Soldier executes wounded prisoner in front of NBC News Crew.

[Admiral Ackbar]

NBC Says Marine Shot Dead Wounded Iraqi Prisoner (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041115/wl_nm/iraq_marine_shooting_dc_2)

According to the report the marine had been shot in the face a day earlier and rerturned to active duty. What the hell was he doing in the field when he had just been shot?

[David85]

They really fucked up Iraq.

I find it "funny" through, that at the top there are two pictures, the bottom one has a gay soldier the first one from the left.

[alonzomourning23]

NBC Says Marine Shot Dead Wounded Iraqi Prisoner (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041115/wl_nm/iraq_marine_shooting_dc_2)

According to the report the marine had been shot in the face a day earlier and rerturned to active duty. What the hell was he doing in the field when he had just been shot?

Some of those soldiers are just sadistic. I remember listening to a few soldiers, who had just returned from Iraq, and one of them was making jokes about civilian casualties (others were all laughing in agreement). He said when he first got there he wanted to help, but he soon realized how vile they were. He was laughing at the dead civilians, and was complaining that he never got to shoot an Iraqi, though he was hoping he would be able to when he went back to Iraq. Listening to him, I think he would be more than happy if those he shot were civilians. Another guy overheard him (not a soldier, but was sitting next to them) and said that if he ever saw an Iraqi skull, after being disgusted, he'd just laugh. They all had a good laugh over this. They scared the hell out of me, and I later said to a friend (who also overheard them) "we got soldiers like this and we wonder why the world hates us". I realize that there are many good soldiers, but that's something I have to keep telling myself. Listening to interviews with them (and not selected interviews by people trying to make a point), and seeing their actions, it becomes harder and harder to get myself to believe that it is more than a minority that are decent people. But this seems to be a problem of our army. The british, for example, seem to be the kind of soldier we claim our army is made up of, and get along much better with the civilians. Though the rhetoric of the administration seems to be repeated in our soldiers, who seem to have the mentality that they were freeing Iraq by occupying them, and that Iraqi's are ungrateful bastards.

[David85]

What is the "offical" civilian casualties numbers? I heard anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000.

[jmcc]

Note to self: never fake being dead around any US soldiers.

[E-Z-B]

The sad part is that I know this probably isn't just one isolated incident. This is the mess that our Great Leader has gotten our boys and girls in.

[alonzomourning23]

BBC referred to the insurgent as an old man. Makes me wonder if the guy was really an insurgent, or for some reason strangly trapped in the mosque. or maybe simply aiding the insurgents. I dunno, it just seems strange that an old man would be among the insurgents, but maybe that isn't so strange and I just don't hear of it.

"According to Mr Sites, one of the soldiers points his rifle at the head of one of the injured, an old man. The sound of a shot is then heard. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4014901.stm

[camoor]

...The british, for example, seem to be the kind of soldier we claim our army is made up of, and get along much better with the civilians. Though the rhetoric of the administration seems to be repeated in our soldiers, who seem to have the mentality that they were freeing Iraq by occupying them, and that Iraqi's are ungrateful bastards.

Who are you kidding? The British?

Yeah, I'm sure they ran roughshod over half the earth by being nice and playing by the rules.

The Irish, Indians, and Africans were just spoil sports, the British were (and are) a really swell group of military chaps, all on the up and up.

Listen, soldiers will be soldiers, war is hell and as we all know that there are no rules in love and war. That's why it's a last resort, you don't just go charging in like some crazed Texan on a Jesus high.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from "Lawrence of Arabia" (another fine british operative). Lawrence is shown leading the massacre at Tafas, yelling "No prisoners, No prisoners!" After the massacre is over, his Arabian friend Ali speaks to a nearby photographer, saying
"Does it surprise you, Mr. Bentley? Surely, you know the Arabs are a barbarous people. Barbarous and cruel. Who but they? Who but they?"

[Admiral Ackbar]

The video is availablle at msnbc.com. Slightly editied to remove the more gore.

One more in tgeresting note. At the ame time someone from the other squad on the scene was killed when checking a booby trapped corpse.

[alonzomourning23]

...The british, for example, seem to be the kind of soldier we claim our army is made up of, and get along much better with the civilians. Though the rhetoric of the administration seems to be repeated in our soldiers, who seem to have the mentality that they were freeing Iraq by occupying them, and that Iraqi's are ungrateful bastards.

Who are you kidding? The British?

Yeah, I'm sure they ran roughshod over half the earth by being nice and playing by the rules.

The Irish, Indians, and Africans were just spoil sports, the British were (and are) a really swell group of military chaps, all on the up and up.

Listen, soldiers will be soldiers, war is hell and as we all know that there are no rules in love and war. That's why it's a last resort, you don't just go charging in like some crazed Texan on a Jesus high.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from "Lawrence of Arabia" (another fine british operative). Lawrence is shown leading the massacre at Tafas, yelling "No prisoners, No prisoners!" After the massacre is over, his Arabian friend Ali speaks to a nearby photographer, saying
"Does it surprise you, Mr. Bentley? Surely, you know the Arabs are a barbarous people. Barbarous and cruel. Who but they? Who but they?"

Ummm........ okay. I assumed we were talking about the soldiers in their current state, not their entire history. Look at the british controlled areas of Iraq and their treatment of the locals, how the locals response to them, with the way the u.s. soldiers treat iraqis and how the locals respond to them. That's not to say either side is perfect, but there are differences. I remember an article comparing the two, the u.s. screaming at people and driving over things in tanks, while the british relied on armoured jeeps, though I can't find it at the moment.

[camoor]

...The british, for example, seem to be the kind of soldier we claim our army is made up of, and get along much better with the civilians. Though the rhetoric of the administration seems to be repeated in our soldiers, who seem to have the mentality that they were freeing Iraq by occupying them, and that Iraqi's are ungrateful bastards.

Who are you kidding? The British?

Yeah, I'm sure they ran roughshod over half the earth by being nice and playing by the rules.

The Irish, Indians, and Africans were just spoil sports, the British were (and are) a really swell group of military chaps, all on the up and up.

Listen, soldiers will be soldiers, war is hell and as we all know that there are no rules in love and war. That's why it's a last resort, you don't just go charging in like some crazed Texan on a Jesus high.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from "Lawrence of Arabia" (another fine british operative). Lawrence is shown leading the massacre at Tafas, yelling "No prisoners, No prisoners!" After the massacre is over, his Arabian friend Ali speaks to a nearby photographer, saying
"Does it surprise you, Mr. Bentley? Surely, you know the Arabs are a barbarous people. Barbarous and cruel. Who but they? Who but they?"

Ummm........ okay. I assumed we were talking about the soldiers in their current state, not their entire history. Look at the british controlled areas of Iraq and their treatment of the locals, how the locals response to them, with the way the u.s. soldiers treat iraqis and how the locals respond to them. That's not to say either side is perfect, but there are differences. I remember an article comparing the two, the u.s. screaming at people and driving over things in tanks, while the british relied on armoured jeeps, though I can't find it at the moment.

You can certainly judge a military force by their past actions. The Americans are handling the bulk of this mission, and therefore it follows that the bulk of problems that arise will involve American troops. Those troops are overstressed and underpaid - I'd be willing to bet that this was a reasonable action for the soldier to take when the Iraqis are booby-trapping bodies and feigning death to get that last kill.

Make no mistake, I place blame squarely on Bush for this atrocity. The soldiers are American heroes that I respect 100%. Bush is an extremist zealot who, through his stupidity, has lead America into a useless, unwinnable war (don't take my word for it, go ask Colin Powell) and divided a nation in two.

[bmulligan]

Some of those soldiers are just sadistic. I remember listening to a few soldiers, who had just returned from Iraq, and one of them was making jokes about civilian casualties (others were all laughing in agreement). He said when he first got there he wanted to help, but he soon realized how vile they were. He was laughing at the dead civilians, and was complaining that he never got to shoot an Iraqi, though he was hoping he would be able to when he went back to Iraq. Listening to him, I think he would be more than happy if those he shot were civilians. Another guy overheard him (not a soldier, but was sitting next to them) and said that if he ever saw an Iraqi skull, after being disgusted, he'd just laugh. They all had a good laugh over this. They scared the hell out of me, and I later said to a friend (who also overheard them) "we got soldiers like this and we wonder why the world hates us". I realize that there are many good soldiers, but that's something I have to keep telling myself. Listening to interviews with them (and not selected interviews by people trying to make a point), and seeing their actions, it becomes harder and harder to get myself to believe that it is more than a minority that are decent people. But this seems to be a problem of our army. The british, for example, seem to be the kind of soldier we claim our army is made up of, and get along much better with the civilians. Though the rhetoric of the administration seems to be repeated in our soldiers, who seem to have the mentality that they were freeing Iraq by occupying them, and that Iraqi's are ungrateful bastards.

Some soldiers ARE sadistic, MOST are not. There are strange people in all walks of life. It does not mean that sadism is representative of the majority of our armed forces, nor even a significant minority. I also know soldiers who would never say those type of things or joke about killing in any way.

However, some people deal with their fears and traumatic experiences by joking about it. You remove yourself from the reality to more easily deal with the pain, or remorse. I would hazzard a guess that it was a group of male soldiers talking with each other and perhaps bragging about their experiences as is the case during most male gatherings. Do you often challenge what one of your brothers says in a public place? I doubt it, you probably just nod your head and laugh. Especially if it would challenge his manliness or opinion and result in some sort of confrontation.

Keep in mind that almost every interview you hear, see, or read about is the sensationalized one or the one that people will be interested to hear the most and has nothing to do with the proportion of representation of the rank and file millitary. They have been fighting in Fallujah for a week and we have seen very little film. But I'm sure they played the hell out of the shooting video today, or at least it's gotten more hit's than anything else on the web. Most soldiers just don't do whatever the hell they want, they follow orders. They know that following their orders is probably the best way to stay alive and stay out of jail.

[RedvsBlue]

You only ever hear about the bad soldiers, never the ones that do their jobs and follow orders. Its the same way with the police. I can almsot guarantee you that the good ones vastly outnumber the bad ones.

[Grave_Addiction]

You guys really need to put yourselves in the servicemember's shoes for a bit. Most of these guys have been over there for more than a year now and they have been seeing their friends getting killed.

War is a totally different animal. You should know this. This kind of stuff has been going on throughout history, but it's just that now we have press following along to show you the reality of war.

The rules of the Geneva Convention try to make war as humane as possible, but when you're fighting someone who's not playing by the same rules you are, it gets frustrating.

Think about it for a minute. What have they done to our prisoners? They have sliced their fucking heads off and sent us the video.

So now the entire press is up in arms because they caught a couple servicemembers killing their enemies.

Hey, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If they wanna fuck with us like that, I say we get fucking crazy too.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Nothing wrong with that.

[camoor]

You guys really need to put yourselves in the servicemember's shoes for a bit. Most of these guys have been over there for more than a year now and they have been seeing their friends getting killed.

War is a totally different animal. You should know this. This kind of stuff has been going on throughout history, but it's just that now we have press following along to show you the reality of war.

The rules of the Geneva Convention try to make war as humane as possible, but when you're fighting someone who's not playing by the same rules you are, it gets frustrating.

Think about it for a minute. What have they done to our prisoners? They have sliced their shaq-fuing heads off and sent us the video.

So now the entire press is up in arms because they caught a couple servicemembers killing their enemies.

Hey, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If they wanna shaq-fu with us like that, I say we get shaq-fuing crazy too.

I agree with most of what you said. Abu-grave is OVER THE LINE, but this is prolly one of those situations that could be judged either way.

I really feel anger towards Americans who support Bush and the war, and then get all angry about these little incidents. What the hell did you expect, it's war, it's horrible, it sucks, you should only do it when you have to. Support the troops, and fight the real problem, the chickenhawks up there in DC, you idiots.

[alonzomourning23]

You can certainly judge a military force by their past actions. The Americans are handling the bulk of this mission, and therefore it follows that the bulk of problems that arise will involve American troops. Those troops are overstressed and underpaid - I'd be willing to bet that this was a reasonable action for the soldier to take when the Iraqis are booby-trapping bodies and feigning death to get that last kill.

Make no mistake, I place blame squarely on Bush for this atrocity. The soldiers are American heroes that I respect 100%. Bush is an extremist zealot who, through his stupidity, has lead America into a useless, unwinnable war (don't take my word for it, go ask Colin Powell) and divided a nation in two.

I don't see how you can judge the character of the present army on it's past, unless the people who committed past atrocities are still in power (which they are not). I mean america is not going to commit a genocide such as what they did to the natives, they aren't going to start spraying agent orange over Iraq, britain is not going to have another massacre similar to the amritsar massacre in india, and they're not going to start reconquering much of the world. They may pay attention to the lessons they learned, but you can't say because the past armies were ruthless and cruel that the present one is. Also, when blaming bush, you can't leave out blair. He lied just as much, though he was much quicker to apologize for it (not the war, but some aspects leading up to it). And while the bulk of the problems would fall on americans, they are still disproportionate, and the iraqis under british control seem less hateful of their occupier (not to say they're thrilled with them either).

Also, in regards to soldiers doing their duty, I was not refering so much to whether they did as told, as the majority due. I was referring to the actual beliefs the soldiers seem to have. There seems to be little concern for the actual people, it's either "we're liberating them but they're ungrateful", or, an increasingly common one "I came out to help them, but now I hate them, I can't stand them". The military is made up of very patriotic people, many of which who tend to view america as the ideal, the best, and others should do what we say. As if we always know what is best. That kind of attitude does not fit well in other societies, especially in a place where the people are opposed to your very presence. Watching interviews with soldiers, even ones intended to show them in a good light, there seems to be no real care about iraqis, just to get the job down, or obliterate them, and/or to liberate them. The liberating part always seems hollow, simply a phrase. I'm not saying they're all bad, but out of the actions and interviews I've seen of british troops, japanese, polish, previously spain etc., overal, I'd be more proud to have them as my soldiers. Some of them are just as bad, and some of the americans are just as good as any of them, but the americans troops seem much more arrogant and hateful than the troops from other nations. The administration and the people leading them are as much to blame for this as the insurgents.

Also, to grave, we invaded them. We are occupying them, whether you think it is just or not any people, regardless of the nation, have a right to rebel and oppose the invaders. Now, there are some insurgents who simply want us out, the majority are not terrorists. But then there are those who are terrorists (of which a high percentage seem to be foreign). Now I don't support the resistence, I think the end result of their success would be worse. I think a multinational force needs to take away control from the americans, we are going to end up, if we haven't already, destroying the credibility of the government, making it look like a puppet government (which it appears to be anyway). But, true, not terrorist, resistance is acceptable and should have been expected. That should not be used as justification for commiting acts such as killing unarmed prisoners. It is absurd to use acts of terrorists as justification, for one many insurgents are not terrorists, and two we're supposed to be better. If we are going to use barbaric acts to justify our own barbaric acts then there was no point in getting rid of saddam. You cannot let the acts of the worst humans be the guide you use when fighting, especially when the basis (after multiple failed reasons for invasion) for invading Iraq is now human rights reasons. And to suggest that because terrorists kill civilians and our captured/unarmed soldiers, therefore it is tolerable when we do the same, is absurd. We're supposed to be better. They're soldiers of an invading army, they're going to be shot at, rebel groups are going to be more ruthless, they're going to be extremists who are able and willing to commit atrocities within those rebel groups. In the end, the american army has shown itself to be more ruthless in its treatment of prisoners, civilians and, in this case, injured insurgents, than the british. And to say that the u.s. soldier should be excused because his friends died? What about the insurgent who has not only seen his friends killed (and more of them have died than the americans friends) in combat, but whose house and family were bombed? I don't know about you, but killing my friend in combat is bad, but bombing my house while my family sleeps is much worse, and that has happened. If that is the logic you're going to use, the insurgent should get to do a little more than the u.s. soldiers, especially since his side didn't initiate the war. And besides, I can't believe no one has mentioned how stupid you have to be to execute an injured prisoner in front of a cameraman.

[jlarlee]

125 degree heat and having people shoot at you can be detrimental to your sanity. Where I was wasn't too bad but the sound of a siren still freezes me in my tracks for 10 seconds two months after I got home.

[camoor]

I don't see how you can judge the character of the present army on it's past, unless the people who committed past atrocities are still in power (which they are not). I mean america is not going to commit a genocide such as what they did to the natives, they aren't going to start spraying agent orange over Iraq, britain is not going to have another massacre similar to the amritsar massacre in india, and they're not going to start reconquering much of the world. They may pay attention to the lessons they learned, but you can't say because the past armies were ruthless and cruel that the present one is.


Yeah you're right - the American military will never fight another war like they did in Vietnam. No, wait, I mean America will never ignore another genocide like Rwanda (Darfur). Gee wait, I'm trying to say that the American troops invading another country will take more care to respect local customs (Abu Ghraib prison). Face it, the same mistakes are repeated. They will all come to light soon enough. I just can't believe how idiotic our commander in chief was on this one.


Also, when blaming bush, you can't leave out blair. He lied just as much, though he was much quicker to apologize for it (not the war, but some aspects leading up to it). And while the bulk of the problems would fall on americans, they are still disproportionate, and the iraqis under british control seem less hateful of their occupier (not to say they're thrilled with them either).


Agreed, but I am more concerned with USA, if Britian wants to go off in the Mid East that's their deal, but damn it makes me mad that USA soldiers are dying for Bush's religiously/revenge motivated war.


Also, in regards to soldiers doing their duty, I was not refering so much to whether they did as told, as the majority due. I was referring to the actual beliefs the soldiers seem to have. There seems to be little concern for the actual people, it's either "we're liberating them but they're ungrateful", or, an increasingly common one "I came out to help them, but now I hate them, I can't stand them". The military is made up of very patriotic people, many of which who tend to view america as the ideal, the best, and others should do what we say. As if we always know what is best. That kind of attitude does not fit well in other societies, especially in a place where the people are opposed to your very presence. Watching interviews with soldiers, even ones intended to show them in a good light, there seems to be no real care about iraqis, just to get the job down, or obliterate them, and/or to liberate them. The liberating part always seems hollow, simply a phrase. I'm not saying they're all bad, but out of the actions and interviews I've seen of british troops, japanese, polish, previously spain etc., overal, I'd be more proud to have them as my soldiers. Some of them are just as bad, and some of the americans are just as good as any of them, but the americans troops seem much more arrogant and hateful than the troops from other nations. The administration and the people leading them are as much to blame for this as the insurgents.

Also, to grave, we invaded them. We are occupying them, whether you think it is just or not any people, regardless of the nation, have a right to rebel and oppose the invaders. Now, there are some insurgents who simply want us out, the majority are not terrorists. But then there are those who are terrorists (of which a high percentage seem to be foreign). Now I don't support the resistence, I think the end result of their success would be worse. I think a multinational force needs to take away control from the americans, we are going to end up, if we haven't already, destroying the credibility of the government, making it look like a puppet government (which it appears to be anyway). But, true, not terrorist, resistance is acceptable and should have been expected. That should not be used as justification for commiting acts such as killing unarmed prisoners. It is absurd to use acts of terrorists as justification, for one many insurgents are not terrorists, and two we're supposed to be better. If we are going to use barbaric acts to justify our own barbaric acts then there was no point in getting rid of saddam. You cannot let the acts of the worst humans be the guide you use when fighting, especially when the basis (after multiple failed reasons for invasion) for invading Iraq is now human rights reasons. And to suggest that because terrorists kill civilians and our captured/unarmed soldiers, therefore it is tolerable when we do the same, is absurd. We're supposed to be better. They're soldiers of an invading army, they're going to be shot at, rebel groups are going to be more ruthless, they're going to be extremists who are able and willing to commit atrocities within those rebel groups. In the end, the american army has shown itself to be more ruthless in its treatment of prisoners, civilians and, in this case, injured insurgents, than the british. And to say that the u.s. soldier should be excused because his friends died? What about the insurgent who has not only seen his friends killed (and more of them have died than the americans friends) in combat, but whose house and family were bombed? I don't know about you, but killing my friend in combat is bad, but bombing my house while my family sleeps is much worse, and that has happened. If that is the logic you're going to use, the insurgent should get to do a little more than the u.s. soldiers, especially since his side didn't initiate the war. And besides, I can't believe no one has mentioned how stupid you have to be to execute an injured prisoner in front of a cameraman.

Soldiers are soldiers. They do what soldiers do, I have no illusions about that. Listen, they're trained to win a war, and war is not some videogame where a bad wound takes off 20% of your health bar and cheating will get you a 2 hour time out. Let's stop pretending soldiers don't cuss and ugly mass violence doesn't occur (thanks Fox, CNN and FCC) and get real about what happens in war. I'm sure any veteran can fill you in on some of the gritty details since I think you need a reality check.

[jmcc]

It occurs to me that now we really can't claim moral high ground over the guys kidnapping and beheading over there.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't see how you can judge the character of the present army on it's past, unless the people who committed past atrocities are still in power (which they are not). I mean america is not going to commit a genocide such as what they did to the natives, they aren't going to start spraying agent orange over Iraq, britain is not going to have another massacre similar to the amritsar massacre in india, and they're not going to start reconquering much of the world. They may pay attention to the lessons they learned, but you can't say because the past armies were ruthless and cruel that the present one is.


Yeah you're right - the American military will never fight another war like they did in Vietnam. No, wait, I mean America will never ignore another genocide like Rwanda (Darfur). Gee wait, I'm trying to say that the American troops invading another country will take more care to respect local customs (Abu Ghraib prison). Face it, the same mistakes are repeated. They will all come to light soon enough. I just can't believe how idiotic our commander in chief was on this one.

Again, I was not referring to vietnam as a whole, but certain acts, such as the spraying of agent orange. And I don't get how failing to stop massacres plays into this, I was arguing about atrocities caused by nations, not atrocities they failed to stop.



Soldiers are soldiers. They do what soldiers do, I have no illusions about that. Listen, they're trained to win a war, and war is not some videogame where a bad wound takes off 20% of your health bar and cheating will get you a 2 hour time out. Let's stop pretending soldiers don't cuss and ugly mass violence doesn't occur (thanks Fox, CNN and FCC) and get real about what happens in war. I'm sure any veteran can fill you in on some of the gritty details since I think you need a reality check.

Alright, every act the americans have committed is simply what soldiers do, nothing can be done to prevent it, it has nothing to do with the attitude and instructions of commanders, leaders and so on. The americans have acted more ruthlessly than most of the other forces. I don't see how that appears to be sugarcoating war, or how that suggests I believe war is nice or pretty or anything. The actions committed by american soldiers suggests that there needs to be serious reforms made to the way they are trained and led, you're argument is war is hell and soldiers of all nations are equally as bad. Some nations soldiers seem more prone to these things than others, and the arrogance and superiority complex of our nation plays a part in that.

[camoor]

No, my arguement is that the media piles on soldiers who make bad calls in the field, but don't focus the blame where it would be most constructive - on the idiot-in-chief who got us into this mess. Listen, I have no love for revenge killing but learning that it occurs in war won't get me to raise an eyebrow. And the USA only looks bad because the media knows that USA soldiers behaving badly sells well to the international crowd these days, so they focus on catching USA soldiers "in the act" (If these were Russian soldiers, I doubt that anyone would be surprised, I mean nothing against Russian soldiers but you get my point).

Here's an analogy, the media focusing on illegal acts of the Iraq war by US soldiers is like a customer yelling at a sales rep at Circuit City, when the real problem was caused by a shady management team attempting to do a bait-and-switch.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I agree with most of what you said. Abu-grave is OVER THE LINE, but this is prolly one of those situations that could be judged either way.

I really feel anger towards Americans who support Bush and the war, and then get all angry about these little incidents. What the hell did you expect, it's war, it's horrible, it sucks, you should only do it when you have to. Support the troops, and fight the real problem, the chickenhawks up there in DC, you idiots.

Here we have a statement that completely qualifies someone as a short bus riding, hockey helmeted, chronically masturbating wonder tard.

Kidnapping civillians of any nationality and beheading them? Cost of war.
Booby trapping bodies to kill soldiers? Cost of war.
Abu Grab, making criminals and terrorists wear panties on their head, stacking them naked, or putting them on leasehes? OMG You've crossed the line, you are torturing and humiliating people, their culture and religion.

Yes, we have our insane leftist commentary of the day.

[camoor]

I agree with most of what you said. Abu-grave is OVER THE LINE, but this is prolly one of those situations that could be judged either way.

I really feel anger towards Americans who support Bush and the war, and then get all angry about these little incidents. What the hell did you expect, it's war, it's horrible, it sucks, you should only do it when you have to. Support the troops, and fight the real problem, the chickenhawks up there in DC, you idiots.

Here we have a statement that completely qualifies someone as a short bus riding, hockey helmeted, chronically masturbating wonder tard.

Kidnapping civillians of any nationality and beheading them? Cost of war.
Booby trapping bodies to kill soldiers? Cost of war.
Abu Grab, making criminals and terrorists wear panties on their head, stacking them naked, or putting them on leasehes? OMG You've crossed the line, you are torturing and humiliating people, their culture and religion.

Yes, we have our insane leftist commentary of the day.

lol

I was talking about the situation where the guy says "he's faking death!" and then kills the Iraqi combatant.

All the other situations are obviously deplorable but will happen as a course of war. Of course people who go on revenge killing sprees should be tried, just as bank robbers should be tried. Doesn't mean I'm surprised by it.

PAD, relax buddy, and lay off the rhetoric. One might get the idea that you don't believe you can intelligently argue your position :wink:

[David85]

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He faking he's fucking dead."

-Said the fucking asshole fuck

[Quackzilla]

Here we have a statement that completely qualifies someone as a short bus riding, hockey helmeted, chronically masturbating wonder tard.

Kidnapping civillians of any nationality and beheading them? Cost of war.
Booby trapping bodies to kill soldiers? Cost of war.
Abu Grab, making criminals and terrorists wear panties on their head, stacking them naked, or putting them on leasehes? OMG You've crossed the line, you are torturing and humiliating people, their culture and religion.

Yes, we have our insane leftist commentary of the day.

A vast majority of the prisoners at Abu Grab were noncombatants. Most were arrested at random, some were arrested during raids, a few were looters, and a couple were war criminals.

Most war criminals were sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

[GuilewasNK]

It occurs to me that now we really can't claim moral high ground over the guys kidnapping and beheading over there.

Actually we can....

Video May Show CARE Director Being Killed

Kidnapped aid worker Margaret Hassan was believed to be dead Tuesday after a video received by Al-Jazeera television showed a hooded figure shooting a blindfolded woman in the head.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostage_12

I just wonder when they will start beheading children. That's the next step in this.

[jmcc]

It occurs to me that now we really can't claim moral high ground over the guys kidnapping and beheading over there.

Actually we can....

Video May Show CARE Director Being Killed

Kidnapped aid worker Margaret Hassan was believed to be dead Tuesday after a video received by Al-Jazeera television showed a hooded figure shooting a blindfolded woman in the head.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostage_12

I just wonder when they will start beheading children. That's the next step in this.

That's worse than our executing a prisoner? It seems pretty much the same to me.

[GuilewasNK]

The Iraqi was one of five wounded prisoners left in the mosque after Marines had fought their way in on Friday and Saturday.

Yeah, killing a blindfolded woman who was a care worker is worse than killing an enemy who was just trying to kill you moments before. We are taking the high ground because if we really wanted to we could blow the fuck out of every living thing there if we wanted (which would be wrong) instead of nickel and diming.

[jmcc]

The Iraqi was one of five wounded prisoners left in the mosque after Marines had fought their way in on Friday and Saturday.

Yeah, killing a blindfolded woman who was a care worker is worse than killing an enemy who was just trying to kill you moments before. We are taking the high ground because if we really wanted to we could blow the shaq-fu out of every living thing there if we wanted (which would be wrong) instead of nickel and diming.

First, has it been stated if this guy was actually an insurgent? I mean, I'm sure it WILL be to cover the army's ass, but there are still civilans in the city.

Second, the cases are still the same. Neither prisoner was a threat to their captors, but got executed just the same.

[Grave_Addiction]

Also, to grave, we invaded them. We are occupying them, whether you think it is just or not any people, regardless of the nation, have a right to rebel and oppose the invaders.

Now, there are some insurgents who simply want us out, the majority are not terrorists. But then there are those who are terrorists (of which a high percentage seem to be foreign).

First off, it's not like we invaded them to take over their country, man. We invaded the country to overthrow a dictator who has oppressed his people for far too long.

I've talked repeatedly with people who've been to Iraq and all of them tell me that the Iraqis want us there. The media paints a picture that everyone hates us there, when in fact, it's far from the truth.

Now I don't support the resistence, I think the end result of their success would be worse. I think a multinational force needs to take away control from the americans, we are going to end up, if we haven't already, destroying the credibility of the government, making it look like a puppet government (which it appears to be anyway).

I hope in the near future the U.N. can take control of Iraq and relieve the burdon from us, but because we went to war without its approval, they seem to be really reluctant to help us.

But, true, not terrorist, resistance is acceptable and should have been expected. That should not be used as justification for commiting acts such as killing unarmed prisoners. It is absurd to use acts of terrorists as justification, for one many insurgents are not terrorists, and two we're supposed to be better.

If we are going to use barbaric acts to justify our own barbaric acts then there was no point in getting rid of saddam. You cannot let the acts of the worst humans be the guide you use when fighting, especially when the basis (after multiple failed reasons for invasion) for invading Iraq is now human rights reasons.

I think it's extremely easy for us to sit here in America and say what our servicemembers should be doing, but the chances are less than 99% of the people here have seen war.

You can sit here all day and preach about how we're supposed to be better than our enemies and not resort to their level, but I'm telling you war will bring out the very best and worst in people at the same time.

And to suggest that because terrorists kill civilians and our captured/unarmed soldiers, therefore it is tolerable when we do the same, is absurd. We're supposed to be better. They're soldiers of an invading army, they're going to be shot at, rebel groups are going to be more ruthless, they're going to be extremists who are able and willing to commit atrocities within those rebel groups.

I never said we should kill innocent civilians. What I'm saying is we should deal with our enemies in Iraq in a way that will strike fear in them and will make them think twice before attacking us again. They know our LOAC and they try to use it against us.

In the end, the american army has shown itself to be more ruthless in its treatment of prisoners, civilians and, in this case, injured insurgents, than the british.

I think you are generalizing the Army a bit much here. We've had a couple incidents of the "mistreatment" of prisoners. How can you say the whole Army has shown ruthlessness for prisoners?

And to say that the u.s. soldier should be excused because his friends died? What about the insurgent who has not only seen his friends killed (and more of them have died than the americans friends) in combat, but whose house and family were bombed? I don't know about you, but killing my friend in combat is bad, but bombing my house while my family sleeps is much worse, and that has happened. If that is the logic you're going to use, the insurgent should get to do a little more than the u.s. soldiers, especially since his side didn't initiate the war.

Again, you're making it sound like we are at war with Iraq. We are no longer at war with Iraq. We are fighting Saddam loyalists, terrorists and other insurgents who feel like we have no right in their land.

I'm not saying that we should excuse what he did. When he joined the Army, he was taught the rules of the Geneva Convention and he knew our LOAC. He will get his punishment.

What I am saying is we shouldn't be surprised by things like this happening because they've been going on for a long, long time.

And besides, I can't believe no one has mentioned how stupid you have to be to execute an injured prisoner in front of a cameraman.

Yeah, that was quite stupid.

[Ruined]

I heard on the news tonight the day before when the soldier was wounded, during the same conflict his good friend was killed by a prisoner feigning dead, or something to that effect. Perhaps that is why he had the reaction that he did, because he didn't want to see the same thing happen again.

Either way though, this is war, and stuff like this will happen. If the person is found guilty he will be punished.

[camoor]

I heard on the news tonight the day before when the soldier was wounded, during the same conflict his good friend was killed by a prisoner feigning dead, or something to that effect. Perhaps that is why he had the reaction that he did, because he didn't want to see the same thing happen again...

You know, this was my first thought when I heard about it.

Remember when NYC was all up in arms because the cops shot Amadou Diallo? Well if a guy in the bad part of town is reaching into his pockets after you yell "Freeze!!", what would you do? (and screw Springsteen)

This is where you have to be real. Sure the soldiers or cops may make a mistake, but they really aren't to blame in a situation like this.

[Cracka]

i heard about this on the news today.. but on the news they mentioned how some Iraqis had strapped themselves with explosives and acted hurt and detonated them when our soldiers got near them.


i dont find it crazy that he did that... i think its bad that you have to do something like that for fear of being blown up by a person strapped with explosives..

if i had heard about some Iraqis blowing themselves and US soldiers up while pretending to be hurt, who knows, i might would do it too..

wouldnt be something i would want to do, not something i would be proud of doing, but you gotta do what you gotta do... now if i had checked the guy and he didnt have any explosives or anything, i wouldnt do some shit like that though.

[David85]

I agree with most of what you said. Abu-grave is OVER THE LINE, but this is prolly one of those situations that could be judged either way.

I really feel anger towards Americans who support Bush and the war, and then get all angry about these little incidents. What the hell did you expect, it's war, it's horrible, it sucks, you should only do it when you have to. Support the troops, and fight the real problem, the chickenhawks up there in DC, you idiots.

Here we have a statement that completely qualifies someone as a short bus riding, hockey helmeted, chronically masturbating wonder tard.

Kidnapping civillians of any nationality and beheading them? Cost of war.
Booby trapping bodies to kill soldiers? Cost of war.
Abu Grab, making criminals and terrorists wear panties on their head, stacking them naked, or putting them on leasehes? OMG You've crossed the line, you are torturing and humiliating people, their culture and religion.

Yes, we have our insane leftist commentary of the day.


Thank you for comparing our troops to the terrorist, nice job.

The point is we are supose to be better than them in everyway possible, that means no fucking dumbass shit lead by the worlds super power.

[alonzomourning23]

No, my arguement is that the media piles on soldiers who make bad calls in the field, but don't focus the blame where it would be most constructive - on the idiot-in-chief who got us into this mess. Listen, I have no love for revenge killing but learning that it occurs in war won't get me to raise an eyebrow. And the USA only looks bad because the media knows that USA soldiers behaving badly sells well to the international crowd these days, so they focus on catching USA soldiers "in the act" (If these were Russian soldiers, I doubt that anyone would be surprised, I mean nothing against Russian soldiers but you get my point).

Here's an analogy, the media focusing on illegal acts of the Iraq war by US soldiers is like a customer yelling at a sales rep at Circuit City, when the real problem was caused by a shady management team attempting to do a bait-and-switch.

I wasn't suprised that there were revenge killings, it was just another thing the u.s. did, it isn't even close to the worse though. I agree russia is worse, though in all fairness the soldiers treat their own almost as bad as they treat the enemy (at least during the hazing period). But their conduct in chechnya is worse than ours in Iraq. My problem is the u.s. army is starting to resemble the idf more than anything else. They're not the people you should be modelling an army after, at least one that is supposedly helping the people and building a democracy.

[Quackzilla]

He was probably faking dead because since he was old he couldn't stand the beating he was taking.

[Ruined]

The point is we are supose to be better than them in everyway possible, that means no shaq-fuing dumbass shit lead by the worlds super power.

And we are better than them in every way possible, that is obvious. But humans aren't perfect, they make judgment errors sometime. A war, president, or our country shouldn't be judged or demerited on errors of a few soldiers who made mistakes during wartime. We might be the worlds greatest super power, but that doesn't mean our military is perfect as it is still made up of human beings, not machines. It tries to be perfect, we do everything we can for it to be, but even then there will be errors - and thats no one's fault, it's just a fact of war.

We were the ones firing laser guided precision bombs into military installations to avoid civilian casualties while the enemy was blindly firing anti-aircraft shells over civilian areas, raining down on the residential areas. We are the ones who respect the rules of combat even when are foes do not, putting traps on corpses, forcing kids to walk up to soldiers and blow themselves up, etc. We are better than them, and it shows. Of course, with "Crisis TV" in the US, you might get a different idea, as every misstep is blown out of proportion and most good deeds are ignored.

We never hear about stuff like this link (http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/soldier_statue) in the mainstream media. We mostly hear the bad, and that is a shame. I like to be informed about both the good and the bad, not just the bad.

[Inmate #10943]

And then there's like no outrage here and especially in the muslim countries that the terrorist (and that's what they are) kidnap a WOMAN, abuse, torture, rape, murder and then disembowel her. Teh story never appeared on Al Jazeera. Hmmmpfff :x Grrrrr.........

[jmcc]

And then there's like no outrage here and especially in the muslim countries that the terrorist (and that's what they are) kidnap a WOMAN, abuse, torture, rape, murder and then disembowel her. Teh story never appeared on Al Jazeera. Hmmmpfff :x Grrrrr.........

What's the link to that story?

[alonzomourning23]

And then there's like no outrage here and especially in the muslim countries that the terrorist (and that's what they are) kidnap a WOMAN, abuse, torture, rape, murder and then disembowel her. Teh story never appeared on Al Jazeera. Hmmmpfff :x Grrrrr.........

If you're talking about Hassan, that story did appear on al jazeera, their was plenty of outrage, and the vast majority of the world denounced it, including those countries you claimed didn't. But, as far as a woman being tortured, raped, and disemboweled, I'm not sure I remember that one happening. Hassan was shot, and I don't remember hearing of a woman who was decapitated (though I'm not certain, I may have forgotten), which isn't disemboweling anyway. Though the terrorists are the ones who target and harm civilians, a high percentage of terrorists are foreign, but the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. Just as you complain the news only shows the bad americans, the insurgents often complain the news only shows the worst among them.

[jmcc]

And then there's like no outrage here and especially in the muslim countries that the terrorist (and that's what they are) kidnap a WOMAN, abuse, torture, rape, murder and then disembowel her. Teh story never appeared on Al Jazeera. Hmmmpfff :x Grrrrr.........

If you're talking about Hassan, that story did appear on al jazeera, their was plenty of outrage, and the vast majority of the world denounced it, including those countries you claimed didn't. But, as far as a woman being tortured, raped, and disemboweled, I'm not sure I remember that one happening. Hassan was shot, and I don't remember hearing of a woman who was decapitated (though I'm not certain, I may have forgotten), which isn't disemboweling anyway. Though the terrorists are the ones who target and harm civilians, a high percentage of terrorists are foreign, but the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. Just as you complain the news only shows the bad americans, the insurgents often complain the news only shows the worst among them.

Yeah, I get the impression the poster is either grossly misinformed or just making stuff up.

[Inmate #10943]

If you're talking about Hassan, that story did appear on al jazeera, their was plenty of outrage, and the vast majority of the world denounced it, including those countries you claimed didn't. But, as far as a woman being tortured, raped, and disemboweled, I'm not sure I remember that one happening. Hassan was shot, and I don't remember hearing of a woman who was decapitated (though I'm not certain, I may have forgotten), which isn't disemboweling anyway. Though the terrorists are the ones who target and harm civilians, a high percentage of terrorists are foreign, but the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. Just as you complain the news only shows the bad americans, the insurgents often complain the news only shows the worst among them.

Yeah, I get the impression the poster is either grossly misinformed or just making stuff up.

Sorry! Not grossly misinformed or making stuff up!
As far as that happening to Hassan - what do you call being bound and forced to beg for your life if it weren't for torture? Her captivity and the conditions in which she was held did not fall on the pleasant side of an experience.

FACT - FOX News reported a woman's body was found in Falluja disemboweled and wrapped in a carpet. (I do know the difference between disemboweled and decapitated) The following day it was reported that the woman was Hassan. Aljazeera reported they received the video of her being shot in the head. They didn't show the video because it WOULD outrage muslims. But no where in the story was there disgust or outrage over the murder.

I read Aljazeera every day and when you say there was plenty of outrage it certainly was not in the arab world. If you saw this on Aljazeera please let me know which day it appeared because I did not see it.

Likewise, when the car bomb in Baghdad went off and blew up a school bus nearby killing small children Aljazeera did not cover the story. A Palestinian terrorist gets killed by the Israelis and it's top of the page. When Israeli children are killed by a homicide bomber you will never see it on Aljazeera.

I also faithfully read daily, the French, Russian, British, and other arab and international news and do not recall any outrage on the scale of the Marine shooting the man in the mosque. Again, please direct me to your source for this world outrage because I surely missed it.

I certainly don't believe you're making things up or are grossly misinformed but please give me your sources so I might check them out in order to be more enlightened.

[jmcc]

Is there a link to this story or what?

Also: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20041117/ts_nm/iraq_hassan_reaction_dc

[alonzomourning23]

Sorry! Not grossly misinformed or making stuff up!
As far as that happening to Hassan - what do you call being bound and forced to beg for your life if it weren't for torture? Her captivity and the conditions in which she was held did not fall on the pleasant side of an experience.

Bound up is also what the u.s. does to those we capture, and being forced to beg, that is abuse, not torture. Psychological torture is locking someone up in small cages for long periods, stripping them naked in front of others etc., physical torture could be beatings, rape etc. Murder, kidnapping, they did that, you could argue psychological torture by the very act of being kidnapped and held prisoner, and you'd have a valid argument, but I have seen no evidence that they went out of their way to psychologicaly torture, and have seen no evidence of physical torture. And to argue it was torture because the experience was not "pleasant", no ones capture and detainment is pleasant, whether an innocent aid worker captured by a terrorist group or an innocent man captured by the americans (which there are many in their house by house raids), many of which were undeniably tortured and possibly killed (hard to know if the ones they killed in captivity were guilty or not). I'm not saying where anywhere near as bad, but just pointing out that we're not perfect.

[/quote]
FACT - FOX News reported a woman's body was found in Falluja disemboweled and wrapped in a carpet. (I do know the difference between disemboweled and decapitated) The following day it was reported that the woman was Hassan. Aljazeera reported they received the video of her being shot in the head. They didn't show the video because it WOULD outrage muslims. But no where in the story was there disgust or outrage over the murder. [/quote]

I would really like to see that article, no woman was found disemboweled. I'd like you to tell me what major news source would show a woman being shot and killed? And, specifically, when in al jazeera (or any news source) history have they ever shown a noncombatant, up close, being killed? And about bias, news plays to its audience, al jazeera does exactly what fox does. Though the fox website looks like a tabloid, with all that entertainment news, and some things which are just ridiculous. I remember one fox article that called britney spears a "tart" in the headline. I'm not a fan of hers, but it was just so unprofessional. Oh, not sure if you've seen this study (though most have heard about it) on fox viewer misconceptions, there's a chart at the bottom of the page. link (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/oct03/oct06/4_thurs/news2thursday.html)

[/quote] Likewise, when the car bomb in Baghdad went off and blew up a school bus nearby killing small children Aljazeera did not cover the story. A Palestinian terrorist gets killed by the Israelis and it's top of the page. When Israeli children are killed by a homicide bomber you will never see it on Aljazeera. [/quote]

Can't comment on the school bus, since their search is down. Though every single suicide bomb is on there, but I wonder about your definitions. Homicide bomber never made sense to me, if I plant a bomb and then leave I would also be a homicide bomber, since I killed others. It does not add the distinction that I killed myself (as suicide bomber does). But israeli's killing "terrorists", today, for instance, there's an articlelink (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/98E95987-CA7A-4932-BFE1-5D1AA5064A30.htm) where Israeli soldiers killed 2 children throwing stones at them. No israeli soldier has ever died from stone throwing (and with all their armor it would be hard to). Who, if either of them, would you call the terrorist (personally I would say neither)? Or what about a week or so ago, where a disoriented little girl ran towards an israeli soldier and was shot. This is what happened link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3748054.stm):

" We saw her from a distance of 70m. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said.
While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said.
He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body. "

Though Israel's initial reaction showed their moral superiority, they immediately reprimanded him for failing to control his soldiers (who had reported him). Though in the end, they decided link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3748054.stm)
"But the army says it accepts the commander's claim that he fired into the ground near the girl after coming under fire in a dangerous area.

It has not explained why the officer shot into the ground rather than at the source of the fire.

"The investigation did not find that the company or the company commander had acted unethically," an army statement said. "

As shown, the guy is clearly justified, who in their right mind would fire into the enemy when they could fire into the ground next to a little dead girl? The reason I'm pointing this out is, to me, this is the single most disgusting thing that I've since since the second intifada began, not the worst, but the most disgusting. And the reaction by the government just pushed it over the top. This wasn't about creating a body count for horrific effect (where children die as well), this wasn't about killing a stone thrower as a message, this was some sadist who decided to get off on emptying a magazine into a little girl he just killed. And there wasn't just some lone thug, this was a commander in the Israeli army. Also, here's another article about a shot, and killed, terrorist schoolgirl link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3739148.stm). Another article about four terrorist children being shot while sitting in their classrooms link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3693860.stm).

[/quote] I also faithfully read daily, the French, Russian, British, and other arab and international news and do not recall any outrage on the scale of the Marine shooting the man in the mosque. Again, please direct me to your source for this world outrage because I surely missed it.

I certainly don't believe you're making things up or are grossly misinformed but please give me your sources so I might check them out in order to be more enlightened.[/quote]

Well, one is committed by rogue terrorists with no moral authority, the other is committed by a government claiming it is their to help the people and build democracy. A little more is expected from the u.s. government than terrorists. Though, here's an article from the bbc about the reaction
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4019729.stm). And some hihglights:

"There has been widespread condemnation of the reported killing of a leading woman aid worker in Iraq who had been held hostage since last month.......

For residents of Baghdad the reported killing of Mrs Hassan was quite horrifying and, to some, shameful.
One said: "This is a crime. Even God will not accept it. This is a sin. She was a good woman and she helped the Iraqis.".....

Another questioned the motives of the presumed killing: "We regret this act, and this act shows us how bad the terrorists are, and gives us a clear picture of those people who are claiming to be the resistance.

"Where was this resistance during Saddam Hussein's time?"....

Conspiracy theorists - of whom there are many in the Arab world - see the workings of a sinister plot to discredit the Iraqi resistance - a view you can also hear inside Iraq.

Many Arab politicians and intellectuals have denounced the kidnapping and killing of civilians as un-Islamic......

A group of Arab intellectuals has laid the blame squarely on religious leaders, whom they accuse of inciting violence to create an Islamic state.

They have already appealed to the UN to set up an international tribunal to try Muslim clerics who encourage the young to join the ranks of jihadis worldwide."

[Inmate #10943]

Is there a link to this story or what?

Also: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20041117/ts_nm/iraq_hassan_reaction_dc

There was no reference anywhere to "Outrage" in the muslim world. Anger and shock by those that knew her yes!

This is "Outrage" as in the Boston Globe : http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/11/18/video_of_shooting_by_marine_stirs_outrage/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20World%20News

The point is - the muslim world gets "Outraged" by anything we do. Why didn't the holier than thou islamic world get outraged by the soldiers of Saddam who cut off fingers, arms, legs, breasts, tongues etc. Taking blindfolded prisoners and throwing them off a 5 story building.
Gassed the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War killing hundreds of thousands. Gassed the Kurds killing thousands. Torture, mass murder and suppression of the Shiites yet no "Outrage". Unless you're close to collecting Social Security Saddam Hussein is the greatest terrorist in your life-time. Second only to Hitler in the last century.

BTW - there is a video for sale on the Internet showing the above atrocities committed by the Iraqi army. They videotaped their horrendous acts.

[Inmate #10943]

WOW! Don't Know where to start here!

.............................. I'm not saying where anywhere near as bad, but just pointing out that we're not perfect.
Well, I support our troops. I support them during the good times and the bad times. Re: the Marine involved in that incident - I saw the entire video about a dozen times but I wasn't there, you weren't there, Aljazeera wasn't there. I support that Marine because we do have a higher standard than the rest of the world. He deserves the same rights that he is risking his life to protect and that is - he is innocent until proven guilty. It's so easy to say, "Oh I support our troops except for this guy!" Until the investigation is complete people should hold their condemnation of what they "think" he did.

I would really like to see that article, no woman was found disemboweled.Well what it really said was, "......... found the disembowelled body with its hands and lower legs cut off." Well here it is: http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=NationalNewsStoryPage& ItemID=7097321&ServiceID=8&filterid=10&searchid=8

Though the fox website looks like a tabloid, with all that entertainment news, and some things which are just ridiculous.
Yeah, FOX News made it up, aha! It was also on CNN so I guess they made it up too! Oh, and it was also on MSNBC and I guess they also made it up!

Homicide bomber never made sense to me, if I plant a bomb and then leave I would also be a homicide bomber, since I killed others. It does not add the distinction that I killed myself (as suicide bomber does).
OK, how about this - they're not homicide bombers they're Filthy Slimy Murderers!

No israeli soldier has ever died from stone throwing (and with all their armor it would be hard to). Who, if either of them, would you call the terrorist (personally I would say neither)? Or what about a week or so ago, where a disoriented little girl ran towards an israeli soldier and was shot.
Hey you got me there! You win an unlimited "Israeli Bus Pass" and you have nothing to fear riding the bus in Israel as there are NO terrorists.

"The investigation did not find that the company or the company commander had acted unethically," an army statement said. "
And your point is (I'm guessing here) that the Israeli army investigation was a sham and cover-up. OK I'll go with that. Please let me know when the PLO, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists complete their investigations on atrocities committed by their own. Because if they ever do complete their investigation and it turns out to be a sham like the Israelis grab your Bus Pass and me in Gaza so we can condemn them too.

Well, one is committed by rogue terrorists with no moral authority, the other is committed by a government claiming it is their to help the people and build democracy. A little more is expected from the u.s. government than terrorists. Though, here's an article from the bbc....
Good Grief! You don't believe FOX News but you use the BBC as a reference. HELLO! Where have you been for the last 2 years. I'd believe the National Inquirer before I believed the BBC.

"There has been widespread condemnation of the reported killing of a leading woman aid worker in Iraq who had been held hostage since last month.......
Yeah but no "Outrage" in the islamic world.

A group of Arab intellectuals has laid the blame squarely on religious leaders, whom they accuse of inciting violence to create an Islamic state.
Yeah they got the "group" part right.

They have already appealed to the UN to set up an international tribunal to try Muslim clerics who encourage the young to join the ranks of jihadis worldwide."
Ah, the U.N.! Bet when they heard the U.N. was getting involved the inciters of terrorism started shaking in their sandals and ran to the nearest rat hole. Not to worry though with the U.N. on top of things just like they are in the Sudan and the Darfur region.

I'm very fortunate in what I do as I have access to all the cable news channels as well as World Band Radio news reports most of my waking hours. Contrary to Aljazeera and all anti-American leftist around the world, the terrorist in Iraq are not the Americans, and the real terrorists are NOT Freedom Fighters.

And lastly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look how much you made me type and do the "quote" thingies and have to cut and paste and re-type (Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background) and edit and spell check and re-type again and stare at this monitor and miss most of the Steeler game and forgot to let the dog out and she you-know-what in the kitchen and then I got dropped to off-line and had to start the whole thing over again. I hope you're really really happy that I now have a huge headache and there's no aspirin in the house so I have to get in the car and go to the ATM then to a convenience store where I'll pay double for aspirin. Thanks a lot! :(

[jmcc]

And then there's like no outrage here and especially in the muslim countries that the terrorist (and that's what they are) kidnap a WOMAN, abuse, torture, rape, murder and then disembowel her. Teh story never appeared on Al Jazeera. Hmmmpfff :x Grrrrr.........

Remember when you posted that? Apparently the story never appeared on Al Jazeera because it didn't happen, or at least you haven't produced a story in which that all happened. And now you're mixing in a bunch of other crap about Iran and Hitler? I'd like to be surprised about a straw man coming from you, but I'm sure not.

So what's your point? That Muslims don't feel bad enough about what other Muslims do? Do you feel bad about everything Americans have ever done across the world? Just because they're Muslim doesn't mean they're responsible for what the fanatics who commit atrocities in the name of Islam do, so how bad to they have to feel about it? I don't believe the majority of them are celebrating murder like you seem to be implying and if you do then you've greatly misjudged them.

[Inmate #10943]

Remember when you posted that? Apparently the story never appeared on Al Jazeera because it didn't happen, or at least you haven't produced a story in which that all happened. And now you're mixing in a bunch of other crap about Iran and Hitler? I'd like to be surprised about a straw man coming from you, but I'm sure not.

What are you rambling about! "crap" "straw man"
Do you read what you write? That is 5th grade level writing!
Sorry post facts instead of immature rantings.

Remember when you posted:
But, as far as a woman being tortured, raped, and disemboweled, I'm not sure I remember that one happening. Hassan was shot, and I don't remember hearing of a woman who was decapitated (though I'm not certain, I may have forgotten), which isn't disemboweling anyway.

Here http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=NationalNewsStoryPage& ItemID=7097321&ServiceID=8&filterid=10&searchid=8
When you have something intelligent to add I'll respond.
"crap" "straw man" GOOD GRIEF!

[jmcc]

Remember when you posted that? Apparently the story never appeared on Al Jazeera because it didn't happen, or at least you haven't produced a story in which that all happened. And now you're mixing in a bunch of other crap about Iran and Hitler? I'd like to be surprised about a straw man coming from you, but I'm sure not.

What are you rambling about! "crap" "straw man"
Do you read what you write? That is 5th grade level writing!
Sorry post facts instead of immature rantings.

It's under rhetorical use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
And your facts were completely unrelated to the argument at hand, therefore, they're crap.

Remember when you posted:
But, as far as a woman being tortured, raped, and disemboweled, I'm not sure I remember that one happening. Hassan was shot, and I don't remember hearing of a woman who was decapitated (though I'm not certain, I may have forgotten), which isn't disemboweling anyway.

Here http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?

When you have something intelligent to add I'll respond.
"crap" "straw man" GOOD GRIEF!

A link that goes nowhere? I don't see how that supports anything, but somehow it's appropriate for you.

[alonzomourning23]

Well, I support our troops. I support them during the good times and the bad times. Re: the Marine involved in that incident - I saw the entire video about a dozen times but I wasn't there, you weren't there, Aljazeera wasn't there. I support that Marine because we do have a higher standard than the rest of the world. He deserves the same rights that he is risking his life to protect and that is - he is innocent until proven guilty. It's so easy to say, "Oh I support our troops except for this guy!" Until the investigation is complete people should hold their condemnation of what they "think" he did. [/quote

I wasn't there, you weren't there, aljazeera wasn't there, but an NBC reporter was therelink (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138813,00.html/)
"The shooting occurred when a Marine unit entered the mosque and found five men wounded in fighting at the site the day before, when another Marine unit clashed with gunmen apparently using the mosque to fire from, according to NBC's Kevin Sites, the pool correspondent who took the footage"

That's from your foxnews. I'd also like to know what rights he was protecting, considering Saddam's navy wasn't storming our beaches.

[quote] Though the fox website looks like a tabloid, with all that entertainment news, and some things which are just ridiculous.

Yeah, FOX News made it up, aha! It was also on CNN so I guess they made it up too! Oh, and it was also on MSNBC and I guess they also made it up!

That was my opinion of fox's website, I did not say they made it up (you can get info wrong without making it up). I do find that early reports from fox aren't always accurate though, they tend to grab at info that supports their point of view rather quick. They also tend to omit parts, or de-emphasize certain things. This is also true in the boston herald, which also looks like a tabloid (it's a news paper owned by murdoch). To back this up I will again direct you to the study (the link is in my last post) showing fox viewers as more likely to be misinformed about iraq (80% to 26% when compared with npr listeners), and this was not based on party lines.


No israeli soldier has ever died from stone throwing (and with all their armor it would be hard to). Who, if either of them, would you call the terrorist (personally I would say neither)? Or what about a week or so ago, where a disoriented little girl ran towards an israeli soldier and was shot.

Hey you got me there! You win an unlimited "Israeli Bus Pass" and you have nothing to fear riding the bus in Israel as there are NO terrorists.

I never said there were no terrorists, you were complaining about aljazeera covering palestinian deaths. Though I'd like to know where you'd rather spend the next month, tel aviv or jenin?

"The investigation did not find that the company or the company commander had acted unethically," an army statement said. "

And your point is (I'm guessing here) that the Israeli army investigation was a sham and cover-up.

It was an insult more than anything else. But my point was that an Israeli army officer shot a little girl, and then to remove any argument of an accident, walked up to her and shot her two more times in the head and walked away, and then just to be certain, returned to her corpse and then emptied his entire magazine into her. Then, the israeli army found that he was not guilty of unethical behavior, because his story of firing into the ground near the dead girl, and only accidentally hitting her, when his unit came under fire (instead of firing at the enemy) was likely true.


Please let me know when the PLO, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists complete their investigations on atrocities committed by their own. Because if they ever do complete their investigation and it turns out to be a sham like the Israelis grab your Bus Pass and me in Gaza so we can condemn them too.

Al qaeda and terrorist groups should not be expected to condemn them, their terrorist groups. They are not governments, they are not occupiers who claim to hold moral authority, they are terrorist groups. And here are some links to articles where the PLO arrested palestinian militants (some cases even ordered directly by arafat, including one where he arrested 12 members of his own security forces) link 1 (http://www2.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/jerusalem_blast/03-09/)
link 2 (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-20-2001-8742.asp)
link 3 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/world/main578625.shtml)
link 4 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503376.html)
There is a bit of a difference here though, Hamas wields great power in the palestinian territories, they are viewed as one of the few ways of resisiting occupation and they also have extensive charities such as schools, soup kitchens, orphanages etc. Their charities are a big part of why they have such large support, the militant side is only one aspect of it. Many believe they may even be able to defeat the PA in a civil war. Large scale arrests of them is much more difficult, and much more dangerous for the government, than Israeli dealing with rogue soldiers in their army. Another problem is Israel is supposed to restrain themselves to stop attacks on civilians, while palestinians are supposed to stop all attacks on all occupying forces, instead of just stopping attacks on civilians. Sharon can alter the course of his army in a day, no palestinian leader has ever had that power. And if they do too much too quickly, if they appear they are an Israeli or american puppet, that will spell doom for the PA. My point is any attacks on civilians should be condemned, but in the palestinian territories it is not so simple that the PA can just demand attacks stop and it be done. And if they were to attack them all out (especially without the Arafat, the symbol of palestinian independence) there is a very good chance they would lose.

Well, one is committed by rogue terrorists with no moral authority, the other is committed by a government claiming it is their to help the people and build democracy. A little more is expected from the u.s. government than terrorists. Though, here's an article from the bbc....

Good Grief! You don't believe FOX News but you use the BBC as a reference. HELLO! Where have you been for the last 2 years. I'd believe the National Inquirer before I believed the BBC.

Taking into account that no news corporation is perfect, the BBC is still viewed as one of the most respected news organizations in the world. Also, they are funded by the government, which is why there was such a scandal when the bbc's andrew gilligan claimed the government deliberately fabricated the reports on Iraq's weapons capability. I would like to see how many scandals fox would have if they were held under such scrutiny over exaggerations. I find the bbc to be more accurate and comprehensive in international news than cnn, fox, msnbc and so on. Al jazeera is good for the middle east (they understand the area better, and have more staff in the area) but they are like fox, their facts are accurate, but their slant often gives an incorrect image of what is actually occuring. But they are the only major news source that really pays attention to the civilian costs of the Iraq war. Every news source has its positives and negatives, though I'd like to know why you would believe FOX is more accurate than the BBC, especially in international news.

"There has been widespread condemnation of the reported killing of a leading woman aid worker in Iraq who had been held hostage since last month.......
Yeah but no "Outrage" in the islamic world.

Well, you seem to show little concern for atrocities commited by americans or their allies, personally I'd like your opinion on abu ghraib, considering we did torture some prisoners to death ( fyi the majority of people we arrest are released by the u.s. army, without charges being brought). Though this really is ridiculous, what do you want people crying in the streets? They condemn it as a sin, un islamic, shameful, that is outrage. It just doesn't fit your image as Iraqi's being beasts, so you do everything to see it as something else.


Ah, the U.N.! Bet when they heard the U.N. was getting involved the inciters of terrorism started shaking in their sandals and ran to the nearest rat hole. Not to worry though with the U.N. on top of things just like they are in the Sudan and the Darfur region.

And what exactly have the world's police, a.k.a. americans, done about Darfur? They state that is definately genocide, and yet they do nothing, and they call for no intervention, international or otherwise. And besides, that was an example of outrage.

I'm very fortunate in what I do as I have access to all the cable news channels as well as World Band Radio news reports most of my waking hours. Contrary to Aljazeera and all anti-American leftist around the world, the terrorist in Iraq are not the Americans, and the real terrorists are NOT Freedom Fighters.

Americans have commited acts that they would classify under terrorism had the enemy done it, and many Iraqis are truly resistance fighters, ie. not engaged in terrorism against civilians. This is not a show of support or anything. Though there are some terrorists among resistance fighters, many of which are foreign. Though I'm starting to get your argument, any source which does not 100% support the u.s. invasion and view them as liberators, whose condemnable actions amount to nothing more than collateral damage, cannot be trusted.


And lastly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look how much you made me type and do the "quote" thingies and have to cut and paste and re-type (Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background) and edit and spell check and re-type again and stare at this monitor and miss most of the Steeler game and forgot to let the dog out and she you-know-what in the kitchen and then I got dropped to off-line and had to start the whole thing over again. I hope you're really really happy that I now have a huge headache and there's no aspirin in the house so I have to get in the car and go to the ATM then to a convenience store where I'll pay double for aspirin. Thanks a lot! :(

eh, I tend to answer everything, never liked to pick and choose very much. f

[Inmate #10943]

eh, I tend to answer everything, never liked to pick and choose very much. f

Hmmm............I think I know what your doing here. You're trying to overload me with data to a point where I will no longer be physically capable of responding. It's that "exponential" thing. Your in-depth responses are like the Event Horizon. Once I get pulled in, there is no escape. I will either become a blathering idiot wildly searching the net for links to support my arguements. Or eventually my finger tips will start bleeding and I will no longer be capable of typing. Then you win. NEVER! :D

In all seriousness you have some excellent points and a lot of links that I'll need to look at before I can respond. Although I may disagree with some of your points I do respect the amount of information you provide to support your arguements. Well done!

[MrBadExample]

Is it okay if I'm outraged by ALL of the atrocities comitted by BOTH sides?

[alonzomourning23]

Is it okay if I'm outraged by ALL of the atrocities comitted by BOTH sides?

No, everything must be in black and white, filthy commie.

[MrBadExample]

Is it okay if I'm outraged by ALL of the atrocities comitted by BOTH sides?

No, everything must be in black and white, filthy commie.

My bad then. I'll try to do better.

[Inmate #10943]

And about bias, news plays to its audience, al jazeera does exactly what fox does. Though the fox website looks like a tabloid, with all that entertainment news, and some things which are just ridiculous. I remember one fox article that called britney spears a "tart" in the headline. I'm not a fan of hers, but it was just so unprofessional. Oh, not sure if you've seen this study (though most have heard about it) on fox viewer misconceptions, there's a chart at the bottom of the page. link (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/oct03/oct06/4_thurs/news2thursday.html)

Phew! Was this part a chore :D

Went to the link and read it. Then I went to the source of the study which is the Univ. of Maryland at this LINK (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) which is 23 pages. (groan)

In that paper it has a link to the source of the study. Which is HERE (http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/).

I really feel after reading all the above links that it is a very flawed study. As the U. of Md. has in it's paper: (I'm paraphrasing here) you get conclusions based on the questions you asked i.e. "Push Polling". Also the size and selection of the sample group polled for the poll is very questionable. And not a representative sample that would meet the criteria of any credible polling group.

P.E.T.A. can produce polls and studies to prove eating meat is not healthy and that animals have "feelings". The Meat Industry can produce polls and studies to prove the opposite. The recent debacle involving the "highly scientific" exit polling last election is a prime example of the unreliability of polling.

The one thing I learned in "statistics" is - you can produce numbers to support any side of an issue you want. The writer at Media Life Magazine in your "link" wanted to make a point about FOX News viewers, found a study, cut out the parts he wanted, made assumptions based on his views and "voila!". You'll notice the omission by the writer, of key data ingredients that are attached to legitimate study reports.

And as for PBS - the left-wing socialist anti-government - radio staion, they absolutely positively should never receive one penny of taxpayers money.

I don't believe FOX News viewers or even PBS listeners are any less informed or dumber than viewers or listeners of other news outlets. You watch or listen to media that leans towards your political persuasions. The liberal established news media is extremely perplexed and upset at the "NEW" media including the net that is cutting into their ratings or...ah...profits.

(to be con't - need more time to respond to your other points)

All of the above just to address you FOX News link :wink:

[MrBadExample]

Really no offense intended, but this is the typical Republican argument - muddy the waters as much as possible by claiming that the liberals do the same thing so it's a wash. The problem is, in the case of the "liberal media", it's just not true. Just because NPR, PBS and BBC are to the left of Fox News does not mean they are liberal. A "liberal media" would be hounding the White House about universal health care, gun control and building more schools instead of more prisons. A "liberal media" wouldn't have raked Clinton over the coals for lying about a bj. A "liberal media" would have asked more questions about the 2000 election results and wouldn't have given Bush a free pass for 2 years after 9/11. A "liberal media" would have questioned the need to go to war with Iraq and asked if there was an exit strategy. The mainstream media didn't do any of these things well, if at all.

Every White House has problems with the media, not because they are liberal or conservative, but because their job is to report all the facts and that isn't always flattering to the people in charge.

[alonzomourning23]

I wasn't really linking to the article itself, it was just a well known summary and the bottom of that page summarized it best (I only glanced through the article itself). I don't know how you can deny the study has some validity though, when asked direct question of whether the u.s. found weapons of mass destruction (some even believed they were used), that saddam was closely involved with al qaeda and 9/11, of if the majority of the world supported us and 80% of fox viewers say yes to one of them (with npr and pbs on the other end of the scale at mid 20's). Now it's not that 80% of fox viewers are republican, you either have to base it on the news itself, or the type of people the news attracts. And these questions were asked multiple times over an extended period. Even the supposedly uber liberal Cnn, the most informed among the major news networks, was over 50% (I'm sure limbaugh never mentioned that). Though looking closely at the study it does show that the more informed people are about the Iraq situation, the less likely they were to support the war. That is an indication, but not proof, that the public in fact does not support the administrations current policy, only what they percieve it, and the facts that go with it, to be. If that is true, this election was not the result of the people showing their approval, but instead of the ignorant flexing their muscle. Then again, if you think the study has no validity (which seems little more than wishful thinking to me) this all means nothing.

Just wanted to comment about the PETA thing though, suggesting animals have feelings is the dominant view among scientists (though the degree is more up to debate). Science continually supports this, by doing animal studies (such as harlow did showing the effects of emotional relationships and isolation in rhesus monkeys), and then applying the emotional effects witnessed in other animals to human (still animals). Also, that animals will continuously choose social needs over food, water etc (within reason of course, no one chooses entirely social over food), supports this as well. I also wonder why dogs have been known to guard their dead owners for days after they've died, why most social animals go through periods of visible sadness when a companion dies (ie. a rat barely eating and sitting in the corner of its cage all day when another rat dies, but there is still another living rat in the cage to interact with, birds and other animals do this as well), why elephants cover, or bury, their dead in leaves and stand around the deceased for hours (standing around a corpse is not beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint since it can spread disease). Take a situation you may be familiar with, upon your return your dog will act differently if you have been gone a day compared to a week (where they will get more excited), despite the fact someone else has been walking and feeding them every day. Here's one that may be interesting though, prozac can help stop behavioral problems in dogs link (http://www.dermapet.com/articles/art-06.html). Finally, there is very strong evidence that some animals, especially monkeys, transmit culture. In baboons culture can determine whether a particular group is peaceful or aggressive link (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2593062), in chimps and other primates it can be the passing on of technology from one generation to the next link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1484261.stm), technology that only some groups possess.
Though there are many negatives to eating meat, especially red meat. Fish seems much healthier than land animals though. Vegans (don't eat any animal product) should take vitamins, many of which are only artificially put into meat to begin with (and are not naturally in the animal). Basically limited meat is healthy, red meat less than most, but most eat beyond that small amount. Not eating meat is healthier than the diet of many people, which cycles between steak, pork, hamburger, meatloaf and hotdogs. I know this part wasn't necessary, hence the lack of links, but animals rights are one of my concerns, and I do find the concept that they have no feelings to be a bit absurd, taking into account personal experience and, more importantly, scientific evidence.

I need to stop typing

[Inmate #10943]

Really no offense intended, but this is the typical Republican argument - muddy the waters as much as possible by claiming that the liberals do the same thing so it's a wash. The problem is, in the case of the "liberal media", it's just not true. Just because NPR, PBS and BBC are to the left of Fox News does not mean they are liberal.

No problem :wink: It's just that I used to date a good-looking "babe" and she had NPR on 24/7. Finally broke up with her. Not because of NPR but because she was a neo-communist and refused to shave her armpits and legs. She was beginning to look like a Minotaur.

Then again, if you think the study has no validity (which seems little more than wishful thinking to me) this all means nothing.

I can't remember now without going back and checking but - I think the group that was polled was not what you'd consider a scientific sampling. I just felt the writer at the link had an agenda.

Science continually supports this, by doing animal studies (such as harlow did showing the effects of emotional relationships and isolation in monkeys), and then applying the emotional effects witnessed in other animals to human (still animals).

Just so you know, I never have nor will I ever eat a monkey! :?

I really have the greatest amount of admiration for people that are into animal rescue. i.e. Greyhound rescue etc. Fantastic work!

[Quackzilla]

Shut the fuck up you stupid nerds.