Cowardly US massacres innocent civillians at peacefull protest!

[Jon_in_london]

Cowardly US troops massacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,945719,00.html) innocent Iraqi civillians excercising their right to protest.

Hearts and Minds! its all about hearts and minds, (that where you should aim your rifle, seee?). Making enemies and alienating people.

[Dancing David]

Well the gaurdian is about the same as theNation, maybe it's story will read "US troops fire on rock throwing terrorists", cant wait to see what the other news sources say.

Peace
david

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cowardly US troops massacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,945719,00.html) innocent Iraqi civillians excercising their right to protest.

Hearts and Minds! its all about hearts and minds, (that where you should aim your rifle, seee?). Making enemies and alienating people.

What are you, the JK of the left?? :rolleyes:

[kedo1981]

Peaceful protesters that throw stones, and have AK47s, innocent civilians with bomb belts, and run check points and blow up car bombs?
How do you say Guardian in Arabic, because it sounds a lot like a al-Jazeera mouth piece.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Peaceful protesters that throw stones, and have AK47s, innocent civilians with bomb belts, and run check points and blow up car bombs?
How do you say Guardian in Arabic, because it sounds a lot like a al-Jazeera mouth piece.

It was a peacfull gathering. No US soldiers were killed but 13-17 innocent civillians are dead. No AKs, no bomb-belts, no car bombs.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cowardly US troops massacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,945719,00.html) innocent Iraqi civillians excercising their right to protest.

Hearts and Minds! its all about hearts and minds, (that where you should aim your rifle, seee?). Making enemies and alienating people.



Qatar's al-Jazeera television station reported that troops had fired on the demonstrators in the town of Falluja, around 30 miles west of Baghdad, after someone in the crowd threw a stone at US soldiers. The protesters had been demonstrating against the continued US presence in Iraq, al-Jazeera said.


Well if al-Jazeera says so it must be true!
They where right about all of Baghdad Bob’s comments being true!
:rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It was a peacfull gathering. No US soldiers were killed but 13-17 innocent civillians are dead. No AKs, no bomb-belts, no car bombs.

Reports I have heard about the incident indicate the soldiers were fired on. You shouldn't just assume it isn't true.

[Jon_in_london]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-663189,00.html


Dr Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of Fallujah General Hospital, said that there were 13 dead, including three boys under 11 years old. He said that his medical crews were shot at when they went to retrieve the injured, which he said numbered 75.

Edtesam Shamsudeim, 37, said that her 45-year-old brother died in the gunfire. She was shot in the leg and her husband was wounded. "We were sitting in our house. When the shooting started, my husband tried to close the door to keep the children in, and he was shot."


And I say again- no US troops are even injured (from what I ween), yet 13-17 CIVILLIANS are dead and around 75 CIVILLIANS INJURED!!

making enemies and alienating people.

Outside the school today, people chanted for US forces to leave Iraq. They said in Arabic: "Go Go USA!"

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-663189,00.html



And I say again- no US troops are even injured (from what I ween), yet 13-17 CIVILLIANS are dead and around 75 CIVILLIANS INJURED!!

making enemies and alienating people.





Completely irrelevant if the crowd shot at U.S. soldiers. Guess what - we shoot back. No sympathy here.

What troubles me about this is that it was all so deadly predictable. Bush is an idiot if he thinks Iraq will develop the way he expects it to. They're going to do what they damn please. Bush was too bad a chess player to see this far ahead.

[Mr Manifesto]

It's "Rules of Engagement"!

Any Iraqi children firing on them? Better get Tommy Lee Jones for the defense!

Originally posted by Sundog


Completely irrelevant if the crowd shot at U.S. soldiers. Guess what - we shoot back. No sympathy here.

What troubles me about this is that it was all so deadly predictable. Bush is an idiot if he thinks Iraq will develop the way he expects it to. They're going to do what they damn please. Bush was too bad a chess player to see this far ahead.

Iran is behind these protests, most likely.

Why are some people so quick to blame the U.S. for everything, and believe every piece of news that makes us look bad? Why are they so hesitant to believe that perhaps its the other guys who are the wrongdoers?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Sundog


Completely irrelevant if the crowd shot at U.S. soldiers. Guess what - we shoot back. No sympathy here.



At the furthest stretch- maybe SOMEONE fired at the US troops. Which gives them the excuse to fire indicriminately into the crowd and at bystanders?

Originally posted by Sundog

What troubles me about this is that it was all so deadly predictable. Bush is an idiot if he thinks Iraq will develop the way he expects it to. They're going to do what they damn please. Bush was too bad a chess player to see this far ahead.


Guess now you guys are going to learn how empires come with very long bills.

[hammegk]

A good islamic fundamentalist is a dead one. Now what?

Maybe an airliner into Buckingham Palace would have brought Jon to a semblance of reality, but somehow I doubt even that would do it.

Does France, Belgium. or Luxemburg have anything worth destroying? Hell, throw the rest of Europe in there, and Australia too.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT

Iran is behind these protests, most likely.


Pulled that one out yer'arse didnt you! evidence?

Originally posted by LukeT
Why are some people so quick to blame the U.S. for everything, and believe every piece of news that makes us look bad? Why are they so hesitant to believe that perhaps its the other guys who are the wrongdoers?

Because 13-17 'other guys' are dead and about 75 wounded- including children. Yet not a single US casualty?

And these are the people we are supposed to have liberated? Whose hearts and minds we are trying to win?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london



At the furthest stretch- maybe SOMEONE fired at the US troops. Which gives them the excuse to fire indicriminately into the crowd and at bystanders?


Can you really not see how many preconceptions you are bringing to the discussion? How do you know that "maybe SOMEONE fired"? How do you know they shot into the crowd indiscriminately? Come on, use a little critical thinking.



Guess now you guys are going to learn how empires come with very long bills.

I think you are exactly right, and it's what I've been saying since the beginning of this farce.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It was a peacfull gathering. No US soldiers were killed but 13-17 innocent civillians are dead. No AKs, no bomb-belts, no car bombs.

13 -17 ?

When will they be sure if the other four are dead yet?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by hammegk
Maybe an airliner into Buckingham Palace would have brought Jon to a semblance of reality, but somehow I doubt even that would do it.

I fail to see what that has to do with firing automatic weapons into a crowd of civillians.

Originally posted by hammegk
Does France, Belgium. or Luxemburg have anything worth destroying? Hell, throw the rest of Europe in there, and Australia too.

What? Incoherent rambling from the scared, paranoid and intellectually bankrupt American.

[shecky]

I've no reason to believe the US soldiers weren't in a position where they felt threatened and reacted accordingly.

Nonetheless, I don't see how this action, self defense or not, can help the situalion at all.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shecky
I've no reason to believe the US soldiers weren't in a position where they felt threatened and reacted accordingly.


Suppose you also have no reason to belive that the South African Police at Sharpville weren't in a position where they felt threatened and reacted accordingly?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shecky
I've no reason to believe the US soldiers weren't in a position where they felt threatened and reacted accordingly.

Nonetheless, I don't see how this action, self defense or not, can help the situalion at all.

My feelings exactly. The longer we stay there, the more we will see this sort of thing. Bush believes his own press too much; they don't love us, whether he thinks they should or not.

I don't want to condemn it without giving it a chance, but I'm betting we won't be able to form a Western-style democracy there that is capable of holding together. What's left after the collapse may very well be worse than Saddam.

If Dubya was a car mechanic, he'd be the kind that smashes things with a hammer hoping they'll get better.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I fail to see what that has to do with firing automatic weapons into a crowd of civillians.
You fail to see many things, imo.



What? Incoherent rambling from the scared, paranoid and intellectually bankrupt American.
As opposed to your cogent thoughts??? Whatever.

Originally posted by Sundog


My feelings exactly. The longer we stay there, the more we will see this sort of thing.

So we should run away? And let Iran's tactics succeed? Then you can be guaranteed of the non-democratic government you seem so concerned about ending up in Iraq.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by hammegk

You fail to see many things, imo.


Indeed, but none are as blind as those who refuse to see (thats you Hammy).

Originally posted by hammegk

As opposed to your cogent thoughts??? Whatever.

Yup.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Suppose you also have no reason to belive that the South African Police at Sharpville weren't in a position where they felt threatened and reacted accordingly?

He is stating a simple fact, not an opinion. He is stating that he has no reason to suppose they didn't feel threatened and act accordingly.

Neither do you.

[dsm]

It was all so predictable. There were threads on this forum months ago about how Iraqi soldiers were likely to hide with civilians and fire on US soldiers.

Originally posted by Sundog

My feelings exactly. The longer we stay there, the more we will see this sort of thing. Bush believes his own press too much; they don't love us, whether he thinks they should or not.


And the quicker we leave, the more likely we are to see a repeat of 9/11. Stability will not be achieved in the short run.


I don't want to condemn it without giving it a chance, but I'm betting we won't be able to form a Western-style democracy there that is capable of holding together. What's left after the collapse may very well be worse than Saddam.

If Dubya was a car mechanic, he'd be the kind that smashes things with a hammer hoping they'll get better.


And it was all so predictable... :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LukeT


So we should run away? And let Iran's tactics succeed? Then you can be guaranteed of the non-democratic government you seem so concerned about ending up in Iraq.

Iran again. Sure its not Cuba?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by LukeT


So we should run away? And let Iran's tactics succeed? Then you can be guaranteed of the non-democratic government you seem so concerned about ending up in Iraq.

Did I say that? I don't think so.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Sundog


He is stating a simple fact, not an opinion. He is stating that he has no reason to suppose they didn't feel threatened and act accordingly.

Neither do you.

Its not a matter of fact its a matter of opinion. (but I guess that a matter of opinion ;) ).

I find the casualty stats for this incident indicate the use of premature, unjustified and/or excessive force.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Iran again. Sure its not Cuba?


Why would we have to worry about such a fine and upstanding country (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20030429/ts_nm/rights_un_dc&printer=1) as Cuba?

:eek:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by dsm


Why would we have to worry about such a fine and upstanding country (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20030429/ts_nm/rights_un_dc&printer=1) as Cuba?

:eek:

Yes! those damn Cubans hatching their filthy commie plots in Iraq! well, there is a red under every bed y'know!!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Indeed, but none are as blind as those who refuse to see (thats you Hammy).
What would be a few things I miss? The joys of socialism perhaps? A continuous repeat of the depravity humankind is capable of? The fact that neither of us observed the incident the Guardian -- and you -- feel totally unjustified?


Yup.
Please point me to your cogent statement; I must have overlooked it.

[Doubt]

24 hour rule anyone? Any takers?

I bet it takes longer to get the real facts on this one.

:(

[ImpyTimpy]

I've heard the story reported in a few places and also saw some live footage of wounded/dead being carried away. The crowd was getting restless and the soldiers were trying to calm them down from what I saw... LukeT mentioned possible Iran connection - if I remember correctly U.S. already mentioned Iran was stirring the demonstrations up (wouldn't be hard to place a few people into the demonstration with weapons to fire at soldiers then move away). I don't know if it's true or not but I'm keeping an open mind.

Either way, this is a pretty nasty propaganda piece against the US. Basically, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't - they relax the security, they'll get more car bombings or killings, they tighten security, it's likely some people will be injured.. Can't win...

Originally posted by Doubt
24 hour rule anyone? Any takers?

I bet it takes longer to get the real facts on this one.

:(

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-663189,00.html



And I say again- no US troops are even injured (from what I ween), yet 13-17 CIVILLIANS are dead and around 75 CIVILLIANS INJURED!!

making enemies and alienating people.





Al-Jazeera television, quoting local residents, said that the US troops opened fire after someone threw a rock at the school.

Once again, this article is also quoting Al-Jazeera.
The UK press really needs to learn what a reliable source is.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk
A good islamic fundamentalist is a dead one. Now what?

Maybe an airliner into Buckingham Palace would have brought Jon to a semblance of reality, but somehow I doubt even that would do it.

Does France, Belgium. or Luxemburg have anything worth destroying? Hell, throw the rest of Europe in there, and Australia too.
Lol....Bucket mouth adds his valued analysis.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol....Bucket mouth adds his valued analysis.
And welcome to you, Fool the Idiot.

Got anything to else to say? Yay fundi-islamofascists maybe?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Completely irrelevant if the crowd shot at U.S. soldiers. Guess what - we shoot back. No sympathy here.

What troubles me about this is that it was all so deadly predictable. Bush is an idiot if he thinks Iraq will develop the way he expects it to. They're going to do what they damn please. Bush was too bad a chess player to see this far ahead. Sundog, my hats off to you. While I don't agree with your second quote I respect it and I respect it more that you are obviously willing to look at both sides of the argument and not just toting some line.

Sorry for suggesting that you check into a logic site Sundog. You have made my day. Thanks again.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sundog, my hats off to you. While I don't agree with your second quote I respect it and I respect it more that you are obviously willing to look at both sides of the argument and not just toting some line.

Sorry for suggesting that you check into a logic site Sundog. You have made my day. Thanks again.


Once again, who matters more? The US soldier, or the civilian?

The US has sent in troops, people who are trained to risk their lives, for a mission. The mission in this case is to bring peace and civility to the Iraqi people.

As in any mission, there are risks you will be killed. However, in these missions, if a civilian poses even a hint of a risk, you are allowed to kill any number of them. This has happened more than once in this war. A possible risk appears, many innocent people are killed.

The tone of those from the US is that of course, if their is a perceived threat to US soldiers, they are entitled to shoot to kill, even if the threat has not been established as being certain. In previous cases, it has been found that there was not threat at all.

In what way are the lives of the US soldiers more important than the lives of Iraqi civilians?

PS

Once again, 24 hour rule should apply.

[EvilYeti]

What is it about Arabs and throwing rocks at people with machine guns? Is there some sort of collective racial death wish that I don't know about?

[shecky]

Originally posted by LukeT


So we should run away? And let Iran's tactics succeed? Then you can be guaranteed of the non-democratic government you seem so concerned about ending up in Iraq.

These are good questions. But I think it's naive to think the US occupation OR withdrawal will be some kind of magic solution to making a Iraq a peaceful modern democracy. The longer we stay, the more we prove the point of the likes of Osama Bin Laden, and should we pull up stakes quickly, we'll demonstrate the same lack of resolve we had during the first Gulf war.

In other words, we can't win.

Either way, the US is still a huge power in the inciting hatred from the masses.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Once again, who matters more? The US soldier, or the civilian?


More fecal matter courtesy of AUP.

If you are the soldier, you do. If you are the civilian, you do, but unless you have a death-wish, stay away from the madness of crowds baiting soldiers.

Make sense? To you, no, of course not. It's all the fault of the USA! There, happy now?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fox News version of the headline:

American Troops Valiently Repulse Ambush By Muslim Homicide Rock Throwers

[ImpyTimpy]

A human life is a human life. Both Soldier and civilian should matter equally in my opinion. Does putting on a uniform and serving ones country somehow diminish the level of human rights the person deserves?

No matter what you say, these are and always will be people under those uniforms, first and foremost - humans. They're lives are equally important as anyone elses no matter how you try and twist it.

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Once again, who matters more? The US soldier, or the civilian?

The US has sent in troops, people who are trained to risk their lives, for a mission. The mission in this case is to bring peace and civility to the Iraqi people.

As in any mission, there are risks you will be killed. However, in these missions, if a civilian poses even a hint of a risk, you are allowed to kill any number of them. This has happened more than once in this war. A possible risk appears, many innocent people are killed.

The tone of those from the US is that of course, if their is a perceived threat to US soldiers, they are entitled to shoot to kill, even if the threat has not been established as being certain. In previous cases, it has been found that there was not threat at all.

In what way are the lives of the US soldiers more important than the lives of Iraqi civilians?

PS

Once again, 24 hour rule should apply.

[Richard G]

There is a moral to this story. Do not shoot at U.S. soldiers.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
There is a moral to this story. Do not shoot at U.S. soldiers.
Don't throw rocks at US soldiers either. In fact, don't even be in the near vicinity if anyone throws rocks at a US soldier. Don't try to pull your kids in off the street if someone is throwing rocks at a US soldier. If you see a US soldier in the area, just get away from him. Do not approach him, even if he looks friendly. He may be rabid.

[DrChinese]

Usually, asserting self-defense requires several pre-requisites:

a) The person must believe they are in imminent fear for their life.
b) The force used for "defense" must be reasonable in relation to the attack.
c) And by implication, it must be used on the attacker.

I think it is POSSIBLE that condition a) was met, LIKELY that b) was met, UNLIKELY that c) was met.

Regardless, this analysis is clearly irrelevant. It is obviously Saddam's fault. Or Iran's fault. Or Osama's fault. Or France's fault...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


More fecal matter courtesy of AUP.

If you are the soldier, you do. If you are the civilian, you do, but unless you have a death-wish, stay away from the madness of crowds baiting soldiers.

Make sense? To you, no, of course not. It's all the fault of the USA! There, happy now?


I agree that it is dangerous to protest in front of soldiers who are armed and nervous.... who are not police officers and have no skills in the management of civil unrest....
It all gets back to how long it will take the USA to deliver on its "freedom for the Iraqi people" pledge. Telling them they are now free as long as they don't protest anything is not going to work.....But, to be fair to the US army, it is early days yet. Until they can withdraw the combat troops from population control and replace them with civil authority this sort of thing is bound to continue to happen.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
There is a moral to this story. Do not shoot at U.S. soldiers.

Given the 24 hours rule.

1. There are differing sides to the story. Given that both sides will try to defend themselves, I doubt we will ever get the whole truth of the story.

2. Even if there was firing from the crowd, and the with the crowd engaged in a protest, should the troops have just withdrawn? They could have expected a few troublemakers to take advantage of the situation, and acted pro-actively to avoid a shootout.

3. Innocent people are dead. There will be a lot of bad feeling coming out of this for years to come. The US knew this area was not likely to be very friendly to them, apparently, so a defensive attitude would have been advisable. The possibility of the long term aim of a democracy gets set back with every shooting of a civilian.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by LukeT


Iran is behind these protests, most likely.

<sarcasm>Well, of course it has to be Iran, because we all know that all the Iraqi people love the US and hate Saddam more than life itself, and the fact that the town of Falluja is a
conservative Sunni Muslim city and Baath Party stronghold
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984663.stm)
has no effect on the matter.</sarcasm>

Further quote from same source:
A US officer at the scene, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Nantz, said the bloodshed occurred after the crowd shot into the air, making it hard to tell if his men were under threat.

"There was a lot of celebratory firing last night," he told Reuters news agency.

"There were a lot of people who were armed and who were throwing rocks. How is a US soldier to tell the difference between a rock and a grenade?"

[fsol]

And again http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85547,00.html

So a protest by people trying to let their children go to school ends up with people dead. Then the inevitable protest about those killings leads to more death. When will next one be?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool



I agree that it is dangerous to protest in front of soldiers who are armed and nervous.... who are not police officers and have no skills in the management of civil unrest....
It all gets back to how long it will take the USA to deliver on its "freedom for the Iraqi people" pledge. Telling them they are now free as long as they don't protest anything is not going to work.....But, to be fair to the US army, it is early days yet. Until they can withdraw the combat troops from population control and replace them with civil authority this sort of thing is bound to continue to happen.

Well said. But the problem of fundamentalist Islam will continue.

If the US does not have the stomach to apply martial law-- for example use Military Tribunals to apply the death penalty to rabble rouser leaders until civil authority is successfully restored --I fear we will have lost.

An Iran-Iraq under the Mullahs of Hate is more frightening to me then Saddam was.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Well said. But the problem of fundamentalist Islam will continue.

If the US does not have the stomach to apply martial law-- for example use Military Tribunals to apply the death penalty to rabble rouser leaders until civil authority is successfully restored --I fear we will have lost.

An Iran-Iraq under the Mullahs of Hate is more frightening to me then Saddam was.
I would think the current situation is martial law. I don't see any authority besides the occupying army.
As for shooting some people..... I'm assuming that was just a joke? Do you seriously think executing people would lessen civil unrest?
Besides, I doubt the Army would have the Authority to do it without special legislation being enacted which I doubt any lawmakers would touch with a ten foot pole....

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk


Well said. But the problem of fundamentalist Islam will continue.

If the US does not have the stomach to apply martial law-- for example use Military Tribunals to apply the death penalty to rabble rouser leaders until civil authority is successfully restored --I fear we will have lost.

An Iran-Iraq under the Mullahs of Hate is more frightening to me then Saddam was.

And what's simply sad is that Iran and Iraq without their "higher power" would be the natural allies of the U.S. in the region.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

I would think the current situation is martial law. I don't see any authority besides the occupying army.
Agreed. And. sorry, civil liberty just does not exist under martial law.


As for shooting some people..... I'm assuming that was just a joke? Do you seriously think executing people would lessen civil unrest?
I wish I saw an alternative. Rounding the rabble rousers up & detaining them will only defer & worsen future problems. Even sending them to Australia( ;) )just defers the inevitable conflict -- nukes, biowar, and islamic fundies do scare me.


Besides, I doubt the Army would have the Authority to do it without special legislation being enacted which I doubt any lawmakers would touch with a ten foot pole....
You may be right. If so we accomplished nothing except disturbing a hornets nest.

Either Islam will join the 1st world, or make every effort to bring us all under Sharia. Do you disagree? It's about time to admit the US has embarked on a Crusade in the religious sense. At lot of deaths are going to occur, and selfish me prefers them to be occuring on foreign soil. Sorry.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
What is it about Arabs and throwing rocks at people with machine guns? Is there some sort of collective racial death wish that I don't know about?


I vote this " The most profound observation, in the thread..", so far...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

3. Innocent people are dead. There will be a lot of bad feeling coming out of this for years to come.

It is important that we don't forget the WTC affair. Thanks for reminding us.

[Tmy]

Maybe Saddam was right to keep the Iraqi's under his thumb!


Seriously there is a 3rd option hear. LET THE UN COME IN! Let them throw rocks at the sky blue helmets. They make for better targets. Maybe the local fowlk wont be as restless if they see the occupation as UN based rather than US.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Once again, who matters more? The US soldier, or the civilian?



The U.S. Soldier.

Next question...?

[Supercharts]

In response to the first post my thoughts...
This is a training and education issue.
If a mob threatens a U.S. Soldier the mob will be shot at.
Hopefully the mobs will learn this lesson very soon and it won't be necessary to repeatedly train and educate the people.

[Supercharts]

Update that shows it's working:

"From the back of a pickup truck, Jamal addressed a crowd of 250 people Wednesday.

"We demand the Americans leave this place," Jamal said. "(But) please don't confront the U.S. troops."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shooting

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Supercharts
In response to the first post my thoughts...
This is a training and education issue.
If a mob threatens a U.S. Soldier the mob will be shot at.
Hopefully the mobs will learn this lesson very soon and it won't be necessary to repeatedly train and educate the people.

yes, winning hearts and minds.

The US military- best Al-qaeda recruitment advertisment in the world.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Indeed, they will learn its probably a good idea to actually throw grenades at Americans. They might even learnthat its much more effective form of protest to hijack an aircraft and fly it into an American population centre.
Almost too effective, the Taliban might say.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Indeed, they will learn its probably a good idea to actually throw grenades at Americans. They might even learnthat its much more effective form of protest to hijack an aircraft and fly it into an American population centre.

Somehow I suspect you Brits may also be targets. Good luck, mmm-kay?

Conversely, you can convert to Islam & live under Sharia law.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Supercharts


The U.S. Soldier.

Next question...?

Obviously. Who is more important? Some rock throwing ingrate or someone risking his life for the people of the rock-throwing-ingrate's country?

If fired on, I cannot fault the soldiers for firing back.

(edited to remove unnecessary inflamatory comment)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Obviously. Who is more important? Some rock throwing ingrate* or someone** risking his life for the people of the rock-throwing-ingrate's country?

If fired on, I cannot fault the soldiers for firing back.

(edited to remove unnecessary inflamatory comment)

*AKA: Civillian whose country has been invaded and occupied
** AKA: Person who has invaded and occupied ingrate's country

Well, theres such a thing as appropriate force. 13 dead and 70 wounded seems a tad excessive to me, given that NOT ONE US SOLDIER was even wounded.

Now, had these troops been taking hits I would say- 'well, they are perfectly justified to fire warning shots to attempt to disperse the crowd, failing which carefully aimed shots could/should be fired at those in the crowd who are carrying weapons'

As it is, it seems the US military's love of overwhelming firepower seems to have taken over. Machine gunning crowds is very rarely excusable IMO.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


As it is, it seems the US military's love of overwhelming firepower seems to have taken over. Machine gunning crowds is very rarely excusable IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see a full investigation. I just object to your instantly assuming what the facts of the matter are. That's just not a skeptical approach, in my view.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Sundog


Don't get me wrong, I want to see a full investigation. I just object to your instantly assuming what the facts of the matter are. That's just not a skeptical approach, in my view.

Im not assuming. I know that 13 civvies are dead and 70 in hospital while not even one US soldier was injured.

The FACTS speak for themselves.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Im not assuming. I know that 13 civvies are dead and 70 in hospital while not even one US soldier was injured.

The FACTS speak for themselves.

Come now. The FACTS don't indicate the view you hold in the title of this thread, and you know it perfectly well.

If the FACTS - when they emerge - indicate that your view of the situation is correct, I will be as outraged as you.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Well, theres such a thing as appropriate force. 13 dead and 70 wounded seems a tad excessive to me, given that NOT ONE US SOLDIER was even wounded.




Sounds pretty appropriate from the U.S. Soldiers perspective.

What are you suggesting.. Ramp up until the U.S. soldiers stop dropping, then back off a notch?

I suspect you are not the idiot you appear to be.. ( I think that's a compliment..)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Sundog


Come now. The FACTS don't indicate the view you hold in the title of this thread, and you know it perfectly well.

If the FACTS - when they emerge - indicate that your view of the situation is correct, I will be as outraged as you.

The thread titles an attention grabber. (I should work for The Sun).

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sounds pretty appropriate from the U.S. Soldiers perspective.


I guess gassing kurds seemed quite appropriate from Saddam's perspective too.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I guess gassing kurds seemed quite appropriate from Saddam's perspective too.


This is an appropriate substitute for the 'Hitler Card'...

You've managed to trump your own thread...:eek:

Congratulations.

[Tmy]

I worry that the US is becoming (or appearing to be) just what the etreme anti-war types claimed. An invading Army whos in if for $$$ and oil. Incidents like these do not help.

Why not include the UN???? It'll help with apearances.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Sounds pretty appropriate from the U.S. Soldiers perspective.

What are you suggesting.. Ramp up until the U.S. soldiers stop dropping, then back off a notch?

I suspect you are not the idiot you appear to be.. ( I think that's a compliment..)


That is a pretty idiotic response to what Jon said. Your use of the word "appropriate" is pretty ludicrous...

To flip what you're saying (the same way you flipped Jon's statement):

What are you suggesting... The US soldiers (who are no longer in a military engagement) should shoot first and ask questions later?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


That is a pretty idiotic response to what Jon said. Your use of the word "appropriate" is pretty ludicrous...

To flip what you're saying (the same way you flipped Jon's statement):

What are you suggesting... The US soldiers (who are no longer in a military engagement) should shoot first and ask questions later?


No.

Next question?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes
No.

Next question?

Sensible statement required first.

Next flip comment?

:rolleyes:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why not include the UN???? It'll help with apearances.

Appearances vs. Results (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46525-2003Apr27.html)

The United Nations and international allies promised to rebuild democracy in Bosnia. Seven years later, they have departed -- only to hand over responsibility for the semi-state to the European Union. They failed again in Kosovo, where they are preventing a civil war but have brought little movement toward self-government in their four-year reign. In Afghanistan, international aid is coming too little and too late to support the fragile government.

...

The failure of these efforts to build autonomous, sovereign democracies lies in the very structure of international coalitions. Coalitions diffuse responsibility. When Bosnia failed to arrest war criminals, each coalition member could blame its compatriots. No one felt responsible for ensuring the legitimacy of the coalition -- or the success of the country. Slow funding from a coalition is also inevitable, given the multiple money streams and organizations that must be coordinated. Yet lack of disposable funds causes pro-Western politicians to lose ground to more shady leaders, often funded by less-savory states and criminal organizations, who can deliver results to the citizenry more quickly.

Reconstruction efforts often become the battlefields for unconnected struggles between coalition members. To gain the upper hand, "internationals" dissipate their time and energy playing politics against one another. Unable to agree on clear values and goals, and needing local allies for their fights, international organizations leave themselves at the mercy of local politicians. The locals who rise to the top after a war -- rarely the best of characters -- play agencies against one another to achieve their own purposes. As foreign countries beat out the local citizenry for the role of primary constituent, domestic politics is impoverished and viable democracy is delayed.

...

Finally, coalitions overwhelm nascent, struggling local governments. Distrusting one another's information, international organizations send their own fact-finding missions, hold their own meetings with local politicians and publish their own reports. Local ministries, understaffed after purges of former party members, are barely able to meet the demands of their international overseers, much less undertake the actual work of running a country.

...

The military has led the only two successful attempts at postwar democratization. In Japan and Germany, defense officials took full responsibility. Used to thinking stra- tegically, they focused on overarching values and critical missions. The centralized defense structure allowed America's core values to remain consistent and penetrate every aspect of the mission. Yet, after setting and enforcing broad guidelines, they gave the Germans and Japanese great leeway in setting up their own governments. Perhaps most important, the military authorities did not want to remain. Unlike international organizations, whose entire job is to "help" other countries, the Pentagon has other work to do. It has every incentive to create a viable local government and then allow it the autonomy to function on its own.

MattJ

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


Sensible statement required first.

Next flip comment?

:rolleyes:

Compared to your insightful comment?:rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Fine then bring in Nato, or the UN as some sort of figure head. Otherwise the natives will get restless and the situtaion will turn ugly.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tmy
Fine then bring in Nato, or the UN as some sort of figure head. Otherwise the natives will get restless and the situtaion will turn ugly.


Nahhh.. We handle these situations with cowardly massacres..:D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Fine then bring in Nato, or the UN as some sort of figure head. Otherwise the natives will get restless and the situtaion will turn ugly.

I don't believe the natives much care what insignia our guys will be wearing.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Compared to your insightful comment?:rolleyes:

And your not-so-insightful original question? :rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


And your not-so-insightful original question? :rolleyes:
Can you spell ' rhetorical '? :rolleyes:.. (... yes, sarcastic as well..)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I don't believe the natives much care what insignia our guys will be wearing.


Which brings to mind this question.. If the U.S. Soldiers were wearing a U.N. patch and a blue helmet, would this turn off their ' cowardly-massacre ' switch?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Can you spell ' rhetorical '? :rolleyes:.. (... yes, sarcastic as well..)

I thought I spelled it "ludicrous"... :rolleyes:

It was pretty silly rhetoric and not worthy of standing unanswered.

[Sundog]

I declare a rolling-eyes overdose.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by dsm


I thought I spelled it "ludicrous"... :rolleyes:

It was pretty silly rhetoric and not worthy of standing unanswered. As opposed to:
Cowardly US massacres innocent civillians ....I Was just trying to get in a late entry for April's ' Silliest Post of the Month' contest...


--------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Sundog... I'll stop with the eyes....

[dsm]

Originally posted by Sundog
I declare a rolling-eyes overdose.

:rolleyes:

:p

[Skeptic]

What's really odd about this "outrage" is that the MERE FACT that the US suffered no casualties is "proof" that it was acting against "innocents" that meant the soldiers no harm, just because they FAILED to cause harm.

I suppose that, by this odd "logic", if someone breaks into my home and attacks me with a knife, then I should (at least) let him beat me up a bit, or slice me somewhat, before I shoot him dead; after all, otherwise, how can I be SURE he wasn't an "innocent civilian"?

Perhaps, also, all future US military campaigns should include the deliberate killing of a few of their own soldiers, just so that people like Jon_in_London won't say that the lack of US casualties is "proof" that they were not really fighting anybody who MEANT to harm them. After all, what are the lives of a few lousy soldiers, compared to trying to make know-nothing armchair generals like "Jon" support the US?

This sort of "logic"--complete with dire threats of the impending consequences of the "agression"--is well known to israelis, since every time a would-be terrorist gets killed en route he is suddenly transformed into an "innocent civilian" that the heartless israeli army "butchered". After all, unless he DID kill somebody first, how can they be SURE he is a terrorists?

There is an old joke about this:

An American, a Frenchman, and an israeli are caught by a tribe of cannibals. The tribal chief gives them all a last wish before they will all be cooked together. The American asks for the latest "Sports Illustrated", so he could find out how the world series ended. They give it to him. The Frenchman asks for the latest "Playboy", so he could find out the latest sexual techniques. They give it to him. The israeli asked to be kicked in the ass, really hard.

The chief is shocked, but eventually complies, and kicks the israeli across the village square. So the israeli takes out a machine gun and kills the cannibals. The American and Frenchman ask him: "why didn't you do that BEFORE we got captured?" The israeli says: "What? And be accused of unjustified agression against peaceful natives?"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What's really odd about this "outrage" is that the MERE FACT that the US suffered no casualties is "proof" that it was acting against "innocents" that meant the soldiers no harm, just because they FAILED to cause harm.

I suppose that, by this odd "logic", if someone breaks into my home and attacks me with a knife, then I should (at least) let him beat me up a bit, or slice me somewhat, before I shoot him dead; after all, otherwise, how can I be SURE he wasn't an "innocent civilian"?



Which is the point. If you break into someones house, and say you are here to help him, he may be a little dubious, especially if you are heavily armed and move into his loungeroom, say, and set up camp there. Then if he starts to protest about this, you then shoot him, because it looked like he might shoot you, and you thought you had better shoot him first, just in case.



Perhaps, also, all future US military campaigns should include the deliberate killing of a few of their own soldiers, just so that people like Jon_in_London won't say that the lack of US casualties is "proof" that they were not really fighting anybody who MEANT to harm them. After all, what are the lives of a few lousy soldiers, compared to trying to make know-nothing armchair generals like "Jon" support the US?



distraction



This sort of "logic"--complete with dire threats of the impending consequences of the "agression"--is well known to israelis, since every time a would-be terrorist gets killed en route he is suddenly transformed into an "innocent civilian" that the heartless israeli army "butchered". After all, unless he DID kill somebody first, how can they be SURE he is a terrorists?



you may try to use some "logic" yourself.



There is an old joke about this:

An American, a Frenchman, and an israeli are caught by a tribe of cannibals. The tribal chief gives them all a last wish before they will all be cooked together. The American asks for the latest "Sports Illustrated", so he could find out how the world series ended. They give it to him. The Frenchman asks for the latest "Playboy", so he could find out the latest sexual techniques. They give it to him. The israeli asked to be kicked in the ass, really hard.

The chief is shocked, but eventually complies, and kicks the israeli across the village square. So the israeli takes out a machine gun and kills the cannibals. The American and Frenchman ask him: "why didn't you do that BEFORE we got captured?" The israeli says: "What? And be accused of unjustified agression against peaceful natives?"

You call that a joke? One question, what were they doing in an area where cannibals lived?

[peptoabysmal]

Qatar's al-Jazeera television station reported that troops had fired on the demonstrators in the town of Falluja, around 30 miles west of Baghdad, after someone in the crowd threw a stone at US soldiers. The protesters had been demonstrating against the continued US presence in Iraq, al-Jazeera said.


Um... that's impossible. According to that particular news agency, Saddam is winning the war and the US isn't anywhere near that close to Baghdad.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Skeptic

What's really odd about this "outrage" is that the MERE FACT that the US suffered no casualties is "proof" that it was acting against "innocents" that meant the soldiers no harm, just because they FAILED to cause harm.


The term you so oddly avoided is "appropriate response", but I guess appropriate for you is "shoot first and ask questions later".

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog


My feelings exactly. The longer we stay there, the more we will see this sort of thing. Bush believes his own press too much; they don't love us, whether he thinks they should or not.

I don't want to condemn it without giving it a chance, but I'm betting we won't be able to form a Western-style democracy there that is capable of holding together. What's left after the collapse may very well be worse than Saddam.

If Dubya was a car mechanic, he'd be the kind that smashes things with a hammer hoping they'll get better.

Sundog,

Why can't you give Bush a tiny bit of credit? The thousands of American casualties you lefties predicted never materialized. The military "quagmire" you guys predicted was all BS.

Fact is, the Iraqis make crappy infantrymen. Their generals were a bunch of know-nothing blowhards. They had no generals like Giap, or Uncle Ho. Even if they did, our military has improved vastly since 'Nam.

Once the Iraqi police force has been reconstituted and properly trained, they will be the ones doing crowd control. Also, once the Iraqi's have a provisional government that they can go to to redress grievances, the troops will be less of a target....the mob will have someone else to be angry at. Hopefully the Iraqis will eventually learn that they can safely protest all they want as long as they don't become violent.

-zilla

BTW, nice to see ya again Sundoggy. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sundog,

Why can't you give Bush a tiny bit of credit? The thousands of American casualties you lefties predicted never materialized. The military "quagmire" you guys predicted was all BS.



Not at all, many like me predicted that it would be a US victory, the only question being how messy it got.



Fact is, the Iraqis make crappy infantrymen. Their generals were a bunch of know-nothing blowhards. They had no generals like Giap, or Uncle Ho. Even if they did, our military has improved vastly since 'Nam.



The military has improved their weaponary, the tactics are still basically the same.



Once the Iraqi police force has been reconstituted and properly trained, they will be the ones doing crowd control. Also, once the Iraqi's have a provisional government that they can go to to redress grievances, the troops will be less of a target....the mob will have someone else to be angry at. Hopefully the Iraqis will eventually learn that they can safely protest all they want as long as they don't become violent.

-zilla

BTW, nice to see ya again Sundoggy. ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I suppose that, by this odd "logic", if someone breaks into my home and attacks me with a knife, then I should (at least) let him beat me up a bit, or slice me somewhat, before I shoot him dead; after all, otherwise, how can I be SURE he wasn't an "innocent civilian"?


A better analogy would be if I saw some people walking outside my house and decided to machine-gun them all because what if they were trying to break in? Guess I should have just gone and hugged a tree instead, you silly lefty commie you!

[max]

Jon-in-london is obviously one of 'them,' living in Finsbury Park and off the fat of the English land. Fool is of the same breed. Anyone so against the west is either an easterner or living/married to one. Oh and Jon would you stand there all pretty, pretty if an Iraqi was firing at you? I mean with all you have spewed up on this thread, you'd have to now, eh?
I do think we should have left Iraq well alone but not for any other reason than they are a childlike, backward people who have not yet evolved enough to understand when another nation is trying to improve their lot. I expect Jon is also pleased that a Brit has done a suicide bombing in Israel. Well, they have British passports but of course they are both of eastern origin.......lovely race

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sundog,

Why can't you give Bush a tiny bit of credit? The thousands of American casualties you lefties predicted never materialized. The military "quagmire" you guys predicted was all BS.

BTW, nice to see ya again Sundoggy. ;)

I am the first to admit that I was wrong about how difficult the war would be; our people (and the British et al) performed brilliantly. Which of course addresses the question of rightness and wrongness not at all.

I give credit to the military, however, not to Bush. ;)

I'm just more uncomfortable the longer we stay there - seems to me just asking for trouble.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Jon-in-london is obviously one of 'them,' living in Finsbury Park and off the fat of the English land.

I live in Finsbury Park? Sh-t! Ive been living in the wrong house all these years!! dammit!! why didnt you tell me sooner!

[hammegk]

Careful Max.

Remarks about reality are considered to be racist & bigoted by many of the skeptical thinkers who post here on JREF.

You may have to put up with Fool'ish attacks.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Anyone so against the west is either an easterner or living/married to one.

What makes you think Im against the west? Im just against forces of occupation machine gunning civillians.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
Remarks about reality are considered to be racist & bigoted by many of the skeptical thinkers who post here on JREF.

Which remarks are those?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Which remarks are those?
Is your name Max? If so, sorry, I was specifically addressing the person who posts here as "max".

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk

Is your name Max? If so, sorry, I was specifically addressing the person who posts here as "max".

E.J., Hammy prefers to sit on the sidelines and throw things. :D

[Kodiak]

Here's a good site with an unbiased viewpoint... (http://www.internationalanswer.org/) :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog


E.J., Hammy prefers to sit on the sidelines and throw things. :D

Er, yes. Absolutely unlike all our politically correct liberals who spew only The Truth. :(

Basically, Bush bad, male white persons bad, US bad, multiculturalism & moral relativism good.

Kodiak's link provides a real world example.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
Is your name Max? If so, sorry, I was specifically addressing the person who posts here as "max".
No I'm not Max. I'm just interested in the claim you were making.

Can I ask again. Which remarks were those?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

No I'm not Max. I'm just interested in the claim you were making.

Can I ask again. Which remarks were those?

Sure, here you are:

Jon-in-london is obviously one of 'them,' living in Finsbury Park and off the fat of the English land. Fool is of the same breed. Anyone so against the west is either an easterner or living/married to one. Oh and Jon would you stand there all pretty, pretty if an Iraqi was firing at you? I mean with all you have spewed up on this thread, you'd have to now, eh?
I do think we should have left Iraq well alone but not for any other reason than they are a childlike, backward people who have not yet evolved enough to understand when another nation is trying to improve their lot. I expect Jon is also pleased that a Brit has done a suicide bombing in Israel. Well, they have British passports but of course they are both of eastern origin.......lovely race.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by max
Jon-in-london is obviously one of 'them,' living in Finsbury Park and off the fat of the English land. Fool is of the same breed. Anyone so against the west is either an easterner or living/married to one. Oh and Jon would you stand there all pretty, pretty if an Iraqi was firing at you? I mean with all you have spewed up on this thread, you'd have to now, eh?
I do think we should have left Iraq well alone but not for any other reason than they are a childlike, backward people who have not yet evolved enough to understand when another nation is trying to improve their lot. I expect Jon is also pleased that a Brit has done a suicide bombing in Israel. Well, they have British passports but of course they are both of eastern origin.......lovely race

Last time I looked, the IRA was all white, and xian.

[max]

at least they kill each other, not american soldiers or Israeli children.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
at least they kill each other, not american soldiers or Israeli children.

who is 'they'?!

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
...they are a childlike, backward people...


Compared to many Americans no doubt who have no idea where Iraq actually is. America where segregated proms are happening at this moment. The land of 'equality' where the mentally retaded and children can be executed 'legally'. America whose own Donald Rumsfeld supplied WOMD to Hussein and which gave/sold weapons to Osama Bin Laden and Manuel Noreiga.

Hears to the backward and childlike people. May they get to choose the democratic institutions they want rather than those Bush will allow foist on them if they don't do what he wants. So much for freeing the Iraqi peple to rule themselves as they wish.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Max
I expect Jon is also pleased that a Brit has done a suicide bombing in Israel.

Are you going to be man enough to stand by that statement Max.

Come on Max - stand up and be a man. Justify that remark or be seen for what you so obviously are.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong



Compared to many Americans no doubt who have no idea where Iraq actually is. America where segregated proms are happening at this moment. The land of 'equality' where the mentally retaded and children can be executed 'legally'. America whose own Donald Rumsfeld supplied WOMD to Hussein and which gave/sold weapons to Osama Bin Laden and Manuel Noreiga.

Hears to the backward and childlike people. May they get to choose the democratic institutions they want rather than those Bush will allow foist on them if they don't do what he wants. So much for freeing the Iraqi peple to rule themselves as they wish.

HAHA

Let me be simplistic too for a moment:

You mean the UK where the fascist BNP made surprising gains in local elections where a Scottsman Galloway went to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussien and got paid lots of money to do so. A country that still has an unelected German family as its constitutional head?

Alright what I just said was horribly simplistic and not a true picture of the fine country that is the UK.

However, loving "progressives" like E.J. (You know the kind that love humanity but people they have a problem with.) use these simplistic sterotypes all the time. Of course he would be on the look out for "arrogant" Americans...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Compared to many Americans no doubt who have no idea where Iraq actually is. America where segregated proms are happening at this moment. The land of 'equality' where the mentally retaded and children can be executed 'legally'. America whose own Donald Rumsfeld supplied WOMD to Hussein and which gave/sold weapons to Osama Bin Laden and Manuel Noreiga.

Hears to the backward and childlike people. May they get to choose the democratic institutions they want rather than those Bush will allow foist on them if they don't do what he wants. So much for freeing the Iraqi peple to rule themselves as they wish.

In response to:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted by hammegk
...they are a childlike, backward people...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look again. The remark was NOT "originally posted by hammegk".

Try to get something right, anyway. No, I won't hold my breath since you appear wrong about many many things, imo.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
at least they kill each other, not american soldiers or Israeli children.

Come on Max!! who is 'they'!!!!!!!!!!

[Baker]

Where is the proof that they where just innocent civilians?
Has the real story about this incident come out yet?
Those on the ant-war side are really quick about condemning the US claiming they are killing innocent people is there a reliable source to the story?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mike B.

You mean the UK where the fascist BNP made surprising gains in local elections where a Scottsman Galloway went to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussien and got paid lots of money to do so. A country that still has an unelected German family as its constitutional head?
Let me get this clear. hammegk supported max in what he claimed were remarks about reality. I asked hammegk which remarks he meant. He posted the racist and possibly libellous remarks I highlighted. Can I ask do you support the racist remaks made by max and the scandalous and in my opinion potentially libellous claims he made against jon-in-london? Please let us know.

Yes the BNP did make gains in the UK. If they break any laws they should be tried under the law and penalised if found guilty. That is the way it normally works in the UK, unlike other countries who asassinate people without trial. The BNP are a demonstrably racist party. How does that invalidate what I said about the serious claims made by max?

As I understand it George Galloway is sueing the Daily Telegraph for the claims it has made about him. Are you repeating and republishing those claims? If so please let us know. If he has broken any laws he should be treated in the same way as the BNP. Are you claiming tha he has broken any laws? In any case how does that invalidate anything I said?

Yes Britain has a family descended from Germany at its head. Where does your ruler draw his roots from? In any case so what? I personally don't support having a royal family at the top of our state but until that is changed by normal democratic means as allowed for under the laws of our country so be it.

In contrast your politicians often buy their positions through the donations of multinational companies which then get given contracts in some cases to rebuild a country destroyed by the man they supported. That man was elected in the most farcical election process which even a third world country would be ashamed off and where some of the most eminent judges in the land some of whom were appointed by that man's father would not allow votes to even be counted. Democracy? You were saying?. How does that invalidate what I said? Do you support the claims max made about the Iraqi people. Stand up and be counted if you do.However, loving "progressives" like E.J. (You know the kind that love humanity but people they have a problem with.) use these simplistic sterotypes all the time. Of course he would be on the look out for "arrogant" Americans... Would you care to substantiate your claims about me? You have apparently supported other claims includng some which may be the subject of legal procedings in the UK. Are you sure you want to make more claims without adequate justification? Just asking.

Are you one of those who believe that because another poster highlights hypocrisy within the American administration and some Americans that they do not believe there is hypocrisy everywhere else in the world? Is anybody who dares to criticise the US administration by definition a loving "progressive" ? Is that really the true shallowness of your argument?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
Look again. The remark was NOT "originally posted by hammegk".

Let us get this matter very clear. You stated

'Remarks about reality are considered to be racist & bigoted by many of the skeptical thinkers who post here on JREF.'

I asked what remarks you meant.
You replied

Sure, here you are:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by max which forms the subject of this post.
:
I highlighted the words you reposted because you reposted them. I acknowledge that max posted them initially. Do you support the words max posted as suggested when you reposted them or not?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

....Are you sure you want to make more claims without adequate justification? Just asking.


You mean like repeating the rumor that you espexially enjoy carnal relations with *****. baaaah.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegkYou mean like repeating the rumor that you espexially enjoy carnal relations with *****. baaaah.

What's wrong hammegk? Suddenly can't spell?

Why not entertain us further and provide some justification for your claims or are you suddenly afraid to say what your views really are?

Isn't it awful not being able to really say what is on your mind but then you never were a very good Franko clone. Sorry.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


What's wrong hammegk? Suddenly can't spell?


I thought the x was a nice touch.

As to *****, I was leaving you to think about it. Sheep weren't mentioned in the version I'm aware of.


Anyway, go back to what you do best, bashing the US. Sorry your ancestors were not smart enough to emigrate, or if they did, stay.

Move on folks, nothing of interest to see here.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
Yes the BNP did make gains in the UK. If they break any laws they should be tried under the law and penalised if found guilty. That is the way it normally works in the UK, unlike other countries who asassinate people without trial.

Such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_2542000/2542719.stm)

"The killing of three unarmed IRA suspects by British soldiers was lawful, a Gibraltar court has found.
The jury took less than seven hours to reach the 9-2 majority verdict on the shootings in March 1988 of Sean Savage, Daniel McCann, and Mairead Farrell.

The elite SAS team shot the suspects because they believed the republican dissidents were about to detonate a remote control bomb in the tiny British territory."

As I understand it George Galloway is sueing the Daily Telegraph for the claims it has made about him. Are you repeating and republishing those claims? If so please let us know. If he has broken any laws he should be treated in the same way as the BNP.

Actually I believe a visit from the SAS would be more apt, but that's just my opinion. And under UK law it may even be "lawful".

In contrast your politicians often buy their positions through the donations of multinational companies which then get given contracts in some cases to rebuild a country destroyed by the man they supported.

Don't you rmember Tony Blair and the Hinduja brothers? Or Cherie and Carol Caplin? What about Peter Mandleson, sacked twice from the cabinet?

Yes, multinational companies supported the man who destroyed Iraq. French multinationals and Saddam, that is. ;)

That man was elected in the most farcical election process which even a third world country would be ashamed off and where some of the most eminent judges in the land some of whom were appointed by that man's father would not allow votes to even be counted.

References E.J.? What about the farce in France, or indeed in Britain where Tony Blair is PM despite the labour party gaining little over 40% of the popular vote, on the back of a 58% turnout?

Would you care to substantiate your claims about me? You have apparently supported other claims includng some which may be the subject of legal procedings in the UK. Are you sure you want to make more claims without adequate justification? Just asking.

When the pot met the kettle! :rolleyes:

Are you one of those who believe that because another poster highlights hypocrisy within the American administration and some Americans that they do not believe there is hypocrisy everywhere else in the world?

No, he's just part of an ever growing body of opinion that thinks you are full of BS.

Is anybody who dares to criticise the US administration by definition a loving "progressive" ? Is that really the true shallowness of your argument?

I think you'll find that the poster in question didn't vote for the present adminsitration, nor is likely to the next time around.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by max
at least they kill each other, not american soldiers or Israeli children.

The IRA killed quite a number of civilians. The UDF was also know to like a bit of violence from time to time.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Which brings to mind this question.. If the U.S. Soldiers were wearing a U.N. patch and a blue helmet, would this turn off their ' cowardly-massacre ' switch? Great point!

[max]

Armstrong you are such a bully and a spoilt brat by the tone of your posts. (I can just imagine you stamping little feeties when you aren't getting your own way) Why should I answer to you? I put my views on here like any other poster. If you think I am a racist so be it. What are your remarks about Americans if not racist.
Jon in London I have a life beyond this board. You know exactly who 'they' are. Stop playing silly games.

[max]

just bumping for Armstrong and Jon to see

[Tricky]

Originally posted by max
What are your remarks about Americans if not racist?

Ummm.... Last I checked, Max, "American" is not a race. Americans are among the most racially diverse people in the world. I think what you meant was "prejudiced".

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Jon in London I have a life beyond this board. You know exactly who 'they' are. Stop playing silly games.

No, I dont know who 'they' are!!! that why Im asking you!

:rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Which brings to mind this question.. If the U.S. Soldiers were wearing a U.N. patch and a blue helmet, would this turn off their ' cowardly-massacre ' switch?

No.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cowardly US troops massacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,945719,00.html) innocent Iraqi civillians excercising their right to protest.

Hearts and Minds! its all about hearts and minds, (that where you should aim your rifle, seee?). Making enemies and alienating people.

Hello Jon:

I am really happy when I find a peaceful man like you.

WHat can I say to defend the US militaries?

Maybe they liberated them:
1.- Dead people don`t work.
2.- Dead people don`t eat.
3.- Dead people don`t worry about their family.
4.- Dead people don`t need money to pay the rent.
5.- Dead people don`t protest.
6.- Dead people are only dead people.

Maybe you can add more.


:) Ex-latin:)

I give you 5 stars.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Great point!

?? The UN has come in for plenty of criticism of it's peace keeping actions.

[max]

Tricky
Ignore me, it's just that I think the USA is the best nation on the planet and the best people. I don't like to see anything wrong said about them. Particularly criticising them for the Iraq war is below the belt. America has liberated the Iraqis, it is not Americans that have looted, pillaged, even nicking beds from hospitals!!! it is Iraqi mobs

Jon
The Irish

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Tricky
Ignore me, it's just that I think the USA is the best nation on the planet and the best people. I don't like to see anything wrong said about them. Particularly criticising them for the Iraq war is below the belt. America has liberated the Iraqis, it is not Americans that have looted, pillaged, even nicking beds from hospitals!!! it is Iraqi mobs


Wonderful race the Romans!

Originally posted by max
Jon
The Irish

I imagine you mean the IRA?
So as long as you dont kill Americans and Isrealis, then thats OK?
:eek:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Particularly criticising them for the Iraq war is below the belt. America has liberated the Iraqis, it is not Americans that have looted, pillaged, even nicking beds from hospitals!!! it is Iraqi mobs



When did I ever say that US troops had nicked hospital beds?!?
Im compaining that US troops machine-gunned a crowd of civillians, killing 13 and injuring 70. Tianamen Square anybody?

[max]

jon
I'm talking to Tricky

[Jon_in_london]

No Max, youre posting on a thread. If you want to talk to tricky, send her a PM.

Why arent you answering any questions? Why are you so evasive? Is it because you are full of *****?

[max]

Tricky's a bloke

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by hammegk
I thought the x was a nice touch.

As to *****, I was leaving you to think about it. Sheep weren't mentioned in the version I'm aware of.
.

Still unable to stand by your own words I see. Not man enough to spell things out either. It must be terible for you when you can't tell us what you really think isn't it? Perhaps you will find the courage one day.Anyway, go back to what you do best, bashing the US. Sorry your ancestors were not smart enough to emigrate, or if they did, stay.

Move on folks, nothing of interest to see here..
I don't suppose that you are man enough to justify your claims hammegk?

Nope. Thought not.

And still not big enough to let us know what you really think. I am glad that I irritate you by asking questions about the actions of this US administraion, and in the absence of any rational answers from you can we presumably draw our own conclusions about what you think about 'free speech'?

And issuing orders well. Which folks are you ordering about here hammy? Shane Costello etc. Do let us know.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by max
Armstrong you are such a bully and a spoilt brat by the tone of your posts. (I can just imagine you stamping little feeties when you aren't getting your own way) Why should I answer to you? I put my views on here like any other poster. If you think I am a racist so be it. What are your remarks about Americans if not racist.

Still at it max. This is great. Max is calling me a bully and a spoilt brat! I am so pleased that I have upset you by simply asking questions and pointing out the nature of some of your claims. Another job well done. Thank you max. And I see that you have no interest in justifying your claims. Aren't you man enough?

Now if you want to debate any of my views why don't you pick anything I have said about America or anything else. Where did I call Americans a childlike backward people? Please show me anywhere where I did so max. If you can that is? I notice that when I criticise the UK administration or Palestinian bombers you don't seem to recognise those comments. But hey ho. Is America alwsys right and everyone else always wrong. And if America and Hussein and Mugabe and China and the UK and Palestinians and the Israelis do wrong things are others not permitted to point that out? Seems not under your philosophy.

Why not pick anything at all I have said max and tell me where in any way it is fatually incorrect or something that cannot be deduced from the evidence? Just asking?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Still unable to stand by your own words I see. Not man enough to spell things out either. It must be terible for you when you can't tell us what you really think isn't it? Perhaps you will find the courage one day.
I don't suppose that you are man enough to justify your claims hammegk?

Nope. Thought not.
Hey, stupid, go pick a fight a fight in your favorite pub. Maybe you can find one with some US military patrons.


And still not big enough to let us know what you really think. I am glad that I irritate you by asking questions about the actions of this US administraion, and in the absence of any rational answers from you can we presumably draw our own conclusions about what you think about 'free speech'?
Oh, I think you know exactly what I think -- certainly of your posts. What you dislike about "free speech" is that others can provide verbal abuse rather than learned discourse to suggest their thoughts in the matter. Life is a bitch, ain't it?

And issuing orders well. Which folks are you ordering about here hammy? Shane Costello etc. Do let us know.
Sorry, I'm usually an army of one, and didn't realize I was issuing orders ... I sometimes do enjoy poking jibes at idiots. There, happier now? I do hope ewe understand. :D

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane CostelloSuch as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
? I am glad that you are making my point for me. I said normally. The UK has indeed assassinated people without trial in the past and I have previously mentioned such matters as Bloody Sunday etc. I didn't and don't support those killings as well. I believe however that the word 'normally' is still appropriate. Two wrongs don't make a right. Actually I believe a visit from the SAS would be more apt, but that's just my opinion. And under UK law it may even be "lawful". I am glad that I have prompted you to let us have some of your true opinions. They make interesting reading. Donald Rumsfeld has been involved in dealings with Saddam Hussein through negotiations over the sale of WOMD to him. See www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html If you apparently believe that George Galloway should be murdered why do you not think the same about Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld also gave Hussein a warm handshake. See url.Don't you rmember Tony Blair and the Hinduja brothers? Or Cherie and Carol Caplin? What about Peter Mandleson, sacked twice from the cabinet?

Yes, multinational companies supported the man who destroyed Iraq. French multinationals and Saddam, that is?
Thank you for making my points for me again. The only thing I would quibble with in what you said is that the scale of buying politicians is much greater in the US than the UK. I am more than happy to have it pointed out the Blair received donations from multinational corporations and engaged in an illegal invasion of Iraq. Interestingly UK companies also supplied Hussein with a chemical plant and the rationale for going to war was more of a poodle type relationship with Bush rather than any logical thought process. Where is the WOMD that Blair claimed was threatening the UK. We don't seem to see any. I wonder why? References E.J.? What about the farce in France, or indeed in Britain where Tony Blair is PM despite the labour party gaining little over 40% of the popular vote, on the back of a 58% turnout? Are you saying that the elections for the President were not farcical? Reference please. Perhaps I can help you - Michael Moore - Stupid White Men.
I really don't think that an election in the UK where all the votes were properly counted under the law can really be equated to the mess in the US where votes were not counted by decree of someof those put in place by the father of one of the candidates and where the govenor of an important state in the elections of the candidate was the brother of the candidate and where the person in control of the counting process was on the election team of the candidate. Now that is really something. Do you think all of that was entirely hunky dory?When the pot met the kettle! Perhaps you would like to support your own claims? Just asking.No, he's just part of an ever growing body of opinion that thinks you are full of BS.References - evidence. Just asking. Unlike those who feel the same about you no doubt. If you want to support your latest claim can I invite you to take anything I have said and substantiate your claim? Anything at all. Just asking? think you'll find that the poster in question didn't vote for the present adminsitration, nor is likely to the next time around. And this means what in relation to my question to him? I am afrad that I do not understand you. Can he not answer questions addressed to him on his own? Am I to take this as the definitive response from your 'group'?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
Hey, stupid, go pick a fight a fight in your favorite pub. Maybe you can find one with some US military patrons.

Still not able to justify your claims. Tsk tsk. Come on hammy be a man. Justify your claims if you can.Oh, I think you know exactly what I think -- certainly of your posts. What you dislike about "free speech" is that others can provide verbal abuse rather than learned discourse to suggest their thoughts in the matter. Life is a bitch, ain't it Still at it hammy I see. Thanks for letting us know about your views on verbal abuse. Still not man enough to stand up for your own views though. If you won't tell me exactly what you think then, no, why do you expect me to know exactly what you think? Unless you are claiming to be a psychic of course. If you want to make claims about me yet again can I just ask for you to justify your comments. Or not. It's entirely up to you. Just asking. Again.Sorry, I'm usually an army of one, and didn't realize I was issuing orders ... I sometimes do enjoy poking jibes at idiots. There, happier now? I do hope ewe understand. Is that the best you can do hammy? Not very good is it. Come on be a man. Stand up for yourself and tell me what you really think? I do hope you find the courage to defend your own claims at some point in the future.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


... snip ...
I do hope you find the courage to defend your own claims at some point in the future.

You are not worth either the time or effort ... bye, bye ...

plonk

I will be happier now, anyway.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
I am glad that you are making my point for me.

You wish! Your original point was:
"Yes the BNP did make gains in the UK. If they break any laws they should be tried under the law and penalised if found guilty. That is the way it normally works in the UK, unlike other countries who asassinate people without trial."

Other countries meaning "certain other places not including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

I am glad that I have prompted you to let us have some of your true opinions. They make interesting reading.

My true feelings are never concealed. That they are only now becoming apparent to you says more about the thickness of your skull than it does about me.

Donald Rumsfeld has been involved in dealings with Saddam Hussein through negotiations over the sale of WOMD to him. See www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html If you apparently believe that George Galloway should be murdered why do you not think the same about Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld also gave Hussein a warm handshake.

From the article:
"A National Security Directive of November 1983 stated that the US would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. "

The operative word here is legal. It is alleged that Galloway took kickbacks from the Iraqis, which is decidiedly illegal. If it is shown that Rumsfeld acted in anything other than a "necessary and legal" fashion, then he should be subject to the proper legal processes.

I never claimed that Galloway should be murdered. Murder is illegal in the UK. The SAS "lawfully kill" people. ;)

Thank you for making my points for me again.

You know you can get help for that dyslexia of yours. :rolleyes:

The only thing I would quibble with in what you said is that the scale of buying politicians is much greater in the US than the UK.

Now where did I say that? And have you any evidence that politicans in the US and UK are "bought" (your phraseology, not mine) by multinational corporations?

Guess who were Saddam's biggest trading partners (www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010418/2001041828.html) and who supplied him with most of his weapons? (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16037&highlight=where+did+Iraq+get+its+weapons)

Where is the WOMD that Blair claimed was threatening the UK. We don't seem to see any. I wonder why?

What about the unearthed documents suggesting a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Haven't Al-Qaeda proved themselves to be a weapon of mass destruction?

Are you saying that the elections for the President were not farcical? Reference please. Perhaps I can help you - Michael Moore - Stupid White Men.

Getting your information from Michael Moore? Sucker!

Michael Moore's tenuous relationship with facts (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16944&highlight=Michael+Moore)

I really don't think that an election in the UK where all the votes were properly counted under the law can really be equated to the mess in the US where votes were not counted by decree of someof those put in place by the father of one of the candidates and where the govenor of an important state in the elections of the candidate was the brother of the candidate and where the person in control of the counting process was on the election team of the candidate. Now that is really something. Do you think all of that was entirely hunky dory?

Whether you are I think it's hunky dory is beside the point. The voters of Florida saw fit to heavily favour the Republicans in the November elections, and returned Jeb Bush by a sizeable majority. So I guess they have the last word on the matter.

Perhaps you would like to support your own claims? Just asking.

I do.

References - evidence. Just asking. Unlike those who feel the same about you no doubt. If you want to support your latest claim can I invite you to take anything I have said and substantiate your claim? Anything at all. Just asking?

Well on this thread alone there's myself, Max and hammegk. Remember Randfan devoting a whole thread to your obsfucation?

And this means what in relation to my question to him? I am afrad that I do not understand you.

Your original claim was:
Is anybody who dares to criticise the US administration by definition a loving "progressive" ? Is that really the true shallowness of your argument?

The poster in question didn't vote for the present administration, nor is likely to again. Presenting anyone who posts a different opinion to your own as a knee-jerk neo-con indicates shallow thinking on your part, not his.

Am I to take this as the definitive response from your 'group'?

Dyslexia and a persecution complex! :rolleyes:

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
You are not worth either the time or effort ... bye, bye ...

plonk

I will be happier now, anyway.

Another one bites the dust. Not hurling more abuse hammegk. I'm disappointed in you.

[max]

definitely a persecution complex!!

[Shane Costello]

Just wondering, Max, if hammegk has disavowed any notion of leading us, does this mean he won't be looking for 10% of everything we earn anymore?

[E.J.Armstrong]

You wish! Your original point was:
"Yes the BNP did make gains in the UK. If they break any laws they should be tried under the law and penalised if found guilty. That is the way it normally works in the UK, unlike other countries who asassinate people without trial."

Other countries meaning "certain other places not including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". :
Like I said Shane 'normally'. QED. I don't believe that the UK used fighter aircraft to bomb houses in Northen Ireland even when the IRA were killing innocent children and murdering defenceless women and leaving their children without even a body to grieve over. My true feelings are never concealed. That they are only now becoming apparent to you says more about the thickness of your skull than it does about me. Ad hominen attacks do a lot for your argument of course but I am used to your modus operandi now.The operative word here is legal. It is alleged that Galloway took kickbacks from the Iraqis, which is decidiedly illegal. If it is shown that Rumsfeld acted in anything other than a "necessary and legal" fashion, then he should be subject to the proper legal processes.

I never claimed that Galloway should be murdered. Murder is illegal in the UK. The SAS "lawfully kill" people. . You seem to be ignoring the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. I note that Rumsfeld as a private person was involved in a 'warm' handshake with Saddam Hussein who at that time was engaged in doing exactly the same things to his people as was used as an excuse for the invasion. Despite 'warmly' shaking Hussein by the hand you don't seem to find it innocuous that Donald Rumsfeld of that ilk was involved in supplying biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, which may have been used to murder his own people. Interesting. I think that Rumsfeld is tainted by his 'warm' handshake with a mass murderer and his involvement in the supply of biological and chemical WOMD to a mass murderer to support US strategic aims. I find the British companies similarly tainted.

I note that you appear to advocate that George Galloway who, as far as I can see, has not been convicted of anything (innocent until proved guilty under Irish law as well I believe) should be assassinated yet someone else who was directly involved in supplying WOMD to Saddam Hussiein shouldn't. Interesting.You know you can get help for that dyslexia of yours. Is that another unsupported claim? Are people who disagree with you somehow tainted in some way?Now where did I say that? And have you any evidence that politicans in the US and UK are "bought" (your phraseology, not mine) by multinational corporations?

Guess who were Saddam's biggest trading partners and who supplied him with most of his weapons?
? You were saying about dyslexia? If you actually read my response you will see that it is my claim not yours that the scale of purchasing politicians is greater in the US than it is in the UK. You want evidence that politicians are bought by multinational companies? Presumably because you do not know of any? OK see www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/02/12/3c68d7d9cfa9a?in_archive=1
Some of multinaional companies who gave big sums of money to the Republicans during the election campaigns of Bush have been awarded contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq in a tainted awards process. The UK is not exempt from the process of buying politicians nor most other countries I guess.

I think eveybody who upplied Saddam Hussien with WOMD and assistance should be criticised and everything they did brought out into the open. This includes US companies, Donald Rumsfeld the UK and France and Russia and anyone else who did such despicable things. Let us see who all the guilty men are without fear or favour. What about the unearthed documents suggesting a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Haven't Al-Qaeda proved themselves to be a weapon of mass destruction? I notice you haven't answered my question but I don't expect you to know particularly when Bush and Blair don't either. And what evidence is there that has been 'unearthed'? References? As far as I undersand there was no collusion between Al Quaeda and Hussein. I do know that the US supplied arms to both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin laden. Is that the link you are looking for?
Getting your information from Michael Moore? Sucker!

Michael Moore's tenuous relationship with facts
!Another ad hominem attack. You just seem to pile them on Shane dn't you? You don't seem to have realised that I posted the book he wrote rather than a film. Have you anything concrete to say about the book other than unsubstantiated remarks about something else entirely. Just asking? I believe that you were actually asking about the electoral process of 'President'George W Bush and how it could be justified as a farce. Perhaps the BBC is good enough for you? See news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/621020.stm. Farce it was indeed.Whether you are I think it's hunky dory is beside the point. The voters of Florida saw fit to heavily favour the Republicans in the November elections, and returned Jeb Bush by a sizeable majority. So I guess they have the last word on the matter. That you're happy with the original farce seems clear. That is your choice. I know that what I think is immaterial but as I have pointed out many others also believe that the presidential elections were a farce. I guess they are jus as wrong as well.Well on this thread alone there's myself, Max and hammegk. Remember Randfan devoting a whole thread to your obsfucation? Well if it's you and hammegk and max who always justify your own claims of course and RandFan who has difficulty remembering his own words before hurling abuse at people and who made many false clams without backing them up on the thread you mentioned (Its all there in public to look at) then I am glad to be viewed with disdain by such an untainted bunch. Would you like to bring up one single thing in the thread with RandFan that you are highlighting and debate it? Anything at all Shane or is this just another ad hominen attack? Is it because I didn't agree with the false claims RandFan posted that you feel that I am somehow wrong? Tsk tsk. I thought you could do better than that. The poster in question didn't vote for the present administration, nor is likely to again. Presenting anyone who posts a different opinion to your own as a knee-jerk neo-con indicates shallow thinking on your part, not his.
? Can I just suggest that you might reread the posts more carefully this time as it was me that was being called names again. Thought you might like to know that and where did I claim that he did vote for the present administration? Just asking. Are you making authoritative responses on behalf of other people now? Another straw man argument? Perhaps you might care to justify your latest claim. Just asking? Dyslexia and a persecution complex! Come on Shane surely a doctoral student can do better than that bit of ad hominem silliness. Given that you don't appear to read my posts properly I really do think the mote seems to be more in your own eye and when you reply on behalf of others perhaps you shouldn't complain when this is pointed out, but then I am used to you modus operandi by now.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by max
definitely a persecution complex!!
Not one for justifying your claims I see max. When you are man enough to stand by your own claims do let me know. Toodle pip.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Im compaining that US troops machine-gunned a crowd of civillians, killing 13 and injuring 70. Tianamen Square anybody?

Well I don't approve of the act either, given what I know(which isn't much and I'm still open to the possibility of provocation.)

However comparing the act to Tiananmen square is just not warranted. Not only is the act not nearly as severe, hundreds(some even say thousands) were killed/injured in Tianamen square as opposed to 13. (Not just by bullets either, some were run over by tanks.)And many of protestors from Tiananmen square are still locked up today.

But the circumstances are different as well. Tiananmen square was not an army keeping crowd control in a foreign land right after a war. It was a military squashing of a normal protest by the protestors own government during peacetime.

Who want this on your house?

I want to be fair....not only US make coward massacres.

This guys are guilty too: