I take issue with the above assertions–nobody is performing these actions because of the beheadings.
If war crimes were being committed by US soldiers, there would be other, more compelling reasons–such as booby trapped bodies, IEDs, snipers, not knowing who the enemy is in a crowd of people…
Perhaps you were refering to the horrors of Abu Ghraib. According to Seymour Hersh, it was a black ops program which was to gather intel against the rising insurgancy by hauling suspects to jail and interrogating them through a series of “appropriate” methods. As there was virtually no accountability for those involved, the actions escalated into torture and murder. But nobody lost their head. If I recall, the decapitations started after the news broke on Abu Ghraib scandle.
The “slaughter” in Fallujah is a matter of opinion at this point. It seems that it got blasted to pieces, but most of the civillians had left knowing that it wasn’t safe to stay. In addition, I also believe that the rules of engagment for the US Marines in this particular battle were drummed into them everyday before and during because of the fear of hurting innocent civillians.
The invasion was not justified on the grounds of beheadings, but based on the Iraqi government hiding weapons of mass destruction, and although this talked much less about, the possibility of sanctions being lifted in the next few years which would have allowed president Saddam Hussain to re-initiate the pursuit of WMDs.
Is president GWB to blamed for this? In addition, Bush never said he was the Messiah. He already has one.
Abu Musab Zarqawi is the one who commenced with the beheadings, not GWB.
The reports about that video clearly state that the wounded people inside that mosque were disarmed. They were then left without further treatment, without food, water, medication a day (or two?) before an other soldier came to kill one of them or maybe even all of them (yes, there are also reports of more then one wounded man killed).
The video shows soldiers talking casualy outside a building (if that is the same building = if the video was not some cut and paste work, on which I have doubts at this point). They do not look particularly worried for entering that building.
Then a soldier says with a rather exited tone in his voice that the man on the floor is alive. He kills him as if he is finishing off a wounded animal.
You hear an other voice saying “he is dead now”. I don’t know how that sounds to you, but I hear satisfaction in is tone.
Not one single protest or amazement about what the other soldier did, yet also no fear or worries considering the “danger” that the other wounded men could form for the soliders safety.
Surely if the wounded men were seen as such an immediate deadly threat, there should have been fear and caution in voices and attitudes to begin with and also after the killing. Since clearly after that wounded man was dead, there are still other wounded men in that place who are also still alive. (I hear stories that they were also killed or at least two of them.)
It is lovely to see the arguments that a videa “is not proof”.
No it is not since you can do whatever you want with such material. There is however in this case a “western” and “embedded” reporter who made it, so that should lend automatically credibility to his material it in your prejudiced eyes, no? It was not Al Jazeera who filmed it. You can not dismiss it as “Arab/Muslim” propaganda.
Whatever… I have a question about this “video is no proof” issue thazt here so suddenly arose: Care to explain why whenever you see a video about a murder on a non-Iraqi by what you perceive as Muslims, is for you “clear proof” that this or this person or group or whatever “did it”? You even take “anouncements” on websites claiming that it has be done "int the name of… (fill in at will) as “proof”. How come you don’t see your own prejudices and double standards and falling into the Meida trap in such cases? How come that whenever someone (me for example) tells you that a video or a website gives no “proof” of anything, the attacks are legio (even to the point of claiming that I “defend terrorists”) ?
In cases like this one, it is not clear at all what really happened, yet when looking at the circumstances as they are know no, it is clear that at least that soldier overreacted. Why he did is is something that should be clear without much thinking.
a) Before the attack on Fallujah, you could hear their commanders pepping them up as if they were going on a fox hunt. As we all know, at a fox hunt the dogs hunt the fox because they have learned that they can tear it to pieces once they got it. The soldiers went at Fallujah with exactly that same mentality. I have no doubts about that at all.
b) It is claimed that the soldier was wounded the day before and saw an other soldier get killied (what he was sent back there is an other question. Are they that short in soldiers that they send them right back after being shot?) . Clearly that soldierwas not only scared by that former expierience, since he is human, he must have been mad as hell too and out on revenge. I don’t know if that works in his defence, though.
c) It is not such a big secret that among the US soldiers in Iraq are a bunch of trigger happy cowboys. It is not a secret at all that they are in general perceived - and with reason - as a bunch of trigger happy rude and arrogant cowboys whenever they encouter Iraqis who do not act as they would wish they act… And immediately and at their orders (in English). This is a mentality and attitude we have seen since the very start of this criminal invasion of a sovereign nation. (This in visible contrast to the attitude as displayed by the UK military in general).
d) It is also not a secret that the US military all too quickly bombs and kills at will whenever they “think” (a few hours to seconds on forehand) that someone or something is linked with the Iraqi resistence. US soldiers inevitably are influenced by that attitue of “attack first, ask questions later”.
I have no doubt that this particular story was only filmed by accident and that there are a lot of similar situations that are not documented but by those who saw them happening = those Iraqis that survived such situation and automatically are not believed by the US and its defenders when they talk about it, and those in the US military who witnessed it and do not talk about it for different reasons.
(Most probably there are a few who do talk or write about it, but as always in ongoing wars these reports will only surface when time is ready for it).
I have contacts in Iraq. I know these things happen. Yet even without having stories coming from Iraq itself, if you reason a bit normal you know these things happen. They happen in every war on every side and no matter who fights whom.
Salaam. A
I have an other question:
When it comes to the Iraqis resisting being invaded and occupied, why do you find it needed to use every kind of denigrating wordings you can think about?
No, the resistence in Iraq is not all “AQ adherents” imported from “the outside”. Even those few who come “from the outside” are not “all” members of some sort of terrorist group. (Of course the invasion of Iraq provided for the ideal recrutement ground and of course such groups try to get a finger in the soup.)
No, the resistence in Iraq are not “all” abducting and killing people on videos.
Since the Brilliant US Hero Criminal Bremer in one stroke of a pen dismissed army and police and teachers and whatever civil servant you can name, abducting people is a very flourishing business. You have all sorts of criminals doing this and most of them do not abduct “Westerners” or other outsiders, but Iraqis.
It is a PR stunt of the US and its applauders to make you believe that everyone who ever gets engaged in the resistance against the US invasion is part of the abducting and murdering circle (I am over and over again amazed how easy public opinion can be played at. History over and over again repeating itself.)
No, the resistance in Iraq can not be simplified by saying “Sunni” who “are afraid because now the Shia might take power”.
Yes, fighting an invading army is the right of every citizen of Iraq.
Yes, fighting that army with whatever means possible is the right of every citizen in Iraq.
No, the US military has no claims to make about how the Iraqis “should” fight them. They are the criminals, they are the invaders, they are in breach with International Law. You can not expect a resistance with no air craft, no tanks, no bombs, no missiles, nothing whatsoever but few amunition and weapons they can lay their hands on to fight the invading US army “the conventional way”.
By the way: If you keep reasoning in the simplistic terms you are fed by the US PR machine, I’m afraid you are lost for logical thinking and any form of history class one can imagine.
Salaam. A
None of that justifies US war crimes either…or to be really precise, none of that justifies killing an unarmed, wounded prisoner in a mosque.
Also, we wouldn’t have any of those problems if GWB hadn’t illegally invaded a country which had done nothing to the US.
Nobody lost their head? So what? There were murders. Why does it matter how the murders occur? One prisoner was beaten to death over a three day period and left to die in his own shit. Is that any better than cutting his head off? How about making kiddie rape videos?
The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were mostly innocent civilians, btw, so there is not a shred of moral difference between our actions and the actions of the beheaders.
I am not taking the military’s word for anything at this point. So far in Fallujah (and throught this occupation) the military has supressed reports of civilian casualties. IMO, we had no right to go into Fallujah at all so even one civilian casualty is unjustified.
[qute]The invasion was not justified on the grounds of beheadings, but based on the Iraqi government hiding weapons of mass destruction, and although this talked much less about, the possibility of sanctions being lifted in the next few years which would have allowed president Saddam Hussain to re-initiate the pursuit of WMDs.
[/quote]
TRhe invasion was based on a lie that Iraq posed a direct threat to the US. Withut that threat you don’t have a legal justification for an invasion (and the mere presence of banned weapons does not necessarily constitute a threat to the US).
I said the beheadings don’t justify the invasion because I’m tired of people brandishing those stories like the’re supposed to prove something or change my mind about anything. No invasion = no beheadings.
What does it have to do with Iraq?
He thinks he was chosen by God to wage a crusade against Islam. Sounds like a messianic delusion to me.
GWB is the one who commenced with an illegal invasion and wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqi people. If he hadn;t done that, there would be no beheadings.
Perhaps it was late and I was pretty tired from working all day, but DtC, part of your responses left me wondering what your point was.
You said the following:
I responded by stating that the beheadings had nothing to do with war crimes being committed by US soldiers, the invasion, or the slaughter in Fallujah. You finally responded (I guess) with the following:
I think I understand what you implied in your response: that it is wrong to argue that the insurgents actions are so evil, that this whole war thingie was justified in spite of the snow job with WMD’s, or whatever else was manipulated to rationalize the case for war.
But the rest of your responses still left me wondering…
But had I pointed out that Abu Ghraib had degenerated into torture and murder…
Didn’t I provide a link to Hersh’s article? We had become the very thing we had condemned with respect to Saddam Hussein. Locking up people without charging them, murder, kiddie rape videos, (well that’s in Hersh’s new book, not the article), sexual humiliation, murder, …we were guilty, guilty, guilty. Did you even read the article?
That was true. We hadn’t sunk to their level :rolleyes:
Later I said
You responded by stating:
I agree with not taking the military’s word; they have there own agenda. However, your use of the term “slaughter of Fallujah” still implies a reckless disregard for civilians, which I argued in my previous post as being unlikely as a result of the rules of engagment drilled constantly into the troops. (I would also like to point out the presence of embedded reporters would also be a constraining factor–which is partially responsible for the origin of this thread in the first place.)
The military hasn’t “suppressed” civilian casualties. They never made an effort to gather them in the first place. You can argue that this is a devious sin of ommission, but the military isn’t hiding anything.
In the case of Fallujah, the hospital was infamous for inflating civillian causalties when US troops were fighting insurgents. The capture of the hospital was a top priority at the beginning of the campaign.
In your opinion, but, alas, we do have the “right” legally. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is the soverign head of state, he gave permission to Iraqi and US forces to attack Fallujah.
I responded with
Your reply?
Precisely. What does the messianic Bush have to do with the beheadings?
You stated the following: no invasion=no beheadings
It was Daniel Pearl who was the first person from the West to suffer a beheading in modern times and garner massive media coverage of this event. This fate was courtesy of the National Movement For The Restoration Of Pakistan Sovereignty. One of the alleged kidnappers was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the main architect of 9/11). This happened a year before the invasion of Iraq. Unless you believe that Pearl (who maintained a dual Israeli-American citizenship) was an intellegence agent, he was killed by terriorist for political reasons. This occured, incidently, before the invasion of Iraq.
Do we end up with the following assertion? “No American/Israeli/Jewish investigative journalist (with possible Mossad connections) in Pakistan=no beheading”
Sounds pretty flawed doesn’t it. KSM had the guy killed in a grusesome fashion. He decided the issue, not Pearl. Pearl was just doing his job.
Let’s assume for a moment DtC that Abu Musab Zarqawi has been delivered into your hands. What do you do? He’s decapitated a lot people. But charge him with serial murder? He’s can justified his behaivor because Bush made him do it.
I know, I know, DtC, I’m twisting what you intended to say…but IMO you’ve painted yourself into a corner by making Bush ultimately responsible for these crimes (no invasion=no beheadings).
How about this argument: no invasion=no American soldier killing a wounded prisoner.
It comes down to free will. We are responsible for our actions. Just like the soldier who shot the wounded insurgent, he’s going have to answer for what he did. The soldier’s actions can’t be excused because we invaded the Iraq. So why should Zarqawi?
Hmm… that’s a pretty serious charge… got any cites DtC? What is this “crusade” against Islam? Are you sure it’s about Muslims rather than oil? The cynic in me would tell me it’s the latter, and that it sucks that the Muslims are having to suffer for our inability to moderate our energy consumption and cowboy foriegn policy. On the other hand, if the Middle East were filled with Buddhists and Wiccans, we’d still be there.
A fine distinction, User, and worthy. But in this instance the perception is more significant than the reality, as is too often the case. The perception amongst many Muslims is precisely that the West/US has declared war on Islam. This perception has a factual foundation, even as I say it is false.
We were attacked by a Shia fundamentalist, one of a number of the Wahabbi-type subsets of the Islamic faith. We then attack a secular Islamist, firmly insisting that this invasion is part and parcel of the “War on Terror”.
Now, suppose a band of Pentecostal snake-handling fundygoons attacked Syria. If Syria then turned its wrath against a country largely dominated by staid, calm Episcopalians and Presbyterians, would one not be tempted to presume that Xtianity was the target? With that in mind, the destruction and/or desecration of mosques isn’t pouring gasoline on the fire, its flinging handfuls of gunpowder!
The enemies of US policy used mosques as military conveniences, we sternly asset, therefore it is their fault that they become legitimate military targets. Which is true, but entirely misses the point. The insurgents claim a religious basis for their actions, and while I hold that view to be repugnant, nonetheless, in their eyes it legitimizes the use of mosques as rallying points and armories.
Further, the use of mosques this way becomes a “double dog dare you!” ploy: our enemies know full well that any attack on a mosque, not to mention anything so ghastly as recently witnessed, will inflame Islamic sentiments of all persuasions, and make the false “War against Islam” seem entirely plausible.
Not to be outdone by our enemies in undermining our legitimacy, we played right into their hands. We couldn’t have damaged our cause better if we had taken our plays straight from Osama himself.
Stunning. Positively stunning. Singing the same old song again, huh, Sam? Its that liberal media again, right, Sam? They just won’t report all the wonderful news. Can’t be relied upon, not like a report from a grunt on the ground, who is in an ideal position to report on the overall improvement of the economic conditions in Iraq. They cover this macroeconomic stuff pretty intensively at Camp LeJuene, do they, Sam?
There’s a reason why blogs are met with disdain and contempt, Sam. You remember why, right? We discussed it at length. Maybe it was right about the time that scandal broke about all the manufactured e-mails sent from soldiers to parents, and then reprinted in the local newspapers, about how just swell everything was going. Remember that, Sam?
I myself love how Sam Stone selectively believes without question any “letters from vets” that give support to the Bush Administration’s Glorious Iraqi Liberation War™, while casually dismissing all “letters from vets” that talk about how f*cked up the whole operation is and how they’re pissed at Bushco for sending them to Iraq just so George’s cronies can get richer.
Am I to take it that some of our friends are of the opinion that it ought to be US policy, perhaps embodied in the rules of engagement, to just shoot all wounded Iraqis on the off chance that one of them might just possibly have a frag on his person with the intent to lob it at friendly personnel? If so, isn’t it equally rational just to shoot all Iraqis? Or given all the talk about “foreign fighters,” just shoot everybody? Well, not everybody, just all males between the apparent ages of 12 and 85.
Somebody around here has been watching way to many bad war movies.
I think we need a little readjustment of our sensibilities here, folks. This one Marine may have acted wrongly (or not, depending on how much he knew of the prisoner’s status, which I don’t think has been firmly established in any account I’ve seen), but the problem of how best to deal with the fighters in Fallujah, and how that impacts the standard rules of engagement, is plenty real for our soldiers.
In the NY Times today is an article about what it’s been like for B Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines. One rather chilling passage recounts an ambush, into which the Marines were lured by enemy soldiers disguised as Iraqi National Guard. This is another example of the rules of engagement going right out the window. It may very well be that wounded fighters, who have shown the tendency to fight to the death, must be shot, or even blown to bits under certain circumstances, if they continue, as a group, the practice of masquerading as friendlies or surrendered, only to open fire. It’s a terrible dillemma, to be sure, but if the adversary behaves as the fighters in Fallujah, what choice do our soldiers have?
Unlike you Sam, who, after eight posts in this thread, has yet to make a single salient point. The kewpie is yours, to add to your peerless collection.
Well, sure, and I agree, but if you’re a soldier not making those kinds of decisions, your job is to do what you’re told. In this case, the soldiers are being ordered to secure Fallujah, and a major concern is staying alive while doing it. I suppose if they all would lay down their arms and refuse to fight, you might have a movement of sorts, but for you’re average Marine, you’re options are pretty limited: Fight, or go to the brig.
They were not ordered to murder unarmed, wounded prisoners. The victim was clearly not a threat and I do not buy the bullshit “booby trap” excuse. It’s laughable on its face and I dismiss it out of hand.
The claim is made that the soldiers were ordered to shoot at “anything that moves”. (And this is what I heard one US commander say to them myself, unless you make a claim that this tape was doctored. It was however taken from US TV.)
Other reports claim that they where given orders to shoot at “every male between 15 and 50”.
Other reports claim that they where told to shoot at least two bullets in everyone they cold hit.
Reports say that there are mass graves of Falludjans who were killed by the bombs. Of course aong these claims are reports of civilians burned alive and - not surprizing since this is not the first time this claim is made - reports that the US used napalm.
Other reports claim the citizens burried their deads in their gardens during the attacks.
Other reports claim there was no food, no water, nothing at all left for the citizens which makes one wonder how many simply died of thirst and starvation, especially the children and especially the very young ones.
Other reports come with stories of children dying in under the eyes of their parents from the most painful wounds and without anybody having the possibility to even go search for water or food, let alone to seek help.
Reports claim that a hospital was bombed and destroyed with doctors and patients inside.
Reports claim that patients were taken out of their beds and together with the medical personal tied up and that this was done by US and Iraqi soldiers (this report also claims that the Iraqis then went out on steeling poessions of patients and medics).
Reports claim that a hospital that was taken by the US and occupied by the US before the attack was staffed after the end of the general assaults with doctors and other personell and medication and whatever; Waiting for citizens of Falujah to come for treatment. They waited in vain since there came nobody.
Reports claim that citizens trying to flee the city were killed by the US army.
Reports claim that groups trying to reach safety were divided in women/children and men. The men were send back to Fallujah. (This was reported if I recall by the Red Cross that claimed that sending civilians back to a city where it it sure that they risk their lives, is a war crime)
Reports claim that hundreds of dead bodies are on the streets for days and were eaten by dogs.
Reports claim that hundreds of people were trapped and died in the ruins of what was once Fallujah, and that these bodies are still there (obviously).
There are so many reports on this coming from different sides that is difficult to see where the truth is.
Some of the things I mention came from citizens of Fallujah.
Some of them were more or less confirmed by reporters and hence were published at the website of the BBC, on Aljazeera and on other news channels.
Yet still nobody can say just how many civilians got murdered there this time.
Does anyone here seriously believes any report on that shall ever come from the US side?
If yes, please wake up because you live in a dangerous dreamworld.
Surely as soon as those who fled the city go home there shall be more insight possible because if your family is dead, or if your neighbours or friends are dead normally people know thazt when they come back home (Home is a big word here. Ruins of former homes and former city is a better one).
Yet I can already make a bet on it that what they say shall be dismissed by anyone who supports Bush.
Salaam. A
Funny that so many things that ‘moved’ managed to survive then in Fallujah, ehe? Could you provide a cite that US troops were told to shoot everything that moved?
Funny that so many males were captured or are otherwise still alive between 15-50…certainly more alive than dead in Fallujah. Our troops must not be very good shots if those alive outnumber those dead in this category. Perhaps you could also find a cite where US troops were told to shoot ‘every male between 15-50’?
You know, I saw some video of troops passing through some civilians (and there were even MALE civilians with them between ‘15 and 50’!!). These folks were only yards away from the troops (who were also in a firefight)…and yet, somehow they disobeyed orders and didn’t put 2 bullets into each of them somehow!! I won’t even bother asking for a cite for this one.
Cite for the use by the US of napalm in Fallujah?
Ah…irony. Dangerous dreamworld is it?
And yes…I actually do think that an approximate tally will eventually come out. I’m not under the delusion that a nation that would put something as damaging as the killing of a wounded insurgent on its news (and make such a fuss over it) is going to surpress information about the death toll…or prevent other agencies from gathering and diseminating such data.
Let me ask you something here Aldebaran. Setting aside for a second whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq in the first place (where we are essentially in agreement, though our reasons differ) lets talk about Fallujah for a second. ‘Reports’ I’ve read seem to suggest it was a snake pit/hell hole, where the insurgents controlling the city were pretty heavy handed…robbing the citizens, taking what they wanted, conscripting males in your ‘15-50’ range, killing at will, torturing, etc…all the while also inflicting a heavy dose of religious extreme-ism on the people (mostly against their will if the ‘reports’ I’ve read are accurate). Lets say that this isn’t all US propaganda (I’m guessing that your belief is that it IS all US propaganda, but work with me here), but that some of it in fact was happening. Was it better to just let that go on, since it was only muslims killing and torturing muslims…or was it better to remove them, even if innocents died to do it. In the short term? In the long term?
