Iraqi soldier “Caesar” killed three American soldiers as they kicked , beat a pregnant woman

reply to post by zerbot565

---

This is how propaganda and rumours start.

Clear misreprensation of what REALLY happened. You make it sound like a solider blantly shot a pregnant woman for the hell of it. That is NOT what happened:




I didnt even go thru all the other links.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Again, more misreprensation of what really happened:






But at least you proved another point. The media WILL PRINT/REPORT any negative news about US Soldiers. So that lead me to believe even further that the OP's story is false.



And please provide your legitmate links to ALL the rapes that are taking place.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

but how can it be propagand when it has happend ?

im very confused now


ok ok ok now i get it everytime you do something good down there its very good job done
but when something bad happens its just an "incident"

but what would you call it if there where 100´s of these cases happening

victims of war ?
miss haps ?
bad apples in a bunch ?


[edit on 9-1-2008 by zerbot565]

reply to post by greeneyedleo

---

Greeneye,
Misrepresentation and flat out lies are the only way some here can attempt to make a lame point to further their hatred and misguided ways. Whether its done intentionally or not, I just don't know.

I just want a good, clear, reliable link proving that the troops were kicking a pregnant woman. Until I see that, I'm going to say that good ol' Caesar was just a terrorist that took the chance to shoot some US troops.

wasent talking about that , mearly replying to the other incident as to how can that be the begining of propaganda when the incident happend ,


this incident thou cant be confirmd by either side , its still under investigation so untill then youll have to make your own mind about what happend throu either word to mouth or scavange the internet

but seeing how long other incidents have taken to be verityfied or blatanly forgoten id say summer or fall

Been following the thread since my last post and well.... no evidence.... still.

Some people will just choose to believe what they want to believe regardless of what evidence -- or lack thereof -- is shown.

As was said before, from my person as well, an insurgent wore an Iraqi army uniform, saw the chance to kill Americans (especially an officer), took the chance then ran. Never been there but I suppose those things happen in war.

Propaganda is another thing that happens in war. Looks like the insurgents are doing a great job on a number of posters here.

On the flip side, there is no doubt there are some bad people in the military. That's in any organization. Like the guys that raped the 14 year old girl, for all I care, should be executed. Try them under IRAQI law.

But why judge the actions of a few on the accomplishments of the many?

Now this case of soldiers kicking a pregnant woman, to me, is fabricated. It can't be substantiated. There is no proof. What gives even more credence the story is false is that soldiers of the Iraqi army helped identify him.

I understand some people have reservations and haven't leaned towards either side yet. However, there is not one iota of doubt in my mind that there are those people who already made up their mind the second they saw the headline.

That's sad.

Edit: sentencing.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Midav]

I think that guy won't be having too much fun in an American Military prison, but shooting him would have been an acceptable alternative.

I have to agree, a lot of people automatically believed what they read without further investigation. And that's what I think they were hoping would happen, too.

aye that is a key question about this war , what has been acomplished

Yes I'm aware of this report. So They start out with 650k dead as of Oct 2006 of the lancet report and then took trends from Iraq Body Count and added another 350k plus since then with when the total from RBC was about 90k.

Taken from the RBC website addressing these extremely inflated numbers from their imperical data based count is below.



I guess the first question would be where are the bodies? And especially the 350k in the last year.

One reaches a point that propaganda starts to influence numbers that when looked at just a little bit start to defy facts and logic.

With all this said how did you come up with your 5 million orphans?

It seems the number million is not that big anymore and so many have lost all perspective as to just how big this number actually is.

When you look at pass atrocities and wars and the efforts needed to create such large numbers it just has not happened in Iraq.

The year of 2006 that I spent there I saw that 2000 to 3000 were about the limit for any given month and the majority of the total for the month was Muslim on Muslim fighting.








[edit on 9-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Well, the Iraqi people got to vote. Their soccer team doesn't have to worry about being tortured for losing a game. Every has a voice, even if it's to yell at US Soldiers.

Life under Saddam wasn't all wine and roses.

And that is what's preventing you from typing

It's called bread crumbs in between the keys,?



Really?



That's great. Pity it's utterly irrelevant.



If you know what you're doing and if your AK was made by the Finns (Valmet), Czechs or Yugos. If you shoulder your rifle properly and select semi-auto and fire single shots into your target, taking your time to do it. Even then there is no guarantee that your rounds won't go through your targets and hit the aforesaid pregnant woman you are "protecting". The AK is not a precision weapon.



blah blah blah. Meh! a) I suspect what they are guarding is poppy fields and b) if by "your old team-mates" you are trying to tell us that they are former or current Delta operators or 75 Rangers or similar then I say a) CRAP and if not crap then b) not impressed by mercenaries who earn blood money by protecting druglords. Guilt by association means I am therefore not impressed by you.



If it is illegal under the UN how come the UN maintained offices in Baghdad ofter the US-led occupation?



Hello clueless. Remember when Rummy said "Old Europe"? He was specifically referring to France and Germany because they were anti-war. Getting half a clue would be a REAL good start on the road to preventing total self-embarrassment.

The invasion of Iraq may have been unpopular, but it was legal under the terms of the UN Security Council resolution. While Hans Blix asked for more time to verify the destruction of the Iraqi WMDs, there was no legal requirement for the US to wait.



No, what it is in an immediate sense is pro-ignorance. But the next step is anti-American because you choose to believe an inflammatory and biased report of an unlikely event without waiting for more concrete proof. You chooe to believe it because it is anti-American. Which makes you anti-American.

Ignoring the next bit because as I said earlier, not American. If you're too stupid to read that, you have bigger problems than mere anti-Americanness.



No. It means you have trigger-happy fantasies and would open fire in the direction of a pregnant woman. Meaning you have no powers of discrimination. I wouldn't kill soldiers that beat a pregnant woman. I would ensure they got court-martialled. That would put their faces on the pages of the world's newspapers and magazines and in tv news bulletins identifying them as being so low that they would beat a pregnant woman. Just as the soldiers that raped a girl and murdered her family were court-martialled and so identified.



Really, the Brits have been "marching through the front pages", when was the last time? How many times? That goes for the Yanks, too, by the way. How many separate incidents of abuse have been reported. SEPARATE incidents. Abu Ghraib is ONE incident reported many times. The rape and muder is ONE incident reported many times. So, how many incidents in total?

Compared, say, with how many foreigners have been beheaded or otherwise murdered by insurgents/Ba'athists/Al Qaeda...



Know this for sure do you? Try using the word "probably" occasionally. Sometimes "allegedly" is a good one to throw in also.



Read my words again. I said Arabic/Islamic. That means Arabic and/or Islamic. It opens my definition up and covers more bases. The Lebanese may not live on the Arabian Peninsula. But as far as I know (from a childhood friend whose parents were Lebanese) their Korans are printed in Arabic.

See, what you forgot, or simply don't know, is that Arabic is a regional desription, an ethnic description and also a language. Arabic media is any media either from the Arabian region or in the Arabic language.

An Arab (noun) is the term for a person whose ethnicity is Arabic. And people who claim Arabic ethnicity can be found from Yeman to the Levant. Levant = British-mandate Palestine and Trans-Jordan and French-mandate Levant States of Lebanon and Syria, which today means Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Islamic is a religious description.

So, any media that is pro-Islamic religion, owned by a Muslim or from a Muslim-majority country and reports for the majority can be described with "Islamic". Therefore "Islamic" media could be in Malaysia or Indonesia.

As for the map, Arabia (or the Arabian Peninsula) extends into Southern Iraq and Jordan. Now, here's the thing, when you grow up in a country as vast as Australia, pissant little places like the Middle East and its internecine rivalries, political boundaries and racial divides and mass of "regions" are a joke. How many kilometres from Mecca to Beirut?

Less than 1,500 kilometres. That's less than Adelaide to Alice Springs, which I have driven many times.

So, if it makes you feel better you can insert "Middle East" instead of "Arabic", but it doesn't change the fact that A) I said "Arabic/Islamic", giving me greater scope and b) Arabs (people of Arabic ethnicity) live in Lebanon.

Try googling "Haditha", dickhead. Or how about "Mahmudiyah"?

Moron. First you ignore western reporting and then you disregard what is all but eyewitness testimony.



Proves three things: 1) that you have never fired an AK 47 in your life, 2) that you are perfectly willing to commit war crimes and 3) that you are perfectly willing to commit murder.

HOW did it happen?

Did the Yanqui pig-dog bastard crusaders say "Look! A pregnant Iraqi. Shoot her. Then there will be one less Muslim baby to grow up and turn into a terrorist."?

Or did the US troops manning a clearly defined, easy to see and oft-encountered checkpoint see a vehicle that refused to slow down or stop at the clearly defined, easy to see checkpoint and that then refused to slow down or stop after numerous signals for it to do exactly that? Did the US troops manning the easy to see checkpoint then follow standard operating procedure when facing a potential suicide car bomber and shoot at the vehicle to prevent it reaching the checkpoint and detonating. A detonation that would kill US troops and Iraqi civilians?

Did a pregnant woman die? Yes.

How did she die? She apparently committed suicide-by-grunt. You know, like the LA speciality suicide-by-cop.

Therefore, not a War Crime.

Reply to zerbot565

aye that is a key question about this war , what has been accomplished.

Let me tell you what has been accomplished

-Iraq has turned into a safe haven for terrorists.

-More than half a million Iraqis dead.
Yes terrorists have killed more civilians,but who started the War and Increased the terrorist population?

-From Abu Gharaib events to US security companies harassing,killing,rapping civilians have all added up to the Chaos.

-Oil is being drained out and fuel tankers are making Runs to the US.

-The Zionists who control the US for their own purposes have got what they needed (the aim is to protect Israel and don’t let any other powers rise around it that might be a future threat Eg.Economically,millitarily).

Who paid the price?
The US and the Iraqi people.

yeah it makes me feel much better if you say middle east media cause its stretches from west to east and covers i doono know 10 countries or more,
i know just checking if you know.

please enlighten me what our troops and my friends are doing in afganistan under u.n and nato lead forces , you dont have to be Delta operator or 75 Ranger , but if you want to call the u.n or nato merch then go ahead its your call

www.poppyformedicine.net...

black and white , legal drug trade by my opinion , they are just there to secure the legal drug trade to our medicin compaines.

oh you to have fired an ak replica then you know its a fairly slow shooting rifle with little kick back compared to many other rifles with its velocity about 700/ms but then again you might be the trigger happy fellow and have it on auto fire all the time ...

the problem i have with this war you see is that its a war based on lies , you had your 9/11 incident and you wanted someones head to roll , you went to afganistan to find bin laden or the one responsible, with no luck then you shift strategies since your war already costed a hefty part of your yearly budget and start calling it a war on "terror" and then you start to acuse saddam of having mwd´s , which he had at one point in mid 90´s, with u.s and french and english aproval.
but no luck there either , no mwd´s but you got your chance to finish what bush senior started and viola you got him hanged , now the tricky part you see with this is that if you your self say its u.n sanctioned or aproved war then saddam and your "incident" soldiers should have been trialed in haag just as everyother war criminal and not by domestic means but since they wherent i guess this isnt a war but an unjust occupation of a country which has led to famine and other atrocities which you seam to have a blind eye agains.


--


ok since you see me as some contra americanism thinker for not beliving the iraqie and afganistan war was justifyed or that abu grabi is one incident , i thought it was several incidents that go under " one name " that spanned over a longer period then 3 year, same goes for guantanamo but ill accept your challenge and start searching the net for these separate incidents , you want em from one source or can i use 2 or 3 diffrent sources for each reference , are civilians who died of their wounds in hospital counted as a victim or does it have to be direct killings , can i use iraqie body count pages that have over 100k victims/incients or does that count as one incident, are the prison flights and prisons in eastern europe counted as one incident or incidents , can i use blackwater(the us merch group) as a reference or haliburton or are thouse aswell just counted as one incident as they go under the same firm ? or should we just say that the whole span of this war 5 years if i remember correcty just as one incident ?

you know that if it is a repeted action it is no longer an incident.

Well, shouldn't it? Are you saying you don't want negative news reported at all?

Ignores the fact that my first definition was perfectly correct. You obviously missed my listing of the modern countries that make up the Levant, not to mention Iraq and Yemen...



No. No. No. Our troops are in Uruzgan province. I don't believe they are guarding poppy fields.

www.abc.net.au...



Oh ho. A quick change of tack there. I guess I'm to blame for jumping to conclusions, you caught me hook, line and sinker with that one. Nice work. More fool me for following your anti-US spiel and your use of "my former team-mates" and assuming you were talking about contractors and warlards. Tell me, no, tell us, exactly what you meant by "old team-mates".

Of course it's a legal drug trade. What do you think medicine is?



Now who's jumping to conclusions?



Compared with a Lee-Enfield, yes. With an Austeyr? No. And there aren't too many people I know that call 600 rpm from an assault rifle slow.



Got a secret for you: muzzle velocity doesn't automatically equal kick.

AK 47 - 700m m/s
M16 – 900+ m/s
Austeyr – 900+ m/s

But cartidge size and calibre and stock design have a little something to do with it.



Unlikely as I personally prefer a bolt-action...



My problem is that the post-invasion occupation was so piss-poorly planned that we got the mess we're in today.



I'll take that "you" as a general reference.



Oops. Still convinced I'm a Yank, even after I've specifically stated I'm not. Do keep up, there.



Not me, mate. I went to Cambodia to work.



Um, what do you call someone who continues to use or repeat a failed strategy?



Really, now you're saying the French were pro-Iraq War '03? Before it was the Germans you were mentioning, now it's the French, have you got a flippin' clue what you're talking about? Do you remember all that "Freedom Fries" crap? And this was after you had the opportunity to Google Rumsfeld+old+Europe.

Here, try this

www.google.com...



More clueless ranting. Bush senior specifically sought UN-backing and a broad coalition to eject Saddam from Kuwait and once that had been achieved, (and the UN Security Council Resolution enforced) he stopped. Bush senior specifically did not invade Iraq. He made a real point of not doing it. You really don't know squat, do you?




What has the orchestra go to do with it?



It was.



The ICC only has jurisdiction over party states.



Or it could be that you don't know anything about international law. As I said, the ICC only has jurisdiction over party states. Or it can follow a referral from the UNSC. The ICC is also not retroactive. The ICTY is an ad hoc tribunal, established before the ratification of the ICC treaty. Saddam's crimes in Kurdistan were committed long before the ICC treaty promulgation in 2002.



Uh huh. Who mentioned the trio of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah? That's me, blind in one eye when it comes to offences by US forces.



You can use two or three sources, or as many as you want. But each source will be subjected to the same scrutiny and (of course) two or three sources mentioning one incident is still one incident. Civilians who die of their wounds after being directly targeted by Coalition forces are fair game. Civilians who died of their wounds because they were caught in the crossfire are out. Civilians who die on the spot after being directly targeted for operational reasons (such as the woman at the checkpoint) are also out.

Yes you can list Balckwater. But that is a separate category to US forces and cannot be put on a list involving coalition combat troops as they are not liable under US/UK/Aust/Polish et al military law.

A repeated action in a single place is still a single incident if it is by the same perpetrators to the same victims. Abu Ghraib therefore counts as one entry. As does the Mahmudiyah incident. As does the My Lai massacre. However, a repeated action by the same group to different victims in a locality/area consists of different incidents.

Your list will need to by column form or otherwise complete the following criteria:

Incident/location:
Nationality/unit:
Crime:
Victim(s):
Investigated: y/n
Charged: y/n
Prosecuted: y/n
Incarcerated: y/n

Oh, and one more thing

Story broken by western media: y/n

mabye you should google then who gave saddam the mwd´s in the first place and with whos aproval , my point,

im not asuming your an american but i asume you do back the war over there hence i use the term " you "

so what your saying is that the lives lost in 9/11 justifyes the loss of 1.1 million iraqies in this current " war " , aint that abit hypocritic ?

The US military has no official position on the matter as of yet so I'm not sure what you expect me to believe.

Look, I'm no fan of the media anywhere as it has been proven quite often to be a manipulative tool. This is why most people know not to believe everything you see or read right away. I don't know if you are referring to me but I'm not assigning equal credibility to anyone, I'm reserving my judgment till the facts come out. As I said MANY times, it could be propaganda but I don't know (neither do you) and apparently neither does our military.

The military has said they don't know exactly what happened yet. That it is currently under investigation.

So giving them the benefit of the doubt or not is irrelevant to the fact that they themselves say they are unsure at this current time. I'll take them at their word that they don't know. That means I am giving them credibility, and trusting that (as I've said already) no one knows for sure what happens and it's possible that this was the result of an attack on an Iraqi woman. Surely I should not rule out all possibilities because I want the truth to be as I wish it to be? I know that when it comes to war anything in terms of abuses is possible to happen. Hunting for a desired truth is not justice it is bias and more proof that justice here in the States is never blind. That said I will wait to see what the facts turn out to be and remain objective like most truth-seekers should.

I feel like I am repeating myself here.

- Lee