Terrorists Use Children as Shields; Child Dies in Firefight

Judging by your previous comments its as if your trying to put your own characteristics on somebody else.

Uhmmm . . . let's see . . . because you are an immature maniacal rant who obviously lives in a sheltered world allowing yourself to see only what you feel supports your views.

You accuse somebody else of living in a sheltered world allowing them only to see what they feel support their views. I dont know you but Ill take an educated guess. Your an American living in the U.S. who would never think twice about signing up for the military at a time like this out of fear that you might get shipped off to Iraq. Am I wrong? Judging by your previous comments you only see what you want to see. You only see the Americans side of the story but are too ignorant to look in the other direction. If im wrong let me know, I have a good intuition but its not flawless.



[edit on 25-9-2005 by drinkinlikeafish]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

I gave more proof than you ever did, atleast my caption HAD an attached photo.

You gave no proof duh, yeah better strangle hold onto that photo, very laughable. I mean do you really believe this are you just here to argue eh? I know how you get.

This is the difference between being human, and being an animal. Now it could be that your soldiers chose to be animals and follow the instict to survive, but it could also be that they chose to follow their heart, but their heart told them that it is ok to kill iraqi civilians, something which is far worse.

I belive it's the latter.

Hate to smack you off your high and mighty horse but You, me, all of us are ANIMALS, don't deny the adrenal gland! Killing is killing wether done for duty profit or for fun so don't try and justify it by saying animalistic this animalistic that. Heart? hmm lets see, someone is firing at you, you have a gun WHAT DO YOU DO?

Allow yourself to die? Don't be so dense.

Well as long as your having fun sweety

of course I am hun

You can make your own mind about why he was more worried about RPG's than snipers, but the fact is, he looks as though he feels safe from RPG fire.
Guess no one reported snipers in the area, but men reported men with RPG-7's. I've seen US soldiers get sniped before in iraqi resistance video, some of which had their heads stiking out of a bradley, though in one case, there was a child a metre away from the soldier, and the resistance sniper would simple NOT TAKE THE SHOT!!! I guess that is beceause he knows if he misses, the gunho US troops, who by your own admition, fire at anything that moves inorder to survive, would then fire indiscriminatly trying to hit the unseen target. putting the child in danger.

If he misses than he's not a sniper now is he? Also wtf would they care about blowing up innocent, they bomb their own in Iraq so wth, you saying that make no sense and it be illogical, Nice attempt but better luck next time.

It's however beside the point, the US soldier feels safe enough to stay in that one position, out in the open, because of those two human shields he is imploying.

SS, when did you suddenly become psychic, you don't have any clue what IS exactly happening in that picture just like the rest of us so please quit clinging to it like it's some sort of Biblical Truth or Quranic if thats your thaaaang.

Actually drinkinlikeafish if you look back across the entirety of the thread you will see that I have attempted to "see" SS's viewpoint, only to be met with additional irrelevent rhetoric.

You only see the Americans side of the story but are too ignorant to look in the other direction

Once again, REREAD the thread. I have made numerous comments and inferences for your "so-called" other side. I have tried to be empathetic in regards to several posts. What would you prefer? . . . I do a flip and wholly support your "so-called" other side? Then I'd be a Kerry and you might assume I'm also a Democrat. [which i am not]

I don't like what's happening in Iraq on either side but, as most of us are, I am unable to have a direct effect. I, and members of my family, have friends and relatives who are currently in harm's way as a result of the current administration's approach to the situation. Do I wish for them to come home safe and sound? You bet!

Do I wish for the death of any true Iraqi citizen or Coalition troop? NO!!!!

Obviously we can't rely on either side for ABSOLUTE factual reporting/representation of the events as they occur. We can only hope that our loved ones return in one piece.

If I come across as one-sided, narrow-minded so be it. NO ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS CAN STATE THAT THEIR CASE IS ABSOLUTE FACT AND BULLET PROOF![no pun intended] We can only hope that the information we are given is as close to the actual events as possible, though not always probable [ON BOTH SIDES S.S.]

I will always support my fellow Americans, whether I agree with why they are there or not. Why they are there is not my true concern, their safe return is!!!!

[edit on 9/25/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

Sorry my friend I jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Like I said my intuition isnt flawless. Maybe that was an understatement. I should have read your previous posts before replying to your last one.

I can see now your part of the percentage of Americans who can see through the bull# of this war and hopefully oppose it. Like you I hate to see both Iraqis and Americans die in a meaningless war justified by an idiotic excuse which such as the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" one which turned out to be false in the end but yet American troops are still in Iraq.

You must be angry at the people in your country who work to keep the US troops in the line of fire while they themselves are too gutless to fight the war they support.

It makes me sick that the few in power trick the people of "their" country into invading a country to secure oil for "them" so "they" can profit while the real Americans suffer the losses while believing they are fighting to save their country and their people.

I hope your relatives and the relatives of everybody in Iraq come out of this alive. I think Iraq has seen enough bloodshed for the next thousand years.
The real enemies here are the ones supporting the war and the ones that work to ensure the US troops continue to occupy Iraq and therefore insure more bloodshed and death.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by drinkinlikeafish]

cjf

Oh the bitter irony.

LOL


12m8keall2c

You want to support the troops, start talking about bringing them home. I too have relatives in iraq in harms way, but they are iraqies, and they are in the resistance.

We don't have to fight each other, our common enemy is the imperialist US regime who started this war in the first place. It is them that we here on the outside of the war, should try to defeat.

Syria's becoming quite the gateway to your so-called unified resistance.

Now who’s basing their opinions on assumptions? Assumptions are where most mistakes are born I thought you said that to drinking like a fish YOU can’t trust what either side is saying, why is it that you always seem to swallow your governments propaganda?

Even they had to admit, that atleast 90% of the Iraqi resistance are Iraqi.

quote: Report attacks 'myth' of foreign fighters

www.guardian.co.uk...

By: Brian Whitaker and Ewen MacAskill on: 23.09.2005 [16:15] (339 reads)

The US and the Iraqi government have overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, "feeding the myth" that they are the backbone of the insurgency, an American thinktank says in a new report

Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The Resistance United, for Iraq the mother land.

IMO you're the closest thing this website has to a resistance wannabe.

Perhaps all I am is a wannabe, but I’m still the closest thing this website has to them.

I have asked you and I have even tried to gain more insight as to your viewpoint yet, no matter how much I tighten the noose around my neck, your views just don't come into focus.

I have asked you and I have even tried to gain more insight as to your viewpoint yet, no matter how much I tighten the noose around my neck, your views just don't come into focus.

That’s probably because you have all these assumptions and stereotypes in your head, and I stand in the face of all them. This is making you very confused. My position is perfectly clear. The resistance are the patriots of iraq, and the US are imperialist. Please, try to pin point the source of your confusion and perhaps i can help you understand.

I admitted nothing! If you did not "see" the sarcasm,

Sssuure it was. :p…. hahahhaa I deliberately chose to ignore your sarcasm as I knew it would annoy you. it's humorous, lighten up

As for the rest.

Like is said, look up the word martyr. You don’t have to kill yourself to become one. It’s unfortunate that you can’t understand that.

And no where in your quote does it say “your family will be blessed by your actions?” That’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I’m still wondering where you came up with that.

---------------------
lysergic

you gave no proof duh, yeah better strangle hold onto that photo

Even if I did give no proof, that’s STILL MORE THAN YOU EVER GAVE!
To support your ludicrous story about the resistance using their own people as shields.

Heart? hmm lets see, someone is firing at you, you have a gun WHAT DO YOU DO? Allow yourself to die? Don't be so dense.

If he invaded my country, I would shoot him dead no hestitation. If I invaded his country, I would let him shoot me.

If there was a civilian in the way , in either case, I would rather die, than hurt that civilian.

Simple as that, you can continue to belive that all people are animals if you want, and certainly your soldiers seem to behave that way. But if you don’t mind, I will choose to be a human being.

would they care about blowing up innocent, they bomb their own in Iraq so wth,

That’s not true, the resistance never kills innocent civilians, why would they hurt their own families, the very people they are fighting for.
All those bomings which kill civilians, are psy-ops being done by the US and britian.
They have been caught in the act.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ou don't have any clue what IS exactly happening in that picture

The photograph is clear, and very similar to what happened to the boy in Israel. The boys are told to remain where they are on top of that humvee, and the US soldiers looks like he feels safe and relaxed.
You can fill in the dots where you like. But any logical mind and see, those kids are being used as human shields.



[edit on 26-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Syrian, I've read every single message & reply on this thread, and looked at both sides. I have to say, BOTH sides are right. To most of the world, the iraqii "rebels" (regardless of whether they are native or "cheap domestic imports") are the terrorists. The the rebels, the US are the terrorists...it's all a matter of perspective.

Sometimes it's hard to see the other persons point of view. Could you please at least put some reasonable effort into seeing what "the other side" are saying? Debates are alot more productive if you can see each other point of view and reply appropriately.

As for the photo you displayed of two what looked like young boys lying over the bonnet of a US vehicle, I have a very strong suspicion the part that photo does not show, is at least one US soldier standing to the side or in front of the vehicle with a gun pointed at the boys. It is possible this pic was taken just after a fire fight or a raid, and the boys are being held there in "the calm after the storm" and told not to move while other US soldiers gather up any remaining enemy.

If the boys where indeed being used as shields, then the US soldier who put them there needs his head examined. As you can see, there is quite a height difference between where the boys are and the soldier. It's well known snipers are the main cause of problems for the US in Iraq, therefore, it is not unreasonable to see that soldier sitting on the roof being quite easily picked off by a sniper, or indeed anyone reasonably proficient with an AK47. Also, I don't see any "shielding" aroud the sides of the vehicle. A rather big chink in the "armour" there

The final things that convinces me the boys aren't being used a shields is the fact the soldier is:

a) Looking away from the front of the vehicle where the boys are. If the "shields" are at the front, it is reasonable to assume that means the enemy fire is coming from the front. Why would you conceivably look away from the enemy fire like that?

b) The soldier isn't manning the what looks like a 30caliber mounted on the roof (I may be wrong about the type of gun, I'm not an expert). If he were truely using the boys as shields, thus meaning he was either under fire, or under threat of fire, he would be manning the gun ready to take down anyone who threatens him. Also, notice the gun is actually facing away from the direct of the boys. Again, if the soldiers life were under threat, it would be facing in the direction of the boys, as obviously that's where the fire would be coming from...also personally I wouldn't be sitting on the roof with bullets whizzing over my head when I could be behind a few inches of steel and a big gun hehe.


Granted I made alot of supositions there, but they are supositions based on logic, common sense and the use of a little bit of grey matter. Just some food for thought. Attack me if you want, I'm not going to bite. Just hoping you will try to see the world in full colour or with a few more shades of grey instead of black and white

edit:

ps: Don't mind the typos. No-one has been able to use proper grammar since the invention of spell check

[edit on 26-9-2005 by LordGoofus]

Originally posted by Jakomo
What are they, puppies? You "make friends" with them by giving them tasty little treats and biscuits?

Eh? No its simple, you be nice to them they be nice to you...
You never offered anyone a sweet or biscuit to help start up a conversation?

It's simplistic. How many times do you figure that while a Humvee is parked alonside the road giving out candies to children, it is rocket-attacked because it is idle and the soldiers are not 100% on their guard?

So that means they shouldnt talk to the population and just act likes robots to them?
If they terrorists attack the sodiers it simply makes them look bad, how? Because they've resorted to shooting at kids.
Its not nice and its not fun, thats why troops be careful when interacting with the local population.

And no where in your quote does it say “your family will be blessed by your actions?” That’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I’m still wondering where you came up with that.

The comment was a summarization of the viewpoint, one of many examples wherein the Quran references that the martyr and their family will benefit [be blessed] by their martyrdom.
Islam and the Concept of Martyrdom

They encourage to engage in this form of violent struggle by telling them they will be "martyrs" or 'shuhada', a position highly valued by God according to the Qur'an. They also promise them multiple rewards in heaven in addition to securing heaven for the entire family of the martyr [half way down the page]

The virtues of martyrdom

A Shaheed has six other benefits; Al-Miqdaam Ibn Ma’di Karib, may Allaah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam said: “A martyr has six bounties: He will be forgiven with the first drop of his blood that is spilt; He will see his place in Paradise (at the time of death); He will be saved from the ‘Great Horror’ (on the Day of Judgment): A Crown of Dignity will be placed on his head, which contains many corundums, each one being more precious than this life and all that it contains; He will have seventy two Women of Paradise; And, he will be allowed to intercede for seventy of his family members (who would have otherwise gone to hell).” (Tirmidhi & Ibn Maajah).

Like is said, look up the word martyr. You don’t have to kill yourself to become one. It’s unfortunate that you can’t understand that.

I don't recall stating that one had to die to become a martyr. Actually, I believe that was a point made by yourself that was never disputed.

I thought you said that to drinking like a fish YOU can’t trust what either side is saying,

I believe it went more like:
"Obviously we can't rely on either side for ABSOLUTE factual reporting/representation of the events as they occur".
There are a many reasons as to why we can't rely either side for absolute up-to-the-minute factual reporting.
Let's see . . . security, logistics, location, lack of psychic abilities, etc.

I will choose to be a human being.

Actually, by your own statement you would choose to be dead.

If he invaded my country, I would shoot him dead no hestitation. If I invaded his country, I would let him shoot me

That's funny.

As to your absolute proof, your photo, how can you be certain that it wasn't taken in such a way as to obscure the reality of the actual events surrounding the big picture. Perhaps if the photographer were to have zoomed out it may very well display an entirely different scene overall. But alas, that scenario might not lend to your claims so we better stick with the close-up narrow view where we restrict ourselves from possibly seeing a bigger picture.

[edit on 9/26/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

I See You:

So you would have sacrificed your life and those of your unit because somebody decided to use a woman and child as protection? Your full of it.

Well, seeing how this is all to "liberate Iraqis" and to "protect Iraqis", then maybe I would think twice about killing a person who I am supposed to be there to SAVE!!!

So no, I wouldn't automatically fill the mother and child with bullets, just because I was afraid that the guy might use his RPG on me and my pals. That stinks of cowardice.

I would use my head and I would try to think of what to do.

But you see, since I use my head, I would never make it in the Army, and I'm proud of that. I'm no good at blindly following orders.

I'd rather die myself than knowingly and willingly murder a woman and her child. Call me a sicko....

devilwasp:

You never offered anyone a sweet or biscuit to help start up a conversation?

No, I can honestly say I have not.

Would you break into someone's house, tell them you're there to "protect them", and then try to bribe their kids with sweets, all the while you are indiscriminately jailing and torturing the rest of the family and rifling through their valuables? And you're not even counting how many of them are dying?

Its not nice and its not fun, thats why troops be careful when interacting with the local population.

That is the biggest crock I have read in a long time. A troops JOB is not to be "friendly" and "interact" with the population.

Tell me, how much is the US Army investing in training these troops to speak Arabic? To train in Religious Studies so they understand the Koran? To take a history course on the last 50 years of Iraqi history?

No, the US Army is investing in bullets and bombs, because that's their job. And it's easier.



[edit on 28-9-2005 by Jakomo]

Its funny Jak, you make lots of comments about the US soldiers who did the shooting, but no actual comments about the savages who picked the kids up and used them as a shield. Huh, funny how that is isnt it?

skippy:

Its funny Jak, you make lots of comments about the US soldiers who did the shooting, but no actual comments about the savages who picked the kids up and used them as a shield. Huh, funny how that is isnt it?

No, the funny thing is that the story is reported BY THE MILITARY.

The bullet went through the "terrorist" first, and then through the child.

Sounds more like the man was shielding the CHILD, hmm? But it doesn't really play well to the people back home...

Tell me something:

How are they so sure this guy was a terrorist? Was there a tattoo on his dead body? Did he have a business card?

Or was he in fact trying to defend his home against armed soldiers, and then when he realized it was useless, he grabbed his child, tried to shield him from the fire, and ran.

Only to be blown away while retreating.

Was he still carrying a weapon? Was he carrying a weapon in the first place?

How can you believe what ANY military says about ANY incident in which innocents are killed? ESPECIALLY the US military, with its' recent disinformation special.

Because the military believe in honour and duty.
Hell if they lied and covered it up and it was found otu (it would be) that something like that happened then it would disgrace the army.

Re: Terrorists - who's terrorists?

Interesting, at Fallujah, a few motnhs back, the US military massacred over 2,000 unarmed fleeing civilians. (Over 300 of them innocent children and even disabled people on wheelchairs) seen smoltering from the after effects of the US' "illegal" use of Napalm and White Phosphoros bombs and some say gases that could have been Nerve Gas and/or Tear gas.

So what did the US media report?

Well, the FOX JEWS NETWORK did a special called "The hero's of Indio company (No Emmy's) in Fallujah." CNN, MSNBC and the 4 regular media dwarfs decided not to report anything ecept for another "American victory," Whooppee!

At Tallafar, Iraq, two weeks ago the BBC reported "US soldiers rape and sodomize several Iraqi girls" after the fighting. The US mdia reported nothing more than: "Another US victory over terrorism.

Yassir, the killing is getting worse and the sad part is that "The insurgency is still growing" despite the gloating Minister-of-War & Mayhem, Don Rumsfeld's lie that, "We have 'em on the run!" (Bull poo).

Indeed, we have met the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are us!

TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.

Mod Edit: Cicumvention Of Censors. Please do not post profanity, or circumvent the censors. Thanks.

[edit on 28/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

TheAZCowBoy

LOL

I have some land in Florida I want to sell you buddy if you believe all that bunk.

Uh soldiers rape and sodomize little girls?
Can I see some proof or is this going to be let me guess another spinned out story? Or even easier an all out lie?

Originally posted by TheAZCowBoy

At Tallafar, Iraq, two weeks ago the BBC reported "US soldiers rape and sodomize several Iraqi girls" after the fighting. The US mdia reported nothing more than: "Another US victory over terrorism.

Any chance you can post the BBC link for this story? I have searched the BBC web site and can find nothing to relate to it.

Could you also point me in the right direction for some info on the US using naplam in Fallujah?

Cheers
Eddie

devilwasp:

Uh soldiers rape and sodomize little girls?
Can I see some proof or is this going to be let me guess another spinned out story? Or even easier an all out lie?

Why? Just so you can evade the proof and say it's from a questionable source?

See what Vietnam vets ADMIT to doing in Vietnam in their own words, and fast forward a few years.

www.wintersoldierfilm.com...

While I don't 100% believe that US troops would rape children, I am also not ready to 100% discount it.

War makes men do terrible things.

And you started this one. So all the terrible things happening are on your heads.


[edit on 28-9-2005 by Jakomo]

With respect Jakomo

I asked for a link from the BBC so i could read the story of the 'US soldiers rape and sodomize girls'. I cannot find the story anywhere.

You didn't search hard enough it came up as the number 2 on the search list.

Not from the BBC but still disturbing if true...

WARNING DISTURBING IMAGERY

www.aztlan.net...

The fact is in war regular joe six-pack can turn into a raging monster.

Perhaps you need a reminder of Abu-Graihb...

en.wikipedia.org...

But of course it ain't as bad as they are doing to your soldiers so WHO CARES RIGHT?!?! Humanity is doomed. We are a stupid vengfull cartman like species.

The quote was said to have come from the BBC. That is what i searched through.
Check the quote made by TheAZCowBoy.

I did a Web search and came up with roughly what you found, but nothing from the BBC archives.

The first link you supplied is admiitedly vile. I am not saying this did not happen, but how reliable is the source from which it came? Not the media that released the pictures, but the actual reporter.

The second link has been proven to be fact. England has just been sentanced for her part in what happened.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Bikereddie]