It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

121+ dead in iraq today

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Rockpuck

So you mean that now is ok to kill because Saddam is not killing anymore?

Well looking from your point of view . . . I guess as long as Saddam is not doing the killing . . . is Ok? right.

No to worry the Kurds are now all nice and safe in their littler dream land thanks to liberation.

I wonder . . . for who did the US liberated Iraq? . . . sometimes is so hard to remember . . . do you Rockpuck, do you know for who Iraq got liberated?




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRGERBIK
You got hosed,NYGDan. There's no easy way to say it.

Again, what does that have to do with the iraqis being the ones killing thousands of other iraqis?????

Why are you incapable of addressing the subject and topics of the thread, but instead need to drag it down to the level of personality?


We placed him in power knowing his background of being a assassin. You just skipped over that. Don't you get it? We wanted a ruthless dictator to terrify the people. I know you think the U.S. is benevolent.

I really think that you need to stop having this imaginary discussion of yours. I didn't say that the US was benevolent, I'm not saying that the US is a bunch of angels. And I was the one who noted that Hussein was backed by us in the first place. So you're really not serving any purpose by repeating my own statements on the one hand, and then responding to claims that I never made on the other.



john_bmth
Since when has civil war been called "stability"?

I didn't say that the country was stablized. Its pretty clear that I've been saying that its not stabilized. What I said was that what little stability there is in some areas, is a result of US troop action. We've been able to keep the kurds, for example, relatively isolated from the sectarian violence. ONce we leave, they're probably going to 'ethnically cleanse' Kirkuk, and that will drag them into wider conflict with the Sunnis. At the same time, there will be nothing to assure Turkey, which is paranoid about the kurds, from rolling in en mass and taking action against them too.


RRconservative
how about the Iraqi's get upset and do something about this insurrgence! I think they are at the point where they are going to police their own, with the help of the United States!

What are you talking about? The sectarian violence IS the iraqis responding to teh insurgent violence. The shia militias are there to protect the shiites, the sunni militias are there to preserve what is left of sunni power, that means that the two groups are going to be killing each other. Its not a matter of there being these 'insurgents' who 'hate everyone' carrying out the attacks. THe attacks are almost all counter attacks and pre-emptive attacks and punitive attacks between groups. The insurgency against the US is practically over, we've been beaten, at least in the domestic political arena, and are leaving. Now the 'insurgents' have to focus on getting control of iraq itself.


Nygdan you still using the old Saddam was so bad to justified the death now in that nation?

A claim was made that there was nothing violent in iraq before the US was there. That was clearly false.


do you know for who Iraq got liberated?

The iraqis. They were ruled by a dictatorial regime, and that regime was removed. That IS liberation. The Iraqis are in 'man's natural state' right now, they have practically NO government forcing them to do anything, up to and including obeying the law in general. And with that freedom, within this 'state' that has practically no central government, and only the weakest of local governments, they are free to do whatever they want. And what they want is to commit mass murder. We all thought that they'd want to live in peace, to just be left alone and be able to keep their families safe and raise their children, maybe make a little money and not be beaten by government thugs. But no, thats not what they want. They want to get their guns, and go out and kill some people.

We could stop it, but it'd require tactics that aren't palpable to us and a resolve that we clearly don't have. Barring that, regardless of what's happened in the past, there's going to be a bloodbath over there, and its only going to end when either the country is torn apart and parts are annexed/occupied by other regional powers, and/or when one group gets the upper hand and is able to use hussein style tactics to prop up their rule.
And we're almost certainly going to have to send guns, money, and support to whoever that is too.



Agit8dChop
Right, like Iraqis the ONLY country to do bad things to its people.

Ok, so now that you've admited that there was mass murder in iraq before the US went there, and that the current mass murder isn't being commited by the US, what about the next step, can you admit that the comming mass murder isn't going to be done by 'evil bush' too?


But, your saying all the death and suffering we have caused by invading/occupying was WORTH it, being he isnt not killing people?

Where did I say that?
Do you think you can stick to the topics at hand???

Saddam Kept the people in check, he was ruthless but he kept the secretarian bs under wraps.
WE CANT, AND WE WILL FAIL IN IRAQ.

We certainly can. We certainly have the ability to even more ruthless than hussein, and we can do so to support at liberal democratic governement at the same time. We're not going to, but its a plain falsehood to say that we literally can not get control over the country.

They would of been to scared to do it under saddams days

Yes, because he'd murder the men in the town, and then have his goons rape the women to death and use the kids for shooting practice.
We, on the other hand, attack the peopel that are trying to murder civilians. And this makes us 'evil' and 'wrong'.

With or without the US, before or after the 2003 invasion, there's going to be mass murder in iraq. The only real chance that the country had to be a moderate, civil democracy, was with the US invasion. We created a situation in which the iraqis were truly free, and they opted to use it to vent their mania.

So what changed?

In the results, nothing changed. So whats the problem? The sunnis were using mass murder to prop up a dictator, now it looks like the shias will use mass murder to prop up a different dictator. There's no real net change, so what's it matter? We at least gave it a shot, and tried to make iraq better, more liberal, more democratic, and hoped that it could inspire other countries to democratize. It failed. So what? As you've noted, its no difference.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Rockpuck

So you mean that now is ok to kill because Saddam is not killing anymore?

Well looking from your point of view . . . I guess as long as Saddam is not doing the killing . . . is Ok? right.

No to worry the Kurds are now all nice and safe in their littler dream land thanks to liberation.

I wonder . . . for who did the US liberated Iraq? . . . sometimes is so hard to remember . . . do you Rockpuck, do you know for who Iraq got liberated?


Iraq was not liberated in liberations sense.

Did we go to Iraq to save Iraqis, or find imaginary WMD's? Liberation was a bi-product. I fail to see how that is hard to understand.. but apparently it is. Everything is not black and white.


Is killing ok just because its no longer Saddam killing?

Yes.

Why?

Because, war is a war, but ethnic cleansing is a truly evil thing..





This is what ethnic cleansing really is... some of you thick skulled, left wing wacks need to stare at these pictures. These do NOT relate to the current violence. Why not you may ask? Because.. it is the descendants of the people in pictures like these killing the ones responsible, the ones who supported it, the ones that lived in posh neighbor hoods while Saddam rained hell on innocent people on there way to market JUST BECAUSE they tried to rebell...

Why rebell.. you leftist seem to think its OK for a DICTATOR to rape and murder..


"I was beaten, refrigerated naked and put underground for one year because I was a Shiite and Saddam is a Sunni," said Ali Kaddam Kardom, 37. He said he was arrested in the central city of Karbala on March 10, 2000. He returned to the facility in Baghdad this weekend, he said, to help rescue any Iraqis who still might be imprisoned there.


www.usatoday.com... at_x.htm

Do you know what the worst thing you can do in wartime is.....

Drag your damn politics into it! It's not about rights and wrongs and how upset you are because your man didnt win the election oh boo hoo to bad, lets just jump all over the war. Tell it to these guys, while sitting in your arm chair, drinking fresh water, eating fresh food, using your nifty high speed Internet, thinking that if we where just nicer in this world every thing will be OK. Well... as I recall in 2002 we where not at war.... and crimes like this took place on a wide scale..


"Under Saddam, there were no rights of appeal," Kardom said. "I begged them to stop as they beat me. It only inspired them to beat me harder."

An Iraqi soldier, who according to the facility's records witnessed the beatings, said interrogators regularly used pliers to remove men's teeth, electric prods to shock men's genitals and drills to cut holes in their ankles.



"I have seen interrogators break the heads of men with baseball bats, pour salt into wounds and rape wives in front of their husbands," said former Iraqi soldier Ali Iyad Kareen, 41.


TELL ME AGAIN MARGE THAT ITS OK FOR SADDAM TO DO WHAT HE DID


In one instance, the soldier recalled, he witnessed a Kuwaiti soldier, who had been captured during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, being forced to sit on a broken Pepsi bottle. The man was removed from the bottle only after it filled up with his blood, the soldier said. He said the man later died.


Some more evidence..

www.newsmax.com...

www.cbn.com...

I use ONLY credible none-biased links here..

The US State Department -


Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
www.state.gov...

news.softpedia.com... Saddam-s-Trial-Talked-About-Torture-and-Rape-14189.shtml

I am supposed to feel pity because the damn monsters who committed these acts are now being blown up at their local markets?

May they burn in hell. That's what I say. There will be no virgins for them..

But ... I see where you stand marge.. and every one else like you.. your on the moral high ground.. you don't like war. Makes ya special I suppose. I know it makes you think you are any ways.. you don't condone violence.. America has no right to go to Iraq.. Iraq was better under Saddam.

Blind. Corrupted by partisan political greed.

I hope every Sunni is afraid to go to sleep at night for fear of being blown up, shot at, kidnapped. I hope every Sunni learns to fear walking out side in the morning.. I hope every one of those damn scumbags learns what its like to live in a living hell!! They DESERVE it. They raped the suppressed peoples dignity, lives, and sense of self security. I hope vengeance is bitter sweet.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   
My Ironic Aphorism

In Iraq, no one died until the press arrived.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
My Ironic Aphorism

In Iraq, no one died until the press arrived.


And that my friend is probably truth.

BTW Rock Saddam is death and over, so is not reason why to justify todays mass killings with Saddam, today they are fresh.

I wonder sometimes if to end such a killing and genocide of Iraqis be Sunnis or Shiites the only humanly thing to do is actually . . . one more effort to go into full scale or like Bush said surge gather all the people and just draw a line and ask Shiites to one side and Sunnis to the other side and just built a big wall in between.

Anything just to stop the killings I am even starting to think that the so call surge if done the right way is not such a bad idea.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
The surge is a proven way to reduce killings. Most Americans are killed in cross fire or enganging none-partisian attacks.

When troops move into an area, sunnis and shia do not kill eachother because they fear being killed by Americans if they open fire. On CNN last week they where talking to an Iraqi shop owner who was Shia, lived in the out skirts of the Sadr slum.. he was talking about how when troops where there life was normal.. but then they left and the bombings began the next day.

An increase in troops (for every 1 man, 2 support troops are need... 25,000 troops is actually coservativly 75,000 troops) - bush left that out of course.

but the increase is not a bad thing.. its a good thing. I don't know why people are mad troops are going over? The troops are paid to do this.. they join expecting this.. no one put a gun to their head and said you had to join.. and most politicians have never served. War is not supposed to be enjoyable.. its about sacrifices.

The real question I wonder is... if the Surge fails or is blocked from ever happening....... what will we do?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The real question I wonder is... if the Surge fails or is blocked from ever happening....... what will we do?


Is going to be made into a big political issue, it will be fights from all sides of congress, but at the end it will happen.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
No need to wonder when the antichrist will arrive. He is already here. The bloodbath going on in Iraq shows that he is working behind the scenes for now. Probably has a direct link to Bush's head.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The real question I wonder is... if the Surge fails or is blocked from ever happening....... what will we do?

Rockpuck, we have already been defeated. The militias can't force the military off the field of battle, but they've been able to prevent the military from enforcing stability As Bush correctly noted, the main battle phase 'mission' was accomplished, the traditional warefare, between infantry battalions and tank corps, was easily won by the US military. The next mission was to create stability, specifically to prevent massive sectarian violence. That mission failed. The US military was, for whatever the reasons, unable to accomplish it, and no one has suggested anything that will correct the situation. The troop 'surge' in baghdad is mere politics, just like the Iran warnings. We've been beaten, and there's nothing anyone can do right now to keep us there for any length of time.

As for what happens next? Death. Death, bloodshed, and horrendous violence in the failed state of iraq, out of which, if we're even lucky, one dictator will arise and through iron fisted rule keep the country together and the war from spreading to turkey and beyond.



skyway
bloodbath going on in Iraq shows that he is working behind the scenes for now

Biblical texts pretty clearly state that figures like the anti-christ, the 'false prophet', the 'beast', etc, will bring in an era of peace and be universally loved. And then it will come to a close. THe situation in iraq tells us nothing about biblical prophecy.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join