APTN pictures of attack on Foreign civilians in Iraq

shotamoose

Originally posted by spanner

i hope i am getting your point here are you trying to say that america exports its criminals to arab countries so they can deal with them because if you are you really want something to back that up. if you belive this amazing theory you really need to open your eyes and take a break from your constant selfrighteous american bashing because its getting to your head

Canadian citizen was arrested in America and deported to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

Sounds like his 'amazing theory' was actually spot on.

halkar

I don't know what those man got there for and I don't care if they were there for holidays or contracting or fighting, as far as Iraqi people sees them they are in their country and not wanted. No one really asked them to go there, when they were taking out these kind of high paid jobs they were accepting the risks. To me this brutal event was more like propaganda that worked in Somalia when Somalians did to Americans and Americans left. What is worrying is there might be more event like this until Americans realize blood for oil is not really working.

Woody, I don't know what you are on about but you really got the wrong end of the stick with your comments about Islam and Quran. Maybe you read Quran in English or in Hebrew written by Muslim hater christian or jew but maybe you should learn arabic and read the real Quran and post again. Your comments about muslims and arabs are discusting and purely racist. You have only seen (if you did) what you were aloowed to see in Middle East (if you were there) , being under UN or whatever the reason you were there for does not give you any inside of what is going on there. US and its allies invaded a soverign country after starwing many of its citizens to dead and killing their children sorry they didn't get the welcome they wanted when they got there. Its one year now and there are still more Iraqis killed then foreigners there, I reapeat foreigners as Iraq is Iraqis, muslims, arabs, barbarians or whatever you call them. It is not your country and not mine and certainly not belong to US.

Originally posted by Memnoch
hmm... i'm sorry, so you are saying that because Bush has managed to convince the american public through lies and propaganda that the US invasion of Iraq was "justified" that makes it "ok"?

Didn't say that at all.
Let me clarify, Bush has to face an election, the guys that dragged burning bodies down the street don't.
So at least the voters of the countries that invaded get to have their say and Bush and Blair will be re-elected or they will not.
Terrorists on the other hand or insurgents, unelected freedom fighters, (call them what you will) of the ilk
that did this barbarity don't have such a civil sanction, they can do what they like eg madrid.

Why do I need to prove that Al-Queda/non-iraqi's were involved? I'm not the one making the claim that they ARE.

It was you that said whoever carried out this had a mandate, it's a simple fact that they don't.
I merely mentioned Alq'ueda to profer the point that if they were involved they are not Iraqi at all and asked could you prove who was involved as without that there is a second lack of a basis for a mandate for the people who did this in that they could be foreign.
And indeed as we don't really know who is responsible it's even premature to comment on whether they are Iraqi or not, if they were connected to alqueda then they were probably foreigners just like the americans.

What you can prove to me, is that the majority of the American public is ignorant of the true facts of the War OF terror, or the state of Afghanasthan as it is now since its "liberation" to "democracy". Or what about the fact that a study conducted by the University of Maryland shows that the majority of American's are wrong about atleast 1 crucial fact of the war in Iraq?

You may well diss the inteligence of the average U.S voter, but you will have to diss the voters everywhere while you are at it which kind of defeats the point of picking out just U.S voters.
Fact remains and this was the point I was addressing, that to compare the actions of an elected government with an unelected terrorist is not comparing like with like.
That fact is independent of any judgement on the rights or wrongs of what they are doing or have done.
And that is essentially what I am taking issue with you.

Sand

I read through the thread to the point where it got repetitive and I knew what was being posted by looking at who posted it.

First off its a barbaric act, but whats to be expected from the terrorists operating in the sunni triangle? Ive seen people saying the fact that this occurred is somehow confirmation that such acts enjoy widespread support in Iraq. Two points - one this happened in Fallujah and is remarkable for its savagery, whereas Fallujah is remarkable for the level of terrorist activity in it. Fallujah != Iraq. Secondly, Ive seen some indignation and whispers of racist when Woody ( i think ) claimed that these Iraqis were barbarians. Again, I think this is wrong because crowd mutilating corpse != Iraqi people. However, the people who committed a barbaric act are by definition barbarians. Again, you cant use barbarians as a barometer of Iraqi opinon without considering the Iraqis in general to be barbarian. Hell, the terrorrists attacked and killed 200 Iraqis not so long ago because they were Shias. The fact they could do that and get away with it means what? That the Iraqi people hate Shias? Damn those Shias have a real case of self-loathing.

Its just frustratingly ironic that the same people whod jump down your throat if you said "All Muslims are terrorist scum" or "All Iraqis are terrorist scum" use terrorist attacks as barometers of Muslim and Iraqi opinion.

Secondly these sort of attacks are worrying because theyre the sort of thing that could spark an absolutely catastrophic pullout like Somalia. Lets be clear about this - there is no third option.....Either Saddam is still in power, or the coalition are in Iraq. There is no magical third option that doesnt involve an unbelievable shift in UN polices ( yeah, right ) and in the meantime 4,500 children being killed every month.

I say this because I see a lot of "Of course I dont want to see Saddam back, but I want to see the coalition out of Iraq". The coalition is the steadying force in Iraq now that is keeping a lid on the chaos whilst the Iraqis form a government, a legislature, a police force, a military, a civil service, a system of laws and last but not least a constitution - all this takes time, and it takes space, neither of which the terrorists are going to extend. If the coalition leaves.....Iraq will fall into civil war and millions will die. Its that simple - The people who are committing the terrorist attacks in Iraq dont give two ****s if theyre killing coalition troops or UN peacekeepers. You see the distinction, they dont. Dont make the mistake of projecting your own mindset onto the Iraqis. They dont vote Democrat.

And the coalition needs to stay in Iraq - if its intimidated out of Iraq then the civil war that follows with not only be terrible for the Iraqis who will be suffering in it but also for the coalition. It will eliminate their credibility, destabilise the entire region on which the world economy rests and in general be a complete disaster.

Memnoch

Originally posted by shotamoose
Canadian citizen was arrested in America and deported to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months



Sounds like his 'amazing theory' was actually spot on.

hahaahaha , I love being vindicated but seriosuly the sheer number of people that are ignorant of these facts never ceases to amaze me.... open your eyes guys its a big world out there

spongebob

Originally posted by Sand
Secondly these sort of attacks are worrying because theyre the sort of thing that could spark an absolutely catastrophic pullout like Somalia.

This has happened. Most policing is carried out by Iraqis who are aided by Mercenaries such as those killed in Falluja yesterdays (stop calling them private security , they are mercenary 101 types).

If the US hired more Foreign mercenaries and fewer American ones the pictures seen yesterday would simply not have made the US news. The occupation can then rock on as usual.

M

Ronan|Raven

[offtopic]Well its not like this sort of thing has never happened in this fair land of ours. Cast yer minds back to 88 when the plainclothes officers were killed by the angry mob.
[/offtopic]

Although i dont agree with the reason the coaltion of good will and cheer are in Iraq for I do agree with sands point about if they pull out to early it will leave a huge power vacumn and only make things worse. If indeed they could get any more so.

vorbis

it frankly worries me that some people can see justification for the attacks. Mutilation of bodies is despicable. The barbarians who did this are likely to be Sunni given the location. It seems like they're not taking losing power lightly.

Ajnag

If the Iraqis are lucky then they can have 500 lb bombs do the mutilating for them some day. :rolleyes:

Sparks

Originally posted by vorbis
it frankly worries me that some people can see justification for the attacks.

What worries me is people who believe that understanding a thing necessarily means condoning it.

Mutilation of bodies is despicable.

Agreed - but if you'll paint the people who do it as barbarians, you'll have to start uncomfortably close to home, and you'll cover a lot of the world with paint.

vorbis

sparks I have no problem calling anyone who would deliberately do that to another human being a barbarian. If an american soldier mutilated an enemy corpse, he too would be a barbarian. I understand your point about a difference between understanding and condoning. However some posters here are effectively condoning it. (NOT saying you!)

Fionnan

Sovtek wrote "Actually an Arab country is supposedly the begining of civilization.
That assertion also forgets the fractured nature of the Middle East is due largely to the British empire and the American one since WW2."

And please don't forget to mention the centuries of Turkish rule! That may have messed it up too!

bonkey

Originally posted by woody
How is his remarks Racist this is a great Word you use Bonkey..

Well, lets see. What he said is targetted at a race of people, and is derogatory in nature. T

ell you what - replace the word "arab" with the word "Jew" ion what he said and tell me if you think it would then be anti-Semitic.

Or replace it with "black" and see if you think it would be an acceptable thing to...oooh I dunno...say in a public interview on television.

or do you think that its ok to be discriminatory towards arabs because they deserve it, but we shouldn't do it to Jews, Blacks, Asians, or any other group because then it would be discrimintary in nature?

The Fact is the large majority of Arab Regimes are both Brutal and Oppresive to their own people and forigeners who work there...ie.. Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen,Oman,Iran,Pakistan,Syria and Algeria just to name a few...

Yes, and the fact is that the oppression is carried out by a minority. He didn't tar that minority - he tarred all the people in those nations. Bit like your comments were doing earlier, really.

These countries are Barbaric... they use Islam to Decapitate People who commit crimes, Cut hands off in the Name of Islam, Stone Women and Men Adulters to death... Have brutal torture techniques used on the average Joe soap to an "InFidel"

Again, you fail to notice that because these nations are not democratic, there is no indication whatsoever that the majority of the people want, support, and approve of these measures. But don't let that stop you. Lack of democracy is a handy stick to beat them with when it suits you, but apparently you don't see to realise what the implications of a lack of democracy actually mean in terms of who decides what happens in these countries.

No, no. Lets not consider that. Lets just tar all the people with the same derogatory brush....much easier, and not racist in any way.

If a comment is made about Arabs or Islam it is percived as Racist but the fact remains that both the culture and religion is based not on Love or even Fairness but Brutality...

Rubbish. You are (yet again) taking the actions of a minority and applying them across the entire peoples.

And as for your interpretation of Islam - if thats the blinkered vision you choose to hold of it, thats your business. I'm surprised to hear such intolerance from someone who constantly makes claims about his own religion's persecution and how that is almost entirely down to ignorance on the part of those doing the criticising.

There is many sites that explain the Koran from an impartial point of view and it is based on Women having little or no rights,

Women have little or no rights in the bible either. Whats your point? It talks about killing people and mutilating them for offences. Are you implying that Christians are barbaric and brutal oppressors as well now?

Killing of Non-Belivers of Islam and total brutality....Have a look for them read it then read the Actual Koran and then tell me I am racist....

Go and talk to some people who actually understand that like any religious work there are multiple interpretations leading to multiple "flavours" within the religion.

There is no such thing as an "impartial point of view" when analysing a religious work. There are simply different interpretations.

You are taking an extremist interpretation and judging the entire Muslim world - most of which follows far more tolerant interpretations of the Koran - as a result. Again, its no different to me judging all Jews everywhere on, say, those extremists within Israel who call for the complete annihilation of Palestine, or those extremists who assassinated one of your own leaders.
But if I did that, I'd be anti-Semitic. So explain to me why you doing the same to the arabs is perfectly acceptable?

jc

Originally posted by Sparks
What worries me is people who believe that understanding a thing necessarily means condoning it.

You shouldn't worry about that Sparks.
What you've said is almost a Sinn Féin way of looking at things ironically, as are the other similar comments.

ie... understand it, don't condone it but avoid condemning it like the plague as condemnation is best served at the others and not on all equally.
The British in the case of SF and the coalition in the case of some here.

halkar

Originally posted by Fionnan
Sovtek wrote "Actually an Arab country is supposedly the begining of civilization.
That assertion also forgets the fractured nature of the Middle East is due largely to the British empire and the American one since WW2."

And please don't forget to mention the centuries of Turkish rule! That may have messed it up too!

Nope, wasn't the Turkish rule, it was the Nationalism of 18th and 19th centuries which was brought by mostly British and other European powers of the time that messed up Middle East. remember it was Ottomans that build the walls of Jerusalem to protect the city from raiders, not only for muslims but for christians and jews too, you can still see the old churches across the city that have been around centuries. There were many nations under Ottoman rule and many of those just joined to the empire without wars. Christianity of Europe was far more cruel then the Islam of Middle East and many balkan cities just handed their city keys to escape from brutality of their kings. On their glorious days, many of the states man and government members wasn't even muslims. There were jews, armenian, christians along side sultans governing the empire. One must wonder that they have kept so many nations under one hood for almost 400-500 years. :rolleyes:

Mighty_Mouse

What you've said is almost a Sinn Féin way of looking at things ironically, as are the other similar comments.

Yes lets twist this thread around to getting the boot into Republicans again!:rolleyes: Any opportunity Earthman?


Mods. Is this not off-topic?

Redleslie

The treatment of the dead mercs was barbaric but from the insurgents' (or terrorists or whatever you prefer) point of view it was probably "worth it" for the psychological effect it might have on coalition troops. They could claim the end justified the means in other words, which oddly enough is how the pro war barbarians defended the illegal invasion and subsequent slaughter of Iraqi civilians originally.

sovtek

The Fact is the large majority of Arab Regimes are both Brutal and Oppresive to their own people and forigeners who work there...ie.. Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen,Oman,Iran,Pakistan,Syria and Algeria just to name a few...

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, and the fact is that the oppression is carried out by a minority. He didn't tar that minority - he tarred all the people in those nations. Bit like your comments were doing earlier, really.

And as I might pedantically point out...
all but two of those countries' regimes are supported by America.

spongebob

Originally posted by Redleslie
They could claim the end justified the means in other words, which oddly enough is how the pro war barbarians defended the illegal invasion and subsequent slaughter of Iraqi civilians originally.

Dragging Dead American Mercenaries around on CNN is the 'poor mans' version of "shock and awe" .........how very very true Redleslie. Its really barbaric but then again so is dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas.

My attitude is that these Mercenaries get paid a high risk premium which is built into their salaries. They are there so that 'servicng soldiers' do not take the hits ....that being bad propoganda in an election year.

On the same day , 5 serving soldiers were killed, one of the highest single incident accounts for a long time. That was conveniently buried by the media once the morbid fascination with the Mogadishu analogy kicked in.

M

vorbis

what some people are seemingly forgetting is that the attacks were by the SUNNIs. They lost the most by the deposing of Sadamm. I wouldn't read a struggle for independence into their actions. They are just looking for a return to their priviledged position. Hopefuly the Americans can make an example out of the perpetuaters of this atrocity. Such an example would also help in showing that the Sunni muslims no longer hold sway over Iraq.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
I wouldn't read a struggle for independence into their actions.

Thanks for letting us know what to think.

Hopefuly the Americans can make an example out of the perpetuaters of this atrocity.

What sort of example do you have in mind?

vorbis

yawn Frank, no one's telling anyone what to think. Sorry for oppressing you.:rolleyes: As for an example, they being brought to trial of course. They still have capital punishment over there don't they?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
yawn Frank, no one's telling anyone what to think. Sorry for oppressing you.:rolleyes:

I didn't say you were oppressing me. I just don't think you should jump to the conclusion that actions like these are all coming from pro-Sadam people who what to return to power (or whatever way the Americans tend to phrase it).
I've no doubt the insurgency is made up of a section of pro-Sadam people, but like Muck said, this could be their own version of "Shock and Awe". If it is, it certainly seems to be having some effect, don't you think?

sovtek

Originally posted by vorbis
what some people are seemingly forgetting is that the attacks were by the SUNNIs. They lost the most by the deposing of Sadamm. I wouldn't read a struggle for independence into their actions. They are just looking for a return to their priviledged position. Hopefuly the Americans can make an example out of the perpetuaters of this atrocity. Such an example would also help in showing that the Sunni muslims no longer hold sway over Iraq.

...or maybe they are just looking for some sense of normality in their lives.
Actually I haven't seen any reports about who the attackers were. Only that the people of Falluja dragged the bodies through the streets.
Incidentally Falluja isn't a stronghold of Saddam support.

vorbis

Originally posted by sovtek

Incidentally Falluja isn't a stronghold of Saddam support.

I'll be careful in what I say in case I get banned. Falluja is sunni muslim dominated. Of course it was pro Sadamm. I'm not sure whether to call you a liar as you may genuinely believe that it wasn't pro Sadamm. Knowing some people here, i'll be asked to provide a poll showing that the people who benefited most from Sadamm's rule were pro Sadamm.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
[Bie... understand it, don't condone it but avoid condemning it like the plague as condemnation is best served at the others and not on all equally.[/B]

Well, thats kinda funny, because I'm looking at a lot of the people who take the following stance about the atrocities in teh Middle East. While no-one condones the action, the reverse of your description seems to apply quite often :

Dont bother understanding it - just decide they hate our freedom, or some other equally trivial oversimplification.

Condemn it, and while you're at it generalise to condemn the innocent along with teh guilty for being unfortunate to share the same heritage/religion/race.

Personally...I'm trying to understand it. I condemn it. But I will not extend that condemnation to everyone for whom it would be politically expedient to disparage.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by vorbis
Of course it was pro Sadamm. I'm not sure whether to call you a liar as you may genuinely believe that it wasn't pro Sadamm.

Just like capturing Saddam was going to quell the insurgents...right? Or now is it Al Quaeda, or Syrians and Iranians?
Just because the Pentagon says something...don't make it true.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0401-01.htm

Contrary to most reports, the Sunni town of Fallujah has never been a stronghold of Saddam Hussein despite the fact that his iron-fisted regime relied mainly on a close circle of Sunni followers.

The town was deprived under the ousted regime.

Fallujah and the rest of Al-Anbar province are ruled by Sunni conservative tribes who have traditionally resisted submission to foreign occupiers or government forces seeking to control the area by force.

Under Saddam, imams across the town refused to abide by his orders to praise him personally during daily prayers.

The "city of mosques," as it is known, is also home to a plethora of Sunni currents and religious schools, including Salafists.

After the fall of the secular Baath party regime last year, hairdressers and music shops were forced to shut down by threats and sometimes bombings.

Only a few political parties are represented in town, except for Islamic groups and the movement calling for the restoration of the monarchy of the Hashemite family of descendants of Prophet Mohammed.

Fallujah also has a long enmity with the United States.

Victor

Originally posted by spanner
i hope i am getting your point here are you trying to say that america exports its criminals to arab countries so they can deal with them because if you are you really want something to back that up. if you belive this amazing theory you really need to open your eyes and take a break from your constant selfrighteous american bashing because its getting to your head

A refugee from Syria was sent from the USA to Syria, only because he shared a name with an alleged terrorist. He was subsequently tortured. Likewise quite a few prisoners from countries with dubious records were repatriated, while others weren't.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by vorbis
what some people are seemingly forgetting is that the attacks were by the SUNNIs. They lost the most by the deposing of Sadamm. I wouldn't read a struggle for independence into their actions. They are just looking for a return to their priviledged position.

How many large mercs or suburban villas have you seen when coverage of the "Sunni triangle" as been shown on tv?
The vast majority of Sunnis made no profite what so ever under Saddams regime.
Elements of favoured tribal families and those who apposed the strict religious teachings that many Sunnis believed in profited but for most part ordinary Sunni peoples lives were almost as bad as their Shai counterparts.

In the south the Shai are simply playing a waiting game, they know they have the numbers in an electoral sense so why shouldnt they?
I think it would however be very naive to assume that because there is no violence at the moment in Shai areas that they are glad that the Americans are there.

vorbis

sorry I find that hard to believe AmentoThat.
A leader usually looks after his own people no matter the government style (democracy, dicatator). The sunnis are showing classic spoiled brat symptoms to me. They can't accept the change in circumstances. The shias I would agree are waiting for elections. I wouldn't say that the shias hate the americans though.