CIA death squads operating in Iraq

I'm pretty sure we got that same answer after Desert Storm from Colin Powell, but of course, he sees things different now.

That was merely my opinion, I did not state that it was fact. Sory about the confussion.

I think I've argued my point on the opposition not being terrorists enough already. Bombs that kill indiscriminately have been used by the U.S. since the start of this war. Just about nothing can be done about it and its certainly not indicative that what is taking place is terrorism.

Than what is it indicative of? The US has a preference for using guided munitions in urban enviroments. Nowadays the unguided weapons are used in open areas only, and even then they are used on large targets(ie troop concentrations).

[Edited on 22/3/04 by COOL HAND]

As I recall, this isn't a discussion about the ethics of invasion. Yeah, there's ups and there's downs, now cope and how about we get back on track, okay?

These hit squads tread a very fine line. yes, some of their actions protect soldiers, but what happens when innocents get caught in the middle, or misidentified as threats? Are we any better than those we're fighting? This isn't a question of guided munitions, it's a question of America taking excessive liberties to bring a country under its control.

How is a person identified as a threat? In fact, this whole argument smacks of secret policing. Label an outspoken critic of American rule a terrorist, and the next mornign SEALs go adn cap his ass. I don't like it, either way.

DE

Originally posted by Leveller
Am I? What exactly do you think state sponsored terrorism is? Do you think that it's something that governments only use against people outside of it's borders? Do you not think death squads and militias are terrorists?
You seem to show no understanding of what terrorism is. If you think it's just a few men in Arab headress placing bombs under cars, you are sadly mistaken.

You are wanting to turn history on its end and make all governments who kill their own people terrorists. Iraq's ruling party was cruel and oppressive. They weren't legitimate terrorists.

And it was only 300,000? I could even be forgiven for stating a million, as 300,000 is a horrifyingly large number in itself. But I'm not even wrong in stating that it was a million. Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

What? You're blaming Saddam for warring with Iran when the U.S. gave him the weapons to do so? The U.S. wanted him to do that. If we hadn't Iran would have taken over Iraq.

This figure doesn't even take into account those who died from hunger and disease whilst Saddam fiddled the accounts of the Oil For Food programme.

The war was not over these reasons. This also is incredibly off topic.

You also state that "You're damn right I have the gall to ignore the dead of another country", yet you're hypocritical enough to use those dead as the basis for your argument.

No. I was showing how the United States has never given a crap about other country's plight. I have to make my points somehow. You are really going in circles with this.

Sure, you don't like to see your military policing the world, but if you realised that's the only way to safeguard your style of life, I'd be pretty sure that you'd be supporting them in a second. Do you think all of the commodities that your country wastes, all of the amenities that enable you to live in comparitive luxury come for free? Now and again you have to pay for what you get. Do you think the rest of the world would sit by and let you rape it's resources without at least safeguarding those supplies?

The U.S. does not make it a point to save people from their own governments and we certainly didn't go to war this time for that reason either. I thought we went over this?

You also show a mind-numbing disregard for history - from World War 1 to Korea, from World War 2 to Bosnia - the US has continually been saving people from their own governments.

WHAT? The U.S. entered WWI for the publicly given reasons of the sinking of the Lusitania which killed some Americans and a German intelligence intercept wanting Mexico and Japan to attack the U.S. with their assistence.

The Korean conflict was to stop the communist North from overtaking the South, which was NOT an act of saving people from their governments, but from saving people from a different government.

The U.S. entered WWII to go after Japan that attacked us on 12/7/41, and to stop the Axis from taking over Europe. No saving people from their governments there either.

Bosnia? We were too late to stop the genocide when we went. The reason was to stop Serbian agression and stabilize the southern europe region before the Serbs took over any further territory. If it was a humanitarian effort, it was a grand failure.

Who is the one clutching at straws?

Please take the straw out of your hand, you look silly holding it.

Leveler: "It's so easy to criticise the injustices when you're sitting on your lard (c) and eating burgers, ain't it? "

Well put, as you criticize someone by calling them names. You tell them they don't use FACTS and you use none.

"While you're at it, entirely disregard the independant polls that were recently held in Iraq which shows that most Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone and most think their quality of life is better."

This is the closest you come to a fact and it's laughable. What "independent" polls? That BBC one you reference is absurd.

"But of the 2,500 people questioned, 85% said the restoration of public security must be a major priority...

About 6,000 interviews were carried out in total, half in Autumn last year and half this Spring, in a project run by Oxford Research International....

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war..."

AND THE KICKER

"The survey shows overwhelming disapproval of political violence, especially of attacks on the Iraqi police but also on American and other coalition forces.

But among Arabs, nearly one in five told the pollsters that attacks on coalition forces were acceptable.

About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.

Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was right than wrong, although 41% felt that the invasion "humiliated Iraq"."

So 20% of the population thinks that attacks on the coalition are "acceptable, 41% feel they were humiliated, and 15% think the US should get out even BEFORE they get a government of their own.

Good poll, you should feel proud. There IS hope in Iraq, but it's overshadowed by all the fear and anger.

Oh here's one you missed.

"And only just over a third of people report that their electricity supply is good. "

One third! Since LAST MARCH! Go USA!


You also wrote: "Heelstone. Whatever you think is irrelevant. Wether or not you want me banned is irrelevant. The fact remains that you ignore truth to get your point across. That's about the only relevance here."

Read above to see significance. That sound you hear is your pathetic argument losing all its air.

As to the actual thread topic:

I guess if there's CIA death squads operating in the USA targetting American citizens then it's okay to have them operate in Iraq. I mean, these people get PERFECT intelligence info and they're NEVER wrong about this things. Why bother having to try and convict someone when you can just put a bullet in them? Isn't that what Jesus would want? Cold blooded murder in America's name?

jako

Originally posted by DeusEx
As I recall, this isn't a discussion about the ethics of invasion. Yeah, there's ups and there's downs, now cope and how about we get back on track, okay?

Thank you. Honestly, I make one comment about the issue of calling the continued Iraqi opposition terrorists and I'm jumped on and have people take the thread in a wholly different direction. Thread derailment seems to be a key point for many proponents of the Iraq occupation here.

Keep to the issue at hand. I'm not going to go at it anymore in this thread.

Heelstone. I love it. Whenever there's something you can't answer it's off-topic. Your answers seem to be the one's that lead in circles.
So there's such a thing as legitimate terrorism?
Yes I am blaming Saddam for warring with Iran. Whatever you might think, the fact is that he invaded first and his political aspirations were to bring the whole of Arabia under his rule. Kuwait is just another little pointer that you probably can't remember.
Even if you disregard the war you still have 600,000 state sponsored executions that you conveniently overlook. And don't forget Anfal.
Oil For Food deaths are relevant and yet again not off topic if we were considering the number of deaths Saddam was accused of. Yet again the off-topic argument comes into play but fails you miserably.
Your arguments that the US never gets involved in wars to save people from other governments are merely a play on words. Even if the sinking of the Lusitania was the justification for World War 1 it still totally disregards the political events that took place at that time and also swayed US policy. Personally, I don't believe the sinking of one passenger liner had jack to do with American war entry. Then we have a sort of admission from you regarding Bosnia. You admit that the US got involved to save the people there but try to muddy the waters by saying they were too late. Sorry. That one doesn't wash. The intent was still there, just as it is in Kosovo today.

Jakomo. Nice selective use of the poll results there. Oh my God!!! 20% of the Iraqis believe that US forces are legitimate targets? Ummm. Do the maths. That means 80% don't. Whichever way you try to spin the poll, the majority still come out in favour of coalition action. Gotta give you credit for trying though.


Heelstone. The straws aren't in my hand anymore. I think that you've taken them and built a house with them.

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Leveller]

Leveller: "Jakomo. Nice selective use of the poll results there. Oh my God!!! 20% of the Iraqis believe that US forces are legitimate targets? Ummm. Do the maths. That means 80% don't. Whichever way you try to spin the poll, the majority still come out in favour of coalition action. Gotta give you credit for trying though. "

HAHA! Read it again. You're saying that having 1 in 5 people out there willing to KILL YOU is okay because it means there are 4 who don't?! Um, seem a little twisted to you?

The MAJORITY of Iraqis want to see the US out of Iraq, and if that doesn't happen, they want to see US soldiers DEAD and out of their country. Why do you think there are still massive protests and unrest in the whole country? Because the US Administration has totally messed things up in a huge way, first by waging an illegal war, then by militarily occupying a foreign country and not having a frickin POST WAR PLAN.

And who pays for the Administration's screw-ups? Soldiers and civilians who are getting blown apart every single day.

I'm glad you feel proud and you feel that all these people lives lost is justified, because you actually didn't have to lift a damn finger for any of it so your opinion is pretty much useless. Maybe you should talk to any of the millions of people worldwide who protested about the continued occupation on Saturday and ask them why they feel angry about all this. Because they're not crackpots or peaceniks, they're normal people who use their frickin common sense instead of jackboot-saluting their flag and wrapping themselves in nationalistic patriotic fervor.

Or maybe you should talk to the thousands of military families who marched on Washington last week, and explain to them that "Yes ma'am, your son died in Iraq so that we can save these poor godless Eye-rackis, even though they didn't ask us and they don't want it.".

I know one thing: Years from now when people point to the event that brought about the end of American economic and military and cultural dominance around the globe, it won't be 9-11 they point to, it'll be Iraq.

The war and the occupation are crippling your economy while your unemployment rates are jumping. Your goodwill has been squandered around the world, and eventually, when you can't afford to pay the bribes that keep your country afloat in diplomatic circles, the world will just sweep you off into the gutter where yesterday's garbage goes. Unless Bush goes, I guess, since a new administration could make all the difference, for better or for worse.

But don't believe it, that way at least it'll be a surprise for you. Everybody likes surprises, right?

jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
HAHA! Read it again. You're saying that having 1 in 5 people out there willing to KILL YOU is okay because it means there are 4 who don't?! Um, seem a little twisted to you?

And how many do you think would want to kill you before the invasion? 0 out of 5? Get real.

9 out of 10 cats also prefer Whiskas Supermeat.
Get over it.

Leveller: "And how many do you think would want to kill you before the invasion? 0 out of 5? Get real."

Hey take a history lesson. At LEAST 1 out of 5 Iraqis wanted to kill Americans BEFORE the war (12 years of indiscriminate bombing along the US-UK no fly zones and 12 years of crippling sanctions kind of does that to a population). Don't tell me to get real, you try getting educated.

Where was this "poll" done anyway? Baghdad? Karbala? The Sunni Triangle? Umm Qasr? The regionality makes a difference, but then I'm sure you don't give a hoot about that. A poll done on 2500 Iraqis is a pretty good snapshot of the whole entire country for you, right?

The only difference between now and 1991 is that Iraq is like a big buffet table for anyone who wants to spill some American blood. Come to Iraq, we have tons of GI's for you to take shots at. Why Jihad way over in the States when you don't even have to leave the continent! Name the US Vice-President and get a free clip of AK47 ammo and a raspberry smoothie!

They need to come out NOW.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Originally posted by Jakomo
Hey take a history lesson. At LEAST 1 out of 5 Iraqis wanted to kill Americans BEFORE the war (12 years of indiscriminate bombing along the US-UK no fly zones and 12 years of crippling sanctions kind of does that to a population). Don't tell me to get real, you try getting educated.

Great. You mention the no fly zones. They just happen to be the areas where support for the coalition is greatest. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there didn't you?
As for your 12 years of crippling sanctions. You completely overlook the Oil for Food programme. The Iraqis were allowed as much medecine and food as they wanted. Your mate Saddam refused to give it to them though.

Leveller: "Great. You mention the no fly zones. They just happen to be the areas where support for the coalition is greatest. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there didn't you?"

ROFL, no not quite. Good to see you've got such a grip on things.

The REASON why the former No Fly Zones are the safest is because there are little to NO U.S. troops there. British troops are focused on the South of Iraq while Northern Iraq is still pretty much controlled by the Kurds and regional tribes.

So yeah, there are less attacks against coalition troops in Northern and Southern Iraq because THERE ARE LESS COALITION TROOPS IN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN IRAQ. Let's call it Logic 101.

"As for your 12 years of crippling sanctions. You completely overlook the Oil for Food programme. The Iraqis were allowed as much medecine and food as they wanted. Your mate Saddam refused to give it to them though."

And yet after this was brought to the attention of the UN, the US was among the only countries in the world to still support the sanctions. Remember Madeleine Albright? Well she was Secretary of State at the time. She was asked about the fact that many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were being killed as a result of sanctions, and what did she say?

www.fair.org...

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96) "

This ain't no pencilpushing intern, this is the Secretary of State at the time. So let's say the Administration at the time knew what were the consequences and they thought it was "worth it". Now let's figure 20% of all Iraqis know about that (and it's low). So do they believe that the US gives a rat's azz about them?


Wanna try again?
Lemme boil it down for you:

"The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media. "

jako

[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by Jakomo

The REASON why the former No Fly Zones are the safest is because there are little to NO U.S. troops there. British troops are focused on the South of Iraq while Northern Iraq is still pretty much controlled by the Kurds and regional tribes.

Hang on a second. You're the one who was stating that the no-fly zones bred animosity by saying "years of indiscriminate bombing in the US/UK no fly zones" makes Iraqis want to kill Americans. Not me. You dragged the no-fly areas into your argument using them as a statement to back up hatred against coalition troops and now you're saying that there's no hatred there only because there aren't any troops in the no-fly zones?

Then where is Basra? Where is the British Army?

And do you honestly believe that US forces would be under attack by the Kurds? Their allies in the war? The whole reason that the North doesn't have to be policed is because US allies are already doing the job.

Yet again you accuse ignorance when, really, your argument has more holes in it than a sieve.





[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Leveller]

The whole reason that the North doesn't have to be policed is because US allies are already doing the job.

The whole reason we dont have our guys in "the safest areas" is because THEY ARE THE SAFEST AREAS! Use your brain! It would be a waste of man power to put them there!

And on the subject of "illegal war" what the hell is an illegal war? Who's law makes any war legal or illegal? And please, spare me the UN BS, the UN is not the boss of the US. In fact, the US would be better off cutting ties with the UN. Some facts - the UN threatened to take away the US position within the UN when we decided to cut our funding to 20% and operational forces from 31% to 25%. Now could someone please explain to me why one country is paying for 1/5th of "the UNITED nations" and providing 1/4th of it's power?

Im afraid i disagree with pretty much everything heelstone has said.

"Its a resistance force and its simply a lie to call it terrorism."
I may have thought the same thing.... but these people are bombing places like the UN HQ's and Iraqi Police HQ's. They're killing the people that are helping to get the country back on track? That's a resistance force against freedom and peace. these people ARE terrorists and ur an absolute idiot for saying they arent.

Originally posted by GeniusSage
seriouslly,. how #ing naive can you get?
ITS A WAR YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT

Be very, very, very careful who you call an idiot. I am a grown man, with more time behind a gun than you have on that computer of yours.

Mr. M

"Be very, very, very careful who you call an idiot. I am a grown man, with more time behind a gun than you have on that computer of yours.

Mr. M"

Im sure thats very true.... but, in reality, that doesnt mean you're points are valid

And what are my "points"? You justify yourself how? There is no justification for you. I posted a link to something I found interesting, and figured it might be a good topic to discuss on ATS, and you call me and idiot. An IDIOT!!! You're treading on thin ice...

Mr. M

will you be underneath it when it breaks?


anyway, what i meant was, by u mentioning youve had experience behind the gun, u think that means you cant possibly be an idiot.

Originally posted by GeniusSage
will you be underneath it when it breaks?


anyway, what i meant was, by u mentioning youve had experience behind the gun, u think that means you cant possibly be an idiot.

Look here. You are seriously pressing your luck with me. I suggest that you simply apologize, drop the subject, and carry on, because you are getting nowhere fast and in a hurry.

Mr. M

I may have thought the same thing.... but these people are bombing places like the UN HQ's and Iraqi Police HQ's. They're killing the people that are helping to get the country back on track? That's a resistance force against freedom and peace. these people ARE terrorists and ur an absolute idiot for saying they arent.



Wrong, I would have agreed that they are a resistance force if they only attacked military targets. Since they target indiscriminately, and have killed civilians in the process, then they have crossed the line into terrorists. They are trying to use terror as a means of achieving their goals. That makes them terrorists in my book.

I say they get what they deserve.