen, Aix-en-Provence, and the Oriental Institute in Beirut. It's also been roundly criticised by many Qur'anic scholars, so I'm not siding with it one way or another.


So, please, enough of this "72 virgins" nonesense. It's not in the Qur'an. It's a fundamentalist intepretation. And it could be a mistranslation in any case.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that, even if we accept the statement as a true tenet in Islamic religious dogma, it is not limited to those who martyr themselves. It's actually applicable to ALL MUSLIMS.

How many people here believe the world was really created in six days and that women sprang from Adam's rib?


Mr Mephisto

<h2>Heil Bushler ! Sieg Heil, Mein President !,</h2>

I dislike Bush, but I find this tasteless.

You do everyone a disservice by comparing Bush to a Nazi.


Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, with all due respect......you don't live here. My view is that
Bush & Co. have distorted the justification for war, and isolated the mindset of the American people from that of the rest of the world with a similar ruthless
efficiency and disregard for truthfullness and the principles of justice as Hitler
and his Nazi party did in 1939. Dazwig's mindset, to me, is evidence of Bush's
success.

Bush is, in some ways, an even more pathetic example of a leader transforming a large,and formerly democratic nation into an aggressive, rogue,
dictatorship than Hitler was, since Hitler did not have himself as a model
to learn from, and recognize as evil and immoral, and Hitler did not grow
to maturity in a country reknowned for it's bill of rights, adherence to the
tenants of international law, and an honest broker in international diplomacy.

Mr. Mephisto, given the ways Bush has changed the course and reputation
of our nation, how long, especially if you believed that he has never been
legitimately elected to the office he holds....would you resist becoming
increasingly outraged and radicalized? I will gladly suffer the criticism that
I make harsh, distasteful, and offensive statements about this dishonorable
president, if time proves that I am mistaken about his nature, and the
purpose of his regime. It is better that I attempt to incite others to watch
this man and his government more closely, and with more suspicion, now,
when there are still no barriers to discussing the comparison

Heil Bushler ! Sieg Heil, Mein President !,


I do live here............and this was pretty much flamebait.

Opinion is one thing, stirring up the coals is another.

While I do realize you are making a point , and can respect the position, I request you attempt to do so in a way that is less........inflamatory.

Thanx

One doesn't have to live in the US to find a statement belittling the evil of Nazism and, by implication the Holocaust, tasteless.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say host. Just this time I think it was an unfortunate statement.

Mr Mephisto

I agree with a lot of what you said host, but I think a the "Hitler" comparison is not good in a discussion. I also think it is a bit off, Bush is no Hitler, not yet.
But, like I said, I agree with a lot of what you said, Bush uses a lot of those old tactics and it is scary.

Consider the Contras and Sandinistas

"Simultaneously, the U.S. administration of Ronald Reagan began organizing remnants of Somoza's National Guard into guerrilla bands known as "Contras" (short for "contrarevolucionarios", or counter-revolutionaries) that conducted terrorist attacks on economic and civilian targets."

i continue to find it fascinating how right discourse manages to divet debate into strange, irrelevant areas.

the fixation of the moment is the footage of a marine killing what appears to be an unarmed iraqi.

the larger problem, of what the hell the americans are doing in iraq in general and in fallujah (now mosul) in particular goes unaddressed.

it is clear that the americans hoped to smash a central node in what they imagined to be the resistance. it is also clear that they did not manage it.
the assault on fallujah was marketed domestically as a precision attack. it is clear now that it was not.
it was marketed as an attempt to bolster the scheduled elections in iraq--there have been reports circulating from time to time of late saying that elections could well not happen as scheduled and would not be understood as legitimate if they did.

interesting situation, isnt it?

i still maintain that the americans are sliding well into a situation parallel to that france faced in algeria. same kind of assymetries in organization (vertical military vs. horizontal resistance)...same kind of tactics (declare war on an entire people, systematic use of torture justified on exactly the same grounds the right is now using) incoherence on the ground coupled with a gradual erosion of political position.

one result of this was a drastic polarization of political opinon in france.
by the time the fourth republic fell in 1958, france was on the edge of civil war.

at the time, for the right there were no war crimes, there was no torture.
for the left, both were abhorrent.
the right tried to enforce views of the actions in algeria almost exactly parallel to what you are seeing now--how to question the motives of "our boys"?

one more parallel: le pen surfaced in part on the basis of a right revisionist "history" of algeria--he was himself a paratrooper who engaged in well-documented acts of torture at the time. for le pen, it was a patriotic struggle blah blah blah---sound familiar?

you would think people would take the rare occaisions when something can actually be learned from the past.
but no.



the french right slid dangerously close of fascism during this period--you know about poujadisme?
same thing seems to be happening in the states.
however, in neither case did recourse to hitler make any analytic sense.
in neither case did recourse to hitler make any sense politically.
all it does is spike consideration of a real problem.

so far as i am concerned, arguments about the relation to both positions to a variant of fascism is fair game.
but it should be obvious that prudence is in order if we are going to head toward that space. highly inflammatory area--and no conservative will want to hear any of it. but then again, the constituency to whom that ideology has appealed historically did not want to hear it either. they do not like their politics to be named.

so it would seem that any such argument would have to be made carefully and in an analytic register.
i think there is a strong argument to be made.

You know when lefties start to condemn the murder of Margaret Hassan with the same self righteous fervor they are condemning this young marine then I might take note of what they are saying.

The same goes for the Arab media as well.

Do you really see no difference? Is it not apparent that a soldier acting on the "lefties" behalf requires derision when he abuses the power he has? Is it not apparent that "lefties" do not support Margaret Hassan's murder? Is it not apparent that whether the "lefties" yell loudly for the condemnation of Margaret Hassan's murderers, that it will make no difference because those murderers are not beholden to the "lefties"? Is it not apparent that the soldier is beholden to the "lefties" because he is officially sanctioned to act on their behalf?

When the righties stop attempting to equalize and justify the henious acts of our gov't and troops with the henious acts of others, I might take note of what they are saying beyond my obvious incredulity that they could even be thinking it.

The shift is off the atrocity of the soldier's act and onto the newest video of Saddam's atrocities, "Buried in the Sand."

From here, I echo roachboy.

Well, I guess you would consider me a leftie, and I condemn it in the most strongest terms possible.

I think it was a heinous crime. I repels me.

Why do you associate one's political beliefs as associated with whether someone condemn Hassan's murder? I find that short-sighted and downright insulting.

For what it's worth, the Arab media is condemning the murder. Even the American arch-enemy al-Zarkawi called for her release.

I consider you prejudiced against muslims and the Iraqi insurgents. But I had expected that you would not extend your prejudice to me.


Mr Mephisto

I find myself wondering why the objective Arab media hasn't aired the execution, I suppose they would have to interrupt their non-stop airing of the marine tape.

Yeah, you don't see them (people who are for this war) mentioning the actions of the US when they condem terrorism. It is conveniently ignored. And that is hypocrisy.

Nope. Try again.

Feel free to watch this BBC piece on just this topic.

EDIT: Link didn't work. Just go to news.bbc.co.uk and it's on the bottom right.


Mr Mephisto

I've heard the excuses, it's because she was an Arab Woman and they are Arab men, very disrespectful. Bullshit.

I'm not prejudice in the least. I have not 'pre-judged' them. I have seen their actions and I judge them. Please don't pretend you understand how I think.

I'm late to this, so sorry if I rehash. I just wanted to say something (vent) about the Kevin Sites video and the surreal fallout:

Along with Abu Ghraib, another propaganda victory for the Bad Guys. Another 10,000,000 gallons of gasoline dumped onto the anti-American fire. Another 10 years at least added to this conflict most likely. Another disgraceful American media moment. Any benefit gained by the Fallujah Campaign (which was, militarily speaking, a success) will most likely be nullified by this one video. Iraqi elections in one month? There's going to be a bloodbath. Its like whack-a-mole now.

It just boggles my mind. I cannot conceive of why the American media would broadcast this bullshit worldwide. FOR WHAT PURPOSE!?!? Goddamn fanatical insurgents fighting from mosques getting sympathy from around the world now. Where in the fuck is the disconnect between the US Government, the US Media & the US Military??? Who the fuck is running the show here!?!? Its one step forward-2 steps back madness. My faith is fading fast..... :mad: :mad: :mad:

You have post-judged the actions of a handful and applied that judgement to all. That is prejudging.

If that pisses you off, you should see what the independent (non-embedded) reporters are saying, especially through channels that are not filtered via the military first.

I think I understand the intention behind your statement, but I would rather see as much information as possible. I don't appreciate the military sanitizing my news. I don't believe it's appropriate to snatch Iraqi reports out of protected areas (reportedly not being released or allowed to have contact). I also don't like our independent reporters' lives endangered or their cameras blocked from reporting anything. I want as much information before myself before I make a choice concerning issues I take an interest in.

Blame the press, powerclown, blame Michael Moore. It is so much easier to
do so than to do the hard work of sifting out the propaganda and the
manipulation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others who created
the situation in Iraq, with the support of so many of our countrymen who
chose to stay blissfully misinformed as their "war president", in response to
the 9/11 attacks, launched our "payback" at the wrong people in the wrong
country. What are you willing to fight and die for, anyway? The right to
receive truthful and fact filled news reports from a free press, or filtered
reports from government censors? Is the truth such a minor thing that you
are willing to encourage reporters from U.S. based news media to withhold
or distort reports that, in your opinion, make the U.S. or it's military "look
bad" to the prying eyes of foreigners? If that is what you wish for, you also
are willing to give up the right to monitor the conduct of our political leaders
in order to hold them accountable, and you give up your own access to
accurate, fact filled reporting. To me, that is un-American rhetoric.

You appear to have lost all perspective of why we fight, who we should fight, and what we fight to preserve and protect, just like our criminal president and most of his supporters.........

I dont see it that way. Its an acceptance of the fact that we are in a war, whether we agree with it or not. And since we are in a war, it is in EVERYONES best interest (US and Iraqs) for it to end as quickly as possible with as few casualties as humanly possible. What good is the information if it happens to prolong the situation and causes more senseless death?

I don't know where you heard this "excuse".

She was actually Irish.


Mr Mephisto

As I said, that's my considered opinion.

I don't pretend to understand how you think, as you shouldn't pretend to understand how I think. But I base my opinions on the history of your statements.

The murder of the injured Iraqi insurgent was a crime.
The murder of Hassan was also a crime, and even more terrible in my mind.

But when you make statements like "shooting was too good for him" when referring to an injured and probably dying man (insurgent or not), then that's prejudiced. In fact, it's excusing a capital offence (as far as I know, murder whilst under military command or the UMCJ is a capital offence?).

Mr Mephisto

And I've heard they were Jordanians.

The insurgents are the 'bad' guys, they just 'disagree' with us


Thats the saddest thing I ever heard on TV, and Im surprised Chris Matthews said it with a straight face...

The murder of Margaret Hassan is indeed a terrible crime. But there is a difference between terrorists and american soldiers.

If a terrorist kills a civilian I'm not shocked, it is terrible crime, but that is what terrorists do.

If a soldier kills a civilian I'm shocked since soldiers are not supposed to do that

Look, I am not 'for' or against the marine- being guilty or not, i like to remind people that YOU have the benifit of watching the clip in the comfort of your SAFE home. He was there, being shot at, IEDs in corpses, blowing up when people move them, being shot at by Iraqis waving white flags to get Marines out in the open, etc.


Before ANYONE condems him, think what the events leading up to it were like. Put yourself in his shoes, remember what happened in the days leading up to it, like I said above, IEDs in corpses, etc, and THEN you might see why he did what he did. Honestly, if your in that room, and what you think is a coprse moves- you would instintivly shoot it- and dont dare deny that- you would... so would everyone else. Let the investigation take its course, but dont condem the man because you saw a clip, a snapshop, of what he was doing and had been through. Im not saying he made the right decision, im not saying he made the wrong one, im just saying he did what everyone else woulda done instictivly. He didnt shoot out of hate or malice- he did it out of instinct, and everyone ignores that fact

He didn't do it instinctively. Humans don't have instincts, for one thing. Or, if you want to get all caught up in minuetia (?), then socialization and reasonable thought processes govern one's actions rather than whatever residual instincts we might have. He made a choice, and it was the wrong choice. We can judge that by its ramifications. We know the person did not have an explosive device on him. We also know the wounded were left in the Mosque for 24 hours prior (which is also wrong and I believe illegal).

He may have done it out of habit, training, or fear, but not out of instinct. Besides, what instinct do humans have to shoot other humans? Where would you trace that to?


And I've been meaning to say this about the use of Hassan in this thread:

It's despicable for Ustwo to even have brought her up in the fashion he did. I never saw one peep of a call for silence in her memory. And it's remarkably callous to use her name to make a political point. In fact, his actions mirrored those of the terrorists in my view--they, too, used her to make a political point.

Because the soldier killed an injured man does NOT mean it is necessarily a war crime. Another wounded man in the mosque identified himself as such when the marines entered and he was not shot. The insurgent that was killed was faking death and the marines noticed he was moving. Twice to the right. perhaps to explode a grenade, perhaps to detonate an IED. Well you know what? He wasn't able to because he was killed. Now if that insurgent had identified himself as injured instead of faking dead his life would have been spared. Remember that it is a war crime to feign death in order to kill the enemy. Therefore the soldiers actions were justified.

Another thing. Just because it is out of sight, it is not out of mind. A US soldier is on trial right now for murdering an iraqi and no one caught that incedent on tape.

Do you know why he was in the mosque? To kill Americans! That is a war crime itself. Don't make it sound like this was some unarmed injured worshipper. This was an enemy of the US who was breaking the rules to kill americans.