In the News: Brutal Deaths of Iraqii Civilians

[JohnRich 4]

May 23rd:

Car bombs struck two Shiite Muslim areas Monday in Iraq, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 130 at a Baghdad restaurant and a mosque south of the capital."

May 24th:

A car bomb exploded Tuesday near an Iraqi police convoy in eastern Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding eight others in the Karrada neighborhood around a corner from a girls' school, police said.

In northeastern Mosul on Tuesday, a member of Iraqi civil defense died after a bomb he was trying to defuse detonated, a spokesman for the region's Joint Coordination Center said. Four others were wounded in the blast.

Gunmen Tuesday kidnapped Nassir Sa'ed Al-Sayfi, an employee of Oman's embassy in Baghdad, the Iraqi Interior Ministry said Tuesday. "He was kidnapped from his house by unknown gunmen in a black BMW," the ministry said.

[Botellines 0]

Dude, i remember when you were giving another poster a bad time about posting some news without giving an opinion... I see a double standard here.

Anyway, what is your point? if it is that terrorists are getting almost as proficient as the U.S. forces when it comes to kill civilians, i think we will agree.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

terrorists are getting almost as proficient as the U.S. forces when it comes to kill civilians

When was the last time U.S. forces drove a suicide truck bomb into a mass of civilians eating dinner in a restaurant?

If you think that the accidental killing of civilians while fighting terrorists, is the same as the intentional killing of civilians for pure terrorism value, then you need to re-examine your moral values.

[Alias 0]

Quote

If you think that the accidental killing of civilians while fighting terrorists, is the same as the intentional killing of civilians for pure terrorism value, then you need to re-examine your moral values.

I think the point was the US has killed far more INNOCENT civilians then the "terrorists" have in Iraq.

Carpe Diem

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

If you think that the accidental killing of civilians while fighting terrorists, is the same as the intentional killing of civilians for pure terrorism value, then you need to re-examine your moral values.

I think the point was the US has killed far more INNOCENT civilians then the "terrorists" have in Iraq.

And I think the counter point is that Saddam killed a lot more. Had SH stayed in power many more "innocents" would have died and there would be no hope it would abate in the future. At least now there's hope.

[Alias 0]

But lets not forget that at this rate, in the near future - The US might just have a higher body count of innocent civilians then SH did. Certainly should not be excluded as a possibility. It is still an open ended situation. As in we're still there and not looking to leave any time soon.


Plus I'm in the camp of not using this extent of military to "rescue" a population from their "leader" - and I feel that is just one part of the BS we use to justify this war-

I'm not in the WMD, Bin Laden, save the people camp anymore. My conclusions have changed

yes I'm in the oil/Euro camp - Which I would almost support.

Just keeps getting ugly

I'm not a US basher or terrorist sympathizer, I voted for Bush, McCain in the primaries. But an interesting point was made to me the other day (by a super lib) that if you were to change the occupiers to British, the occupied to Americans and the years to the 1700's - we might consider their actions as patriotic.

It was an intersting perspective to think about

...rip away

Carpe Diem

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

But lets not forget that at this rate, in the near future - The US might just have a higher body count of innocent civilians then SH did. Certainly should not be excluded as a possibility. It is still an open ended situation. As in we're still there and not looking to leave any time soon.

I don't have the latest stats at hand but I'm pretty sure at the present rate, the "Insurgents" will top SH's body count much sooner than US Forces. I'm also quite sure the number of civilian casualties cause by US troops has dwindled considerably in the last year.

Quote

Plus I'm in the camp of not using this extent of military to "rescue" a population from their "leader" - and I feel that is just one part of the BS we use to justify this war-

I'm sure many Germans would disagree with you.

Quote

I'm not a US basher or terrorist sympathizer, I voted for Bush, McCain in the primaries. But an interesting point was made to me the other day (by a super lib) that if you were to change the occupiers to British, the occupied to Americans and the years to the 1700's - we might consider their actions as patriotic.

It was an intersting perspective to think about

...rip away

Funny, I don't seem to recall reading any history books that mentioned Americans blowing up other Americans with wagon bombs because they were for a return to a repressive dictatorship. Many Americans gave up their lives in the Revolutionary Wars because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom because they believed it would make a better life for their children. I suspect many Iraqis feel the same way because of the risks they took to turn out in large numbers to participate and cast their votes in the election.

• Quote

[Botellines 0]

You are seeing the term terrorism in the narrowest possible way, which coincidentally is the only one that benefits the U.S.

Many would consider the dropping of two 500lb bombs on a restaurant located in a residential aerea as a terrorist act. Even if the U.S firmly believed that at that point SH and family was there.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You are seeing the term terrorism in the narrowest possible way, which coincidentally is the only one that benefits the U.S.

And you are expanding the definition to suit your own obvious hatred for the US.

Quote

Many would consider the dropping of two 500lb bombs on a restaurant located in a residential aerea as a terrorist act. Even if the U.S firmly believed that at that point SH and family was there.

And many believe that the greater good is served by killing a Terrorist who has murdered thousands upon thousands of "innocent" Iraqis gone.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

But lets not forget that at this rate, in the near future - The US might just have a higher body count of innocent civilians then SH did. Certainly should not be excluded as a possibility. It is still an open ended situation. As in we're still there and not looking to leave any time soon.

Quote

I don't have the latest stats at hand but I'm pretty sure at the present rate, the "Insurgents" will top SH's body count much sooner than US Forces. I'm also quite sure the number of civilian casualties cause by US troops has dwindled considerably in the last year.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2813601

Just a quick search - not verified - but does show you might be mistaken

"Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began sorting attacks June 10"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/babc.htm

"They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period.

A total of 2,041 civilians were killed and a further 8,542 are believed to have been wounded by them between July 2004 and January 2005.

This compares with 1,233 killed and 4,115 wounded by insurgents.

The data comes from conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals."

It really is hard to tell from the assorted sources what the true numbers are.

So we both are debating without real numbers

Quote

Plus I'm in the camp of not using this extent of military to "rescue" a population from their "leader" - and I feel that is just one part of the BS we use to justify this war-

Quote

replyI'm sure many Germans would disagree with you.

And Sudanese, Cambodians, Rawandans on and on and on would disagree also, yep, you're right about that one.

What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)

So I guess us rushing into "save" a population only pertains to certain "populations"

Quote

I'm not a US basher or terrorist sympathizer, I voted for Bush, McCain in the primaries. But an interesting point was made to me the other day (by a super lib) that if you were to change the occupiers to British, the occupied to Americans and the years to the 1700's - we might consider their actions as patriotic.

It was an intersting perspective to think about

...rip away

Funny, I don't seem to recall reading any history books that mentioned Americans blowing up other Americans with wagon bombs because they were for a return to a repressive dictatorship. Many Americans gave up their lives in the Revolutionary Wars because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom because they believed it would make a better life for their children. I suspect many Iraqis feel the same way because of the risks they took to turn out in large numbers to participate and cast their votes in the election.

Again - simple search that cannot be verified

http://www.pennyparker2.com/revolution.html

By 1779, there were more Americans fighting with the British than with Washington. There were no less than 21 regiments (estimated to total 6,500 to 8,000 men) of Loyalists in the British army. Washington reported a field army of 3,468. About a third of Americans opposed the Revolution.

So maybe not "wagon bombs" - more along the lines of rifles and cannons

I hope you see my point

Carpe Diem

• Quote

[Ron 10]

Quote

You are seeing the term terrorism in the narrowest possible way, which coincidentally is the only one that benefits the U.S.

Nonsense.

Quote

Many would consider the dropping of two 500lb bombs on a restaurant located in a residential aerea as a terrorist act. Even if the U.S firmly believed that at that point SH and family was there.

Ah, but there is the difference. The US tries not to harm civilians, but does on accident. (Yes, there are cases of individual assholes that do look just to go kill or act stupid...The US also tries to punish those).

A "terrorist" targets civilians.

So there is a BIG difference between a group that targets armed fighters and a group that targets folks out shopping or working.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

"They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period.

If the the insurgents did not open fire there would be no combat. No combat, no bullets flying, no deaths.

Quote

What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)

Darfur also has no WMD programs or anti-US governments.

Its a shame what is happening there. Last I checked the US was the first to admit it was genoicide....But why is the not UN doing anything about it? And for that matter, if the UN had done its job in Iraq nothing would have happend there either (Please spare the crap about how since no WMD's have been found they did their job...They had to PROVE it was clean and they did not till after the invasion).

The reason for invasion was WMD programs and the threat of a Anti-US government having them.

As soon as Darfur has that, expect them to get more attention from the US.

Of course if the US did do something I expect some countries would tell us to back the fuck off and ask why we always stick our noses in others business....And if in the process of providing security in Darfur evey innocent death would be our fault as well.

Can't win if you do something, or don't do anything.

I think we should wait for the UN to grow some balls and do something....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Alias 0]

Quote

A "terrorist" targets civilians.

and military related targets! Not just civilians

Carpe Diem

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A "terrorist" targets civilians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and military related targets! Not just civilians

But the point is that the US does not plant a bomb and try to kill innocent people while they are going to work or school. There is a military objective. Collateral damage is not considered good and the US tries to prevent it. The terrorist do not.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

May 25th, what are the peace-loving Muslims up to?

An Iraqi civilian was killed and seven others were wounded Wednesday in a suicide car bombing in southwestern Baghdad, police sources said.

A civilian died and eight police commandos were wounded in a car bombing Wednesday in the southern neighborhood of al-Dora, police in the capital said.

In the city of Haditha:

"The people out there know who wrecked the hospital and those who target their power source," said Urquhart, referring to the dam that is said to provide about a third of Iraq's electricity. (after mortar attacks on those facilitys)

Several other attacks have occurred in Haditha this year, including the April 17 killing of a police chief and the discovery three days later of the bodies of 19 fishermen.

So in summary, the Muslim terrorists are attacking civilians, police, a hospital, a dam which produces electricity, and fishermen.

Oh, those evil fishermen! They were obviously lackeys of the damned Americans!

Meanwhile, what's new with those evil imperialist Americans?

The homeland of the Shi’ite Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, which was drained almost dry by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, now is being rejuvenated under a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)... managing the Iraq Marshlands Restoration Program. The two-year, $4 million project that ends in September is establishing infrastructure and agricultural assistance programs that will help the Iraqi government manage the restoration of the marshland ecosystem through strategic re-flooding. It is also providing social and economic assistance to the displaced Marsh Arabs, or Mad’an, who now number fewer than 125,000.

According to the White House, the illiteracy rate in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime soared to over 61 percent for adult males and 77 percent for women. Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, all of the country’s 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges have been reopened, along with nearly all primary and secondary schools. This month, just days before the first day of class, our coalition and our Iraqi partners had refurbished over 1,500 schools.

You're welcome, Darius.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

"They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period.

Quote

If the the insurgents did not open fire there would be no combat. No combat, no bullets flying, no deaths.

mmmmmm - so your position is that since the "insurgents" revolt against occupiers, all is fair against civilians? I do not agree.

I understand war, that civilians will be killed. But to not reconize that the US does and will drop a bomb on a residential neighborhood because of "reports" that insurgents or 1 insurgent is present, is taking the head in the sand position.

I guess we'll see how the majority of the Iraqi population feel when it's all said and done - because when it comes down to it - it really is their country, their people (women and children included) and their freedom at stake. That opinion will mean more to me then the typical US party line/borderline propaganda.

The whole thing is a damn mess -

Quote

What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)

Quote

Darfur also has no WMD programs or anti-US governments.

or oil or can upset the dollar

Quote

They had to PROVE it was clean and they did not till after the invasion).

Wow Ron, that really leaves the door open for Korea, Iran and on and on, doesnt it?

"Sorry, we cannot be certain you are following our rules, unless we invade, occupy and see that you are" What have we turned into at this point? Something close to what the rest of the world views us as - strong arming, our way is better, we have a bigger army, and will use it even though the UN and many allies say NO....because we're the US DAMN IT!

Quote

The reason for invasion was WMD programs and the threat of a Anti-US government having them.

Ok, I know where you stand. I also swallowed that at first. But again, I have a hard time using our troops for removal of every dictator tha treats their population like shit - it's a long list! And not our sole responsibility!

For people that also hold on to your postion, it must really suck seeing that there were no WMD or link to 9/11 for that matter - I guess that only leaves the "rescue them from the dictator" reasoning.

A little research and an open mind might enlighten people that after the 9/11 commission stated no Bin laden connection and the US found no WMD - thus striking the first two reasons, it only leaves "rescue". two out of three proved wrong - not a good record. Oil and the dollar certainly had nothing to do with it

Quote

As soon as Darfur has that, expect them to get more attention from the US.

Like I said - too bad they can't find oil there, we'd be right there to set things straight for them. By our definition of "straight" that is.

Quote

I think we should wait for the UN to grow some balls and do something....

That will be a long wait! Another corrupt organization trying to make the global governmet concept work - ugh


To say that this situation has rocked my loyalty to Repubilcans, US foriegn policy and Bush for that matter is an understatement.

Up until this shit, I was a flag waving republican that would argue for US policy regardless if it made sence or not.

Now I listen to every side, do my own research and see things through my eyes, not a republican eye as it was.

I lost a great great freind in the towers, lost a Gun Club member in the Pentagon and have supported my Bro In Law with supplies and moral boosts serving with the 160th Night Stalkers in both countries. But that does not mean I have to tow the party line.

Carpe Diem

• Quote

[Botellines 0]

but, but, but, but....

There is always a but in your talk that will make a distinction beetwen terrorist actions and U.S actions. even if the result is the same and therefore the diferences are not that important.

Next thing you will say is that the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima nad nagasaki was not a terrorist action.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Alias, I agree & sympathize with a lot of what you say,

except for this bit:

Quote

mmmmmm - so your position is that since the "insurgents" revolt against occupiers,

If you really look closely at Zarqawi & crew, they are clearly NOT fighting against the occupiers. They are mostly targetting civilians, power plants, pipelines, Shiite religious celebrations, etc. They do not appear to be fighting against the occupiers, their goal seems to be to simply fuck up Iraq generally. They do not want ANYTHING good to come out of this. I don't believe Zarqawi gives a shit about Iraq (he's a Jordanian), he just wants things to fail there, & doesn't care if he has to blow up the whole country to do it.

That does not sound like a brave patriot who simply wants to oust a foreign occupier. The French resistance did not try to get rid of the Nazis by simply killing their fellow Frenchmen & fucking up France as much as possible. Zarqawi (& crew) seem more like violent nihilistic maniacs to me. Look more closely at their targets.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Darius11 12]

You're welcome, Darius. ***
Not only have I never thanked you or had a reason to thank you. I have not posted once to this thread.

Why are you so obsessed with me? Should I load my gun and be looking for a stalker.
FYI I am not gay so I hope you don’t have a romantic obsession with me.

But I do have to thank you this post actually made me laugh.


All murder is bad John no matter who or what the cause is. I am sure I have never said it is ok as long as it is Muslims killing Muslims.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Ron 10]

Quote

mmmmmm - so your position is that since the "insurgents" revolt against occupiers, all is fair against civilians?

Did I say that? No. I said that if the insurgents didn't open fire then there would be no bloodshed. Simple fact really. The US is not going to go down the street just shooting civilians.

Quote

I understand war, that civilians will be killed. But to not reconize that the US does and will drop a bomb on a residential neighborhood because of "reports" that insurgents or 1 insurgent is present, is taking the head in the sand position.

You clearly don't know US ROE.

Quote

or oil or can upset the dollar

No, try again.

Quote

Wow Ron, that really leaves the door open for Korea, Iran and on and on, doesnt it?

"Sorry, we cannot be certain you are following our rules, unless we invade, occupy and see that you are" What have we turned into at this point? Something close to what the rest of the world views us as - strong arming, our way is better, we have a bigger army, and will use it even though the UN and many allies say NO....because we're the US DAMN IT!

If the UN had done its job...No war. Simple really. If Saddam had complied, no war, again simple.

Quote

For people that also hold on to your postion, it must really suck seeing that there were no WMD or link to 9/11 for that matter - I guess that only leaves the "rescue them from the dictator" reasoning.

Please don't claim to know what I think.

I think Saddam and the UN fucked up. The US fucked up by using bad intel.

I NEVER said the invasion was to "free" people. Its a nice by product, but was never the mission. So if you could, quit trying to assume you know what I think.

Quote

A little research and an open mind might enlighten people that after the 9/11 commission stated no Bin laden connection and the US found no WMD - thus striking the first two reasons, it only leaves "rescue". two out of three proved wrong - not a good record. Oil and the dollar certainly had nothing to do with it

Again you assume you know me...Show me ONCE where I said Saddam was tied to 9/11? Go on....

As for not finding WMD...Well we fucked up. Ya know who else fucked up?

Saddam for never complying and playing stupid games.

The UN for not making him comply.

And if you can find that the US went to war for OIL, please by all means provide PROOF. So far all you have is retoric

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

but, but, but, but....

There is always a but in your talk that will make a distinction beetwen terrorist actions and U.S actions. even if the result is the same and therefore the diferences are not that important.

We all know you bash America at every chance you get..

You fail to see the INTENT behind actions.

If I accedentally run someone over in may car it is manslaughter.

If I do it on with INTENT it is MURDER.

There is a BIG difference between the two

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

And Sudanese, Cambodians, Rawandans on and on and on would disagree also, yep, you're right about that one.

What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)

So I guess us rushing into "save" a population only pertains to certain "populations"

Ya gotta love this particular line of thought, if you can't help them all you shouldn't help any.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rhys 0]

Quote

When was the last time U.S. forces drove a suicide truck bomb into a mass of civilians eating dinner in a restaurant?



nah that is a waste of time.
get a heap of loaded b52's and carpet bomb the whole joint and try to get praise for rebuilding it to you own liking later. thats the way to do it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And Sudanese, Cambodians, Rawandans on and on and on would disagree also, yep, you're right about that one.
What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)
So I guess us rushing into "save" a population only pertains to certain "populations"

Ya gotta love this particular line of thought, if you can't help them all you shouldn't help any.

Yeah, it's ironic, ain't it.

If we did go in to help all those other countries, the people now complaining because we aren't helping, would be the first to start complaining about why we did get involved.

[rhys 0]

Quote

And I think the counter point is that Saddam killed a lot more. Had SH stayed in power many more "innocents" would have died and there would be no hope it would abate in the future. At least now there's hope.




and the counter, counter point is that if saddam had stayed in power. oil would be traded in euros instead of U.S.$ and your countrys economic decline would have been happening much faster than it is already.

hope for what.

iraq will never be a new america so don't expect it to be.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote