APTN pictures of attack on Foreign civilians in Iraq

halkar

Originally posted by vorbis
... I wouldn't say that the shias hate the americans though.

I wouldn't count on that. It was the Americans that caused them to be killed by Saddam when Senior Bush told them to rise against Saddam and never gave them the help he promised. Forgiving maybe but not forgotten.

Sand

Theyre probably worried about the coalition pulling out and abandoning them to the tender mercies of the terrorists again, but Id believe theyve got warmer feeling for the coalition whove liberated them than they have for the UN/international community which merely killed them with sanctions.

imo.

halkar

UN\international community = US? It makes no difference to US what UN decides they do what they want and no one says or do anything. Even if UN\International community wanted to stop the sanctions against Iraq, do you think US would allowed it? It appears UN does what US says last. If UN wants to put similiar sanctions to Israel today, do you think they will pass? And don't tell me Israel and Iraq are not the same thing. Israel probably broke more UN rules than Iraq ever did.

Shias does not want US there, if anyone hate US in there I am guessing it would be Shias as they are more pro Islam then other minorites in Iraq and more ties with Iran. After all this is why America supported Saddam in Iraq-Iran wars for many years and they are probably responsible of many Shia killings of Saddam did even before the firts gulf war.

US really hit the nail in their head with this one but I guess after loosing the free oil of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for their liberation from Iraq in 1st Gulf war they needed something to keep the black gold coming

monument

Originally posted by 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.

“They can't accept the change in circumstances”

You’re talking about the elections which are apparently going to happen sometime? Well then…

Think about the how may people don’t want the next elections in Ireland to go ahead in their current form because of lack of security etc.

Now think how those people would feel if the elections were taken place in a country in so-called control by an occupation force.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by 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.

Events today (sunday) in Najaf, Nasiriyia, Baghdad and Amarah as well as in several other Shai areas would seem to suggest that not all Shai are glad the coalition are there............

gurramok

Yep, today has seen many violent clashes between shia and 'coalition' forces across Iraq involving US/Spanish/British troops and seem to be getting more regular.

Looks like the honeymoon period is over for the occupiers with the Shia.

pork99

Originally posted by spanner
it seems to me iraqis are putting more effort into fighting americans than trying and rebuild their country. lets face it the americans cant wait to get out of there.

You put your finger on it

Iraq was an f-ed up country long before any American had heard of the place and will be an f-ed country long after the last American goes home no matter what they do

sovtek

Originally posted by pork99
You put your finger on it

Iraq was an f-ed up country long before any American had heard of the place and will be an f-ed country long after the last American goes home no matter what they do

Actually is was a reasonably well off country and had a modern infrastructure. It wasn't until the Iran-Iraq war that things started getting ****ed up.
Then after the Gulf War and sanctions it really went downhill.

pork99

I'm aware that the "cradle of civilisation" was there, Babylon and was the centre of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates however it seems to have gone downhill for them since then.

Mesopotamia later Iraq went from being a dirt poor backwater of the Persian empire, then the Ottoman empire then the British empire to being a third world nationalist-socialist dictatorship in 1958. Maybe you see that as a good thing? Being ruled by one of the worst tyrants in modern history since 1978 was also a good thing?

To sum up this was a very poor and backward part of the world for centuries. Then they found oil which unfortunately not only modernised their infrastructure but also bought them a horrificaly corrupt and oppressive political system.

sovtek

Originally posted by pork99
I'm aware that the "cradle of civilisation" was there, Babylon and was the centre of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates however it seems to have gone downhill for them since then.

Mesopotamia later Iraq went from being a dirt poor backwater of the Persian empire, then the Ottoman empire then the British empire to being a third world nationalist-socialist dictatorship in 1958. Maybe you see that as a good thing?

No but it was good enough for various "western nations" to support that nationalist-socialist dictatorship throughout it's worst atrocities and human rights abuses.

Being ruled by one of the worst tyrants in modern history since 1978 was also a good thing?

I don't see that Saddam was any worse than your average oppressive dictator. There are plenty out there and a good many of them are still getting "our" support.
No I don't think Saddam was a good thing, and had I not been just a twinkle in my fathers eye when the CIA helped him to power then I would have spoke out against giving such a person military aid and WMD's.

Then they found oil which unfortunately not only modernised their infrastructure but also bought them a horrificaly corrupt and oppressive political system.

Which was supported by the US and Britian until the day before the Gulf War.
It's still a damn site better than what we're seeing now.

pork99

Originally posted by sovtek
No but it was good enough for various "western nations" to support that nationalist-socialist dictatorship throughout it's worst atrocities and human rights abuses.

oh yes it's always entirely the West's fault :rolleyes:

monument

Originally posted by pork99
oh yes it's always entirely the West's fault :rolleyes:

Well, people with more power can cause more problems.

sovtek

Originally posted by pork99
oh yes it's always entirely the West's fault :rolleyes:

Because it's got to be all or nothing eh? :rolleyes:

vorbis

Because it's got to be all or nothing eh?

problem is people like you adopt the attitude that the dictator didn't really know what he was doing and the nasty west was really the evil party committing the atrocities. America does have a dark past with regards to Iraq but that is not the same as committing actual atrocities.

halkar

Originally posted by vorbis
... America does have a dark past with regards to Iraq but that is not the same as committing actual atrocities.

You can go and try telling this to Iraqis. And now we are seeing Shias uprising all over whom they have been quite up until, I dare to think what is next.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
problem is people like you adopt the attitude that the dictator didn't really know what he was doing and the nasty west was really the evil party committing the atrocities

Where have these "people like you" adopted that in this thread?

Or indeed on this board in general?

I can't think of a single person who has stated - or even hinted at - anything which could be construed in such a manner. All I have seen is people like Sovtek insisting that the blame does not lie solely at the feet of people like Hussein - that the West accept that it too carries a burden of blame.

Of course, whats interesting to see is the various different attitudes being posted of people trying to avoid admitting that fact. Pork went down the "all or nothing" path, and now you're skirting the other old chestnut - the "Saddam apologist" insinuations.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
America does have a dark past with regards to Iraq but that is not the same as committing actual atrocities.

Correct. Just like being an accomplice to a murderer isn't the same as being a murderer.

jc

America does have a dark past with regards to Iraq but that is not the same as committing actual atrocities.

Most the major nations in the West have done dark deeds in the middle east, so its not just the US that is targeted by hatred. The difference is that the US has the most recent activities in just about every nation in the middle east. <Shrugs> So it stands to reason that those in the middle east distrust the west, especially the US.

besides, its no secret that the US has a history of creating rebellions/uprisings and then leaving them to fight on their own. Its no wonder that people are a little bit distrustful of US advances towards support.

Mesopotamia later Iraq went from being a dirt poor backwater of the Persian empire, then the Ottoman empire then the British empire to being a third world nationalist-socialist dictatorship in 1958.

Iraq was an f-ed up country long before any American had heard of the place and will be an f-ed country long after the last American goes home no matter what they do

pork, outside of the whole dictator and tyrant thingie, iraq had one of the best infrastrcutures in the middle east at the time (1958 onwards). Think Kuwait, and you'll see the resources, and money they had at their disposal. I doubt too many people will disagree with you that the rulers of Iraq throughout the centuries have been that nice, but it wasn't always a f-ed up country. just its leadership.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

vorbis

bonkey, you're portraying my views in an overly extremist manner. People like sovtek do (don was a misprint) accept that Sadamm was an evil dictator. I don't deny that. The difference of opinion stems from their in my view belief that the actions of the US in Iraq (aiding the old regime) were worse than Sadamm's actions. I was simply stating that the majority of the blame lies at Sadamm's feet. The US is also culpable but not to the same extent.

I personally think that it is contemptible that the west, if not people here, can decide what's barbaric and what’s not.

Are we not allowed have an opinion? Perhaps you can also point out people who don't think that the nature of the killings was barbaric (Other than the barbarians who committed the atrocity)

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt

<Snip>

Well Said

monument

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
But since when was there a good way to kill people in war like situations? I would imagine having a hole blown through your face by a .50 cal bullet would not be pretty either.

Is there a really a good way to kill some one?

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
People should remember that some of the weapons used in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts were not precision guided. If I recall the likes of Cluster Bombs, Thermobari bombs, 3DDU depleted Uranium equipped bombs and not to leave out the whole "carpet bombing" in general... were used in both conflicts.

The people who committed the above atrocities are not barbarians because they only pressed a button or something. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by vorbis
People like sovtek don accept that Sadamm was an evil dictator.

Where does he even hint that?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

monument

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I get the feeling you are questioning them....[/size]

Yes, them.

I was agree you by also using sarcasm.

Victor

Originally posted by monument
Is there a really a good way to kill some one?

.50 to the back of the head or an overdose of sedative. You don't feel it that way.

Vader

Originally posted by stuartfanning
Site below has the uncensored Associated Press Television News coverage of the attack on Foreign civilians in Iraq today. You can compare these to what we see on mainstream newscasts

**Beware graphic pictures**

http://www.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=382471

click on Brutal Attack

Im going to start by saying I havent read the whole thread and so if Im repeating anything said already then sorry.
Are we talking about the 4 men burnt alive and then dragged through the streets?
They weren't civilians, they were mercinaries. They were armed and uniformed and according to US sources were "Military contractors" but meet the geneva conventions definition of a mercinary.


I think the attack was disgusting. And pointless. From the Iraqi point of veiw it makes things worse, negative PR is all it has accomplised, they need to gain sympathy for their plight, now all they have done is make "the west" appaled with them.

As for the actual brutality of it, I would like to highlight cluster bombs, agent orange, land mines, carpet bombing, depleted uranium shells, naplam etc etc as weapons used by the US in the past (and present)

The US forces have killed over 10,000 Iraqis since the war began, I think I heard that 2 million died as a result of the sanctions before hand (dunno bout that)

I think the Lawyer representing the league of arabs on prime time came off terrible, he should have condemed the attack and then explained the motives, when he didnt do this ppl werent interested in their motives.

Sorry if Im sounding a little cold hearted to the dead, I think all lose of life is tragic.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Vader

I thought thats what the lawyer on prime time said

You say roughly 8,000

He asy roughly 10,000 of course he may wnat to exagerate, or then again (and this is most likely) I just heard wrong

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Well stictly he was right, over 10,000 Iraqis were killed, perhaps in the order of 7935 civilians were killed, but estimates of military and others killed also range up to the 10,000 figure.