Just more "collateral damage," shrugged off by those running this god-awful war, but remember, when you dismiss them as "a bunch of ragheads" that they had friends and relatives most likely, and in Arab culture these deaths MUST be avenged. For every terrorist we kill in Iraq we create three more.

These were not accidental deaths, however:

"A senior Iraqi police officer said autopsies on the bodies, which included five children, showed each had been shot in the head. Community leaders said they were outraged at the killings and demanded an explanation from the U.S. military.

Television footage showed the bodies in the Tikrit morgue -- five children, two men and four women. Their wounds were not clear though one infant had a gaping head wound."

[informationclearinghouse.info]

Stand tall, America.

What, we couldn't find a wedding party to bomb?

So you believe that US military personnel essentially executed those people by shooting them in the head? You can't be serious.

Gyrene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you believe that US military personnel
> essentially executed those people by shooting them
> in the head? You can't be serious.

You've forgotten the lessons of My Lai, haven't you?

Refurb,

I've no doubt the government hasn't forgotten My Lai and takes steps to prevent it from happening. 'course, there isn't enough evidence to support a massacre in that article to even consider relating My Lai to this event. So, with that in mind, I'm inclined to agree with Gyrene.

There are gaping holes in the story as presented by the article you linked. For example, there do not appear to be any witness to substanciate any claims that it was the Americans who killed the children. For all we know, the militant and/or someone else supporting him executed them with hope it'd be blamed on the Americans. I wouldn't pout it past a terrorist and/or his allies to do something like this.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:
> I've no doubt the government hasn't forgotten My
> Lai and takes steps to prevent it from happening.

Bush admitted killing 30,000 Iraqis and you think that's a sign we've learned anything?
We used illegal weapons like cluster bombs, depleted uranium, phosphorous and gas bombs to destroy 65% of the homes in Fallujah. We shot families trying to swim across the river to escape. This is all documented. We have no more regard for civilian life than did Sgt. Calley.

> For example, there do
> not appear to be any witness to substanciate (sic) any
> claims that it was the Americans who killed the
> children. For all we know, the militant and/or
> someone else supporting him executed them with
> hope it'd be blamed on the Americans.

Did you even read the article?

"The U.S. military said two women and a child died during the bid to seize an al Qaeda militant from a house. A senior Iraqi police officer said autopsies on the bodies, which included five children, showed each had been shot in the head."


> I wouldn't
> pout it past a terrorist and/or his allies to do
> something like this.

Who are the "terrorists?" The ones defending their homes and families from an illegally invading army? Or the ones using all the above mentioned illegal weapons in an illegal preemptive war, such as we hung Germans for perpetrating?

"Major Ali Ahmed of the Ishaqi police said U.S. forces had landed on the roof of the house in the early hours and shot the 11 occupants, including the five children.

"After they left the house they blew it up," he said.

Another policeman, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said autopsies had been carried out at Tikrit hospital and found "all the victims had gunshot wounds to the head".

The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed, Hussein said. Police had found spent American-issue cartridges in the rubble.

"It's a clear and perfect crime without any doubt," he said."

----

All the reasons were sold to go to war have proven to be lies. This war is lost, and the sooner we get our troops out the sooner the Iraqis will sort out their differences, no doubt at the cost of many more lives, but a least fewer Americans. Right now we are arming and empowering one side of a civil war, and the radical Islamists we say are behind attacks like 9/11 are our allies. This is nuts. This war is costing $100,000 a minute. Good thing its on credit. Only your children and their children will have to pay for it. Enjoy the "American dream" of the "good life." You're the last generation that will.

> Robert M Wrote:
> > I've no doubt the government hasn't forgotten My
> > Lai and takes steps to prevent it from happening.
>
> Bush admitted killing 30,000 Iraqis and you think
> that's a sign we've learned anything?
> We used illegal weapons like cluster bombs, depleted
> uranium, phosphorous and gas bombs to destroy 65% of
> the homes in Fallujah. We shot families trying to swim
> across the river to escape. This is all documented. We
> have no more regard for civilian life than did Sgt.
> Calley.

There's a vast difference between what is happening in Iraq and _execution style_ killings. And this assumes even a minute amount of what you said in this paragraph is true. Please cite your sources.

> > For example, there do
> > not appear to be any witness to substanciate (sic)
> any
> > claims that it was the Americans who killed the
> > children. For all we know, the militant and/or
> > someone else supporting him executed them with
> > hope it'd be blamed on the Americans.
>
> Did you even read the article?
>
> "The U.S. military said two women and a child died
> during the bid to seize an al Qaeda militant from a
> house. A senior Iraqi police officer said autopsies on
> the bodies, which included five children, showed each
> had been shot in the head."

Yes. The civilians were shot in the head. Please site a specific reference in the article (or anywhere else for that matter), that proves without a doubt Americans pulled the trigger.

> > I wouldn't
> > pout it past a terrorist and/or his allies to do
> > something like this.
>
> Who are the "terrorists?" The ones defending their
> homes and families from an illegally invading army? Or
> the ones using all the above mentioned illegal weapons
> in an illegal preemptive war, such as we hung Germans
> for perpetrating?

Uh, the member of Al Queda that was in the house.

> "Major Ali Ahmed of the Ishaqi police said U.S. forces
> had landed on the roof of the house in the early hours
> and shot the 11 occupants, including the five children.

Did he see them pull the trigger?

> "After they left the house they blew it up," he said.

Did he see them blow up the house?

> Another policeman, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said
> autopsies had been carried out at Tikrit hospital and
> found "all the victims had gunshot wounds to the head".

And, how does he know americans pulled the trigger?

> The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one
> room before the house was destroyed, Hussein said.
> Police had found spent American-issue cartridges in the
> rubble.

Of course American-issue cartridges will be found in the rubble. Americans were there. BTW, none of this proves Americans pulled the trigger.

> "It's a clear and perfect crime without any doubt," he
> said."

Lots of doubt, especially after reading the article.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:

> There's a vast difference between what is
> happening in Iraq and _execution style_ killings.
> And this assumes even a minute amount of what you
> said in this paragraph is true. Please cite your
> sources.

You read Australian PM Howard's mea culpa?
[www.opednews.com]

Bush admits killing 30,.000 Iraqis:
[www.freep.com]

> > > For example, there do
> > > not appear to be any witness to
> substanciate (sic)
> > any
> > > claims that it was the Americans who
> killed the
> > > children.

Duh. They killed everyone in the house, and then blew it up. And you want witnesses?

> Yes. The civilians were shot in the head. Please
> site a specific reference in the article (or
> anywhere else for that matter), that proves
> without a doubt Americans pulled the trigger.

The bodies were found bound and dumped in one of the rooms. Explain to me how one of them killed the others with his hands bound?

> Uh, the member of Al Queda that was in the house.

Al Qaeda is a philosophy of violent resistance to American hegemony, not a monolithic top-down controlled organization. At this point any Iraqi who resists our illegal occupation is being targeted as "Al Qaeda."

> Of course American-issue cartridges will be found
> in the rubble. Americans were there. BTW, none of
> this proves Americans pulled the trigger.

But it does, by your own admission, prove US troops were firing in the house. Do you thingk they were just firing in the air?

> Lots of doubt, especially after reading the
> article.

In the end it doesn't matter what you or I believe, Robert, but what the Iraqi people and their neighboring Arab brethren believe. There are ~26 million Iraqis, of whom we've killed by Bush's own admission 30,000. Each of those deaths must be avenged. The fact that our attack on Iraq was unprovoked and illegal by our own Nuremburg standards makes each of those deaths a war crime.

We called preemptive war "the supreme war crime" at Nuremburg and hung Germans for it. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 02:03PM by Refurbvirgin.

> Robert M Wrote:
>
> > There's a vast difference between what is
> > happening in Iraq and _execution style_ killings.
> > And this assumes even a minute amount of what you
> > said in this paragraph is true. Please cite your
> > sources.
>
> You read Australian PM Howard's mea culpa?
> [www.opednews.com]

A speech isn't factual evidence.

> Bush admits killing 30,.000 Iraqis:
> [www.freep.com]

And how many of them were soldiers firing on US troops? I did notice a sentence in the article that points out the numbers were taken from news reports....

> > > > For example, there do
> > > > not appear to be any witness to
> > substanciate (sic)
> > > any
> > > > claims that it was the Americans who
> > killed the
> > > > children.
>
> Duh. They killed everyone in the house, and then blew
> it up. And you want witnesses?

I want _proof_ an American pulled the trigger. Please provide the proof since it isn't in the article.

> > site a specific reference in the article (or
> > anywhere else for that matter), that proves
> > without a doubt Americans pulled the trigger.
>
> The bodies were found bound and dumped in one of the
> rooms. Explain to me how one of them killed the others
> with his hands bound?

I want _proof_ an American pulled the trigger. Please provide the proof since it isn't in the article.

> > Uh, the member of Al Queda that was in the house.
>
> Al Qaeda is a philosophy of violent resistance to
> American hegemony, not a monolithic top-down controlled
> organization. At this point any Iraqi who resists our
> illegal occupation is being targeted as "Al Qaeda."

It's also the name of a terrorist organization and you've yet to offer any proof that says the individual the Americans were after was just a plain ol' down home Iraqi.

> > Of course American-issue cartridges will be found
> > in the rubble. Americans were there. BTW, none of
> > this proves Americans pulled the trigger.
>
> But it does, by your own admission, prove US troops
> were firing in the house. Do you thingk they were just
> firing in the air?

This isn't proof they pulled the trigger of the firearm(s) that killed the civilians.

> > Lots of doubt, especially after reading the
> > article.
>
> In the end it doesn't matter what you or I believe,
> Robert, but what the Iraqi people and their neighboring
> Arab brethren believe.

Actually, what we believe does matter because that is why we're discussing the deaths of the individuals that died in this specific instance.

> There are ~26 million Iraqis, of
> whom we've killed by Bush's own admission 30,000. Each
> of those deaths must be avenged. The fact that our
> attack on Iraq was unprovoked and illegal by our own
> Nuremburg standards makes each of those deaths a war
> crime.

Please substanciate this and use better links than the ones you provided earlier in the post.

> We called preemptive war "the supreme war crime" at
> Nuremburg and hung Germans for it. I'll leave you to
> draw your own conclusions.

To compare the events that took place in WWII to Iraq is an insult to the memory of everyone who died at the hands of the Germans. Don't even go there, my friend.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Robert M Wrote:
> >
> > > There's a vast difference between what
> is
> > > happening in Iraq and _execution style_
> killings.

So you don't believe our troops murdered any prisoners at Abu Ghraib or Baghram or elsewhere in Bush's gulag? You poor dear deluded child.


> A speech isn't factual evidence.

So you're calling the Prime Minister of one of few major allies in this senseless, illegal war a liar?

> And how many of them were soldiers firing on US
> troops?

No doubt many of them were soldiers defending their country from an unprovoked illegal attack by a foreign nation.

> I want _proof_ an American pulled the trigger.
> Please provide the proof since it isn't in the
> article.

Dead men tell no tales. Nor do dead children. You want proof for something that was done where all possible direct witnesses were dead when the US troops left the house.
That's a higher standard of proof than you have for justifying any attack by the US on Iraq.

> It's also the name of a terrorist organization and
> you've yet to offer any proof that says the
> individual the Americans were after was just a
> plain ol' down home Iraqi.

Foreign fighters seldom bring their wives and kids to fight a guerilla war away from home.

> > > Of course American-issue cartridges
> will be found
> > > in the rubble. Americans were there.
> BTW, none of
> > > this proves Americans pulled the
> trigger.

On the contrary, the presence of American cartridges definitely prove "Americans pulled the trigger." Again, if all the bodies were found bound, who pulled the trigger on them if it wasn't Americans?

> Actually, what we believe does matter because that
> is why we're discussing the deaths of the
> individuals that died in this specific instance.

I was referring to the opinions of the hundreds of millions of Muslims whose hearts and minds we have to win if we are to win this war. It's because of stories like this, and the Abu Ghraib pics, and the refusal to obey Geneva conventions in our treatment of prisoners, and the massive bombing campaigns that kill tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that I believe we've already lost this war.

>> Please substanciate this and use better links than
> the ones you provided earlier in the post.

First of all, the word is spelled "substantiate."

Secondly - here's what our Nuremburg judges said:
"Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.""
[www.twf.org]

More here:
[www.google.com]

> To compare the events that took place in WWII to
> Iraq is an insult to the memory of everyone who
> died at the hands of the Germans. Don't even go
> there, my friend.

See the above links, my friend. Bush is a war criminal and we told the Germans they had a legal responsibility to stand up and oppose Hitler's actions. That may come back to bite us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2006 03:27PM by Refurbvirgin.

Don't believe anything lying, lefty, liberal, lunatics have to say!

Ruby Begonia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't believe anything lying, lefty, liberal,
> lunatics have to say!

Or people that don't know how to punctuate either! They are dangerous scoundrels intent on destroying that which distinguishes us from lower life forms... dramatic pauses!

---

> Robert M Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Robert M Wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's a vast difference between what
> > is
> > > > happening in Iraq and _execution style_
> > killings.
>
> So you don't believe our troops murdered any prisoners
> at Abu Ghraib or Baghram or elsewhere in Bush's gulag?
> You poor dear deluded child.

Actually, no. I do not believe it at this time. Offer factual evidence that shows our troops have murdered people execution-style and I'll consider changing my mind.

> > A speech isn't factual evidence.
>
> So you're calling the Prime Minister of one of few
> major allies in this senseless, illegal war a liar?

A speech isn't factual evidence. BTW, you constantly call Bush a liar. So, if his speeches can be riddled with lies, then it's plausible speeches from other politicians can contain falsehoods.

> > And how many of them were soldiers firing on US
> > troops?
>
> No doubt many of them were soldiers defending their
> country from an unprovoked illegal attack by a foreign
> nation.

Proof please.

> > I want _proof_ an American pulled the trigger.
> > Please provide the proof since it isn't in the
> > article.
>
> Dead men tell no tales. Nor do dead children. You want
> proof for something that was done where all possible
> direct witnesses were dead when the US troops left the
> house.

This is one of the primary problems with the article. It doesn't provide factual evidence of who killed these individuals. You and I can speculate as their identities but when it comes down to it, neither of us knows who commited the crime.

> That's a higher standard of proof than you have for
> justifying any attack by the US on Iraq.

No it isn't. I'm asking for basic proof, i.e. an eye witness, a connection between the bullet and the specific rifle that fired it, fingerprints, etc. My request isn't unreasonable.

> > It's also the name of a terrorist organization and
> > you've yet to offer any proof that says the
> > individual the Americans were after was just a
> > plain ol' down home Iraqi.
>
> Foreign fighters seldom bring their wives and kids to
> fight a guerilla war away from home.

Terrorists are known to hide amongst civilians.

> > > > Of course American-issue cartridges
> > will be found
> > > > in the rubble. Americans were there.
> > BTW, none of
> > > > this proves Americans pulled the
> > trigger.
>
> On the contrary, the presence of American cartridges
> definitely prove "Americans pulled the trigger." Again,
> if all the bodies were found bound, who pulled the
> trigger on them if it wasn't Americans?

That's a good question. It might have been other Iraquis. They've proven themselves more than willing to kill each other. It might've been terrorists in league with those who kill our soldiers and innocent Iraquis with bombs of all types. They've proven themselves more than willing to kill civilians (and each other). We'll have to speculate until there is _factual_ evidence of who fired the shots that killed these specific individuals. I'm not going to accuse our soldiers of a crime when there isn't any evidence they committed it.

> > Actually, what we believe does matter because that
> > is why we're discussing the deaths of the
> > individuals that died in this specific instance.
>
> I was referring to the opinions of the hundreds of
> millions of Muslims whose hearts and minds we have to
> win if we are to win this war. It's because of stories
> like this, and the Abu Ghraib pics, and the refusal to
> obey Geneva conventions in our treatment of prisoners,
> and the massive bombing campaigns that kill tens,
> perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
> that I believe we've already lost this war.

Reasonable speculation, even if it has nothing at all to do with who killed the individuals mentioned in that article.

> >> Please substanciate this and use better links than
> > the ones you provided earlier in the post.
>
> First of all, the word is spelled "substantiate."

It's a typo. Get over it.

> Secondly - here's what our Nuremburg judges said:
> "Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief
> U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called
> waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime
> differing only from other war crimes in that it
> contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
> whole.""
> [www.twf.org]

And I cannot comment further on this for several reasons. First, I don't want to risk taking his comments out of context. Second, it has nothing to do with the identity (or identities) of the individual or group of individuals who killed the people in the article. Feel free to start a new thread about waging an aggresive war and I'll consider commenting on it.

> More here:
> [www.google.com]
>
> > To compare the events that took place in WWII to
> > Iraq is an insult to the memory of everyone who
> > died at the hands of the Germans. Don't even go
> > there, my friend.
>
> See the above links, my friend. Bush is a war criminal
> and we told the Germans they had a legal responsibility
> to stand up and oppose Hitler's actions. That may come
> back to bite us.

While I have my issues with Bush, I will never compare him to Hitler. The differences between the two (as well as WWII and Iraq) are vast. If you want to talk about it, then start a new thread. It doesn't belong in a discussion about who killed the people in the article execution style.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, no. I do not believe it at this time.
> Offer factual evidence that shows our troops have
> murdered people execution-style and I'll consider
> changing my mind.

Torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib
[www.refuseandresist.org]

Prisoner Deaths in U.S. Custody
[www.sfgate.com]

> A speech isn't factual evidence. BTW, you
> constantly call Bush a liar. So, if his speeches
> can be riddled with lies, then it's plausible
> speeches from other politicians can contain
> falsehoods.

But Bush's lies are in support of his illegal war, and Howard is admitting it was based on lies. Big difference. One has motive to lie to cover up, the other doesn't.

> Proof please.

So you want me to prove that Iraqi troops resisted our invasion and were killed for it?
LOL!

> This is one of the primary problems with the
> article. It doesn't provide factual evidence of
> who killed these individuals. You and I can
> speculate as their identities but when it comes
> down to it, neither of us knows who commited the
> crime.

Only US troops went into the building, and only US troops came out. The Iraqi police that we train and fund are the ones making the allegations that the US killed these civilians. Latest report is that there was an Al Qaeda member in the building, but that still doesn't excuse killing everyone to get him.

> No it isn't. I'm asking for basic proof, i.e. an
> eye witness, a connection between the bullet and
> the specific rifle that fired it, fingerprints,
> etc. My request isn't unreasonable.

I have no access to such info. And I doubt any subsequent investigation will determine proof to the level you request. You apparently hold me to a different standard of proof than you accept from the Bushis who took us to war to preempt a non-existent threat. The important thing, from the perspective of anyone who really wants to accomplish the goal of stabilizing the country with a government that is at least not hostile to us is that the villagers all BELIEVE the US murdered these people, and that's the way it's being reported to the Muslim world. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing. We got one Al Qaeda bad guy and created the necessity for vengeance for ten other lives.
Dumb Rumsfeld and dumber.

> Terrorists are known to hide amongst civilians.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends, hence we are the world's #1 terrorist, e.g. "Shock & Awe."

> That's a good question. It might have been other
> Iraquis.

They were all alive when we went in, and all dead when we came out.

> > First of all, the word is spelled
> "substantiate."
>
> It's a typo. Get over it.

You keep repeating it so I thought you'd appreciate correction so you don't look foolish mispelling it the rest of your life. Some people just can't accept help.

> While I have my issues with Bush, I will never
> compare him to Hitler. The differences between the
> two (as well as WWII and Iraq) are vast.

Actually, there are lots of similarities:
[www.dissidentvoice.org]
More here:
[www.google.com]

> Robert M Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Actually, no. I do not believe it at this time.
> > Offer factual evidence that shows our troops have
> > murdered people execution-style and I'll consider
> > changing my mind.
>
> Torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib
> [www.refuseandresist.org]
>
> Prisoner Deaths in U.S. Custody
> [www.sfgate.com]

Thank you for offering some factual evidence. However, the vast majority of the list undercuts your assertion. For example, shootings during a riot, dereliction of duty, shot while attempting escape, mercy killing, shot in fighting before capture, natural causes or by accident, etc. Do you even read the content before linking it?

> > A speech isn't factual evidence. BTW, you
> > constantly call Bush a liar. So, if his speeches
> > can be riddled with lies, then it's plausible
> > speeches from other politicians can contain
> > falsehoods.
>
> But Bush's lies are in support of his illegal war, and
> Howard is admitting it was based on lies. Big
> difference. One has motive to lie to cover up, the
> other doesn't.

Hmmm... A double standard. It’s okay to lie when it supports your side of the discussion but it’s wrong when it comes from someone you oppose. Still sounds like a lie to me.

> > Proof please.
>
> So you want me to prove that Iraqi troops resisted our
> invasion and were killed for it?
> LOL!

Convenient that you left out what I quoted. You claim they are soldiers defending their country. Stick to factual evidence.

> > This is one of the primary problems with the
> > article. It doesn't provide factual evidence of
> > who killed these individuals. You and I can
> > speculate as their identities but when it comes
> > down to it, neither of us knows who commited the
> > crime.
>
> Only US troops went into the building, and only US
> troops came out. The Iraqi police that we train and
> fund are the ones making the allegations that the US
> killed these civilians. Latest report is that there was
> an Al Qaeda member in the building, but that still
> doesn't excuse killing everyone to get him.

The article doesn't say the US troops were the only ones in the building and there still isn't any proof that they committed the crime. Stick to facts instead of speculation.

> > No it isn't. I'm asking for basic proof, i.e. an
> > eye witness, a connection between the bullet and
> > the specific rifle that fired it, fingerprints,
> > etc. My request isn't unreasonable.
>
> I have no access to such info. And I doubt any
> subsequent investigation will determine proof to the
> level you request. You apparently hold me to a
> different standard of proof than you accept from the
> Bushis who took us to war to preempt a non-existent
> threat.

I'm holding you to a basic standard of evidence, the same one used by our judicial system. A crime is commited. You claim someone did it. I say offer me evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the individual or individuals to whom you are pointing the finger committed the crime. At this point, you cannot offer me anything that supports your assertion and what you've shown in the article is speculative at best. Since neither you nor I have evidence that shows who in fact killed these people, why are you claiming our troops did it?

> The important thing, from the perspective of
> anyone who really wants to accomplish the goal of
> stabilizing the country with a government that is at
> least not hostile to us is that the villagers all
> BELIEVE the US murdered these people, and that's the
> way it's being reported to the Muslim world. We are
> creating more terrorists than we are killing. We got
> one Al Qaeda bad guy and created the necessity for
> vengeance for ten other lives.
> Dumb Rumsfeld and dumber.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of who killed these individuals. Stay on topic.

> > Terrorists are known to hide amongst civilians.
>
> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
> Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political
> ends, hence we are the world's #1 terrorist, e.g.
> "Shock & Awe."

True. And it has nothing at all to do with the article or discussion at hand, i.e. who killed the people.

> > That's a good question. It might have been other
> > Iraquis.
>
> They were all alive when we went in, and all dead when
> we came out.

Nothing in the article supports this assertion.

> > > First of all, the word is spelled
> > "substantiate."
> >
> > It's a typo. Get over it.
>
> You keep repeating it so I thought you'd appreciate
> correction so you don't look foolish mispelling it the
> rest of your life. Some people just can't accept help.

I wrote it twice. The rest of the instances occurr only because of the quoting. You corrected it. I accepted I made a mistake. Get over it.

> > While I have my issues with Bush, I will never
> > compare him to Hitler. The differences between the
> > two (as well as WWII and Iraq) are vast.
>
> Actually, there are lots of similarities:
> [www.dissidentvoice.org]
> More here:
> [www.google.com]

Interesting list in the Dissident Voice. 'course, it doesn't containing any citations, so who knows how much of the list is based on factual evidence. No doubt other governments share many of the same similarities, too. It's unfortunate.

Robert

Believe what you want to believe, Robert. I'm done.

Refurb,

Of I'm going to believe what I want to believe. However, at least I'm being objective and willing to base my beliefs on factual evidence instead of speculation. Can you say the same, especially in regard to the article that started this thread?

Robert

It doesn't matter what you and I believe, Robert, but what the villagers and neighbors think, as they are the most credible witnesses. When the Iraqi police we pay and arm make statements like this the battle for world opinion is lost, especially when compounded by earlier atrocities at Abu Ghraib, and our flaunting of international law by attacking and invading nations that had not attacked us. The icing on the cake just gets thicker.

We are but 5% of the world's population, yet we treat the majority as expendable and slaughter them for profit without a qualm, writing them off as "collateral damage." These deaths are but a speck of dust on the pile of carnage we've piled up for profit, but they will be an icon for the rest of the world we demean as "ragheads" to focus upon, as their rage and desire for revenge builds.

Gen. Odom was right: this war is the worst strategic disaster this nation has ever perpetrated. And under Bush things will only get worse, as he is incapable of admitting mistakes and is blindly plunging ahead on his neocon roadmap to world domination.

Here's an interview with Chalmers Johnson you may find interesting:
[www.tomdispatch.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2006 07:12AM by Refurbvirgin.

Refurb,

I only quoted the first paragraph because the rest of your post is totally off-topic and has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. We are talking about who killed these people. That's it. Everything else is irrelevent. So, with that in mind, I offer you the following quote by Daniel Moynihan:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

You and the rest of the world can speculate to your hearts content. I have no qualms with that. I draw the line when speculation and/or opinion is presented as fact. Based on the information presented in the article, there is a disturbing lack of evidence as to the identities of the individual(s) who killed the people. Because of this, the identities of the killer(s) remains unknown. They will continue to remain that way until factual evidence tells us otherwise.

Robert



> It doesn't matter what you and I believe, Robert, but
> what the villagers and neighbors think, as they are the
> most credible witnesses. When the Iraqi police we pay
> and arm make statements like this the battle for world
> opinion is lost, especially when compounded by earlier
> atrocities at Abu Ghraib, and our flaunting of
> international law by attacking and invading nations
> that had not attacked us. The icing on the cake just
> gets thicker.

Robert -
The only people who witnessed what the US troops did before they left that building and blew it up are dead. You want proof where none exists, conveniently for you. Simple logic deduces however that if there were living people in the building until the US troops entered it shooting, and there were no living people in it when the troops left, then they killed those people. To arrive at a different conclusion requires revoking laws of nature.

Refurb,

You're using logic and speculation to reach a conclusion. Too bad it's a faulty conclusion because you lack facts to support it. Sucks to not have facts, doesn't it?

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2006 01:25PM by Robert M.

Yeah, it sucks that our troops destroyed the evidence when they left the building. No witnesses left alive. Dead kids tell no lies. A bombed building makes it tough to identify how the tied-up people died. Very convenient for you, Robert.

Refurb,

Our troops destroyed evidence? Again, speculation at best, utter bullcrap at worst. It's so easy to jump to conclusions. It's too bad _facts_ get in the way of their accuracy. Think of this as a nice way of saying that your entire premise is based in speculation at best and, when it comes down to it, impossible to support. Yet, you still persist. Oy.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2006 02:43PM by Robert M.

The only event with live witnesses was the troops blowing up the house. Why would they do it if not to destroy evidence?

Refurb,

Actually, based on the article, it was just one witness and he doesn't offer anything other than his word that the US troops blew up the house. That isn't enough to support a claim that our troops blew up the house and/or did it to destory evidence. You do know that eye witness are notoriously unreliable under the best of circumstances and this situation doesn't come close to that level.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, based on the article, it was just one
> witness and he doesn't offer anything other than
> his word that the US troops blew up the house.

""Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," spokesman Major Tim Keefe said. "Coalition Forces returned fire utilising both air and ground assets.
"There was one enemy killed. Two women and one child were also killed in the firefight. The building ... (was) destroyed."

Refurb,

The building was destroyed in the firefight. No doubt both parties share responsibility for the destruction, though I'd be inclined to agree the Coalition forces damaged it the most. I'll give you this much since the article offers enough data to support it. However, that doesn't justify the speculation you made that they did it to hide evidence and it still doesn't offer anything that helps us identify the individual(s) who killed the women and children.

Robert

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The building was destroyed in the firefight. No
> doubt both parties share responsibility for the
> destruction, though I'd be inclined to agree the
> Coalition forces damaged it the most.

Yeah, right. I'm sure the family blew up their own house while they were inside it.

You will go to any length to absolve the US of responsiblity for this illegal, unprovoked war's victims, won't you?

Refurb,

Absurd. I'll accuse/condemn/speculate the US and its troops when there is sufficient factual evidence to warrant it. Factual evidence. I choose not to accuse/condemn/speculate without it.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2006 01:28PM by Robert M.

Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I choose
> not to accuse/condemn/speculate without it.

Yet just one post before you wrote:
"No doubt both parties share responsibility for the destruction...."

The US troops are the unjust invaders. The Iraqis are the unjustly invaded. All responsibility for the attack on the house stems from the US attack upon it. Any damage to the house caused by the inhabitants was as a result of having to defend themselves from attack. We have no legal right to be there. Comprendé?

For someone who cannot comprehend this basic truth you bandy about the word "absurd" to freely. Iraq had not attacked us, nor did it have any part in 9/11, nor did it have the capability to harm us. I'll make this as simple as I can for you:

NO WMD +
NO 9/11 connections +
NO Al Qaeda connections =
-----------------------
NO REASON FOR WAR!

Refurb,

To say I can't understand basic truths is ridiculous. I base my thoughts on _factual evidence_ instead of speculation. Feel free to do the same. For example, both sides fired upon each other, the opposing force taking the first shots. Therefore, they share responsibility for damage as a result of their actions. I wonder what would have happened if the opposing force surrendered instead of fired.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you continue to assert things without factual evidence to support them, i.e. a great deal of what you've said in this thread and when you make statements like "You will go to any length to absolve the US of responsiblity for this illegal, unprovoked war's victims, won't you?" Same goes for when you stray off-topic and/or bring on content that is irrelevent to the discussion.

Robert

No matter how many times or in how many ways I state the obvious you just won't get it: This war is a crime, and all those who participate in it are by definition war criminals. I give up. Go in peace, brother.

Refurb,

Here we go again... Dan Moynihan said it better than I. Opinion is all fine and dandy. You're entitled to one or more of them. Please understand that factual evidence makes all the difference in a discussion. It's too bad you appear to prefer to support your opinion with accusations and speculation instead of factual evidence as demonstrated on multiple occasions in this thread and others. Objectivity helps, too and it's clear that you lack that as well.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2006 05:42AM by Robert M.

Loki, you miss one essential difference. When we kill civilians, it's considered a mistake, a tragedy, a crime, something to be either investigated or even covered up. The perpetrators are considered to be incompetent or even criminals.

When they kill civilians, innocent men women and children, they consider it a victory, a job well done. They celebrate in the streets and pay off the surviving members of the killers. That's the difference.

---