Terrorist behind september 11 strike was trained by Saddam!

Remove all ads!

@Manus

Do you really believe what you typed? Really?

[What did I just say?] - Beren

[ December 29, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Llandon,
maybe you should invest the time and read my previous post, as well as the other ones, and have a look at my "reputable sources" from time to time. I'm not very much mistaken I didn't quote any soure in my *last* post - the one you bothered to read, so what are you complaining about? When writing down my thoughts I don't see a real point in finding a "reputable source".

My point, about the question of definition, is that that way propaganda is made. Bye re-defining killed civilians, even if killed (worst case) wantonly, into suspect insurgents you cover the reality of what you do there. That happened in Vietnam when GIs killed civilians, they were considered 'suspect VC' and added to the platoons bodycount - and from maybe even a crime it became a military success through the chain of reports.

And the reality of an occupation is a harsh one, and Iraq is no exception. The US are, perhaps necessarily, killing civilians in Iraq. But the US aurthorities aren't reporting honestly, they avoid direct lies ... by redefining, as I demonstrated above.

Killed civillians are the sort of bad news that isn't being reported but hidden under secrecy: in Iraq the US are seizing morgues and hospitals after shootouts, the CPA is advised to no longer count civilian deaths and so on.
The reason not to report it is, to put it as blunt as possible, that that sort of news would undermine domestic support for the US ops in Iraq. And that's exactly what I find questionable - because it leads to a romantisation of the occupation in the US.

As you study military history, study: Have a look at the geneva conventions concerning the treatment of civilians in war to see what I have in mind. And get yourself a copy of the movie "The battle of Algiers" asap.

 

Holy cow... where to start?

Ok, Ragusa, you know normally I don't take issue with your skepticism of the U.S., however... next time do you think you could make a LARGER blanket statement? Actually, no I don't believe you could, well maybe if you said how the whole world feels.

Tell me, when exactly did all the "Americans" meet with you and tell you they all think, "their cause is just."

If you expect anybody (non-biased) from taking you seriously, then be non-partial about it. If you only care to cater to those that already agree with you, what's the point of posting at all?

@Erebus, yes in a way they were targeting only civilians - also, in a way, they were only targeting your underwear drawer.

@Manus... your posts are so damn long, it makes responding to them... exhausting...

Ok here I go: I don't completely disagree with your bullet-point-list-o-comparisons... but mostly disagree.

I think the problem is, you simplify things to a point where its convenient to see a parallel, where it doesn't really exist, ie. in a terrorist attack civilians die, in an country wide invasion civilians die, so they equal the same thing. Well not really. I'd say the problem falls in where the motive lives, while yes Bin-Laden wanted to make a "political statement" or revenge, or whatever, I'm not sure the invasion of Iraq is so clear cut.

Let me explain: It was retribution for 911... No it was to capture the oil fields... No it was over a decade of gross disregard for international law... No it was to put a fat retirement check in Dick Cheney's pocket... No it was to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a dictator... No it was get the Afghanis out of Erebus's underwear drawer...

In short (too late!!), how the hell can you or anyone else really pin down why Iraq got invaded? It certainly wasn't as clear cut as a terrorist attack (not that it makes it better, but I honestly can't say I believe that slaying civillians was *really* the goal.) So without going over the list point by point that's where I stand on it, you conveniently simplified every point to a parallel.

With the exception of #8, which I agree with 100%.

@Rastor: A law is only as valid as the ability to enforce it. Osamas "law" is as concrete as anything in the US or international law, as long as he can enforce it...

 

The United States has a free media - the government does not own the news outlets (it cannot under the Constitution)

Actually, the attack on the WTC was supposed to both cripple the U.S. economy and scare the United States back into its borders. The desire was to kill as many civilians as possible. These are the exact points that Ayman al-Zawahiri made in interviews conducted before the attack.

If you understand the Middle East - both how they view themselves in the world, in the past and the implications of the tribal systems, then you will realize that this is not the case. We can go into depth on another thread.

That's a good point. However, if you do not stand up against terrorism or tyranny, they prosper. The body count in the long run is far larger. That's the big picture. In the United States, we have a saying that was used during many times throughout our history:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Exactly. This is how a tyranny operates and is the governing principle in Saudi Arabia, Iraq (at least it was) and many other states around the globe.

The world community did not condone the removal of Hitler (at first). The U.N. has become the League of Nations. In the rest of this item, which nation(s) are you referring to?

Bin Laden rose to prominace in Afganistan because of the wealth he had due to his father's construction company and the Saudi Government (which contracted this family for most ventures).

You are comparing G.W. Bush and bin Laden? Interesting...

There is quite a difference between a President elected in a razor-close election and a tyrants friend?

If case you do not know, the United States is exactly as its name implies - a union of 50 different states. The states have powers the Federal Government does not have. In Federal Elections, it is the states that elect the President. Even though Gore (the candidate I was supporting) had a slim majority of the popular vote, he did not win the Electorial College. It might sound complicated, but the United States is a union of states, not provinces.

[ December 31, 2003, 03:17: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

Blackhawk,

You miss my point, what would you do if you were a sergeant? What would you report if one of your men killed a civvie?
The choice is (a) accusing him of war crimes (and being accused for neglecting leadership and discipline in command, court martialled, degraded and sent to the slammer) or (b) improving your units loss-to-kill ratio.
In Vietnam the chouce was usually (b). Iraq, and that's perhaps the only thing it has in common with Iraq, also is a borderless conflict where the lines between enemy and civilian population blur.

I don't expect human nature to have changed fundamentally over the last 50 years. And I don't expect the nature of guerrilla war to have changed fundamentally.
My point was not at all about the media. It's just a caveat for reading official releases that went through maybe 5 levels of reporting in the military.