U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

Sleipnir

against who exactly? The perpetrators of that disgusting crime or everyone in general?


The US military has sealed off the Iraqi city of Fallujah ahead of a planned retaliation for the murders of four American security personnel last week. The US had already vowed to take revenge for the slaughter of the four men, whose bodies were set alight, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge last Wednesday. Early today, US troops sealed off all entrances to Fallujah and around 1,200 soldiers and two battalions of Iraqi security forces were poised to enter the city. A US spokesman said the American forces had a list of targets to raid, but gave no further details. A witness said a US helicopter fired missiles into a residential area of the city this morning, killing five people and damaging five houses.

mr_angry

Do you have a source for this allegation?

Sleipnir

unison.ie

dahamsta

Sounds an awful like the Israel-Palestine conflict...

leeroybrown

Quite often revenge is a more consise way of saying "US Foriegn Policy"

(Reciprocity is probably their preferred word)

sovtek

Well they've been doing some of the same things already...sounds like they are learning how NOT to do things from the Israelis and doing them anyway.

Ajnag

Yay, Go Democracy.

wonder when the defination changed?

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sleipnir
against who exactly?

Anyone with a moustache?

They have screwed up royal there

Villain

Do they think this will solve anything??

I'd bet for 1 person that gets killed 2 or 3 will take up arms to fight the Allied forces.

Bush is going to have one big mess and a lot of dead soldiers befre his election!!

leeroybrown

Bush is going to have one big mess and a lot of dead soldiers befre his election!!

Along with a large slogan saying "George W. Bush - Standing up against terrorism".

magpie

Are they going to form up Einsatzgruppen to carry out this revenge?

U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

When i saw the thread title, I just thought to myself, what? Not again....

A US spokesman said the American forces had a list of targets to raid, but gave no further details

hmm... wonder where this will lead.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by klaz

A US spokesman said the American forces had a list of targets to raid, but gave no further details

[B hmm... wonder where this will lead. [/B]

<After the event>

Journalist: Sir, I have a list of targets that you raided during this operation. Can you confirm that these were the only targets you planned to hit?

U.S. Spokesperson: Erm, yes.........yes they were.

Sleepy

Vietnam II - this time it's personal.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
Would doing absolutely nothing and letting the criminals go unchallenged be better?

Well if they haven't got anyone to fight with ...

Also I doubt someone that there won't be innocent cilivians hurt along the way.

These people need a government elected by them.

How many soldiers and innocent Iraqi's will be killed daveirl before theres no criminls left??

Sleepy

Originally posted by daveirl
Would doing absolutely nothing and letting the criminals go unchallenged be better?

No, but a quick assasination of Hussein and his direct followers would have been. Iraq would probably have had a short civil war and could be holding democratic elections by now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnmb

Originally posted by daveirl
Would doing absolutely nothing and letting the criminals go unchallenged be better?

How can you class them as criminals? It's their country. The Americans have no business being there against the wishes of the Iraqi people. I would be willing to bet that if Ireland was invaded and occupied, most of us would be doing the exact same things as the Iraqis in order to expel the invaders.

AmenToThat

I was actually going to post a thread about this but someone has beat me to it!
To me the scariest development this weekend is not the actions of the militant Shias its whats about to take place in Fallujah!
Apparently the whole city has been sealed off and thousands of American troops are preparing to going into the city......

"U.S. troops closed off entrances to Fallujah with earth barricades ahead of the planned operation, code named "Vigilant Resolve." Military patrols entered the outer suburbs on reconnaissance missions and to broadcast warnings on loud speakers to residents to stay indoors until Tuesday.


Iraqi police in the city visited mosques, dropping off Arabic leaflets from the U.S. military, telling residents that there was a daily 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. It ordered them not to congregate in groups or carry weapons, even if licensed. It instructed people that if U.S. forces enter their homes, they should gather in one room and if they want to talk to the troops to have their hands up"

I got this from yahoo news by the AP associate press.

With the worlds media concentrating on events in Baghdad I think whats about to happen in Fallujah could lead to many innocents getting killed whether intentional or otherwise with no independent witnesses to dispute whatever spin the Americans put on the operation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

It's an amazing mess altogether. Bush can't be seen to pull out unless there's a stable government in place (at least not until the election's over). If all troops were pulled out at this stage, they'd leave the country ripe for mass-scale corruption as the power vacuum was filled with warlords who, no doubt would make excellent use of whatever arms the American governments provided the various militia groups whilst they were first invading.

What's the solution? UN Peacekeeping forces so that Irish soldiers can die in the American's place? Have the international community demand American withdrawal? Leave them stay there and kill more of themselves and Iraqi civilians?

In my opinion the best thing would be for the complete US Withdrawal and have the UN monitor the situation in case peace-keeping troops are required. There will of course be a few months of civil unrest but it's probably a rather cruel necessity...

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

pork99

If those events horrific events in Fallujah had happened to Russians in Chechnya the carpet bombing would have started the next day (and not with those nancy-boy smart bombs).

Followed up by a "kill them all and let God sort them out" operation on the ground.

And not a single lefty in Ireland would raise their voice in protest.

To be fair to the Yanks I think its a measured response.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

MrPinK

Originally posted by daveirl
You either agree with arresting the killers of the civilians/mercenaries/military contractors or you don't.

Yes, that would be justice. But it wasn't justice that they promised, it was revenage. The two are not the same.

vorbis

Mercury_Tilt
that bitterness is seriously clouding your reasoning. Your total failure to debate a point rationally is a bit puzzling. Also I wonder yet again why people jump to genocide conclusions regarding Faluja. As someone else said, the Russians are FAR more heavyhanded in Chechnia yet that is not worthy of comment? I think they're just trying to stabilise the situation.

bug

hmm... wonder where this will lead.

Iran?...

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

KILLLLLLLLLLL!!!

Oh, on another note, hopefully the ex-intelligence dude (forget his name) ousts Bush. The other dude, Kennedy, may be anti-war, but @ least he did service.

bug

I learned at a young age that two wrongs don't make a right

maybe you could coach the bush admin on this, after all they are vowing revenge

AmenToThat

Originally posted by vorbis
Mercury_Tilt
that bitterness is seriously clouding your reasoning. Your total failure to debate a point rationally is a bit puzzling. Also I wonder yet again why people jump to genocide conclusions regarding Faluja. As someone else said, the Russians are FAR more heavyhanded in Chechnia yet that is not worthy of comment? I think they're just trying to stabilise the situation.

Big difference is that the Russians have never tried to make out they are 'leaders off the free world" or that they are there to bring peace, prosperity and democracy to all within Iraq.
Its the hypocrisy of the 'coalition" that gets me personaly, I cant speak for others.

In regards to whatever may or may not happen in Falluja for the moment we can but jump to conclusions as there is very little information comming from within the city as all points of exit are blocked off.
It may turn out that there will be very few deaths in this attack and if so Ill be very happy to have been proved wrong.

naitkris

while i personally am no fan of American foreign policy, what happened in Fallujah is the most sickening thing i have ever seen on TV (still cant believe they showed unedited footage of it on Prime Time).

i think the US has full right in this case to storm that city and capture every man who took part in the killings of the four civilians. true, some will argue that the US is just as bad, but i disagree. i have yet to hear of US troops blowing up civilian cars, dragging the burning bodys out, tying the bodys to a car and dragging it along the road while bashing the bodys non-stop with all kinds of sharp objects then hanging the bodys up over a bridge while the crowd cheers "God is great" and smile for the video cameras of American or British cameramen of Arab descent. in fact, i have yet to hear of a US troop in Iraq doing that to anyone, armed or not, human or animal.

it seems that if you are western looking and you are in Fallujah driving along for whatever reason (sure you may be Irish, a neutral country and you may be opposed to the war etc.), but to many there you are either a. American or b. British (the c. Irish option doesnt figure in places like Fallujah). thus you are the enemy, as was the case of the 4 civilians who were brutally murdered there recently. it happened also to 2 unarmed civilian Finnish men a few weeks back... just because they were western looking - had they been Finnish of Arab descent i am very sure they would still be alive today. i.m.o. what happened in Fallujah was racism at its worst and not an attack on the occupying allied forces.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by naitkris
it seems that if you are western looking and you are in Fallujah driving along for whatever reason (sure you may be Irish, a neutral country and you may be opposed to the war etc.), but to many there you are either a. American or b. British (the c. Irish option doesnt figure in places like Fallujah). thus you are the enemy, as was the case of the 4 civilians who were brutally murdered there recently. it happened also to 2 unarmed civilian Finnish men a few weeks back... just because they were western looking - had they been Finnish of Arab descent i am very sure they would still be alive today. i.m.o. what happened in Fallujah was racism at its worst and not an attack on the occupying allied forces.

They were mercenerys, two of which were former green berets.

Twelve "arab" journalists have been killed at the hands of caolition forces this year in iraq no western journalist have been killed, what does this say about racism?

Redleslie

Originally posted by daveirl
Wait a minute in what society is killing civilians who are driving down the road not a crime?

Liberated Iraq? Family shot dead by panicking US troops.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
Wait a minute in what society is killing civilians who are driving down the road not a crime?

I'm not talking about going after 'insurgents' I'm talking about getting the people who were part of the lynch mob last Wednesday. How can you possibly contend that they weren't criminals?

civillians? are you deluded? Those were mercenaries, with guns... they were no "civillians". Any american is unwelcome in Iraq as the Iraqi people have broadly demonstrated. The american's have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in the country, and if they go illegally into another country they forfeit their right to live.. there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
Can people please deal with the actual issue, the only reason people seem to be able to give for the US not to go after these people is that the US has made mistakes in the past. If you extend this logic, practically no one should ever get arrested ever anywhere, since almost all police forces/countries etc. make mistakes.

Read my posts, I've never said that the War in Iraq was right, I've never said that killing people at road blocks in justified, all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

The US is in Iraq Illegally, it is not right to do anything in iraq. Any retribution that the US recives in Iraq while illegally occupying the country is justified and warranted. As you admit YOURSELF the war is wrong, the invasion is wrong. Therefore the US presence in IRAQ is WRONG, the Iraqi people have the right to defend themselves against these invaders by any means necessary.

your analogy to the gardai is SERIOUSLY flawed. The Gardai are appointed by the Irish government to protect the people of Ireland. The US has no right or jurisdiction in Iraq other than their own forceful invasion which is illegal and immoral, therefore your analogy is false and irrelevent.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

LOL, your joking right??

Comparing the illegal presence of a foreign army to a states own police force!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveirl
all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

daveirl, seriously, if this happened in Cork or Dublin do you think they'd seal off the city and start blowing the hell out of it with gunships?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3603097.stm

If they want to "get" the people responsible for it, they could do it in a way that doesn't involve blowing things up.
I think that's the problem many people have with the actions of the Americans, a response from them seems to always result in civilians being killed.

pork99

Originally posted by Memnoch
The US is in Iraq Illegally, it is not right to do anything in iraq. Any retribution that the US recives in Iraq while illegally occupying the country is justified and warranted. As you admit YOURSELF the war is wrong, the invasion is wrong. Therefore the US presence in IRAQ is WRONG, the Iraqi people have the right to defend themselves against these invaders by any means necessary.

your analogy to the gardai is SERIOUSLY flawed. The Gardai are appointed by the Irish government to protect the people of Ireland. The US has no right or jurisdiction in Iraq other than their own forceful invasion which is illegal and immoral, therefore your analogy is false and irrelevent.

OK its not comparable to Gardai arresting people here. Let us assume that it is a war, despite George shooting his mouth off about major combat operations being over. If you participate in a war you are bound by international laws such as the Geneva convention - I'm sure the Iraqi insurgents will not have even have heard of that.

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

Its amazing to me how left-wing people in this country can sympathise with all varieties of Islamo-fascist thugs just becase they are attacking the Americans. We are next on their list neutral or not.

I'm not saying that the US should go around the world invading and overthrowing totalitarian regimes however desirable that might be. Given the number of such regimes in the world its simply not possible. North Korea, for example, is a far more deserving case for an invasion. An illegal regime that actually possesses WMDs. But it would not be the push-over that the actual invsion of Iraq was (the invasion not the occupation).

Sleipnir

The point is, a wonderfully democratic and peacful occupying force such as the Americans should be far above seeking 'revenge'

i think the US has full right in this case to storm that city and capture every man who took part in the killings of the four civilians.

Storming a city full of women, children and elderly people is not a measured response to a relatively small group of men killing 4 others, no matter how they actually did it.
That is the kind of over-reaction the Iraqis got used to under Saddam's rule. They were supposed to have been liberated but now an entire city must sit and wait and hope they don't get shot 'by mistake'
This is winning "Hearts & Minds" then eh?

If 4 black men were killed in a similar way by a large group of white men in Manhatten would the U.S. army surround the island?

The recent event in Fallujah was a horrific, obscene and disgusting one by sub-human men who deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.
The men are on video, they should be found, arrested and tried.

And by the way, although seeing those men burn will be burned in my mind do you remember during the first war that road that out of Kuwait.
The "Highway of Death"?
Bombed by coalition forces?
More than 2000 vehicles? Including many buses trucks?
And not forgetting that this attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660.


How easily out minds replace one horror with another.
Picture attached for those who have forgotten.

pork99

Originally posted by Sleipnir


More than 2000 vehicles? Including many buses trucks?
And not forgetting that this attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660.

Busses & trucks looted by the Iraqi army and being used to carry their other loot home. From what I've read most of them did not hang around to be incinerated but legged it into the desert.

It occured after the ground war started. This was a defeated army fleeing in disorder after a land battle not an army peacefully withdrawing in compliance with a UN resolution.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

magpie

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

Funny how the US army of occupation has turned one of the most virulently anti-Saddam groups into enemies already.

Who are the US supposed to be saving from themselves at this stage?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by pork99
Busses & trucks looted by the Iraqi army and being used to carry their other loot home. From what I've read most of them did not hang around to be incinerated but legged it into the desert.

It occured after the ground war started. This was a defeated army fleeing in disorder after a land battle not an army peacefully withdrawing in compliance with a UN resolution.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

What are you talking about "it occured after the ground war had started"
It also occured after the ground war was declared over!? Is that getting through yet?
Ground war starts.
Ground war finishes.
Iraqi troops flees.
Iraqi troops are firebombed?

The army were in retreat. RETREAT, geddit?
They were defeated, beaten and it was when they were leaving that they were attacked en-masse.
Even if they did have loot you don't line them up and start firing mavs ferchrissake.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

What timeline are your on!?!?!
This was after the war was declared over. When it was finished yeah?
Are you getting this yet?

Johnmb

Originally posted by pork99
OK its not comparable to Gardai arresting people here. Let us assume that it is a war, despite George shooting his mouth off about major combat operations being over. If you participate in a war you are bound by international laws such as the Geneva convention - I'm sure the Iraqi insurgents will not have even have heard of that.
Only the losers are ever bound by any rules of law, and I'm sure the Iraqi freedom fighters have no intention of losing.

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world
Since when? The Baathists aren't part of Al Quaeda, and neither are the Shiah. In fact, the only group know to have connections with Al Quaeda were based in the north, in the Kurdish area. If the Iraqis have turned to representatives of Al Quaeda for help, then the Americans have noone to blame but themselves, they forced the Iraqis into the hands of a group that had previously been their enemies.

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)
How was it a criminal regime? According to who? Every other country in the world seemed to regard it as legitimate, so when did that change?

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes
And the reason they are in such a position is because the normally moderate Shia are becoming more and more radical as a result of the occupation.

Its amazing to me how left-wing people in this country can sympathise with all varieties of Islamo-fascist thugs just becase they are attacking the Americans. We are next on their list neutral or not.
Most people posting here have expressed support for an occupied country fighting for freedom. Nobody has said it is okay because of the participants involved. As for us being neutral, we are not, and if we were attacked by these people I would hold Bertie personally responsible.

I'm not saying that the US should go around the world invading and overthrowing totalitarian regimes however desirable that might be. Given the number of such regimes in the world its simply not possible. North Korea, for example, is a far more deserving case for an invasion. An illegal regime that actually possesses WMDs. But it would not be the push-over that the actual invsion of Iraq was (the invasion not the occupation).
And they also were not the bearers of the personal grudge the Bush had when he came into office. Saddam was. Now the US are paying for Bush's personal grudge, as the Iraqi people are nopt going to lie back and allow another foreign power to dictate to them. Eventually, they will get rid of the occupying forces, and they will sort things out amoung themselves (probably via civil war). When all is said and done, the Iraqi people will decide their own future, not George Bush and his big business financiers.

magpie

I'm amazed to say it, but Johnmb I agree with all of your statements unconditionally. Good man!

naitkris

Originally posted by Memnoch
civillians? are you deluded? Those were mercenaries, with guns... they were no "civillians".

from all the sources i've read - they were not mercenaries, they were contractors hired to work as security for certain people and they were clothed in civilian clothing (not military uniform). sure, maybe some were ex-military, but just because a person was once in the army does not make them always a soldier. and as others have pointed out, 1 or 2 prolly did "carry" (note: not fire or used it, but "carry") a handgun (but who in Iraq doesnt at the moment?). i can guarantee you that this would still have happened had those 4 Americans been Irish and not American... as i said before, it happened to 2 Finnish businessmen a few weeks back... the men who did that to the 4 Americans did not pull them over and ask for their ID, question them about what they were doing etc. - they just killed them there and then, no remorse whatsoever.

Originally posted by Memnoch

Any american is unwelcome in Iraq as the Iraqi people have broadly demonstrated. The american's have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in the country, and if they go illegally into another country they forfeit their right to live.. there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

your use of the word "Any american" should be termed "Any westerner" as that includes Irish, Finnish, German, Swedish etc. people as well as i also read of 2 German businessmen (i.e. civilians) who were killed recently, as well as the 2 Finnish men. i am saying this as i mentioned above - the 4 men dressed in civilian clothing driving in the car were not stopped, ID'd, asked why they were there, what they were doing - they were just brutally killed straight away. looking at the video footage, anyone can tell that the car they were driving in was NOT military, it certainly wasnt bulletproof.

i understand you point of saying "Any american" in reference to the US starting the war in Iraq (which i still oppose). but you must not forget, the war happened, this issue is very different to that, this issue is about cruelty of an inimaginable kind to 4 human beings who were not military and did not stand chance of survival.

Originally posted by Memnoch

there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

i strongly disagree on your point of there being no American "civilians" as yes there are... doctors, nurses, aid workers, construction workers, businessmen etc. etc. are you saying these people are not civilians and should die just because they are in Iraq? i think the problem you are having here is with George Bush and the top people who made the final decision to go to war in Iraq.

if i was American and in the US army, i would not quit the army because i believe or do not believe it to be right to overthrow a dictator, i would just go where my country tells me and do my duty. likewise, if i was an American aid worker, i would still go to Iraq and work there even though i would be opposed to the war and George Bush. i think this is the same for a lot of Americans in Iraq. they will instead just vote for Kerry not Bush when the time comes and get on with life.