Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

passive

i was kinda presuming that other people would be booby trapping the corpses...rather than people setting up elaborate bombs on themselves that will go off after they die. just a presumption though...

Yes that was my point, I thought it would have been fairly obvious but you can't underestimate common ignorance. Sign of the times really.

oh f*ck off. You made the point that he was only under investigation because he'd been caught. If you'd extended that to "caught on camera by the entire world" then I probably wouldn't have said anything. However; if he'd been reported by another soldier or supervising officer he'd be under investigation anyway. Maybe the combatants generally disobey the rules & maybe their buddies usually keep quiet about it for them but it's still stupid to say "The only reason that marine is getting investigated is because he got caught." with the implication that this implies a fault in the US army and it's policy on shooting wounded iraqis in the head.

cdebru

it's possible that the guy could have a grenade which he would pull the pin out of when any americans came close enough

as it turns out this guy didn't and was completely unarmed

obviously I dont think the americans should be there in the first place but if you stand back from that and put yourself in the shoes of that soldier who can say they would do different

the best way to stop this happening is for america to get out of there

chill

shltter wrote:

this is nonsense the IRA's prefered main targets were always military however as the conflict continued it bacame harder and harder to attack military targets

Wrong. They preferred civilian targets all the way from inception and the whole 'military' target story has always been a complete sham and the big lie of their mass murdering existence.

the other main target for the IRA was commercial as the view was that Britain was quite prepared to accept soldiers being killed at the rate the IRA was capable of killing them , however if you hit them in the pocket that this would get their attention the IRA main aim was not to deliberately try to kill civilians if it had been there would have been alot more people dead than there was

The vast majority of IRA activity was solely the death of civilians. Bombs in pubs, Bombs in the street. This comercial thing is a fiction.

the firebombing of dresden was terrorist as the sole aim was to kill civiliansand in doing so to demoralise the german people there was no military element in this attack

Wrong. It was a desparate measure carried by desparate people tryingt o avoid a victory by a mass murdering regime over the whole of Europe. It wass extremely dubious morally, but it was not a terrorist act.

your basic arguement seems to be that if you agree with a particular side in a conflict that no matter what they do during that conflict even the deliberate killing of women and children does not qualify as terrorism for no other reason than you think they are the good guys

That sounds like your own theory and has nothing whatsoever to do with what i wrote.

each action has to be judged on its own merits

No.

A Dub in Glasgo

You seem to always use the word 'wrong' to describe a post you do not agree with. Why? Are you always right? Maybe you can go to post 241 and say 'wrong'.

shltter

chill wrote:

Wrong. They preferred civilian targets all the way from inception and the whole 'military' target story has always been a complete sham and the big lie of their mass murdering existence..

that is your opinion however it is not backed up by facts if the IRA had prefered to kill civilians there would have been an awful lot more of them dead

chill wrote:

The vast majority of IRA activity was solely the death of civilians. Bombs in pubs, Bombs in the street. This comercial thing is a fiction..

again that is your opinion but not backed up by facts there is no denying that civilian were killed but that does not mean they were the main target the vast majority of IRA bombs were preceeded by a warning. Giving a warning would hardly make sense if your intention was to kill civilians

chill wrote:

Wrong. It was a desparate measure carried by desparate people tryingt o avoid a victory by a mass murdering regime over the whole of Europe. It wass extremely dubious morally, but it was not a terrorist act..

"In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000"

that was in febuary 1945 the war was nearly over it was not the act of a desperate people clutching at straws trying to stop the relentless march of fascism it was a relatively undefended city picked because it was undefended
conservatively 35000 innocent people died.It was terrorism just because you agree with the desired outcome the defeat of the nazis does not make it ok

chill wrote:

That sounds like your own theory and has nothing whatsoever to do with what i wrote..

your previous comment proves that statement. it is not an uncommon view if i agree with the outcome then it is ok if i dont like the desired outcome its terrorism not matter what the action is


No.[/QUOTE]

yes wether you like it or not

SkepticOne

shltter wrote:

again that is your opinion but not backed up by facts there is no denying that civilian were killed but that does not mean they were the main target the vast majority of IRA bombs were preceeded by a warning. Giving a warning would hardly make sense if your intention was to kill civilians

I was in London during the IRA campaign of the early 90's. Although several bombs went off, I don't think there was any target that could be described as military. Someone I worked with was almost killed in a pub during lunch time in central London. He survived. I remember signing the card for him at work.

The aproach taken was to have a certain amount of bombs go off with no warning or minimal warning. These would kill or injure people. Then, there would be numerous false warnings which would cause disruptions. There was probably about 10 false alarms for every real bomb. Although the intention was to maximise terror in the minds of people, it is interesting how people adapted and got used to it and joked about it despite the annoyance and occasional tragedy.

For the most part, people did not, as far as I could see, let it affect their lives. Most people just regarded the IRA as political scumbags, as did I.

But London is a big place. I don't think the IRA had the resources to really bring about the terror that they might have wished. If they did, it would probably have been bad news for sections of Belfast and the rest of the North, as police and the military might have turned it into a milder version of Fallujah as they routed out suspects, but in this case, it would have been the IRA that created the political environment that would have made this possible.

shltter

SkepticOne wrote:

I was in London during the IRA campaign of the early 90's. Although several bombs went off, I don't think there was any target that could be described as military. Someone I worked with was almost killed in a pub during lunch time in central London. He survived. I remember signing the card for him at work.

The aproach taken was to have a certain amount of bombs go off with no warning or minimal warning. These would kill or injure people. Then, there would be numerous false warnings which would cause disruptions. There was probably about 10 false alarms for every real bomb. Although the intention was to maximise terror in the minds of people, it is interesting how people adapted and got used to it and joked about it despite the annoyance and occasional tragedy.

For the most part, people did not, as far as I could see, let it affect their lives. Most people just regarded the IRA as political scumbags, as did I.

But London is a big place. I don't think the IRA had the resources to really bring about the terror that they might have wished. If they did, it would probably have been bad news for sections of Belfast and the rest of the North, as police and the military might have turned it into a milder version of Fallujah as they routed out suspects, but in this case, it would have been the IRA that created the political environment that would have made this possible.

that campaign was part of a policy of taking the war to britain the view was that the british government was not too concerned with a 100 people a year being killed in the 6 counties and were quite prepared to allow the war to continue as it did not affect them or the people who voted for them on a daily basis
The campaign in Britain was part of a commercial campaign and undoubtedly damaged the British economy.

i would presume that people planting devices like that are in a catch 22 too short a warning and risk the possibility of civilian casualties too long and the device maybe disarmed the hoaxes are too stretch the bomb disposal teams and to maximise disruption

in the view of most republicans i would say there is a general belief that the campaign in britain moved the situation in Ireland further up the the political agenda in Britain and ultimately helped the peace process as the British Government were more interested in finding a solution
A pointer to this would be when the IRA ended the first ceasefire they did so with an attack on Canary Wharf
as for turning the north into fallujah it would have been bit of a waste of time
as it is generally accepted that the people involved in that campaign were living in Britain the British knew that as well.

SkepticOne

shltter wrote:

The campaign in Britain was part of a commercial campaign and undoubtedly damaged the British economy.

I doubt if it did to any great extent, to be honest. The country was coming out of a recession caused by high interest rates after the Lawson boom years where people had over-extended themselves.

i would presume that people planting devices like that are in a catch 22 too short a warning and risk the possibility of civilian casualties too long and the device maybe disarmed the hoaxes are too stretch the bomb disposal teams and to maximise disruption

But in the case of the pub bombing, it would seem that death of civilians was the main aim. They picked a location and a time where there would be a concentration of civilians to blow up the bomb.

in the view of most republicans i would say there is a general belief that the campaign in britain moved the situation in Ireland further up the the political agenda in Britain and ultimately helped the peace process as the British Government were more interested in finding a solution

I think you are correct here although some aspects of the solution such as the removal of the constitutional claim to the six counties by the South might not have been popular among all of them.

A pointer to this would be when the IRA ended the first ceasefire they did so with an attack on Canary Wharf
as for turning the north into fallujah it would have been bit of a waste of time
as it is generally accepted that the people involved in that campaign were living in Britain the British knew that as well.

I don't think, if such a thing were to go ahead, that it would have been to find the particular terrorists involved in the British bombings, but rather a general reprisal against republican areas. I think, however, that this would only have happened if the campaign in Britain had been much more severe. I would not have approved of such a reprisal, but would have regarded it as inevitable in such a situation with the IRA being ultimately responsible for the political situation which brought it about.

cdebru

i think your wrong the manchester bomb alone cost in the region of 400million sterling
the bishopsgate bomb cost around 350million
then there was the disruption to business that the fact that britain did not look like a safe place to invest
this is a quote from the bbc website



"The IRA also shifted its focus more and more onto "economic targets", the most important being the City of London.

Little over a month after Warrington, a bomb at Bishopsgate in the City killed one, injured 44 and caused at least £350m of damage. In propaganda terms, it was a massive boost to republican morale.

The first consequence of the bomb was that the government threw what became known as a "ring of steel" around the City - roadblocks throughout the Square Mile.

The second consequence of Bishopsgate and Warrington was to heighten a sense of fear in English cities over the capabilities of the IRA, just as had been the case in Northern Ireland's cities and towns for years"


as for no warning pub bombs i would make no attempt to justify or explain that


your point about the constitutional claim is not really correct as a lot of republicans took the view that articles 2 and 3 were not really that important the IRA had never claimed any legitamcy from them in fact alot of northern nationalist were not even aware of it untill the unionist made a big deal of it
in fact the IRA would not have recognised the 26 county constitution so what it said was not that important

i think if the British were likely to engage in that kind of activity it would have been more likely after brighton than any other time and it didn't happen then. The British knew that they could not militarily defeat the IRA just as the IRA knew they could not militarily defeat the british army

SkepticOne

cdebru wrote:

i think your wrong the manchester bomb alone cost in the region of 400million sterling

I would be happy to discuss this, perhaps in a different thread if the mods wish to move the above posts about the IRA.

cdebru

SkepticOne wrote:

I would be happy to discuss this, perhaps in a different thread if the mods wish to move the above posts about the IRA.

yes agreed off topic but you can get diverted very easily

bonkey

chill wrote:

each action has to be judged on its own merits

No.

How do you suppose each action be judged then? Should we look at a given action by the Iraqi resistance, and an identical action by the US marines, and conclude that there is some difference between them?

I always thought it was the actions of a group that determined whether or not they were murdering scum, the good guys, or something in between. You seem to be now saying that this is not the case, and that we shouldn't judge them on their actions? What should we do.....judge their actions on them?

Should classify the actions differently because its nice to think that group A are murdering scum, so their reason must have been nefarious, whilst group B are heroes and so their reason must have been honourable?

Seems to be a "cart in front of horse" logic there:
"X killed these people in cold blood."
"Ah, I see. And was X American? Yes? Then it was good solid tactics."
"Oh...X wasn't American....then he's piece of murdering scum killing people like that and I hope he dies horribly."

I take it back. I'm convinced. Judging an act by its perpetrator instead of its own merits makes far more sense.

Or is there something else I should judge it by? The weather perhaps? Is it ok to commit horrific acts on rainy days, maybe?

jc

chill

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You seem to always use the word 'wrong' to describe a post you do not agree with. Why? Are you always right? Maybe you can go to post 241 and say 'wrong'.

This seems to be a common miscomprehension of some people on Boards and other discusion fora.
These are 'opinion' discussion boards, where people post their 'opinions' and facts are few and far between and subject t interpretation and sources.

It would be ludicrous if every opinion were to be accompanied by "in my opinion".

When I say "Wrong"... just as when other do... that it is my opinion is understood. And I don't happen to believe the 241 post you refer to.

chill

shltter wrote:

that campaign was part of a policy of taking the war to britain the view was that the british government was not too concerned with a 100 people a year being killed in the 6 counties and were quite prepared to allow the war to continue as it did not affect them or the people who voted for them on a daily basis
The campaign in Britain was part of a commercial campaign and undoubtedly damaged the British economy.

i would presume that people planting devices like that are in a catch 22 too short a warning and risk the possibility of civilian casualties too long and the device maybe disarmed the hoaxes are too stretch the bomb disposal teams and to maximise disruption

Your arguments are apoligist in essence and ignore the overwhelming facts that the IRA were out to kill and terrorise civilians first of all and al this commercial argument is a smoke screen for their true intentions.
Most of their 'warning's were purposely designed to confuse, delay and terrorise.
They were are are mass murdering seriel killers hiding behind a Nationalist flag.

chill

bonkey wrote:

How do you suppose each action be judged then?

Collectively as I set out in my earlier post which is pretty clear imho.

shltter

chill wrote:

Your arguments are apoligist in essence and ignore the overwhelming facts that the IRA were out to kill and terrorise civilians first of all and al this commercial argument is a smoke screen for their true intentions.
Most of their 'warning's were purposely designed to confuse, delay and terrorise.
They were are are mass murdering seriel killers hiding behind a Nationalist flag.

it is not apologist it is an attempt to explain something which you clearly dont understand and have no intention of trying to understand

If you can not see the main aim of the campaign in britain in the early 90s was economic there is not much point in discussing it further except to say if the IRAs main aim was to kill civilians they did a piss poor job at it.

if they are mass murdering serial killers why have they entered a political process to end the conflict and started destroying their weapons hardly the actions of a group that just wanted to kill people.

it is amazing that we are on the verge of the dup and sinn fein sharing power in the six counties and people like you still try to peddle this guff

shltter

chill wrote:

Collectively as I set out in my earlier post which is pretty clear imho.

collectively because it allows you to disregard the terrible things done by people you support

and to ignore the things that dont fit into your view of people you disagree with

i notice you did not respond to the fact that the firebombing of dresden happened in febuary 1945 near the end of the war when germany was already on its knees and was not the act of desperate people trying to stop the march of nazism as you claim.
of course you ignore the facts that dont suit your arguement

mycroft

Just to meander back on point, and I hate to allow anything as dull as facts to murky the water here chill, here's a report from the cameraman who shot the footage that re-ignited this thread.

"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.

The article appears on the camerman's blog but reposted from here

Also worth noting.

According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

shltter

mycroft wrote:

Just to meander back on point, and I hate to allow anything as dull as facts to murky the water here chill, here's a report from the cameraman who shot the footage that re-ignited this thread.



The article appears on the camerman's blog but reposted from here

Also worth noting.

that does put a different complexion on it
I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt
as i hadn't seen the complete footage
but the description of the cameraman suggests at the very least that the marine did not feel under threat

chill

shltter wrote:

it is not apologist it is an attempt to explain something which you clearly dont understand and have no intention of trying to understand

It is you who fail to grasp and accept the truth of the IRA's activities. Revisonism may suit the present agenda of Sin Fein, but the history is there for people to see.

chill

shltter wrote:

collectively because it allows you to disregard the terrible things done by people you support

No. It allows me to look at the broader picture instead of reacting hysterically in a completely subjective way that suits your own viewpoint.

and to ignore the things that dont fit into your view of people you disagree with

On the contrary, I don't ignore anything. I just know how to view things in perspective.

i notice you did not respond to the fact that the firebombing of dresden happened in febuary 1945 near the end of the war when germany was already on its knees and was not the act of desperate people trying to stop the march of nazism as you claim.
of course you ignore the facts that dont suit your arguement

The end of the war was by no means certain except in your retrospective view and they were indeed the acts of desperate people trying to stop the march of nazism. I didn't approve of it nor do I, but judging historical events with hindsight and with a personal agenda is not going to produce much in terms of value.

chill

mycroft wrote:

Just to meander back on point, and I hate to allow anything as dull as facts to murky the water here chill, here's a report from the cameraman who shot the footage that re-ignited this thread.

You clearly didn't read my comments on this shooting. I never suggested otherwise.

mycroft

chill wrote:

You clearly didn't read my comments on this shooting. I never suggested otherwise.

Actually Chill I was refering to your posts in general, as you never seem to bother to back up, or support your assertions with any kind of facts or figures, the fact that you believe it, in your mind, makes it canon law.

shltter

chill wrote:

The end of the war was by no means certain except in your retrospective view and they were indeed the acts of desperate people trying to stop the march of nazism. I didn't approve of it nor do I, but judging historical events with hindsight and with a personal agenda is not going to produce much in terms of value.

chill you make me laugh you call me a revisionist and then you come up with this tripe

the yalta conference was in february 1945 a couple of days before the bombing of dresden
among matters agreed at that conference was the occupation of germany and dividing it into four zones after the war
poland had been liberated of the nazis as had france and italy the soviets were already on german soil the battle of the bulge was over
it was not a matter of wether the nazis would be defeated but when only three weeks after dresden american troops crossed the rhine.

I dont have a personal agenda i respect the people that fought the nazis but that does not stop me from pointing out that dresden was mass murder of civilians

chill

shltter wrote:

chill you make me laugh you call me a revisionist and then you come up with this tripe

I defer to your expertise in this area.

chill

mycroft wrote:

Actually Chill I was refering to your posts in general, as you never seem to bother to back up, or support your assertions with any kind of facts or figures, the fact that you believe it, in your mind, makes it canon law.

You appear very confused....perhaps you have just read what I 'actually' wrote....
I don't waste my time posting third hand subjective unreliable and biased media reports presented as 'evidence' or 'proof' of my views. I express my views and my opinions. The quality of many threads would be enhanced if more people did the same.

mycroft

chill wrote:

You appear very confused....perhaps you have just read what I 'actually' wrote....
I don't waste my time posting third hand subjective unreliable and biased media reports presented as 'evidence' or 'proof' of my views. I express my views and my opinions. The quality of many threads would be enhanced if more people did the same.

Ah so you're doing is what's technically refered to as "making sh*t up" and stating opinion as fact. I mean do you have any evidence that "all" ira men are psychotic serial killers? Psycholgist reports, first hand accounts.

I mean do you have anything aside from "pub facts" at your disposal?