US in Iraq worse than Hitler

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Are their any mainstream media accounts of war crimes in Iraq? It is very obvious that our mainstream media can't farkin' wait to piss on the soldiers, so you know if there has been any, they will be Johnny on the spot to cover it.

there was just a great show on PBS about the changing role of media regarding the military since WWII. in the beginning of the vietnam war, the reporters were still all gung ho, because america was the 'good guy', fresh out of a battle of pure evil vs. pure good. as the war dragged on, the americans began burning down villages. just burning down the houses of innocents. the media began to question the 'rightness' of the war. the media later began to show another face of the war, ....drugs. the armies were higher than kites and rebellious, too.

well, the army didn't like the influence the media had on people, and so when britain attacked grenada, there was an absolute media blackout.
the media fought back , and a compromise was reached by the time of the gulf war. select reporters would be allowed to report, but all fottage had to be approved by the military. we kept seeing relatively MEANINGLESS images, that convinced us there was a war going on. man, that was irritating. how many times did we have to watch the 'smart bomb' footage. like hiroshima, the REAL purpose of that, was to show us the powers of big brother.
and today, we have 'embedded' reporters. as the tv show said, 'that's the perfect word'. the reporters who travel with soldiers depend on the soldiers for their lives. they become very close to the troops.
it's hardly objective, and it's most certainly not antagonistic towards the troops.

americans firing on indepent media should set off alarms for non believers.

lets clear this up right now, anyone who compares the bush administration with hitler is clearly just a bush and or republican hater, noone likes war you guys, but sometimes it has to be. it is sorta like that guy that just keeps hitting on your gal, after a while you cant just reason with the guy, you have to give him an old fashioned asssssss whoopin. hitler was not just only going to wipe out the entire jewish population but any race that wasnt of aryian culture. simply because he thought they were inferior. even if bush is going into iraq for oil, which i beleive to be true. that was not the only reason for the invasion. bush did the iraqi people a big favor by taking out suddam hussein and his sons, so if anyone is close to being a hitler it is suddam hussein. it may not seem like bush did the right thing right now, but 10 years down the road iraq will be a hell of alot better off than they were 3 years ago that is for sure, the transition is what the problem is. thats why we look so bad, because people have to die for the country to gain down the road. so please dont ever compare anyone to adolf hittler. because their will most likely never ever be another hitler, because the world will not let it happen. its that simple. bush did what the iraqi people couldnt do for themselves, and that is take out a dictator that needed to be stopped, ok lets say that part of the reward for the us was control of the oil in iraq. dont you think the us should be compensated for their efforts in taking out the dictator. and alot of the oil money will go back to building iraq bigger and better than it has ever been. and even more of it will go into paying for the war. ok now i am not condoning what bush is doing with the oil. but it is part of it, i think we all know that, but the fact of the matter is that the iraqi people will be far better off 10 years down the road than they have ever been. they will grow and prosper. and have luxuries like we do. but we will control the oil. remember whoever owns the OIL has the power. OIL=POWER.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by joe751]

[edit on 30-11-2004 by joe751]

bush promised to cut the national debt in half the next 4 years. a matter of fact i think he said more than half. how is he going to do it, i guess hell have to do it with all of the oil he is going to take from iraq and possibly iran, if he decides to go to war with iran.

Uh, Bob, apparently that PBS show was pretty screwed up. First, I have no recollection of Britain attacking Grenada or any stink arising from it, and were you to read the history of WWII, you'd see that warfare was conducted TOTALLY different. I also don't remember there being any battles for any drugs in WWII, either. As far as Hiroshima, the bomb was dropped for two reasons, the second was to show the Soviet Union what we had, but the first being to save thousand and thousands of lives. Had it not been for the nuclear drop, we would have, a) kept fire bombing Japan, killing hundreds of thousands more people, or b) invaded the main island with troops, and that would have been very costly for both sides.

Personally, I think the reporters should be very far and few between, and everything going through military editors, just like it had been done for decades.

I do agree with you on the smart bomb footage. I can still clearly see the bomb going down the center of the building and the one where the bomb hits the bridge as the guy on the bike clears it. They were like a couple of pop tunes that are played into the ground.

Posted by Joe
the transition is what the problem is. thats why we look so bad, because people have to die for the country to gain down the road.

So which people are you talking about exactly, Joe? The Iraqi's or the Yanks and how many more are going to have to die before U'S concedes defeat?

The U'S soldiers who sacrifice their lives did not die for their country. They died for their government. For Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And yes, they died for the greed of the oil cartels and ultimately for the expansion of the American empire.

Posted by Joe
dont you think the us should be compensated for their efforts in taking out the dictator.

What compensation do you offer the dead?

Posted by Joe
the fact of the matter is that the iraqi people will be far better off 10 years down the road than they have ever been. they will grow and prosper. and have luxuries like we do

That is an optimistic picture your painting but do you really think this is all about luxuries? I tend to think most Iraqi's will remain in the same financial bracket they are in at the moment - poor. Only the chosen select few will reap the benefits you refer to.

Originally posted by Psychoses

Posted by ItWasntMe
There are many genocides going on in the world today, fortunately none are being committed by the United States.

Isn't that what the U.S is doing to the "insurgents" who are not an army, but are in fact Iraqi citizens fighting against an occupational force whose invasion of Iraq is classed as "an illegal invasion" by the United Nations?

In answer to your 'question' -

1 - Go look up the word 'insurgents'. The insurgents are NOT Iraqi
citizens fighting against an occupational force. They are fighting
the legitimate government or Iraq. They are killing Iraqi policemen.
They are killing their own in mass numbers in order to instill fear in
regards to the upcoming free elections (free elections - a thing
the insurgents fear). The Insurgents are NOT freedom fighters,
they are anarchists against their own government and against
their own people. Also, many of them are foreign fighters. Syria,
Iran, Jordan .... all blinded by the cult Wahabbism ... programmed
from the time they are toddlers to hate 'those pigs and apes the Jews'
and America. They aren't fighting FOR Iraqis .. if they were, they would
have come over the boarder when Saddam was mass murdering them
by the millions.

2 - Koffi Annan calling the Iraq war 'illegal' is a non-issue. The
U.N. DOES NOT run the world. They do not decide who can or
cannot defend themselves. They do not decide who can come
to the aid of others. For Koffi Annan to call the war in Iraq
'illegal' is a hoot ... considering the FACT that the U.N. stole
BILLIONS from the Iraqis and that the U.N. didn't want the USA
to liberate Iraq because that would mean an end to their ill gotten
booty - stolen from the Iraqis. For Koffi Annan to try to call ANYTHING
'illegal' is a joke. A BAD JOKE. France, Germany, and Russia SOLD
their security council votes to Saddam. They cared more for the
stolen billions then they did for the millions being mass murdered and
tortured under Saddam.

Don't bother quoting the 'U.N. called it illegal'. The U.N is a cesspool
of self serving corruption and they have no legitimacy and nothing to
back up their 'proclaimations'.

@ Flyersfan

What legitimate government... oh i forgot the Washingotn quote "just because you win a majority of the vote doesn't make your government legitimate"


Washington makes a government legitimate it seems... wonder why the Iraqis are fighting it...

Originally posted by edsinger
When one compares the US to the Nazi's they really have no clue of reality. The Nazi's were and occultic regime and evil in nature.

Oh and the bush admin hugs babies and likes fluffy pink things?!?!

Naaaah pull the other one mate, EVIL as the rest.

USA is THE rogue state and it will be punished again...

Originally posted by gop627
Let me know when we murder over SIX MILLION innocent people...

How much is this together then:

A bunch of North American indians (90% wiped out) PLUS some phillipinos (1890 invasion by US) lets add some Cambodians... and some Nicaraguans.. Laotians (from Laos, more KGs bombs dropped by US than in entire WW2). Vientamese? Shall I go on here or DO YOU GET THE POINT?

When you start out a military campaing under that premise, what end result will you end up with? And how will you be perceived for pusuing that course of action unwaveringly after each 'righteous' premise ( 9/11 connection, nukes, WMDs ) is vetted as false?
Additionaly, when you're engaged in an urban theater and you employ many of the same attack strategies employed in a mountainous/open area region ( 'Shock & Awe', daisy cutters ), regardless of how precison a drop, you are still indescrimiantely killing innocent civilians, of which have bourne an exponentially higher death rate than actual fighters.

Now This.......

Fallujah Napalmed

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

But since we have only embedded reporters who need to suckle on a military information officers teet to be allowed to report anything, and those brave souls who try to actually report the atrocities having their hotels fired upon or summarily rounded up by the Iraqi police, how is this story to be told? And when it is, the 'American Media' not carrying it is used as some sort of 'debunk', by virtue of their virtue!?
We've had classic fascism techniques employed throughout this cabals assention to power & subsequent creation of wars &how they're managed; people are too stupid or too in denial to think the label valid, when it so obviously is. Remember that German government official who made the same claim? Was it viewed how it should have been.......like Pat Buchanan speaking about Dwight Eisnehower or Tony Blair speaking about Winston Churchill? No, it was defused with the bluster of acrimony, where it should have been seen as a National simply pointing out as a warning a similarity of tactic employed by one of her country's historic figures.

Psychoses,

I don't say USA is innocent or guilty. It is not as easy to say that for a whole country. One has to take many factors into consideration.

My point is that there is no way USA is like Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany was much more totalitarian and brutal.

We should view USA's actions on the current context. We can't compare apples and oranges.

No single country is innocent enough, simply because those people that come to power are always the power hungry...the ones that have ambitions and will never find any obstacles to what they want to do. Such power-hungry people will do whatever they need to suceed, no matter what.

What irritates me is the hypocrisy of Americans though; not all of them of course. But a good percentage of them have really believed that the war in Iraq is for liberating Iraqis from Saddam. I know it is hard for people to admit they are wrong, and it is even harder to admit you are wrong when you belong to the superpower, but the fact is that they are.

Really, you piece of lying human excrement; civilian neighborhoods were the primary target of the U.S. Airforce?

Got this from logans run post, think it was thomas crown who posted thisas he mentions him...


Any way @ whatever posted this:

You say "civilian neighborhoods were the primary target of the U.S. Airforce?" like its news to you


Ever lived in Laos? The word neigborhood is already to strong in that context as the USAF was bombing collections of mud huts!

Just keep believing the hype... the US a generous peace loving country, committed to human rights and the disribution of wealth... err... yeah right.

*sigh*

Posted by FlyersFan
Go look up the word 'insurgents'. The insurgents are NOT Iraqi citizens fighting against an occupational force.

Oh really? who told you this? Was it Allawi, the C.I.A stooge/double agent/new interim Iraqi prime minister that gave us the "launch in 45 minutes" intelligence?

Posted by FlyersFan
The U.N. DOES NOT run the world. They do not decide who can or cannot defend themselves. They do not decide who can come to the aid of others

So why is U'S running around trying to get sanctions on Iran now. They can't even handle what goes on in Iraq and now want to start even bigger conflict?

Here is an excellent webpage detailing all US war crimes and crimes against humanity from day one. It might take a couple of days to browse through the complete list of atrocities.

www.albasrah.net...

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

www.albasrah.net...

Hey, I remember that site!
Back in May they posted stills from ... *ahem* ... "adult movies" and claimed they were images of soldiers mistreating Iraqi women.
Good source!

Originally posted by Psychoses


Oh really? who told you this? Was it Allawi, the C.I.A stooge/double agent/new interim Iraqi prime minister that gave us the "launch in 45 minutes" intelligence?

So why is U'S running around trying to get sanctions on Iran now. They can't even handle what goes on in Iraq and now want to start even bigger conflict?

I know people fighting over there and these "freedom fighters" are a joke.
They shot two rockets at a friend of mine's base a few weeks ago. They missed and hit a local hotel killing and wounding 40 Iraqis.

And you know what they did? They spread rumors that it was the US that did it. I'll trust the view point of people I know in Iraq who actually see the sh*t go down over some biased news slant bs. Whether that news is coming from Al Jazeera or Bush doesn't matter.

But the horrible thing is that the story barely made a blip on the news. I guess it was not anti-US enough to be news worthy.

My friends over there are actually upset since they care more about civillian casualties than these Freedom f**cks do.

These are the same freedom fighters that are blowing up car bombs everyday, killing their own people. No one says anything when their bombs kills innocents daily. But we are Hitler? Puh-Leez. You should talk to some of my friends who have been to Saddam's mass graves. The US has ALOT of catching up to do before ever being compared to Saddam or Hitler.

And yes, there are a good deal of Foreign fighters entering Iraq. Remember that Fatwa issued in Iran not too long ago?

THis is not a fight about Iraqis. It is about Islam and oil now. The only things that ever unified Iraq as a country have been the British, Saddam and Allah.

I don't want this war. Didn't want it and did not vote for Bush. But we are there and must restore and stabilize what was destroyed. And if that means bringing in the UN, then so be it.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi


Here is an excellent webpage detailing all US war crimes and crimes against humanity from day one. It might take a couple of days to browse through the complete list of atrocities.

www.albasrah.net...

An excellent page detailing American atrocities? You know this is acurate? You can verify it? Or is it excellent because you found it, and it seems to have quite a bit in it?

Moku, you have one day to answer the earlier question. Unaccountabl;e sites such as this or the Sunday Mirror do not count. Time's a wastin'.

I like your new avatar Thomas

As for America, it must be ironic that after many decades of chasing German Nazi war criminals it is now the Germans who are chasing the "alleged" American war criminals. The situation has turned full circle and is now being reported in "mainstream" media.

From linked article
BERLIN (Reuters) - Lawyers acting for a U.S. advocacy group will today file war crimes charges in Germany against senior U.S. administration officials for their alleged role in torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Those to be named in the case to be filed at Germany's Federal Prosecutors Office include Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, former Central Intelligence Agency chief George Tenet and eight other officials.

source

Just how and if these officials will be prosecuted remains to be seen, but it seems the tide is turning for the "Invinceables."

Yes Facefirst, I too am in touch with servicemen in Iraq, but to post what is said would be flamed down as heresay, so lets just stick to verifiable information. I agree that things need to be "restored and stabilised", but do you think that the Coalition is approaching the situation in the right manner?

Thanks, Psycho. I have a bit of a problem with it; I don't particularly like the word "moron" in it. Not that it doesn't convey my general sentiment, but I just don't like it. I didn't really notice that until your noticing of it, which made me look at it again, and closer.

I think I'll see if a computer geek *Skeptic* can do something to edit it a bit.

I personally didn't find it offensive, but some other members may not agree.

I would have liked to help you out with the modification, it's just that it's not displaying for me on low bandwidth.

Maybe one of these would be to your liking?