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

still dosent change the fact that he was taugth by the us military complex

i guess he just repeted what he did in battle

reply to post by zerbot565

The World Socialist Website? Oh, yeah, now they won't be slanting anything on there!

Guys that do come back with some form of PTSD are treated by the military. No one I knew had it, but we got all sort of lectures we had to go to about it.








[edit on 13-1-2008 by jerico65]

well you dont have to read it if you dont want

probobly just as reliable as fox or smh or NY times ,

Originally posted by zerbot565
well you dont have to read it if you dont want

probobly just as reliable as fox or smh or NY times ,

FINALLY, we agree!!!! You got that right! Probably just as reliable as the rest of the rags out there!!

im an happy we can do that

Originally posted by GT100FV
30 individuals out of countless hundreds of thousands

Taking you seriously, you seem fail to understand that all these "bad apples" that were in Abu Ghraib, which I listed earlier in this topic, were in same unit. They were all in same unit! Don't you understand? They are not some single cases around the military, but whole team of lunatics and perverts. If there would have been only few individuals in Abu Ghraib that took part in dehumanization and torture, it would be OK to say that there were only few "bad apples".

Do you really believe, that these kind events surface in public every time they take place in reality? I don't think so, and I don't actually mind if you do. If all of the team/unit/whatever are all brutes, how do you think that things will come to light? No one in such teams will never tell anything, that they know were over boundary of humane behaviour, to their superiors unless they know that they superior is same type.

Originally posted by GT100FV
B-Iraq has a government. The US is working with that government and the Iraqi military/police. I'm sorry, but the insurgent as freedom fighter isn't gonna fly. They are criminal thugs desperately trying to hold onto power, influence, and relevance, in a Post Saddam world, and trying to make sure that democracy is unsuccessful.

Iraq government is not quite popular amongst it people. Insurgents are no less criminals than allied occupation forces. In fact, I believe they have more justification to fight than allied do.

You know, about the legality of the occupation: What if you were interrogating a criminal suspected of murder, and here's how it goes:

Police(you): So where were you as the murder took place?
Criminal: Umm, I was with my wife at home.
Police: No, you weren't, you were seen at the scene.
Criminal: Eh, maybe I took a jog, yes I was jogging, didn't recall it first.
Police: You were saw leaving by a car yet you tell us you were jogging?
Criminal: Umm, yes I came there with a car, took a jog, and left with a car.

Above is an example of same type scenario which took place with Iraq occupation. First Saddam was blamed of having MWD's, then he was accused of harbouring terrorist, then he was accused of killing innocent civilians and when the "justifications" all came to proven wrong, there wasn't anything else left that Allied brought up liberty and freedom, but instead of that, they managed to create chaos and misery. To me, they appear as guilty as is the criminal in preceding example.

But what comes into being soldier, I believe that every military man is a sort of madman, as they have established themselves with a system of violence and killing. Every man joining military knows he might have to kill and he is willing to take that chance. There are absolutely no justifications of taking up arms and go killing "enemies".

I hope that this time you will actually read what I'm saying, instead of spreading that random pro-american propaganda of yours.

Originally posted by v01i0
Above is an example of same type scenario which took place with Iraq occupation. First Saddam was blamed of having MWD's, then he was accused of harbouring terrorist, then he was accused of killing innocent civilians and when the "justifications" all came to proven wrong

To go just a little off-topic, when, exactly, was this?

"...then he was accused of killing innocent civilians...all came to proven wrong..."

I read what you were saying, your random anti-American propoganda is preventing you from actually knowing what has happened recently.

You do know what happened in Kuwait, don't you?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

I read what you were saying, your random anti-American propoganda is preventing you from actually knowing what has happened recently.

You do know what happened in Kuwait, don't you?

I don't personally know much of what happened in Kuwait, as I've never personally been there. Maybe you do, since you hint in that direction? Perhaps you will then enlighten me what happened in Kuwait?

My apologies if I fail to reply in near future - I'm leaving my "base" for some time and might not be able to hang in the net for a while

reply to post by v01i0


Okay, I'm pretty sure you're not stupid, so this isn't an insult, despite its obviousness...

1990 August - Iraq invades and then annexes Kuwait. The emir and cabinet flee to Saudi Arabia.

1991 January - Iraq fails to comply with a UN resolution ordering it to pull out. A US-led and UN-backed bombing aerial campaign begins in Kuwait and Iraq. By late February allied forces reach Kuwait City. Iraqi forces torch oil wells as they pull out

news.bbc.co.uk...

In 1991, the country was the scene of a massive US-led international military campaign to oust Iraqi forces, which had invaded the year before. Operation Desert Storm saw their eventual removal, but Kuwait's infrastructure was left in bad shape and had to be rebuilt. Oil exports stopped for a time.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Higher rates of mortality evident among Kuwaiti civilians who remained in Kuwait during occupation...

...The State of Kuwait's initial public health claims had been based largely on a preliminary analysis of trends in mortality and morbidity (as measured by hospital admissions) which suggested that morbidity and mortality rates among Kuwaitis had risen after the invasion and had remained elevated for several years.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Although most of the collection looted from Kuwait's National Museum
has been recovered, almost all the jewellery, Islamic art and other
works taken from wealthy Kuwaitis by the Iraqis during the six-month
occupation has vanished. Only a few pieces have surfaced on the
international art market, and none of it was found in Iraq after the
war in 2003.

listhost.uchicago.edu...

And no, I haven't been there. I wasn't trying to imply something "spooky", but I know servicement who were there immediately afterward. Their descriptions weren't exactly Katrina-like, but they were bad enough.

reply to post by zerbot565


Could you try to refrain from using cliches- i.e. military industrial complex.
There is the US military, and there are defense contractors who build the equipment. Soldiers are not trained by the military industrial complex.

reply to post by zerbot565


RE-Worldwide socialist news(or whatever it's called)
Not even close to being as accurate as the websites you compared it to.

reply to post by v01i0


I've seen plenty of examples in my time in service where you had a bunch of bad apples in one unit(squad, platoon, company size element), but the rest of the battalion was squared away in terms of behavior and professionalism. You still can't use that example as an indicator for widespread indiscipline in the military.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


OK, just a quick reply before I have to depart:

I'm not sure why you are referring to Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 90's? Well, it was absolutely true, that back then Allied troops really had justification for the attack. I was however referring to the latest invasion which took place in 2003, based on suspected WMD's and Iraq's support for terrorists. If you read Hans Blix's book Disarming Iraq there is quite good change that Iraq had destroyed most of it's WMDs unilaterally back in 1993 if I recall correctly. He suspects that it is the main reason why there were never significant amounts of WMDs found after 2003 invasion.

And what comes into Iraq harbouring terrorists, isn't it obvious that Iraq wasn't leading supporter of terrorism, since after the "successful" invasion, the terrorism only increased and world has become more insecure since then.

Keeping above in mind, it is obvious that coalition that invaded Iraq, systematically made up false excuses after previous ones had been exposed; just like the criminal in my above example.

The only good thing that US army did, was that it released Iraq of the tyrant. But even back in Saddam's times, things were lot better for commoner than they are today.

Originally posted by v01i0

Iraq government is not quite popular amongst it people. Insurgents are no less criminals than allied occupation forces. In fact, I believe they have more justification to fight than allied do.

The Iraqi government was voted on by a majority of it's citizens(moreso than in US elections), and they risked death to vote. I'm not sure how you can say it's not legitimate. Of course some people will find it unpopular(just like Republicans and Democrats dislike the other's ideas, programs)
The Iraqi security forces and government don't view the US as criminals, nor do much of the population. What percentage of the population has to welcome us with open arms before we lose criminal status in your view?

But what comes into being soldier, I believe that every military man is a sort of madman, as they have established themselves with a system of violence and killing. Every man joining military knows he might have to kill and he is willing to take that chance. There are absolutely no justifications of taking up arms and go killing "enemies".

I hope that this time you will actually read what I'm saying, instead of spreading that random pro-american propaganda of yours.

Military personnel understand that they may be called upon to kill- this is true. According to you, nothing is worth fighting for, and anyone willing to do so has a screw loose.

here's a couple of quotes you should read-

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)"

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

I don't want to keep reading through a lot of back-and-forth swipes and personal opinions so I'll just ask this in an attempt to stay on topic:

Any new information?

- Lee

I don't know if these articles were posted before as it's a little frustrating to wade through most of the ridiculous baiting and posturing in this thread but I have noticed that a few more sources are reporting on the beating of a pregnant woman as a possible motivation:

Conflicting Reports Over Death Of U.S. Soldiers

Report Suggests Abuse Of Iraqi Civilians May Have Led To Deaths

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- There are new allegations about why an Iraqi soldier killed two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, including Sgt. Benjamin Portell of Bakersfield.

Several Internet reports have stated that the reason the Iraqi soldier turned on his American counterparts was because one of the soldiers was allegedly beating a pregnant woman near the northern city of Mosul. ABC-turnto23.com

Investigation under way after Iraqi soldier shoots two U.S. troops in Mosul

(snip)

In a statement released Saturday night, an anti-American Sunni group identified the Iraqi soldier as Qaisar Saadi al-Jubory and said he shot the Americans after their unit refused to stop beating a pregnant woman. Dallas news

Here the Military (first time?) outright denies the accusation. For a while they simply stated that the matter was under investigation. Maybe they have now ruled this out.

Military denies rumor about soldier's death

Last Updated: Monday, Jan 7 2008 10:09 PM

Military officials in Iraq and the United States are denying a rumor that an Iraqi serviceman who killed two soldiers, including one from Bakersfield, fired shots because their unit beat a pregnant woman.

The Bakersfield Californian

In this article a commander from the Iraqi army gives a different story and claims that the troops were attacked and that the Iraqi soldier in question took the opportunity to shoot the troops he was on patrol with.

The commander of the Iraqi army's 2nd Division, Brigadier-General Mutaa al-Khazraji, told Reuters the U.S. soldiers were killed during a joint patrol in Hermat in western Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad.

The patrol "was attacked by gunmen and the soldier abused the situation and killed the two soldiers. The soldier was an insurgent infiltrator," Khazraji said.

Reuters.com

No name of the alleged pregnant woman yet, nor any other witnesses to this event it that could corroborate the alleged attack on any Iraqi woman. I wish we had more info on this Iraqi soldier. I'm curious as to how long he played Iraqi soldier before this event. Suddenly shooting officers and then running away just doesn't seem too much like a well thought out plan for a secret insurgent spy considering how much damage he could have really done to US troops via suicide bombs but then again he ran away after the shootings so it does seem as if he wanted to live.

Strange but of course it isn't out of the realm of possibility either.

I hope they do get to the bottom of this.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma
I don't want to keep reading through a lot of back-and-forth swipes and personal opinions so I'll just ask this in an attempt to stay on topic:

Any new information?

- Lee

I think this turned into a general debate about Iraq about 20 pages ago.

reply to post by v01i0


You said it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.

In your "false" justifications for the invasion you included WMDs (correct), terrorism (debatable, but NOT Al Qaeda) and the killing of innocent civilians. You then said all had been proven untrue.

Correct on WMDs: there were none. Correct on Saddam-Al Qaeda links, there were none. But, Saddam had harboured terrorists and paid bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Killing of innocent civilians? No, I don't think you were correct there. I think it has been fairly conclusively proven his regime, and therefore "he", did that.

Originally posted by jerico65
The Marine murdered a fellow Marine. You mean to tell me in the US, civilians don't murder other civilians???

That marine murdered two marines and a fetus, knowing with much
certainty that the woman was pregnant. He shot her in the back twice,
tried to decapitate her, and burned the body, and buried the remains
in his yard.

GI JOE!

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
This is the only source? Some blog?

I find this highly questionable and not believable at all. Maybe Caesar is lying.

Pure propaganda, at best!

Where are the English sources, as I cant read Arabic.
I cant even find ANY LEGIT new stories about 3 American soldiers who were shot dead by an Iraqi carrying a gun.




And bloodthirsty soldiers? That is insulting to this military wife and a lie.




[edit on 5-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Insulting? Deny Ignorance? Your husband is ignorant. Defending a country which uses his good gesture of defending it so rightiously as nothing more than charity. He's just a tool to occupy in the middle east in hopes of one day having it become part of the european or soon to be african union, Which also means american will be free to set its oil prices.