Yankees go home!

[Q-Source]

A peace proposal was done by Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the inevitable wave of anti-war and anti-USA protests in this country and others in the region.

Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets yesterday in Syria, where the government is vehemently against the war.

Police in Beirut used tear gas to stop thousands of demonstrators from marching on the British embassy and witnesses said about 20 people were detained.

Protest marches also took place in Tunisia and Libya, and the Iraqi embassy in Algiers said some Algerians had volunteered to fight the US and British troops.
The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=390841)

From the same source, the exceptional journalist Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=390867) heard this comment from an iraqi man:

We may not like our regime. But we fight for our country. The Russians did not like Stalin but they fought under him against the German invaders. We have a long history of fighting the colonial powers, especially you British. You claim you are coming to 'liberate' us. But you don't understand. What is happening now is we are starting a war of liberation against the Americans and the British."

No wonder why two powerful nations are taking so many days before defeating Iraq.

Q-S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Q-Source

No wonder why two powerful nations are taking so many days before defeating Iraq.

Q-S
Days......I don't believe anyone has ever claimed this would be over in Days. I believe very strongly that the invasion of Iraq was not necessary. Now it is happening I want to see it over as quickly as possible.. but to expected it would be achieved In days?

This is going to go on for weeks, possibly months. There will be a lot more casualties on both sides. Lets not assume the invaders have failed in thier plans because Iraq does not collapse in days. Things don't work like that.

[Scared Chicken]

Lets not assume the invaders have failed in thier plans because Iraq does not collapse in days. Things don't work like that.

Will they have won this "war on terrorism" when the regime collapses ? When this will fuel already important anti-american feelings among mulsims worldwide, more than likely resulting in more (not less) terrorism ? And this in turn results in even more wars.. etc, etc,.. In short, results in far more suffering, death and fear ?

You'd think they would have learned from the Isreali's with their conflict with the Palestine. They dont even have an army, but ask the Israeli how secure they feel.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Q-Source
A peace proposal was done by Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the inevitable wave of anti-war and anti-USA protests in this country and others in the region.


The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=390841)

From the same source, the exceptional journalist Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=390867) heard this comment from an iraqi man:



No wonder why two powerful nations are taking so many days before defeating Iraq.

Q-S

<:rolleyes:>Obviously these people don't understand that we in the West know what's best for them... </:rolleyes:>

[Supercharts]

No wonder why two powerful nations are taking so many days before defeating Iraq.

Q-S [/B]
Iraq has the size of California. It hasn't even been a week.
You are a moron.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Iraq has the size of California. It hasn't even been a week.
You are a moron.

Right, have drink pal:

Operation: Iraqi Freedom Drinking Game (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16271)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by The Fool

This is going to go on for weeks, possibly months. There will be a lot more casualties on both sides. Lets not assume the invaders have failed in thier plans because Iraq does not collapse in days. Things don't work like that.

You think it may take months?

Are you suggesting that two powerful nations with the best armament in the World are not capable of defeating Iraq (the size of California) in a fast and effective way?

Well, my point is that most of the failure of the coalition forces to defeat Saddam is because there is a strong support within the country, and there is a strong anti-US feeling around the region.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Obviously these people don't understand that we in the West know what's best for them...

Yeah, the US imperialists attack their countries, they kill their people and they still wonder why they hate them :rolleyes:

I only hope the armchair warriors who already have the next 3 or 4 wars lined up and in the pipeline take the difficulty of this operation as a serious wake-up call.

But they won't. It's not THEY who have to do the dirty work.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Yeah, the US imperialists go to their countries, they kill their people and they still wonder why they hate them :rolleyes:

Saddam is an @sshole, bomb Iraq!
Why's this such a hassle? Bomb Iraq!
You defend him, this is true
But he'd love to kill you too
Such an infidel are you! Bomb Iraq!

If the UN had some balls they'd bomb Iraq!
Resolutions? Broke them all! Bomb Iraq!
If you think Bush is a hater
You should live with a dictator
Shoot you now, ask questions later, bomb Iraq!

So you think it is too harsh to bomb Iraq?
That instead we should be kissing Saddam's crack?
Purse your lips, prepare to blow,
and if you can stoop that low,
Kiss his ass while you all go live in Iraq!

Many thanks to schplurg

MEXICAN GO HOME! :D

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You think it may take months?

Are you suggesting that two powerful nations with the best armament in the World are not capable of defeating Iraq (the size of California) in a fast and effective way?

Well, my point is that most of the failure of the coalition forces to defeat Saddam is because there is a strong support within the country, and there is a strong anti-US feeling around the region.

We COULD do it in the 4 hours or so that it takes for a nuclear strike to reach Iraq. Is not doing so a sign of weakness?

We could speed things up by indiscrimately killing everything not wearing US or British fatigues. Is that what you'd like to see?

Christ, there's just no pleasing some people.

[Shane Costello]

To put things in perspective, it took the Brits a month to whip the Argies during the Falklands. I don't think anyone has ever tried to paint that as a relative military failure for the UK armed forces.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
To put things in perspective, it took the Brits a month to whip the Argies during the Falklands. I don't think anyone has ever tried to paint that as a relative military failure for the UK armed forces.

You are right. I really don't question the capability of the USA and the UK to finish this War in days. They could do it if they want to, but Human Rights and the UN are watching, this is the only thing that stop them from doing so.

My point is (considering both limitations), they really don't have the moral support of Arab countries in the region. Did you read the link?. And they may not have the support of the iraqi population as they expected.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You are right. I really don't question the capability of the USA and the UK to finish this War in days. They could do it if they want to, but Human Rights and the UN are watching, this is the only thing that stop them from doing so.

Of course, it can't possibly be that Bush was telling the truth when he said he wanted to minimize civilian casualties and preserve as much infrastructure as possible. No, it's only the all-powerful judgment of the UN that's making the coalition play fair, right?

Nice propaganda.

My point is (considering both limitations), they really don't have the moral support of Arab countries in the region. Did you read the link?. And they may not have the support of the iraqi population as they expected.

Like I said, there's just no pleasing some people. These same countries were against us when we wasted 12 years waiting for Saddam to do the right thing. As for the Iaqi opinion, whaddaya say we suspend judgment until they're able to speak freely without the threat of their wives being raped and their children murdered?

If a free Iraq tells us to get the hell out, then I'll accept that. But I don't put credence in a population that has a gun to its collective head.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Q-Source:
You are right. I really don't question the capability of the USA and the UK to finish this War in days. They could do it if they want to, but Human Rights and the UN are watching, this is the only thing that stop them from doing so.

Sure, the UN is the only thing that stands between the allied forces and their latent desire to slaughter as many towelheads as possible. Pity they couldn't have had the same result on Saddam. :rolleyes:

If you think there is moral equivalence between the Iraqi leadership and the allied forces, read this:

www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16245

My point is (considering both limitations), they really don't have the moral support of Arab countries in the region.

They have their headquarters in Qatar, bases in Saudi Arabia and invaded from Kuwait.

I really couldn't care less about the "moral support" of Arab countries. A lot of desireable and virtuous things lack the "moral support" of Arab countries, such as democracy and equal rights for women.

Did you read the link?

I wouldn't read anything by Robert Fisk.

[headscratcher4]

You are right. I really don't question the capability of the USA and the UK to finish this War in days. They could do it if they want to, but Human Rights and the UN are watching, this is the only thing that stop them from doing so.

This, I think, is only partially true. Yes, the UN and the world are watching (and being understandably critical). However, how much that would deter a "full-out" war, should the US undertake one is questionable...the UN watching and the world's human rights community watching did little to deter Saddam Hussien and his government. Indeed, the UN Human Rights Commission is currently being chaired by Lybia...so, the hypocracy meter is a bit off the charts there.

In any event, my point is that -- and I say this as one who opposes my government's policies that lead to this war -- unlike Saddam and his regime -- and in spite of propoganda efforts by my government that seek to minimize and deny anything negative about the war, its battles, etc. -- the bottom line is that the US military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. They are doing so because they do not see the mission as destroying Iraq or its civilian population, or, strangely enough conquoring Irag. Further, for the moment at least, restraint is on because -- whether Q wants to believe it -- American's (at least officially, and I would argue throughout the military at this time) see themselves as liberators and fighters against tyranny.

This doesn't mean that some incidents won't happen -- that civilians won't be killed, or that some crazy situation won't crop up and civilians masacered (a'la Mi Lia in Vietnam). It does mean, however, that -- and unlike the secrete deaths of the victems of Saddam -- it seems likely that the world will know about such an incident quickly, and that excesses will be punished (again, and unlike, the Iraqi regime that has always rewarded excesses).

The world is watching because the US and the Brits are letting it watch. And, because the US and the Brits are giving such unique access, excesses will be discovered and blown-up around the world. This is a choice that has been made, to let the world in on this. IT suggests not only confidence, but awareness that how the US/Brit military behaves is a critical factor in the ultimate success of the campaign.

Now, this could all change, and it should be compared to Iraq where even before the war access to the people and the regime was strictly controlled and limited. You will know when a US Bomb goes astray and kills civilians, you will never know whether or not the Iraqi Rep. Guard is marching civilians in front of its advance as a shield -- unless that regime is defeated.

Again, I am not a supporter of the war, but the truth about American and Brit actions in this war will be known -- both the good and ill, the heroic and prosaic. I do not believe that the world holds Saddam, or other dictators to the same standard.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jocko

Of course, it can't possibly be that Bush was telling the truth when he said he wanted to minimize civilian casualties and preserve as much infrastructure as possible. No, it's only the all-powerful judgment of the UN that's making the coalition play fair, right?

Hard to believe, eh?


Nice propaganda.

I have to congratulate your country for the "nice" propaganda that plants everyday into its citizens' heads. However, it may not last for too long. There is a thread around in this forum where you can see pictures of what's going on, a picture of reality.


As for the Iaqi opinion, whaddaya say we suspend judgment until they're able to speak freely without the threat of their wives being raped and their children murdered?

If a free Iraq tells us to get the hell out, then I'll accept that. But I don't put credence in a population that has a gun to its collective head.

Why don't you give any credibility to the iraqi man's words?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

If you think there is moral equivalence between the Iraqi leadership and the allied forces, read this:

www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16245


What is exactly your point?

This just shows how hypocrites they are.
From that thread, I have taken some words from the speech of Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment:


[Excerpt]
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them."

BS. The first thing that some of the US soldiers did when they entered Iraq was to put a US flag in some buildings. I saw the images by TV. It was pathetic and ridiculous. Hollywood style :rolleyes:



I really couldn't care less about the "moral support" of Arab countries. A lot of desireable and virtuous things lack the "moral support" of Arab countries, such as democracy and equal rights for women.

From whose point of view?

This is the same argument that Bush used to break diplomatic means.


I wouldn't read anything by Robert Fisk.

Yeah, you should close your eyes to reality. Just read "nice" propaganda.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Q-Source:
BS. The first thing that some of the US soldiers did when they entered Iraq was to put a US flag in some buildings. I saw the images by TV. It was pathetic and ridiculous. Hollywood style

Lt Col Collins is with the British army. In any case the flag was taken down again very smartly.

From whose point of view?

What are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that gender equlaity and democracy are only relative rights, and that we are in no position to castigate nations that lack them?

Yeah, you should close your eyes to reality. Just read "nice" propaganda.

No, Robert Fisk is an idiot. He predicted armaggedon for the US and UK in the first Gulf War (wrong), predicted a second vietnam in Afghanistan (wrong), and claimed OBL would be pleased with developments very early on in the campaign (wrong again) and has consistently championed the PLO line vis a vis Israel (wrong, IMO at least).

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


This, I think, is only partially true. Yes, the UN and the world are watching (and being understandably critical). However, how much that would deter a "full-out" war, should the US undertake one is questionable...the UN watching and the world's human rights community watching did little to deter Saddam Hussien and his government. Indeed, the UN Human Rights Commission is currently being chaired by Lybia...so, the hypocracy meter is a bit off the charts there.

In any event, my point is that -- and I say this as one who opposes my government's policies that lead to this war -- unlike Saddam and his regime -- and in spite of propoganda efforts by my government that seek to minimize and deny anything negative about the war, its battles, etc. -- the bottom line is that the US military is trying to avoid civilian casualties. They are doing so because they do not see the mission as destroying Iraq or its civilian population, or, strangely enough conquoring Irag.

headscratcher4,

If you were the President of the USA, then I would support the War. You have noble reasons. But, reality and History say that the US agenda is far from just liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.



Further, for the moment at least, restraint is on because -- whether Q wants to believe it -- American's (at least officially, and I would argue throughout the military at this time) see themselves as liberators and fighters against tyranny.

Which Americans?
Soldiers?, public opinion?, Bush?, who?

I think that we have to draw a line there. There is no doubt in my mind that the US troops do believe that they are fighting against tyranny and that their mission is to liberate iraqis.

But, we know that the reason behind this war is just to gain political power in a very oil-rich region.


The world is watching because the US and the Brits are letting it watch. And, because the US and the Brits are giving such unique access, excesses will be discovered and blown-up around the world. This is a choice that has been made, to let the world in on this. IT suggests not only confidence, but awareness that how the US/Brit military behaves is a critical factor in the ultimate success of the campaign.

It is the less they can do.


Again, I am not a supporter of the war, but the truth about American and Brit actions in this war will be known -- both the good and ill, the heroic and prosaic.

You are right. And I really want to be wrong about it.
We'll have to wait to see if the country don't just go from one subjugation level to another.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hard to believe, eh?


I'm sure that's very hard to believe.

Specifically, hard to believe for some people, apparently like you, who assume that America is evil and clinging to illusions that we're there for (pick all that apply):

* lusting after arab blood
* oil
* colonial conquest
* plain ol' American evil

And people like you who maintain an inexhaustable supply of benefit of the doubt for murderous dictators who defy your precious UN, and never an ounce of trust in the freest nation on earth.

Yes, I can see where someone like you may have a problem in believing in purity of purpose. Excellent point.


I have to congratulate your country for the "nice" propaganda that plants everyday into its citizens' heads. However, it may not last for too long. There is a thread around in this forum where you can see pictures of what's going on, a picture of reality.

If you're referring to the American dead and captured, I assure you that our "propaganda" hasn't overlooked that either. Next argument please?

Or rather, I should ask for your first argument, instead of innuendo and propaganda.

But expecting something like that from you, well...

I find that a little hard to believe.


Why don't you give any credibility to the iraqi man's words?

Why don't you give credibility to the pictures of liberated Iraqi villages showing the locals gleefully tearing down symbols of Saddam?

I can only assume that you have decided that Iraqis are more free to express their true feelings under Saddam than when they are freed.

So excuse me for not putting any weight behind the words on one frightened Iraqi citizen. When this war is over, and the tenor changes, we'll just see how pro-Saddam he really is.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


headscratcher4,

If you were the President of the USA, then I would support the War. You have noble reasons. But, reality and History say that the US agenda is far from just liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

Meaningful examples, please?



I think that we have to draw a line there. There is no doubt in my mind that the US troops do believe that they are fighting against tyranny and that their mission is to liberate iraqis.

But, we know that the reason behind this war is just to gain political power in a very oil-rich region.

Examples? Support? Evidence? Reasons? Anything other than another parroted opinion with no backup?



It is the less[sic] they can do.

I find myself saying this more and more these days- There's just no pleasing some people.



You are right. And I really want to be wrong about it.
We'll have to wait to see if the country don't just go from one subjugation level to another.

Rest assured that you are wrong if you think anything could be much worse that what we're replacing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You think it may take months?

Are you suggesting that two powerful nations with the best armament in the World are not capable of defeating Iraq (the size of California) in a fast and effective way?

Well, my point is that most of the failure of the coalition forces to defeat Saddam is because there is a strong support within the country, and there is a strong anti-US feeling around the region.

If the purpose was soley to beat and defeat Iraq, we could have glassed them over in a day. You should be aware of that. But since you apparently are just being a sarcastic little fellow I'll refer you back to superchart's post.

[c0rbin]

Bah. When big business gets an opportunity to florish in Iraq under a legitimate regime, everyone there will benefit.

Does anyone on this board think that Bubba Joe is going to be flown in to work in Iraq?

I would be willing to bet that, in addition to not having to worry about being gassed or raped or tortured or starved so Saddam and his ilk can live in lavish palaces and build monuments to themselves, that a lot of economic benefits will fall into the lap of a liberated Iraq and its people--men, women, and children.

Now maybe we could have tried to talk Saddam into giving his people a chance, but I doubt it.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jocko



I'm sure that's very hard to believe.

Specifically, hard to believe for some people, apparently like you, who assume that America is evil and clinging to illusions that we're there for (pick all that apply):

* lusting after arab blood
* oil
* colonial conquest
* plain ol' American evil

And people like you who maintain an inexhaustable supply of benefit of the doubt for murderous dictators who defy your precious UN, and never an ounce of trust in the freest nation on earth.

Yes, I can see where someone like you may have a problem in believing in purity of purpose. Excellent point.


[B]

If you're referring to the American dead and captured, I assure you that our "propaganda" hasn't overlooked that either. Next argument please?

Or rather, I should ask for your first argument, instead of innuendo and propaganda.

But expecting something like that from you, well...

I find that a little hard to believe.


[B]

Why don't you give credibility to the pictures of liberated Iraqi villages showing the locals gleefully tearing down symbols of Saddam?

I can only assume that you have decided that Iraqis are more free to express their true feelings under Saddam than when they are freed.

So excuse me for not putting any weight behind the words on one frightened Iraqi citizen. When this war is over, and the tenor changes, we'll just see how pro-Saddam he really is.

You are a poor deluded guy. If you want to live in a Hollywood manufactured dream, why should I wake you up?

Q

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Troll


If the purpose was soley to beat and defeat Iraq, we could have glassed them over in a day. You should be aware of that. But since you apparently are just being a sarcastic little fellow I'll refer you back to superchart's post.

And let me refer YOU back to the response I gave to Jocko.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You are a poor deluded guy. If you want to live in a Hollywood manufactured dream, why should I wake you up?

Q

So that's how you handle it when someone points out the gaping holes in your arguments.

I'd waste more time on you, but I'd rather just let the unfolding events of the next few months prove me right.

You know they will.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jocko


So that's how you handle it when someone points out the gaping holes in your arguments.



Sorry, I just can't cope with people who cannot hold a civil discussion with me. I don't like the tone of your posts.

Peace.

Q

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Sorry, I just can't cope with people who cannot hold a civil discussion with me. I don't like the tone of your posts.

Sorry. I guess I'm one of those super-senstive folks who takes offense at the implication that I'm deluded and/or brainwashed by Hollywood simply because I believe the coalition's aims in Iraq are indeed virtuous, and having bucketloads of evidence to support it.

You can bitch and whine about "tone" all you like, it doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong, your implications of stalemate are baseless and your grasp of the situation badly slanted in the worst traditions of European snobbery.

Peace.

We're working on it.

[LeFevre]

If you agree you aint brainwashed, if you dont you are. This seems to be true for both sides.

[Q-Source]

20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say. :rolleyes:

We may put on the hairshirt of morality in explaining why these people should die. They died because of 11 September, we may say, because of President Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", because of human rights abuses, because of our desperate desire to "liberate" them all. Let us not confuse the issue with oil. Either way, I'll bet we are told President Saddam is ultimately responsible for their deaths. We shan't mention the pilot, of course. Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165)

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source
20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say. :rolleyes:

Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165)

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

Last I heard, the military said that all missles were on target. They intimated that AAA or SAM fire may have fallen there- sounds tenuous, but it's possible.

In any event, it's all the more revealing when you automatically assume that ever tragedy is the fault of American incompetence. How about a thread about Fedayeen shooting soldiers in the back when they try to surrender? How about a thread about the human shields, hiding T-55 tanks in hospitals and gun caches in schools?

We, at least, have PROOF that it was them.

But I don't suppose that would interest you one bit.

[renata]

Originally posted by Q-Source
20 Iraqi civilians killed by two US missiles, a human error, they say. :rolleyes:

Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=391165)

I wonder what the families of those dead people should do. Hate Saddam? or... hate the USA that killed their men in order to liberate them...

Q-Source
NPR ( not a right leaning organization by any stretch of the imagination) reported yesterday that prior to this incident, all the casualties were from anti-aircraft fire. Apparently, a large proportion of them fall into the city, and explode there.
Furthermore, yesterday NPR had interviews with survivors of this attack. While a portion were upset, most were surprised more than upset. They had been used to American accuracy. One of the interviewees indicated there is a military facility in close proximity.

Finally, this morning there was a report on NPR that there are some indications the damage was from an Iraqi missile, not a US one.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jocko


Last I heard, the military said that all missles were on target. They intimated that AAA or SAM fire may have fallen there- sounds tenuous, but it's possible.

In any event, it's all the more revealing when you automatically assume that ever tragedy is the fault of American incompetence. How about a thread about Fedayeen shooting soldiers in the back when they try to surrender? How about a thread about the human shields, hiding T-55 tanks in hospitals and gun caches in schools?

We, at least, have PROOF that it was them.

But I don't suppose that would interest you one bit.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

Jesuschrist, you really refuse to see reality.

About your suggestion, there are enough threads here that speak of the "heroism" of the USA troops and the "noble" reasons to attack Iraq. We don't need any more threads to support what you all already want to believe.

I am just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

There is proof that something exploded in a residential zone, and that civilians died. There is no proof that it was a U.S. Missile.

If you are going to get your "facts" from Iraq Propaganda Central, the debate over 'who refuses to see reality' will be a short one.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by renata

NPR ( not a right leaning organization by any stretch of the imagination) reported yesterday that prior to this incident, all the casualties were from anti-aircraft fire. Apparently, a large proportion of them fall into the city, and explode there.
Furthermore, yesterday NPR had interviews with survivors of this attack. While a portion were upset, most were surprised more than upset. They had been used to American accuracy. One of the interviewees indicated there is a military facility in close proximity.

I don't know about you but if someone kills my family by mistake, the less I can do is to be upset instead of surprised :rolleyes:


An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.

They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam". BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2887555.stm)

Renata:
Finally, this morning there was a report on NPR that there are some indications the damage was from an Iraqi missile, not a US one.

And how the NPR can determine if it was the iraqi missile and not the US missiles?

The fact is that the US were doing some manoeuvres around the zone, they recognise this:

U.S. Central Command Wednesday said it destroyed nine surface-to-air missile sites around Baghdad in the early morning. According to McChrystal [U.S. Army Maj. Gen.], the attack was separate from the marketplace incident, but added, "We can't make any assumption. CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.sam.sites/index.html)

Of course, they won't admit that some of those manoeuvres went wrong.

Q-S

[renata]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I don't know about you but if someone kills my family by mistake, the less I can do is to be upset instead of surprised :rolleyes:



Please do not misinterpret my posts. Naturally the families would be upset. The interveiw was with survivors, not family members. However, this becomes a separate topic then- not "Was it a US missile that caused the damage" or " How do Iraqis feel about this incident and how it relates to the war as a whole" but "Would you feel upset if your family is dead". In a war civillian casualties are to be minimized, but they are expected. Have you asked relatives of Saddam's purges whether they were upset their families have been tortured and killed?





And how the NPR can determine if it was the iraqi missile and not the US missiles?

I don't know how. How can Iraq determine it was a US missile?

The fact is that the US were doing some manoeuvres around the zone, they recognise this:

Yes, one of the people interviewed on NPR said there was a large militry facility near the bomb site.



Of course, they won't admit that some of those manoeuvres went wrong.



They admitted when some of their missiles landed in Iran. They admitted when a missile hit a bus of refugees going to Syria. There are so many reporters there, if a soldier sneezes the wrong way, we will know. The only party there who practices misinformation is Iraq.


I see you quoted BBC news. Interesting article on it in Washington post today
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34033-2003Mar26.html

But on Tuesday's edition of "BBC World," Washington anchor Mishal Husain seemed to regard British military reports of a local revolt in the southern Iraqi city of Basra with skepticism.

"Iraq has denied that there's been any uprising at all," she said before airing a clip of the Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf: "I officially deny the hallucinations from the Americans, through CNN and others." The invaders have "found resistance," he said. "They have found death." Claims to the contrary were just "propaganda."

Next was an interview with the Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Farid Abboud, who worked the conversation around to U.S. support of Israel and "5 million Jews controlling 5 million Palestinians, who happen to be the natives of the land."

As for official Washington, reporter Matt Frei did a piece that questioned what President Bush was doing during the run-up to the war: "Playing ball with his dogs on the South Lawn of the White House. It is the image of a man remarkably unfazed -- he likes to delegate." This did not sound like a compliment.

On another day, Doucet, who anchors from Jordan, declared that "many commentators say it's not just Saddam Hussein who is under attack, but Iraq, its dignity and honor, and the honor of the entire Arab world." A reporter read a headline from an Arab newspaper: "A Day of Glorious Losses."

....

British Member of Parliament Alice Mahon said this week that the BBC "is almost alone among reputable news media in failing to cover the deaths and injuries to Iraqi civilians." According to London's Morning Star, Mahon contended that "their blatant bias does not reflect the concerns of the majority of the people in Britain, who still remain unconvinced of the case for war."

But Times of London columnist William Rees-Mogg offered the opposite view, calling the BBC "defeatist. . . . Americans are thought of as people who recklessly bomb innocent civilians; therefore, to a BBC editor, a picture of an injured baby in a Baghdad hospital is an entirely natural event, to be shown repeatedly."

Even the BBC's defense correspondent has criticized the company's coverage. In an internal memo leaked to London's Sun, Paul Adams wrote from Qatar: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties.' This is simply NOT TRUE."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Are you seriously suggesting that there is no PROOF of the missiles in the residential zone?, are you saying that those dead people are fake?

I said nothing of the kind. I said there was reason to NOT immediately assume it was an American missile, and that reason is growing stronger by the hour as you saw in Renata's posts.

You are the one twisting the fact of civilian deaths into a presumption of guilt.

Jesuschrist, you really refuse to see reality.

No, I merely recognized harebrained speculation and propaganda when I see it.

About your suggestion, there are enough threads here that speak of the "heroism" of the USA troops and the "noble" reasons to attack Iraq. We don't need any more threads to support what you all already want to believe.

I am just trying to bring some balance to the discussion.

You cannot balance facts with irresponsible speculation. The debate is not just about word count, but rather who can prove what. And you've come seriously unprepared.