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

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Now now Lee.....

Did I once say I had proof? No!

I was just relaying a message I got from someone who is there...someone who reads local news....someone who talks to and mingles with the Iraqis every single day....someone who has friends in Mosul.

Yes, and you are presenting their message as proof that this story is false.

You said you spoke via email to someone in Iraq that is on the ground and this "person" has some sort of inside information that the story is completely false. That is claiming to have proof. How could it not be? If the opposite is presented or I claim to have a friend who is a villager where this event took place and he personally said the story is true what do you think the response would be?

I know exactly what it would be.
As well, it should be treated that way too.

Leo, when you claim to have personal information such as you did that refutes some controversial story or confirms it then yes you are claiming to have proof. You presented it as fact in this thread as if it should be believed.

Yes it is the same as the people that post word-of-mouth proof about UFO's, Aliens, Ghosts, Conspiracies...etc. Yes they are routinely asked to present the facts of this proof or their story is written off. That also should goes for the debunkers as well. You demanded facts in the beginning of this thread remember? Why do this? Well because someone claimed to have proof that two soldiers attacked a pregnant woman.

I'm not saying you didn't correspond with a soldier in Iraq I am saying...like with this story...I don't know if it is true therefore I need more information. I need what you need. Proof.

Either the proof you claim to have that proves this story absolutely false is presented or it should be ignored and therefore not even mentioned at all. Unless you show us the proof in which case it is credible.

- Lee

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

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:

Iraqi police and witnesses said the troops gunned down the woman and her cousin in their car. The U.S. military said the car entered a clearly marked prohibited area but failed to stop despite repeated signals; shots were fired to disable the vehicle]/b], it said.

Well its hard to KNOW what went through the soldiers mind.

I dont see how shooting at the people disables a car.

Those soldiers shouldnt be there in the first place, if they wernt there, she wouldnt have got shot.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Reply to _Phoenix_

Well its hard to KNOW what went through the soldiers mind.

They thought mightaswel Target practise.When the troops get bored they target practice a lot.

I dont see how shooting at the people disables a car.

What they meant was shooting the driver will Stop the car.If anyone else seen in the car than Shoot them aswel because they will take the driver position.
Thats how they Disable cars.

Those soldiers shouldnt be there in the first place, if they wernt there, she wouldnt have got shot.

That’s what I been tryna say from the Start.If the soldiers weren’t there than there wouldn’t have been more than half a million Iraqis dead and thousands of US troops dead.

Terrorists have not decreased but have increased rapidly.

What I don’t understand is why is the US soo keen in shedding their blood and Cash for the Zionists?

Why does the US have to do all the dirty work for Israel?

Let me get this straight....

No one can find any credible evidence that American soldiers kicked a pregnant woman. So now the topic gets turned inside out and upside down to talk about people getting killed at checkpoints that wouldn't have been there had the US not gone into Iraq to begin with...

That has NOTHING to do with the topic here. Nada.. Zip.. Zilch!!!

You can't come up with any proof to the topic at hand and now you have to bring up something else just to put these soldiers in a bad light.

That is pathetic people.

And to top it off, the 600k+ civilian death toll figure is an exaggeration:

ap.google.com...

To top that off, one of the people who co-authored the article stating 600k+ people were killed is Riyadh Lafta -- a man that served for 14 years under Saddam Hussein's health ministry. Does that make him guilty? No. But I have my reservations about his loyalties.

www.thelancet.com...

That is NOT the topic at hand. Want to talk about that, make a new thread! Just something I wanted to point out!

This thread is about American soldiers supposedly having kicked a pregnant woman. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Midav

That has NOTHING to do with the topic here. Nada.. Zip.. Zilch!!!

You can't come up with any proof to the topic at hand and now you have to bring up something else just to put these soldiers in a bad light.

That is pathetic people.

Its not pathetic, and it IS on topic, this thread wouldnt even excist if they wern't in Iraq.

Originally posted by kangjia57
They thought mightaswel Target practise.When the troops get bored they target practice a lot.

Right. And where did you come about with this info that US Troops just blast at anyone for laughs?

They aren't just shooting people for grins and giggles. If they shot an innocent person, they know that they'd be standing before the Man, trying to explain why they did just that.

Funny, when I was over there, I didn't think I was fighting for Israel.

Originally posted by jerico65




They aren't just shooting people for grins and giggles. If they shot an innocent person, they know that they'd be standing before the Man, trying to explain why they did just that.

Maybe not JUST for grin and giggle, but some like that part.

I know some soldiers have fun in war, its like a game to them. Here's one proof. I dont know whats really happening, but they are definitely laughing and having fun killing people.
www.youtube.com...
Cameras to record to watch for entertainment later on.

Ofcourse not all soldiers laugh when killing people, many are serious, sad and act mature, obviously. I dont like to generalize.






[edit on 10-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


I could say the same thing for insurgents. They tend to kill Americans while laughing and screaming Allah Akbar. CANT BELIEVE THEY THINK ITS A GAME!!

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by Midav

That has NOTHING to do with the topic here. Nada.. Zip.. Zilch!!!

You can't come up with any proof to the topic at hand and now you have to bring up something else just to put these soldiers in a bad light.

That is pathetic people.

Its not pathetic, and it IS on topic, this thread wouldnt even excist if they wern't in Iraq.

You just keep on telling yourself that.

As far as I care, I won't get any reasonable debate from this individual. Almost like saying we wouldn't have this debate if it weren't for the existence of water.

Back on topic.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


When shooting at a moving vehicle with automatic weapons, it is impossible to ensure the safety of the occupants. Your opinion of whether they should've been in Iraq isn't germane to that story. Every Iraqi knows what the rules are with regards to approaching checkpoints or convoys. They've been given fair warning that if you do A- then B- is going to happen.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Since we're on the topic of being on topic, I thought I'd do a little checking just to shed some illumination on the subject.

top·ic (tpk)
n.
1. The subject of a speech, essay, thesis, or discourse.
2. A subject of discussion or conversation.
3. A subdivision of a theme, thesis, or outline. See Synonyms at subject.
4. Linguistics A word or phrase in a sentence, usually providing information from previous discourse or shared knowledge, that the rest of the sentence elaborates or comments on. Also called theme.


en.wikipedia.org...
A contribution is on-topic if it is within the bounds of the current discussion and off-topic if not.

Internet trolls will sometimes post off topic messages deliberately on internet forums to aggravate members or hijack a discussion.

reply to post by _Phoenix_



First of all you're confusing elation at having won a firefight, with taking joy at killing random people. Marines and Soldiers tend to take a dim view on insurgents, especially when fired at by them. When you're in that situation, where your life and your buddies' lives are on the line, and your adrenaline's pumping, you're gonna feel pretty excited about eliminating that threat. If you'll also note- whomever posted that, isn't the same person that filmed it, as you may note the descrepancy in the youtube title, and content(and caption at the end- No unarmed people were harmed in the filming of this video).

reply to post by zerbot565


Just for the sake of argument, let's say that 1.1 million or so Iraqis have been killed, or 300k per year, or 25k per month. Could you enlighten us on which attacks have resulted in 800+ killed per day. For those numbers to be true, you'd have to have mass casualties much higher than anyone has noticed or reported, in high population density areas(which incidently are near media sources who might take notice). Assuming the media missed the explosions, the ambulances, the plumes of smoke, etc.. who is burying all of these people, and where? What of the family members complaining, or inquiring about their relatives? You couldn't have those numbers, if all those casualites were out in the middle of nowhere, where the population is sparse(there aren't enough insurgents to take them out one by one, and reach those casualty figures). The US isn't carpet bombing any cities either, or driving up and down the roads shooting everyone they see. When you consider that 99% of the violence is in 3 or 4 of the 18 Provinces, that narrows down the population centers even more. At some point in time, you have to stop and say- does that make any sense, or does it sound a bit far fetched? Not even Al Jazeera have made claims for casualty figures from attacks like that.

Originally posted by zerbot565
mabye you should google then who gave saddam the mwd´s in the first place and with whos aproval , my point,

That would be France. Among others.

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 ?

No. That's you putting words in my mouth. I have never said that. I am particularly offended by the ignorance that Cheney exploited when he linked Saddam with September 11. I was actually outraged when George Bush did the same during the presidential debates and after being corrected by Kerry wouldn't admit he was misleading the public.

I am also offended by the ignorance that puts the Iraqi body count at 1.1 million dead. In more than a decade of war it is estimated that Vietnam lost somewhere between 1 and 3 million and that required B52 bombing. In less than 4 years the Khmer Rouge killed or starved between 1 and 3 million to death and the evidence was all over the country to be seen by the naked eye. That's a country covered by jungle. Iraq is a desert, so where are the 1, 100, 000 bodies hiding?

No. Saddam's treatment of his own people justified regime change. Regime change that I supported. Regardless of whether or not he had Weapons of Mass Destruction (what, by the way, are "mwd's"?), regardless of the fact that he was not involved in any way whatsoever with the attacks of September 11. He was a bloody (in that he had blood on his hands) dictator who had invaded and looted another country (in Nuremburg terms that is "Waging a War of Aggression", a crime) after using chemical weapons on his own populace.

As I have said before, yes, I supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam. No, I didn't buy the whole WMDs smokescreen. I thought the issue was irrelevant. I didn't care whether he had them or not.

However, I, in foolish naivete, assumed that the US, with its experience in rebuilding Europe, Japan and South Korea would actually plan its post-hostilities occupation properly and include contingency plans.

What the world found out was that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W Bush were living in Wolkenkuckucksheim.

Originally posted by Midav

Let me get this straight....

No one can find any credible evidence that American soldiers kicked a pregnant woman.

and no one cant find any evidence that american soldiers DIDN´T kick a pregnant woman

to howl ,
so your saying that about 5 million iraqes are not on the run from their home country and that 4 m orphans need s a parent over there and that 1.1m iraqies didnt loose their life directly or indirectly cause of this war ,

i call it famin ,genocide and atrocity i could even call it a holocaust

reply to post by zerbot565


Where are the one million, one hundred thousand bodies that have accumulated since 2003?

Originally posted by zerbot565
and no one cant find any evidence that american soldiers DIDN´T kick a pregnant woman

So, in that case, you're automatically going to believe that they did.

Since most of what I read hasn't mentioned Word One about a pregnant woman, I'm willing to bet there wasn't one there.

here is one source citing the other

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

and heres the goodies

www.justforeignpolicy.org...

Originally posted by zerbot565
.....1.1m iraqies didnt loose their life directly or indirectly cause of this war , i call it famin ,genocide and atrocity i could even call it a holocaust

Well, I know that a lot of them are buried in the desert in mass graves. Those are the ones that Saddam killed, by the way.