UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

Originally posted by devilwasp
You want my little old ignorant, totally biased, ill informed and hot blooded youth opinion on why iran would want the bomb?
Just to make sure I understand the question...

Well I kind of already know your little old ignorant, totally biased, ill informed and hot blooded youth opinion - and remember, you said it, not me!

So the US cant preach death on the muslim world but iran can?

Iran is preaching Death to the Muslim World?

Ah THAT game, you mean the game that the big 5 won?

There are NO winners in this Game my friend - only LOOSERS!

Every threta to a country, what is the point in us going after one bad guy at a time when we should really do a massive co-ordinated attack and take out EVERYBODY who might be, could be, will be and might be a threat in the past , present and future.

And who is that EVERYBODY?
Is that kind of, like how Hitler performed a coordinated attack to all of his "threats"?

Yet you dont mind them having it?

I mind India, Pakistan and North Korea for having them - but they still do!
And if they do want one, they will get one sooner or later...
Especially if its FORBIDDEN - remember, the forbidden fruits are the sweetest.

Well none of the above concerns me because well none of the above would waste a several million dollar/pound nuke on a little cruise ship, unless suddenly cruise ships have become bigger targets while I've been away?

But they could easily wipe out a Carrier Task force with a nuke - the only thing left from the task force, would be one big tsunami.

India and Pakistan are there own countries, if they want our help they need only ask if they dont want it well good luck we'll turn up the funerals if the shooting starts.

Iran is also "Their Own Country".

France, isreal, russia and the US dont concern me well because all of the above have no quarrels with my country, china and NK do worry me...

So - Isreal, Russian, US and UK do not worry you; but China and North Korea do?
Hey - they all have Nukes, and they all can launch them - to me that is VERY WORRYING FACT!

Is capturing criminals wrong? I dont agree with torture (what they may or may not do there) but I think that there should be a place for criminals to kept.

Sadly we have prooved several times, that the majority of Captives held in Guantanamo and "Other" detention camps are completly innocent; and almost NONE of them was trialed and prosecuted of anything yet, so how can you say, that they are CRIMINALS, where there is no proof at all?

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot
Personally, I see the U.N. as nothing more than a glorified debating committee that has rarely (if ever) enforced it's own resolutions. I personally don't care what the U.N. has to say. Do I care if prisoners in Gitmo are being tortured? Not even a little. If some religious wacko is willing to strap a few pounds of C-4 to his chest and blow up a crowded theater in the name of "Allah" then I could care less what the CIA does to him. Unless I'm mistaken, Geneva Convention provides no protection to rebels/insurgents, and spies can be executed.

These guys werent picked up for public intoxication or jay-walking. They're murderers.

Talk about brainwashing, no offence. Astounding ignorant comments!

For your info, those that commit acts of suicide are usually those whose families have been killed by your armed forces or your proxies' armed forces that invaded them so as to pillage their resources and pave the way for the economic warfare of your corporations.

Since those people don't have F-16s and Spectre gunships so as to retaliate, they inflict damage in any way that they can, not that that's any consolation to the innocents on the other side as well.

Try doing some critical thinking of your own, Rightwingpartriot, instead of parroting what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh preach. That also goes for the other immoral & hypocritical rightwingers in here as well.

[edit on 23/5/2006 by Aris]

The enemy is beheading, shooting, blowing up their captives and innocent cititzens. What does the UN have to say about that?

Since those people don't have F-16s and Spectre gunships so as to retaliate, they inflict damage in any way that they can, not that that's any consolation to the innocents on the other side as well.

So let me get this straight. Since they dont have F-16s they have the right to mass murder and break every genuvea convention law? You think its ok that they murder people by the 30's-40's who are unarmed and not combatants and behead their captives?





[edit on 23-5-2006 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by Dronetek
The enemy is beheading, shooting, blowing up their captives and innocent cititzens. What does the UN have to say about that?

Who is this "enemy" that you speak of?

So let me get this straight. Since they dont have F-16s they have the right to mass murder and break every genuvea convention law? You think its ok that they murder people by the 30's-40's who are unarmed and not combatants and behead their captives?
[edit on 23-5-2006 by Dronetek]

Ah, so a suicide bomber commits mass murder while a B-52 commits......what?

And btw, which action came first?

Your last sentence left me speechless. Remind me of how many innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists, in total, a guesstimate, and how many innocent civilians have been killed by the US alone.

I love it. The IDF, for example, goes and commits extrajudicial killings in the occupied territories, the Palestinians retaliate with a suicide bomber, yet all we hear about in corporate media is the retaliation, which, of course, is never mentioned as "retaliation". No context or background given because that wouldn't do, would it, mentioning the oppression that created the terrorism. Nope, they're just religious fanatics Heaven forbid they actually have a legitimate axe to grind.

Originally posted by Dronetek
The enemy is beheading, shooting, blowing up their captives and innocent cititzens. What does the UN have to say about that?

Hmmm, not too sure about the UN because it is, after all, a mouthpiece of the US to a degree, but I do know what the Lancet report on Iraq said. It said that the vast majority of civilian deaths, of which most are women & children, are attributed to the aerial bombardment by the US Air Force. Now you don't hear much about those daily bombing missions in the media, do you. Wouldn't do, would it.

Originally posted by Dronetek
The enemy is beheading, shooting, blowing up their captives and innocent cititzens. What does the UN have to say about that?

And the "Liberators" are Carpet bombing, using Depleted Uranium, Napalm, White Phosophorus, Cluster Bombs.

So let me get this straight. Since they dont have F-16s they have the right to mass murder and break every genuvea convention law?

And what do you call, when a Mother of All Bombs is being Dropped?

Democracy?

[edit on 23/5/06 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah
Well I kind of already know your little old ignorant, totally biased, ill informed and hot blooded youth opinion - and remember, you said it, not me!

So why ask the question?
Do you really want my opinion?

Iran is preaching Death to the Muslim World?

Hmm your starting to poke at my wording, ok fair enough thats your choice.
Yet again, how can america not preach death yet iran can?
How can iran suggest that they should wipe a country off the face of the earth yet Good old HM , commander of one of the most powerful forces on the planet , cant?

There are NO winners in this Game my friend - only LOOSERS!

Not really, the big 5 got the bomb , they won the race.

And who is that EVERYBODY?

Anyone thats a threat, I am simply trying to point out how stupid the question: Why did we start here when we could have started there. Really is.

Is that kind of, like how Hitler performed a coordinated attack to all of his "threats"?

Co-Ordinated attack? Ha, he took out his threats one by one: Ie russia, france, the royal navy to some extent.

I mind India, Pakistan and North Korea for having them - but they still do!

Thats dodging the question: Do you mind iran having the capbility to launch a nuclear attack?

And if they do want one, they will get one sooner or later...

Not if a force stops it.

Especially if its FORBIDDEN - remember, the forbidden fruits are the sweetest.

Yes and forbidden fruits usually get swatted out of the hands of young children.

But they could easily wipe out a Carrier Task force with a nuke - the only thing left from the task force, would be one big tsunami.

......Uhhhhh ook.......1stly I suggest you go join the whole NUKE vs CBG thread in weaponry for more in depth explenations of the pros and cons of that "strategy".

Secondly, where in hell is PO cruises going to buy a carrier task force!

Iran is also "Their Own Country".

India and pakistan havnt called for the entire anihalation of an ally of the united kingdom now have they?

So - Isreal, Russian, US and UK do not worry you; but China and North Korea do?

Yes russia has no quarel with my country, isreal doesnt concern me one bit because we are allies, the US doesnt bother well because they would be bombing thier own troops if they shot at us....and the UK doesnt bother me because...well the UK wont nuke the UK will it?
North korea and china do worry, china less so than korea. China may be powerful and dangerous but shes not idiotic enough to slugging a few nukes around, north korea I do not know about and anything I dont know about I consider a possible threat.

Hey - they all have Nukes, and they all can launch them - to me that is VERY WORRYING FACT!

Any country can launch a nuke, hell germany could launch a nuke that could hit britain.
Frankly I dont find any of the above worrying, because none of the above (not including the north korea) will not fire first, none of the above are in any position to start throwing nukes around.

Sadly we have prooved several times, that the majority of Captives held in Guantanamo and "Other" detention camps are completly innocent; and almost NONE of them was trialed and prosecuted of anything yet, so how can you say, that they are CRIMINALS, where there is no proof at all?

What are you talking about? I never defended or supported guantanamo or these "other detention camps that might , mabye or possibly exist". I said I I think there should be a centre for criminals and correct me if I am wrong there ARE actual terrorists there. The way they are captured I do not agree with : Why? Because as you have said many are not actual terrorists, not ones who pulled the trigger or planned the op.

Originally posted by Aris
Who is this "enemy" that you speak of?

Mabye the insurgency?

Ah, so a suicide bomber commits mass murder while a B-52 commits......what?

Last time I checked the coalition never used B-52s against civilians, and last time I checked suicide bombers where exclusively used in high civilian areas.

Your last sentence left me speechless. Remind me of how many innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists, in total, a guesstimate, and how many innocent civilians have been killed by the US alone.

So one is right while the other is wrong?
Neither is right and its not right to show just one side of the fight, or to blame one side of the fight.

I love it. The IDF, for example, goes and commits extrajudicial killings in the occupied territories, the Palestinians retaliate with a suicide bomber, yet all we hear about in corporate media is the retaliation, which, of course, is never mentioned as "retaliation". No context or background given because that wouldn't do, would it, mentioning the oppression that created the terrorism. Nope, they're just religious fanatics

Heaven forbid they actually have a legitimate axe to grind.

Or the iraqi terrorists seeing policemen as valid targets for killing because they are not "civilians" along with "sympathisers" or "Traitors"....am I correct in saying the stated action is correct and good?

Originally posted by DrBones666
Well, I'm from a "Western Country" and belong to a Western family, but thankfully not a yank. Anyway, I don't see how you rednecks can possibly claim that there is no abuse going on there, the evidence is laughingly RIGHT IN YOUR FACE!!

Photographic evidence is hard to argue with in my opinion.

Just because your despotic government says what they are doing is the right thing doesn't mean that it is you know. To be honest I'm absolutely ashamed that my country (Australia) is allied with and actively supports your course for global domination.

It's a sick sad world in many respects, but by far we mostly have the good ol U.S of A* holes to thank for that.

AMERICA =

I'm am also glad your not one of us "yanks" with that attitude man. Not very nice to use the term redneck in such a way, I'm actually a very nice, well mannered redneck myself.

Ok, I know of one FACTUAL case of abuse that was well documented, no one disputes the Abu Gharib case. But to say that the abuse is "laughingly in our face," is a matter of opinion. Where are all these other photographically documented cases of
abuse you speak of that makes it so "laughingly in our face?"

Our despotic government? Youve been spoon-fed a bunch of bull# my friend. Tell me again, whose country lost their right to bear arms? One of the most important rights for the people to have. Thought so.

Well I am proud to call my country and ally of Austrailias, if I ever get the money I'll visit the place. One of my English friends spent 10 months there, staying in hostels around the country in many different towns, most fun hes ever had.(except for getting some money and his bank card stolen by this German chick.) I'll avoid them if I ever go there.

I'm sorry you feel my country is full of assholes, too bad youre the only person on this thread now who is acting like one.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Aris
Who is this "enemy" that you speak of?

Mabye the insurgency?

The insurgency, my friend, is mostly targeting the occupation forces. Your own gov't admits as much. As for the beheadings, kidnappings & torture, it would seem that while it is a drop in the ocean compared to the onslaught that the US continues to unleash, a continuous onslaught that is never talked about in US media, most of it is committed by local forces that the US "advises" and trains and by special forces of its own that are covertly enforcing the Salvador Option so as to spread chaos and to divide and destroy Iraqi national identity. You really should read alternative sources of news coming out of the region and balance it with what respected journalists like Robert Fisk are corroborating because you're repeating nothing but BS propaganda. Can't blame you, though, because that's the way the information system works in western countries, especially yours.

Ah, so a suicide bomber commits mass murder while a B-52 commits......what?

Last time I checked the coalition never used B-52s against civilians, and last time I checked suicide bombers where exclusively used in high civilian areas.

Check again. Most civilian deaths, according to the Lancet Report and other epidimiological studies, have come about from aerial US bombing. Just because they don't show it or talk about it on your shores doesn't mean it's not occurring. For example, you must have heard how at the end of last year, sorties flown in Iraq had quintupled from 2004. Well over a hundred sorties flown in a single month, and there isn't even an opposing air force! Do you read anything from beyond the mainstream media? Have you not heard of how the cities of Fallujah, Haditha, Ramadi etc etc were massively bombed? Would you like us to research this specific point together?

Your last sentence left me speechless. Remind me of how many innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists, in total, a guesstimate, and how many innocent civilians have been killed by the US alone.

So one is right while the other is wrong?
Neither is right and its not right to show just one side of the fight, or to blame one side of the fight.

There is a vast difference between bombing entire cities that never harmed you, and their residents retaliating desperately.
There is a vast difference between invading and storming into innocent neighbourhoods & homes, unprovokedly killing innocents, and attacking & killing your opressors and their collaborators.
There is "cause" and there is "effect". It doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge this basic fact that initiates and drives the violence to such extreme reactions.

I love it. The IDF, for example, goes and commits extrajudicial killings in the occupied territories, the Palestinians retaliate with a suicide bomber, yet all we hear about in corporate media is the retaliation, which, of course, is never mentioned as "retaliation". No context or background given because that wouldn't do, would it, mentioning the oppression that created the terrorism. Nope, they're just religious fanatics

Heaven forbid they actually have a legitimate axe to grind.

Or the iraqi terrorists seeing policemen as valid targets for killing because they are not "civilians" along with "sympathisers" or "Traitors"....am I correct in saying the stated action is correct and good?

No, you are incorrectly stating the situation overall. While there is certainly a small percentage of Iraqi criminals and an even smaller percentage of terrorists, the remaining percentage which is vast, which you and your leaders choose to label "terrorists", are actually patriots that are defending their neighbourhoods from the invasion.

When the Nazis invaded Greece, there were certain Greek collaborators that threw their lot with the SS and worked for them. Maybe they figured that Nazism was inevitable, seeing as how it had encompassed all of Europe. Maybe they agreed with some of its principles. Maybe they simply wanted power. Maybe they just didn't want to die. So, they collaborated with the occupying power. You know what happened to those collaborators? "Terrorists" (according to the occupying Nazis) like my grandfather who was 15 at the time, defended their villages and also killed Greek neighbours that collaborated with the SS because they were legitimate enemy targets.

Originally posted by Aris
The insurgency, my friend, is mostly targeting the occupation forces. Your own gov't admits as much.

Mostly is frankly putting it lightly, and when it does attack do you think it strikes cleanly with a sword or with an 18 inch howister shell?

As for the beheadings, kidnappings & torture, it would seem that while it is a drop in the ocean compared to the onslaught that the US continues to unleash,

Could you clarify this? I mean are you actually agreeing with these tactics or are you just saying they are nothing compared to americas tactics?

a continuous onslaught that is never talked about in US media, most of it is committed by local forces that the US "advises" and trains and by special forces of its own that are covertly enforcing the Salvador Option so as to spread chaos and to divide and destroy Iraqi national identity.

You mean these "black" teams that "attack, main, kill, rape and pillage" iraq dressed as regular insurgents as some kind of "false flag operations"? something our friend souljah has tried to imply many a time and failed.
The same sources that bring us the above also brought us the great tactical story of MI5 operatives in iraqi training iraqis how to make bombs so they could kill fellow iraqis....But wait a second.......isnt this the same source that refuses to name its sources?

You really should read alternative sources of news coming out of the region and balance it with what respected journalists like Robert Fisk are corroborating because you're repeating nothing but BS propaganda.

BS propaganda? You mean like amnesty internationals report on the crisis in iraq? BOTH sides of the report I have never met Robert Fisk so I cant comment on him which I have to yet I might add.

Can't blame you, though, because that's the way the information system works in western countries, especially yours.

Mine?
My country has the worst record for reporting things in iraq, hell in america they have live updates everyday. We're lucky to get news every week!

Check again. Most civilian deaths, according to the Lancet Report and other epidimiological studies, have come about from aerial US bombing.

So your now saying the US is using B-52 bombers against civilains? Begs the question of WHY , makes no sense in hell! Now if you mean laser guided and GPS guided missles then thats another story I dont support those weapons being used in cities at all.

Just because they don't show it or talk about it on your shores doesn't mean it's not occurring. For example, you must have heard how at the end of last year, sorties flown in Iraq had quintupled from 2004.

No I didnt and the number of sorties flown is bugger all, how about the number of bombs dropped by every sortie?
That would be an interesting number or wait how many of those sorties where actually recon flights?

Well over a hundred sorties flown in a single month, and there isn't even an opposing air force!

So because they dont have an airforce we shouldnt fly planes? So we should use AK-47's and RPG's because they have them? Just to level the field?

Do you read anything from beyond the mainstream media?

As of yet my idea of mainstream media is ATSNN, apart from the ocasional CNN and BBC world snaps I can get on the sat com.

Have you not heard of how the cities of Fallujah, Haditha, Ramadi etc etc were massively bombed?

By B-52s? I doubt it, I doubt it very much. A few B-52s with carpet bombs would have flattened all of it till there was nothing but smouldering crater holes left.

Would you like us to research this specific point together?

Not paticullary unless your willing to get up at 4 AM at GMT + 3 .

There is a vast difference between bombing entire cities that never harmed you, and their residents retaliating desperately.

Yes there is, pity that scenario doesnt come into this debate.

There is a vast difference between invading and storming into innocent neighbourhoods & homes, unprovokedly killing innocents, and attacking & killing your opressors and their collaborators.

Not in my opinion, both are wrong and both are on the same field.
If you kill a man because he talks to another then thats wrong, thats just sick.
If you kill a man because he was defending his house then thats wrong , thats sick.

There is "cause" and there is "effect". It doesn't suit your argument to acknowledge this basic fact that initiates and drives the violence to such extreme reactions.

Well then there in lies the question:
Why cant the multinational forces in iraq not fight back JUST as hard...unless you willing to say that a suicide bomb in a highly packed area is MUCH more preferable to a sniper?

No, you are incorrectly stating the situation overall. While there is certainly a small percentage of Iraqi criminals and an even smaller percentage of terrorists, the remaining percentage which is vast, which you and your leaders choose to label "terrorists", are actually patriots that are defending their neighbourhoods from the invasion.

With respect how would you know the numbers?
If they are defenders of thier neighbourhoods then could you explain to me why they are willing to sacrific the very people living there to kill 2 or 3 soldiers?

When the Nazis invaded Greece, there were certain Greek collaborators that threw their lot with the SS and worked for them. Maybe they figured that Nazism was inevitable, seeing as how it had encompassed all of Europe. Maybe they agreed with some of its principles. Maybe they simply wanted power. Maybe they just didn't want to die. So, they collaborated with the occupying power. You know what happened to those collaborators? "Terrorists" (according to the occupying Nazis) like my grandfather who was 15 at the time, defended their villages and also killed Greek neighbours that collaborated with the SS because they were legitimate enemy targets.

Uh right....your father at age 15 was killing inocent civilians who SPOKE to the germans.....right...
I wont critise your grandfathers tactics because they where from a time civilian casualties where acceptable.
Mabye you should read the effect caused by the actions of people like your grandfathers group , no disrespect intended, the geneva conventions?
Rules of war?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Mostly is frankly putting it lightly, and when it does attack do you think it strikes cleanly with a sword or with an 18 inch howister shell?

What's your point?

Could you clarify this? I mean are you actually agreeing with these tactics or are you just saying they are nothing compared to americas tactics?

The latter. Apologies if it sounded like the former.

You mean these "black" teams that "attack, main, kill, rape and pillage" iraq dressed as regular insurgents as some kind of "false flag operations"? something our friend souljah has tried to imply many a time and failed.
The same sources that bring us the above also brought us the great tactical story of MI5 operatives in iraqi training iraqis how to make bombs so they could kill fellow iraqis....But wait a second.......isnt this the same source that refuses to name its sources?

I don't know, my friend. What I do know is that there is overwhelming evidence of US black ops, of US training of death squads, of US financial and military support of repressive regimes that crush democratic gov'ts and slaughter their citizens, of US duplicity, of US economic warfare, of US covert and overt missions that destablize non-compliant to its interests nations, in each and every decade of the 20th century, from the Pacific, South and Central America, Africa and Europe to Asia. Would you like me to start off with some nice examples? All sourced, of course. In short, the US has a looooong track record of crimes against humanity, well documented, so perhaps souljah is more believable and credible than you. As for Britain, while its empire declined a while ago, it still has hardly been a saint in the 20th century itself as well.

BS propaganda? You mean like amnesty internationals report on the crisis in iraq? BOTH sides of the report

I have never met Robert Fisk so I cant comment on him which I have to yet I might add.

Can't really make out what you're trying to say here. Would you like me to provide you with several examples of western BS propaganda, with regards to Iraq?

Mine?
My country has the worst record for reporting things in iraq, hell in america they have live updates everyday. We're lucky to get news every week!

In America, while they have live updates every day, people still don't see 99.9% of the war.

So your now saying the US is using B-52 bombers against civilains? Begs the question of WHY , makes no sense in hell! Now if you mean laser guided and GPS guided missles then thats another story I dont support those weapons being used in cities at all.

The flattening of Fallujah, for example, made sense for the US in the sense that since they can't root out the rebels because they have the support of the local population, flattening the entire freakin' city is an easy way to advance US goals. You know, the doctrine of overwhelming force the US boasts about and carries out.

No I didnt and the number of sorties flown is bugger all, how about the number of bombs dropped by every sortie?
That would be an interesting number or wait how many of those sorties where actually recon flights?

A good place to start, which also leads you to further directions:
Ignoring The Air War

I hope that you will read it in its entirety and that you will also research on your own instead of asking me to do so for you.

Originally posted by devilwasp
So because they dont have an airforce we shouldnt fly planes?

So we should use AK-47's and RPG's because they have them? Just to level the field?

The point I was making is that even though there is no opposing air force, the aerial war is massive, so as to minimize US losses and maximize killings of defiant to the occupation people. The point I was making is that such an overwhelming strategy kills hundreds of thousands of innocents and creates a humanitarian crisis for millions more, but you obviously don't get it, do you.

And you know, many people find that those who use their Air Force to massively destroy from above, instead of fighting mano a mano to be total, cowardly chickensh*ts.

As of yet my idea of mainstream media is ATSNN, apart from the ocasional CNN and BBC world snaps I can get on the sat com.

How about reading from a greater variety of sources on the internet, since you have a connection? Read more stuff, both from sources that support your views and from those that oppose it. Take things with a grain of salt, look at it all critically and come to your own well informed conclusions.

By B-52s? I doubt it, I doubt it very much. A few B-52s with carpet bombs would have flattened all of it till there was nothing but smouldering crater holes left.

I never said that B-52s are always chosen by the Air Force in every single mission. In Fallujah, specifically, multiple AC-130 Spectre gunships flattened vast sections of the city, along with all male residents of fighting age that the US didn't allow to leave when they first cordoned it off.

Not paticullary unless your willing to get up at 4 AM at GMT + 3 .

Well I'm on GMT+2 time and usually post from 10am to 6pm.

There is a vast difference between bombing entire cities that never harmed you, and their residents retaliating desperately.

Yes there is, pity that scenario doesnt come into this debate.

How so?

Not in my opinion, both are wrong and both are on the same field.
If you kill a man because he talks to another then thats wrong, thats just sick.
If you kill a man because he was defending his house then thats wrong , thats sick.

So sorry to ruin your assertion but that man that's "talking to another man" is not just talking. He's either informing on me, leading to my death or working for those that want to kill me.

Why cant the multinational forces in iraq not fight back JUST as hard...unless you willing to say that a suicide bomb in a highly packed area is MUCH more preferable to a sniper?

Which are these "multinational forces in Iraq" that aren't fighting back just as hard?

With respect how would you know the numbers?

US commanders on the ground state them. Do I have to source this for you as well or will you confirm it, since you're interested in it, on your own with a 5 minute googling?

If they are defenders of thier neighbourhoods then could you explain to me why they are willing to sacrific the very people living there to kill 2 or 3 soldiers?

I've got news for you; actually, it's been in the mainstream news since last year: the vast majority of rebel attacks are directed at the US occupation army. You seem to buy into the western propaganda that the only thing that's happening are these hyped up stories, repeated over and over, as if that's the accurate picture of what's happening. According to you, about the only thing "insurgents" do is kill their own people. That's total BS. Furthermore, as the recent headlines regarding Haditha show, as also the two SAS dudes caught in Arab dress last year show, covert operations, the Salvador Option, seems to be in full swing in Iraq. So for you to simply repeat CNN coverage as gospel, when in fact they provide absolutely no evidence, is, at the very least, not believable.

Uh right....your father at age 15 was killing inocent civilians who SPOKE to the germans.....right...
I wont critise your grandfathers tactics because they where from a time civilian casualties where acceptable.
Mabye you should read the effect caused by the actions of people like your grandfathers group , no disrespect intended, the geneva conventions?
Rules of war?

No, my grandfather was killing collaborators who would hand over fighters and supporters of the Greek resistance to the Nazis which in turn liquidated them along with more civilians from their neighbourhoods so as to set an example.

Basically, he fought in the mountains against the Nazis but also fought against traitors wherever they popped up. Nothing worse than a traitor that sends his neighbours & countrymen to the hands of the SS.

Originally posted by Aris
What's your point?

Theres a diffrence between putting an 18 inch howister shell in a car and driving to a densly populated area where soldiers MIGHT appear and sending in a squad of marines to capture a murderer.

The latter. Apologies if it sounded like the former.

Well withrespects do you even know what american and coalition forces strategies concerning anti insurgency warfare are?

I don't know, my friend. What I do know is that there is overwhelming evidence of US black ops,

These from the same sources that thought a security force designed to work inside britain was making bombers in iraq?

of US training of death squads,

Oh please any group holding weapons with intent to kill is a death squad.

of US financial and military support of repressive regimes that crush democratic gov'ts and slaughter their citizens,

Can you name me another way of doing buisness in the world?
Sometimes you need to work with scum so things can get better....

of US economic warfare,

Every country is waging that war, its called self preservation.

of US covert and overt missions that destablize non-compliant to its interests nations

These the same people that thought the SAS was behind the london shooting?

, in each and every decade of the 20th century, from the Pacific, South and Central America, Africa and Europe to Asia.

Doubt they would do any of the above in europe except for the balklands and I havent quite seen them do anything so far in there in the last decade.

Would you like me to start off with some nice examples?

Would you name me the sources?

As for Britain, while its empire declined a while ago, it still has hardly been a saint in the 20th century itself as well.

Yes we never where the saint where we: Concentration camps, raping, pillaging, 2 world wars, etc etc.
But hey....lets just keep dragging those bones out huh?

Can't really make out what you're trying to say here. Would you like me to provide you with several examples of western BS propaganda, with regards to Iraq?

Would you like me to provide you with some western "BS" propaganda concerning iraq?

In America, while they have live updates every day, people still don't see 99.9% of the war.

Yes and do you think the insurgnecy is reporting anywhere near 0.1%?

The flattening of Fallujah, for example, made sense for the US in the sense that since they can't root out the rebels because they have the support of the local population, flattening the entire freakin' city is an easy way to advance US goals.

Your seriosly trying to tell me the US carpet bombed fallujah with B-52s? Sorry I find that VERY hard to believe, mabye F-16s or mabye even an A-10 but not a B-52.

You know, the doctrine of overwhelming force the US boasts about and carries out.

Every country adopts overwhelming force: britain, germany, russia, etc etc.
But the US backs it up with precision and training.

I hope that you will read it in its entirety and that you will also research on your own instead of asking me to do so for you.

Your defending your argument, I am simply the one asking the questions here.
Your source is a bit out of date....atleast 2 months out of date..
[qoute]
F-14D Tomcat
The last carrier to have F-14s was 2 months ago and that was thier final mission.
Also your source lists nothing about what explosives, who they where dropped against or why they where used.
Infact its just clipping numbers and pasteing them in....the real question you should ask yourself is this: What are both sides saying, then ask : What is actually happening.

Originally posted by Aris
The point I was making is that even though there is no opposing air force, the aerial war is massive, so as to minimize US losses and maximize killings of defiant to the occupation people.

EHHH no its to minimise killing and use a scalpel instead of a hammer, if you really wanted efficiency then the US could have went SS style and just killed anyone even remotely involved in the attack. The 6th armoured could have flattened basra and then just arrested anyone who pocked thier heads up.

The point I was making is that such an overwhelming strategy kills hundreds of thousands of innocents and creates a humanitarian crisis for millions more, but you obviously don't get it, do you.

I do get it, I get you dont understand. Its either use an accurate air power or send in ground troops which BTW is rather dangerous for all parties because each man has 30 rounds so multiply that by a 100.

And you know, many people find that those who use their Air Force to massively destroy from above, instead of fighting mano a mano to be total, cowardly chickensh*ts.

Ha playing the "ooohh its not manly ground war fighting" card are you?
Ok mate ask yourself if that friendly sniper is so cowardly to kill up to 800 yards away?
Ask that insurgent if hes so brave as to fire from 200 yards away with his 7.62 or 5.56 mm assault rifle?

How about reading from a greater variety of sources on the internet, since you have a connection?

ATSNN is a bit better than most sources I read online, its less biased.

Read more stuff, both from sources that support your views and from those that oppose it. Take things with a grain of salt, look at it all critically and come to your own well informed conclusions.

Pot calling kettle?
Mabye you should do the same...

I never said that B-52s are always chosen by the Air Force in every single mission.

Then why bring it up?

In Fallujah, specifically, multiple AC-130 Spectre gunships flattened vast sections of the city, along with all male residents of fighting age that the US didn't allow to leave when they first cordoned it off.

An AC-130 gunship is a littlle bit diffrent from a B-52 in one respect....ONES A CARGO PLANE!
It has a large cannon on the side and quite a few other armourments , I cant comment on how the US orginised that raid but come on!

Well I'm on GMT+2 time and usually post from 10am to 6pm.

Your in spain/france?

How so?

The coalition does not bomb cities that do not harm them.

So sorry to ruin your assertion but that man that's "talking to another man" is not just talking. He's either informing on me, leading to my death or working for those that want to kill me.

Thats pretty paraniod of you, just because someone talks to another person he is an informer? That means you kill him?
If thats your opinion on anti ocupational warfare then what are you complaining about US bombing houses for?
Isnt that the same? Killing civilians?

Which are these "multinational forces in Iraq" that aren't fighting back just as hard?

Mabye the british forces?
Mabye the american forces?
If you want a war these forces can give you one that will be entirely efficient, I'm sorry to say but your seeing watered down warfare.

US commanders on the ground state them. Do I have to source this for you as well or will you confirm it, since you're interested in it, on your own with a 5 minute googling?

US commanders state estimates, no one knows the insurgnecy numbers except the insurgents themselves and they wont tell the correct picture.

I've got news for you; actually, it's been in the mainstream news since last year: the vast majority of rebel attacks are directed at the US occupation army.

Then why are they using bombs in civilian areas? Is a US base out of town not better?

You seem to buy into the western propaganda that the only thing that's happening are these hyped up stories, repeated over and over, as if that's the accurate picture of what's happening.

And your buying into the insurgency led propganda war thats not accurately reporting anything.

According to you, about the only thing "insurgents" do is kill their own people. That's total BS.

No I said they kill there own people to kill ours as well...Or are you trying to tell me that all those suicide bombers are acutally US delta force army commandos?

Furthermore, as the recent headlines regarding Haditha show, as also the two SAS dudes caught in Arab dress last year show, covert operations, the Salvador Option, seems to be in full swing in Iraq.

Do I need to do the google for YOU on that thread? I was among the people debunking souljahs laughable attempt at incriminating these two SPECIAL RECONOSANCE REGIMENT soldiers....
Yes thats right they where part of a RECON element called SRR, you know the one with the fancy helmet and a sword for a capbadge? Oh and just to let you know, SAS never work in half bricks, they work in bricks....these two EX SAS soldiers where working in a brick that means 2 men in one car and another 2 men nearby.
You would never just send 2 SAS men to do drive bys....idiotic.

So for you to simply repeat CNN coverage as gospel, when in fact they provide absolutely no evidence, is, at the very least, not believable.

Really? Same could be said for ANTIWAR.com.

No, my grandfather was killing collaborators who would hand over fighters and supporters of the Greek resistance to the Nazis which in turn liquidated them along with more civilians from their neighbourhoods so as to set an example.

So he was killing civilains, people who under international law never took up arms.

Basically, he fought in the mountains against the Nazis but also fought against traitors wherever they popped up. Nothing worse than a traitor that sends his neighbours & countrymen to the hands of the SS.

So your happy with SAS and SBS soldiers/marines to go and slit the throats of any insurgent family they find since after all they are killing colaberators....right?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Theres a diffrence between putting an 18 inch howister shell in a car and driving to a densly populated area where soldiers MIGHT appear and sending in a squad of marines to capture a murderer.

Sure. If that were the case, I would agree. Seeing as how the events on the ground are nothing like the propaganda you are parroting, this comparison of yours is laughable.

Well withrespects do you even know what american and coalition forces strategies concerning anti insurgency warfare are?

They are well documented. Even British commanders have highly criticized American tactics, stating that "the Americans think they're cowboys in the Wild West" and also that "the Americans consider Iraqis untermunschen", for eg.

These from the same sources that thought a security force designed to work inside britain was making bombers in iraq?

No and I have no idea what you are yammering on about.

Oh please any group holding weapons with intent to kill is a death squad.

That statement, standing on its own, clearly displays the simplistic way you seem to understand things.

Can you name me another way of doing buisness in the world?
Sometimes you need to work with scum so things can get better....

What you actually mean is that "sometimes you need to work with scum so you can pillage a sovereign nation's resources".

Every country is waging that war, its called self preservation.

Every country? Really? And by the way, it's called "predatory neoliberal capitalism".

These the same people that thought the SAS was behind the london shooting?

Nope. Well documented facts that are in the public domain. You really should step outside your bubble, it would seem.

Doubt they would do any of the above in europe except for the balklands and I havent quite seen them do anything so far in there in the last decade.

As you mentioned yourself, the Balkans were recently subjected to western imperialism. Other than that, why bother doing much in Europe in the last decade when US military bases are already installed almost everywhere and they're still there?

Would you name me the sources?

Well we could start with Bill Clinton himself who admitted to his country helping set up and financing the Greek dictatorship, providing intelligence for it etc etc. A fact he formally apologized for, when he officially visited Greece while still President of the US of A.

Yes we never where the saint where we: Concentration camps, raping, pillaging, 2 world wars, etc etc.
But hey....lets just keep dragging those bones out huh?

I was referring to Britain's involvement, during the 20th century in places like the Middle East for eg.

Would you like me to provide you with some western "BS" propaganda concerning iraq?

Please do.

Yes and do you think the insurgnecy is reporting anywhere near 0.1%?

0.1 of what? That hundreds of thousands of them are dead, at the hands of the coalition of the dwindling? That the US systematically tortures them? Collective punishment? Destruction of their country?

Your seriosly trying to tell me the US carpet bombed fallujah with B-52s? Sorry I find that VERY hard to believe, mabye F-16s or mabye even an A-10 but not a B-52.

You seem to have this fixation that the US Air Force only has B-52s.

Every country adopts overwhelming force: britain, germany, russia, etc etc.
But the US backs it up with precision and training.

Wrongo, Jacko. The Brits in Iraq, for eg, hardly use overwhelming tactics against the local population.

Your defending your argument, I am simply the one asking the questions here.

I'm defending nothing. We're debating various points and if you haven't noticed, I'm asking you questions as well. I make points with sources, you just toss out simplistic views without the ability to expand on them, never mind sources.

Your source is a bit out of date....atleast 2 months out of date..
F-14D Tomcat
The last carrier to have F-14s was 2 months ago and that was thier final mission.
Also your source lists nothing about what explosives, who they where dropped against or why they where used.
Infact its just clipping numbers and pasteing them in....the real question you should ask yourself is this: What are both sides saying, then ask : What is actually happening.

Wow! The source is two whole months old! I never knew the Iraq War started a couple of months ago!

Let me tell you something: I would be more than willing to link you to more sources and more than willing to spend hours, if necessary to keep backing up my assertions. However, seeing as how you provide absolutely no analysis, never mind sources, it would obviously be a waste of time.

You see, after only 2-3 days, it is obvious that while I get into specifics, willing to source and debate them with points and counterpoints, the only thing that you are capable of doing is to provide dismissive generalizations that have absolutely zero credibility. Zero analysis, zero supportive sources, zero corroboration of your claims, is what you only do.

In a debate, when one makes a claim and the other disputes it, they should be capable of delvling into the specifics, refuting it with counterpoints that are supported by references. You have none and not only that but you sidestep my counterpoints with rambling generalizations. You've effectively refuted nothing. The only thing you have done is parrot propaganda with zero sources that actually back it up.

Now why should I spend further hours cross-referencing points when you don't even address them effectively? It seems I'm wasting my time debating with a parrot, so I'll simply make generalizations of my own for the remainder of your post and leave it at that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
EHHH no its to minimise killing and use a scalpel instead of a hammer, if you really wanted efficiency then the US could have went SS style and just killed anyone even remotely involved in the attack. The 6th armoured could have flattened basra and then just arrested anyone who pocked thier heads up.

Yep. The US is using a "scalpel" in Iraq bwahahahahahaha

I do get it, I get you dont understand. Its either use an accurate air power or send in ground troops which BTW is rather dangerous for all parties because each man has 30 rounds so multiply that by a 100.

Accurate air power? LOL! That statement alone shows how clued out you are. Would you care to provide sources that support this statement of yours? I know I can provide multiple sources that show the exact opposite. Whaddaya say we both research it and get back to each other on this? Wait a minute, what am I asking for, I forgot who I'm "debating" with....

Ha playing the "ooohh its not manly ground war fighting" card are you?
Ok mate ask yourself if that friendly sniper is so cowardly to kill up to 800 yards away?
Ask that insurgent if hes so brave as to fire from 200 yards away with his 7.62 or 5.56 mm assault rifle?

A rebel that only has a AK-47, fighting against a US soldier who has night vision goggles, body armour, supporting Apache helicopters above him, Predator drones giving him aerial views, overwhelming firepower etc etc, isn't brave?

ATSNN is a bit better than most sources I read online, its less biased.

LOL! Not to belittle ATSNN, but that's not exactly what people mean when they say "diversify the sources of your news".

Pot calling kettle?
Mabye you should do the same...

LOL again. "Pot calling kettle". Gimme a break. I read various mainstream media outlets from the US, UK, Europe, S. America, Russia, the Middle East and Asia where they're in English, and alternative media from most of the above regions as well. You, on the other hand, seem to only read CNN and ATSNN. "Pot calling kettle" indeed....

Then why bring it up?

Bring what up? That the US has used, at times, B-52s? Maybe because they have?

An AC-130 gunship is a littlle bit diffrent from a B-52 in one respect....ONES A CARGO PLANE!
It has a large cannon on the side and quite a few other armourments , I cant comment on how the US orginised that raid but come on!

Like I said before, you seem to have this fixation on B-52s. Either that or you're attempting a straw man argument....

Your in spain/france?

Nope. I'm in Greece, as my avatar clearly states.

The coalition does not bomb cities that do not harm them.

Thats pretty paraniod of you, just because someone talks to another person he is an informer? That means you kill him?
If thats your opinion on anti ocupational warfare then what are you complaining about US bombing houses for?
Isnt that the same? Killing civilians?

Yep, another straw man argument. Can I ask you a question? I'm not asking so as to put you down; I'm asking because I am really wondering....How old are you?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Mabye the british forces?
Mabye the american forces?
If you want a war these forces can give you one that will be entirely efficient, I'm sorry to say but your seeing watered down warfare.

That must be the first time anyone's ever heard of the war in Iraq being referred to as "watered down warfare". You are sounding more ridiculous by the minute. "Watered down warfare" LOL!

US commanders state estimates, no one knows the insurgnecy numbers except the insurgents themselves and they wont tell the correct picture.

I love your rebuttals! When I quote American commanders themselves stating the number of rebels, along with who they're comprised of, your answer to that is that "they're estimates and only the insurgents themselves know the actual number!" Like I said, I'll finish responding to the rest of your post today and leave it at that because you are incapable of debating. Sorry but you can't be taken seriously, it would seem....

Then why are they using bombs in civilian areas? Is a US base out of town not better?

Another straw man. I won't bother refuting it 'cause I'd be wasting my time.

And your buying into the insurgency led propganda war thats not accurately reporting anything.

My friend, I don't get my information from the "insurgency". There are excellent western reporters that source information much more accurately than Pentagon Productions.

No I said they kill there own people to kill ours as well...Or are you trying to tell me that all those suicide bombers are acutally US delta force army commandos?

Some are real nutjobs, some are desperate Iraqis like the woman that bombed that hotel in Jordan, some are patsies, some are setups, and some is total BS. At any rate, I'll say it again, the majority of Iraqi attacks are attacks against the "coalition". The US gov't admits it in reports but I won't bother linking you to them because you aren't interested in debating properly and I'd be wasting my time. Tell you what, you keep tuning in to CNN and CNN only, live in your little fantasy world of western propaganda and everything's OK.

Do I need to do the google for YOU on that thread? I was among the people debunking souljahs laughable attempt at incriminating these two SPECIAL RECONOSANCE REGIMENT soldiers....
Yes thats right they where part of a RECON element called SRR, you know the one with the fancy helmet and a sword for a capbadge? Oh and just to let you know, SAS never work in half bricks, they work in bricks....these two EX SAS soldiers where working in a brick that means 2 men in one car and another 2 men nearby.
You would never just send 2 SAS men to do drive bys....idiotic.

I await your sources. Furthermore, I'm eager to see how it will support your point.

Really? Same could be said for ANTIWAR.com.

I highly doubt that antiwar, unlike ABCNNBCBS, has vested interests in the industrial/military complex. I'd source you which media conglomerates are tied to which military interests etc, but I'd be wasting my time.

So he was killing civilains, people who under international law never took up arms.

Wait a minute, I thought people who espouse your views call such "civilians" "enemy combatants"?

So your happy with SAS and SBS soldiers/marines to go and slit the throats of any insurgent family they find since after all they are killing colaberators....right?

Whom would those families be collaborating with? Their own sons and cousins that are defending their country from an invading army?

Look, devilwasp, no offence, but it is obvious that you are incapable of such discussions. I have no problem debating for hours on the war; in fact, I've greatly enjoyed many heated debates with American rightwingers, Republicans etc. Some of them have even become my friends, exchanging books via Amazon etc. I was hoping that you and I would have some interesting debates with insight but it is obvious that you're not capable of saying anything beyond what the most insulated, diehard Freeper would parrot. Worse, you've failed to display any amount of credibility in your statements. Even the Bush administration concedes more than you, and that says a lot.

Again, no offence, but.....later. There's no point.

UN Report: US Is Abusing Captives

Here is the only thing I have to say to anyone who accepts anything the defunct United Nations Human Rights Council has to report:

The new Human Rights Council, which replaces the discredited Human Rights Commission as the U.N.’s lead human-rights body, now seats some of the world’s worst human-rights abusers firmly on the inside. China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia are among its members. The controlling 55 percent of the Council’s votes are in the hands of the Asian and African regional groups, and the election handed a 62-percent interest in those groups to the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Issuing human-rights abusers a new license to judge human rights abuse is not successful reform.

Furthermore:

On preventing genocide, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights appointed a Palestinian as executive director of a Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. Not surprisingly, the 2005 Commission’s report refused to identify the millions of dead and displaced as an instance of genocide. The commission was loathe to label Darfur an ethnic or racial conflict between Arab militia and non-Arab victim. This pre-summit failure, along with Sudanese intransigence and African Union reservations, contributed to the continuing spectacle of U.N. troops remaining on the sidelines despite the carnage.

On stopping nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Agency decided three years ago that Iran had violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and associated legal obligations. And still the Security Council has yet to adopt a single resolution finding Iranian action to be a threat to international peace and security, let alone adopt serious sanctions before it’s too late. Rooting all along for the Iranians, the Chinese, and the Russians have been the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Annan himself, both of whom have repeatedly sought to scuttle Security Council resolve. Meanwhile, Iran was elected a vice-chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.

----

On terrorism, the U.N. is no closer to a definition. The gulf is so great on the question of which women and children are legitimate targets that Western states are now agreeing that the issue is best set aside in the name of “progress” on other fronts, such as giving technical advice to allegedly hapless developing nations. In the meantime, the drafters of a comprehensive convention against terrorism can’t agree on their next meeting date. And Annan’s new counter-terrorism report is in the middle of a war of words being waged in “informal consultations” about the root causes of terrorism, or the underlying evils that drive unfortunates to blow up themselves along with as many Americans, British, Iraqis, or Israelis as possible.

NRO Article

What a super defunct world organization who has a number of self-created defunct "Councils," such as the Human Rights Council, which is made up of nothing but 'pot calling the kettle black' hypocrites. How convenient.....





seekerof

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
What a super defunct world organization who has a number of self-created defunct "Councils," such as the Human Rights Council, which is made up of nothing but 'pot calling the kettle black' hypocrites. How convenient.....

So - UN can speak against Iran, but godforbid they open up their mouth against the Allmighty America? Is that is? Is that how it goes? Is that the point of UN to Selectively pick out the "Criminals of International Law" and then allow certain Countries to further continue to Break Conventions and other "Law Stuff"?

Hmmmmmmmm...

Kind of,

HYPOCRITICAL

How Conventient!

For Bush&Co and their Advocates all over the Place.