Barbaric desecration of combatants' bodies

Hairy Homer

No doubt we have all seen (or at least those of us sufficiently curious have seen) the pictures of a baying mob hacking away at the bodies of dead Americans in Fallujah and dragging hunks of charred flesh through the streets before brandishing them on the railings of a bridge.

What sort of people could do such things? we have been asked.

What sort of barbarism do they tolerate in these countries?

Clearly it is our duty to go in there and liberate these people from their own who have neither the civilising influences, nor the culture of respect for human life, nor the restraint to prevent themselves falling into an abyss of evil bloodlust. To tolerate such savagery would be to allow such disrespect for mankind to gather strength and spread around the world to the extent that it really would be a 'threat to our way of life'.

Well curiously enough I was looking up the details of one of my forebears who died in the First World War. He's not buried anywhere that we know about. He was officially posted as 'missing presumed dead' His name appears on the New Menin Gate memorial in Ypres in Belgium.

On this gate are inscribed his name and 54895 other men from one army (The British) in one war (WWI) who were killed in one sector (the Ypres Salient) and who have no known grave.

Why not? What happened to them?

Simply they were either blown to bits, disembowelled, burned, crushed, drowned in mud, gassed or otherwise mangled beyond recognition by their opponents whose descendents are now for the most part their own descendents' fellow citizens in a new European Union.

The killing technology of the day was by any standards both shocking and awesome. It was certainly far in advance of any medical technology that could a) give its victims some hope of recuperation or b) help to identify them once they had been consumed by the murder machine.

So by all means let's be horrified by the inhumanity of the mob whose handiwork we saw in Fallujah. But let's be realistic about the capacity of human beings to inflict such callously barbaric acts on the remains of others.

As Siegfried Sassoon prophetically wrote when the gate was inaugurated more than 75 years ago: 'Who will remember passing through this gate, the unheroic dead who fed the guns?'

Not many it would appear. To listen to some of the 'comment' that's been going round, some people seem to think only towelheads do that sort of thing.

DadaKopf

Exactly. It's easy think of ourselves as civilized because we've hidden our own brutality behind a totalising veil of technology.

All of a sudden, when people murder a perceived enemy using petrol and an iron bar, they're the barbarians and we're their saviours?

We're not special. Their concerns are our concerns.

Victor

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Well curiously enough I was looking up the details of one of my forebears who died in the First World War. He's not buried anywhere that we know about. He was officially posted as 'missing presumed dead' His name appears on the New Menin Gate memorial in Ypres in Belgium. On this gate are inscribed his name and 54895 other men from one army (The British) in one war (WWI) who were killed in one sector (the Ypres Salient) and who have no known grave.

I've been there. I understand they actually ran out of space on the arch and had to complete the list on a separate memorial. The local fire brigade have held a ceremony there every day for the last 80 years (except during WWII). There is quite a large number of Irish names on it. I have some photos.

Ypres itself was levelled such that in one photo taken from the centre of the town, all you can see is one corner of a building left standing, out of the entire town. Nothing else stands taller than about 5 feet.

Getting back to Iraq, the single most disturbing image I saw was of a young child, probably 4 or 5 years old, in a hospital waiting for a doctor to attend to her. She was completely silent, either having cried herself to a stop or having passed the pain threshold where she no longer felt it. Her abdomen was cut open by shrapnel and her small intestine was draped on her lap as far as her knees.:(

Sand

I dont think anyone has a problem with the security guys being killed - they object and describe as barbaric the mutilation and disfiguring of the corpses afterwards.

The dead you mention are buried and commemorated - the dead in Fallujah were chopped up, spat on, stamped on,burnt and hung off a bridge.

The dead in WW1 were killed horribly , the dead in fallujah were killed and then mutilated. The difference is the disgust that all human beings to some extent have for people who disrespect the dead. Necrophilia for example is not seen as a harmless hobby.

Im impressed at the application of the devils slide rule here but perhaps even it cant rescue the situation. Kudos anyway for trying.

pork99

Originally posted by DadaKopf

We're not special. Their concerns are our concerns.

I would like to see you trying to explain that to a mob like the one in Fallujah as they started to smash your skull open with an iron bar for being a Westerner without the firepower to defend himself in the "wrong" part of town.

If you could do that successfully I would have the deepest admiration for you.

I've read some accounts by the US Rangers who fought in that battle in Mogadishu, the "Blackhawk Down" battle. They said they had to overcome their scruples about killing six-year old children very quickly because six-year old children were among the people firing automatic weapons at them and it was a "kill or be killed" situation.

DadaKopf

Uh, ok.

What I said was: whether you're bombing from 50,000 ft or burning someone alive, its still an act of intolerable cruelty, and it's still disgusting.

What I said was: we're all human.

vorbis

DadaKopf, no one's disputing the devastating impact of such weapons. There is however a distinction with regards to the Faluja atrocities. It would be akin to deliberate and systematic bombing of a civilian district. I guess its a difference of opinion in seeing a worse evil in deliberately burning people alive than in air bombings.

pork99

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Uh, ok.

What I said was: whether you're bombing from 50,000 ft or burning someone alive, its still an act of intolerable cruelty, and it's still disgusting.

What I said was: we're all human.

In developed Western countries like this we are sheilded from a lot of unpleasant realities.

Modern warfare does put a distance between killer and killed. I saw a documentary about last year's war and they interviewed a RAF bomber pilot just after he returned from a mission over Iraq. He was not jubilant. He said something like "well it was a sucessful mission but people died which I suppose is not good".

With those ghouls in Falujah it was something they were reveling in.

I dont think anyone has a problem with the security guys being killed

Well yes I would have a problem with that - they were not soldiers they were there to guard food deliveries and to try to help to rebuild that country. And the thanks they got was to be butchered like hogs. No wonder that country is screwed.

chill

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
No doubt we have all seen (or at least those of us sufficiently curious have seen) the pictures of a baying mob hacking away at the bodies of dead Americans in Fallujah and dragging hunks of charred flesh through the streets before brandishing them on the railings of a bridge.

What sort of people could do such things? we have been asked.

What sort of barbarism do they tolerate in these countries?

A graphic and ghastly demonstration of what the cocktail of hatred, evil manipulation and ignorance can do to human beings behaviour. A barbaric degradation of humanity and an illustration of the kind of thing we are up against in the war against international amoral terrorism.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bug

I guess its a difference of opinion in seeing a worse evil in deliberately burning people alive than in air bombings.

Im missing something here I think, isnt this a "war" and isnt blackwater usa a security firm that hires ex-marines and army to protect its assets abroad? so..security/soldiers..they were hardly sparks or plumbers were they?

Im not saying that it wasnt terrible it was vicerally disturbing as Im sure some of the images of hundreds of iraqi civilians and kids being blown apart is too.

they object and describe as barbaric the mutilation and disfiguring of the corpses afterwards.

yeah it is, take away for a minute the disgusting aspect of the images and think of it as what it is, it is the worst disrespect that you can bestow upon a human being, to mutilate a dead body, not to give a person a "respectful" burial, whatever way they are murdered. The Iraqi people are not barbaric, the act itself is, and it really shows the level of anger and pure rage an individual needs to get to do commit such an act..not wanting to bring this into a humanities discussion, but ask yourself why they would do this.

A graphic and ghastly demonstration of what the cocktail of hatred, evil manipulation and ignorance can do to human beings behaviour. A barbaric degradation of humanity and an illustration of the kind of thing we are up against in the war against international amoral terrorism.

A good, emotive, soundbite there,you missed your calling, you should have been a speech writer for GW.
I agree with you on the hatred aspect, they would have to have hatred to commit such an act. They knew exactly what they were doing, complete disrespect was their goal IMO, and they did it, there is as much of a connection between Iraq and terrorism as their is is sudan, syria, UAE..and various other middleastern and N. african countries..didnt you listen to Dick Clarke in the 9/11 enquiries Im sure he'd know.

Exit

Originally posted by bug
yeah it is, take away for a minute the disgusting aspect of the images and think of it as what it is, it is the worst disrespect that you can bestow upon a human being, to mutilate a dead body, not to give a person a "respectful" burial, whatever way they are murdered. The Iraqi people are not barbaric, the act itself is, and it really shows the level of anger and pure rage an individual needs to get to do commit such an act..not wanting to bring this into a humanities discussion, but ask yourself why they would do this.

You seem to be saying that their anger over certain issues justifies them doing this. If a serial killer did this to women, would you be saying "it really shows the level of anger and pure rage an individual needs to get to do commit such an act... but ask yourself why they would do this"?

bug

no i didnt say that at all exit read my post again.
Im not justifying their actions at all. Im questioning why they would do such a thing which is different to justifying it

Exit

ah, sorry then. It seemed like a justification the way I read it.

the_syco

One thing you have to think about. These guys weren't military. Sure, one of them had a gun, but in Iraq, everyone has one. They were over there to help rebuild Iraq.

Sure, the US has killed alot of civillians, but it was mainly because of military targets nearby.
I don't think they (the US) has ever gone over to a group of non-armed civilians, and gunned them down.

Redleslie

Originally posted by the_syco
Sure, the US has killed alot of civillians, but it was mainly because of military targets nearby.
I don't think they (the US) has ever gone over to a group of non-armed civilians, and gunned them down.

Yeah they have. For example.

And I suppose we could mention the million or so people killed by the blanket bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

bonkey

Originally posted by the_syco
One thing you have to think about. These guys weren't military.

No they weren't. They were security consultants to the military. To simply call them "civilians" is technically true, but somewhat misleading.

They were over there to help rebuild Iraq.

Yes they were indeed. So are the soldiers serving in the various military groups represented in Iraq. This does not mean that they are in any way invalid targets to someone who sees the occupation of their own land as being wrong or illegal.

Put it like this - if they had simply been executed, there would be no more outrage than there is at the almost-daily killing of soldiers and other coalition personnel.

The outrage is at the mutilation which occurred afterwards, although that often seems to be forgotten in the arguments which have followed the incident.

The thing is this...if the mutilation was spontaneous, what does it signify? You can make all the comments you like about how the Iraqi's are barbaric and whatnot, but the simple truth is that in the hundreds of coalition people killed in the last year - not to mention the unnumbered Iraqi security forces, etc. - we haven't seen this before. Something changed, and no-one seems to care one whit what that may be.

On the other hand, if we look on it as a deliberate and planned act, then other questions are raised - especially when one considers that the US reaction (closing off Flaaujah pending "revenge") would appear to be building exactly the type of unmanageable, unwinnable situation that can only serve those opposing the coalition.

Sure, the US has killed alot of civillians, but it was mainly because of military targets nearby.

So what are you saying? Callous disregard for innocent life is excusable when there's a target nearby, but callous disregard for the dead bodies of valid targets is somehow worse?

I don't think they (the US) has ever gone over to a group of non-armed civilians, and gunned them down.

Mai Lai?

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by the_syco
I don't think they (the US) has ever gone over to a group of non-armed civilians, and gunned them down.

Take a look at this:
http://www.asiapac.org.fj/cafepacific/resources/aspac/viet.html

Take a look at the pictures on the left of the page too. (They're probably not for the sensitive)

pork99

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Take a look at this:
http://www.asiapac.org.fj/cafepacific/resources/aspac/viet.html

Take a look at the pictures on the left of the page too. (They're probably not for the sensitive)

There were of course no journalists permitted to record atrocities and massacres perpetrated by the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by pork99
There were of course no journalists permitted to record atrocities and massacres perpetrated by the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong.

What's your point? It was ok for the US to commit mass murder because the other side did it too?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Victor
I've been there. I understand they actually ran out of space on the arch and had to complete the list on a separate memorial. The local fire brigade have held a ceremony there every day for the last 80 years (except during WWII). There is quite a large number of Irish names on it. I have some photos.

The link I posted has some details of the other memorials to the missing in the same area. It's the scale of men unaccounted for that amazes me.

I haven't been there in the flesh (yet) but it is no surprise that there are a lot of Irish names on it. The Irish Guards, in which my great uncle served, were sent there in 1914 as part of the original British Expeditionary Force and suffered many casualties while halting the German advance around Ypres.

Of course that was a war on terrorism in which the Western Powers intervened on the same side as the terrorists.

Ironic, huh?

Sand

Well yes I would have a problem with that - they were not soldiers they were there to guard food deliveries and to try to help to rebuild that country. And the thanks they got was to be butchered like hogs. No wonder that country is screwed.

They were armed and guarding those food deliveries for a reason - because there was an expected level of threat. They chose their proffession and their posting ( unlike soldiers whove little say in their posting once theyve been signed up ) and no doubt accepted the financial renumberation which came with the job ( runs up to 1000 dollars a day for people with special forces experience for example ). Whilst they werent exactly soldiers they werent exactly civillians either - Id lean to the point of view that their being targeted was as valid as targeting a soldier. Thats my own point of view - it has to be remembered that the militants despite the hopes and dreams of their newly sprung up western apologists arent interested in the Iraqi people - they dont care if those guys are delivering food, or handing out medicine or rescuing kittens from trees. They are christian crusader infidels who must be either wiped out or conquered in the long term and definitly killed whenever and where ever possible in the short term. They, and that mentality, are the enemy.

How they kill people during the times that they live in over in Iraq is how they do things. You lot are only judging them on some sanitized Hollywood belief system.

You dont think they have respect for the dead? Islam is not so backwards as people would have you believe - every single person involved in desecrating those corpses would have known damn well that it was wrong, and not just in accordance with some sanitized Hollywood belief system. If anything, theyre fanatical about burying a body as fast as possible.

The Iraqi people are not barbaric, the act itself is, and it really shows the level of anger and pure rage an individual needs to get to do commit such an act..not wanting to bring this into a humanities discussion, but ask yourself why they would do this.

I agree the Iraqi people are not barbaric, this act does not speak for Iraqis no more than terrorists do no matter what their apologists think - as for why they would do this.....the mentality of the mob can sway people to do things they might not normally dream of doing , look at the violence at England games....often there is only a small hard core which sucks in otherwise decent people leading to massive riots like we saw in France 98.

Redleslie

The Americans have killed or imprisoned an awful lot of Iraqis in Falluja so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people in that mob were relatives, and as I've said perhaps the guys who carried out the ambush used the anger and hate of those people to encourage them to carry out the mutilations as revenge, because of the subsequent shock value and psychological effect. Meanwhile a camera crew turns up but police and US troops don't? Pure speculation on my part and I suppose we'll never know, but it's more plausible to me than the old "these people are just evil" line.

dathi1

they dont care if those guys are delivering food, or handing out medicine or rescuing kittens from trees.

Absolutely...during the Nazi occupation insurgents regularly attacked food supplies and other logistics. They have full on responsibility to attack foreign occupiers with machine guns in SUVs...after all its their country.

Redleslie

Originally posted by dathi1
Absolutely...during the Nazi occupation insurgents regularly attacked food supplies and other logistics. They have full on responsibility to attack foreign occupiers with machine guns in SUVs...after all its their country.

Yeah, Cretan, Russian and Yugoslavian partisans all mutilated captured Germans, it damages enemy morale and it's probably good crack. I read that the Mujahadeen used to skin Russian prisoners from the waist up and sort of tie the skin over the guy's head so he'd suffocate. Nasty!

dathi1

it damages enemy morale and it's probably good crack. I read that the Mujahadeen used to skin Russian prisoners from the waist up and sort of tie the skin over the guy's head so he'd suffocate. Nasty!

don't get too carried away now?......There's more than probably psychological trauma behind such actions in fallujah. Its easy enough to castigate people here on our keyboards but lets face it...imagine what it must be like to have your kids killed "collaterally" by a foreign western army because they were near "targets" or whatever bolloks the US army comes up with. The thirst for revenge must be overwhelming to such an extent that all normal rules of conduct in warfare go out the window. Right now as we debate this subject the same foreign army is now "pacifying" the area with artillery and a blockade. Its seems things aren't going their way so far though.

vorbis

imagine what it must be like to have your kids killed "collaterally" by a foreign western army because they were near "targets" or whatever bolloks the US army comes up with.

daith1, that is sufficient justification for the above actions? Have the relatives of the four men killed now the right to butcher some residents of Fallujah?

Victor

Originally posted by the_syco
I don't think they (the US) has ever gone over to a group of non-armed civilians, and gunned them down.

Actually, in the British sector alone, there are at least 19 civilian deaths in recent times where the use of lethal force by the British Army would appear to have had no justification (front page of The Times or The Telegraph recently).

Meanwhile the American 82nd Division, the unit in Fallujah, had a specific policy of shoot first, ask quaestions later.

vorbis

not the same thing victor. at most the situations you describe were cases where the soldiers misinterpeted a situation. Thats not the same as deliberate murder.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
not the same thing victor. at most the situations you describe were cases where the soldiers misinterpeted a situation. Thats not the same as deliberate murder.

So what did they misinterpret in My Lai?
That's an interesting play on words too. If your family was butchered by a solider who was more interested in shooting first and then asking questions, would you accept that as an answer? "He misinterpreted the situation"

dathi1

daith1, that is sufficient justification for the above actions? Have the relatives of the four men killed now the right to butcher some residents of Fallujah?

as I said Psychological trauma...the word justification doesn't come in to it. The comparison above with Mai Lai is right on the button.

Frank Grimes

Some more "misinterpretation" for you vorbis.

Think the relatives of those people (if any are left) will shrug it off as "sure they didn't mean to kill them, so it's ok" or could this result in maybe another "outrage" against those nice folk who have moved into the country recently?


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2004/0407/breaking7.htm

Fighting in Falluja kills 36 Iraqi civilians
Last updated: 07-04-04, 09:29


Fighting in the Iraqi town of Falluja has killed at least 36 civilians over the past day, doctors said today, including 25 killed in a house destroyed in an attack that locals blamed on US forces.


Witnesses said the house in the Sunni Muslim town, 50 km west of Baghdad, was hit by rockets fired by a US helicopter last night. A US military spokeswoman in Baghdad said she had no information on the incident.

The house was reduced to rubble in the attack. Locals said four families had been sheltering there and that some victims were still buried in the debris.

Witnesses said fighting raged in several parts of the town today.

US Marines who took charge of the tense Sunni cities of Falluja and Ramadi last month have begun an operation aimed at hunting down guerrillas in the area.

"Operation Vigiliant Resolve" follows the killing of four US private security guards in Falluja a week ago. After they were killed, a crowd of Iraqis set the bodies ablaze, mutilated them and hanged two of them from a bridge.

US troops were stationed mostly along the perimeter of Falluja, which has been paralysed by the fighting, witnesses said.

dathi1

Aljazeera are the only network to have reporters on the ground inside Fallujah. Strike jest are being used against residential areas and 26 people in one family have been massacred by the US liberators.
live up to date reports:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A73529F1-1554-4C68-8774-BA478D565B02.htm

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by dathi1
Strike jest are being used against residential areas and 26 people in one family have been massacred by the US liberators.

Looks like that was 16 children and 8 women who were killed according to the report here.
They've also killed up to 40 after a rocket attack on a mosque too according to the report.

Ok, so four Americans are killed, and the US decides to launch airstrikes against the town? Thats a bit extreme, even for my feelings abt the US.

(From Franks Link) But militants, who have wide support among the population, dug in and fiercely resisted the U.S. raids into the city center and attacked American troops encircling the city of 200,000. The intensity of the resistance apparently prompted U.S. forces to bring in heavy weapons such as helicopters, tanks and AC130 gunships that have pounded suspected militant sites in the densely populated neighborhoods.

It kinda puts you in mind of what Russia did in Chechyna..

vorbis

i don't call that deliberate targetting since thats what the intial point was about. Falujah is currently akin to a warzone. Some would argue local residents are playing a large part in maintaining that situation. tbh they've helped create the mess for themselves as well. I'd hope the Americans are trying to keep stray attacks down. Jowever their priority is to restore order as more people will eventually die if that is not achieved.

Sand

Absolutely...during the Nazi occupation insurgents regularly attacked food supplies and other logistics. They have full on responsibility to attack foreign occupiers with machine guns in SUVs...after all its their country.

Oh I agree, insurgents are going to attack food convoys - they wouldnt want the situation stable after all. And of course theyre going to attack those they view as their enemies - I mean, when they blew up the UN representitive in his compound I was surprised that people were so shocked about it. The UN killed millions of Iraqis with their sanctions - The Iraqis were getting some long overdue payback for that.

Id disagree on the point of it being their country.... The insurgents do not represent Iraqis anymore than the IRA represents Irish people ( Or was Omagh in your name? ). 4 out of 5 Iraqis apparently find attacks on coalition soldiers to be unacceptable according to that BBC poll. I dunno what that tells you - but Id imagine 0 out of 5 terrorists in Iraq find attacks on coalition soldiers unnacceptable.

imagine what it must be like to have your kids killed "collaterally" by a foreign western army because they were near "targets" or whatever bolloks the US army comes up with. The thirst for revenge must be overwhelming to such an extent that all normal rules of conduct in warfare go out the window.

Im sure if a war crime is committed that the appropriate parties will be brought to justice.

Some would argue local residents are playing a large part in maintaining that situation.

I dont think so - the vast majority are keeping their heads down and trying to live their lives as best they can. In a town where a band of heroic freedom fighters murder anyone who doesnt sing from their hymn sheet then youre going to find relatively few people willing to speak out against that particular hymnsheet. And who can blame them, it would take a brave man to disagree publicly with guys like those orchestrating terrorist attacks in Iraq. Its up to the coalition and the Iraqi seucrity forces to establish security and law and order so that people need not fear being dissapeared by terrorists.

I'd hope the Americans are trying to keep stray attacks down.

I dont think they deliberately target civillians but theyre a bit....blinkered when it comes to the application of force. The bombing of a resteraunt in a busy neighbourhood towards the end of the invasion just because they *thought* Saddam was in it is a case in point. That was utterly stupid and a mentality that results in those decisions means stray attacks wont be kept down to the minimum.

It kinda puts you in mind of what Russia did in Chechyna..

Not even close tbh - Grozny was near biblical in its destruction, not a stone left upon a stone and all that. And the Russian troops massacre, torture, loot and rape Chechyens. Theres little enough interest in what the Russians and the Jihad rebels are doing in Chechnya without making it seem more acceptable by comparing it to a military operation.

bug

Originally posted by Sand
Id disagree on the point of it being their country.... The insurgents do not represent Iraqis anymore than the IRA represents Irish people ( Or was Omagh in your name? ).

no but just because some f***w*t evil idiots blew up Omagh doesnt stop one being a republican.......

4 out of 5 Iraqis apparently find attacks on coalition soldiers to be unacceptable according to that BBC poll. I dunno what that tells you - but Id imagine 0 out of 5 terrorists in Iraq find attacks on coalition soldiers unnacceptable.

.....much like, I suppose,- those 4/5 iraqis who dont want to see soldiers getting killed or attacked and find it unacceptable, that doesnt mean they dont want them out of their country. The poll doesnt tell you that.

I hope none of those killed in Fallaujah were those "4/5" that you mention, because the two groups of people- those that find the killing unacceptable, and those labelled "terrorists" are inextricably linked IMO. For the simple reason that if you kill a member of my family, I may just fight back. i.e. my revenge labels me a "terrorist", your armies' vow of revenge for the loss of four lives is somehow acceptable.

whats the most recent definition of a terrorist these days anyways?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
Im sure if a war crime is committed that the appropriate parties will be brought to justice.

Yes, this is why G. W. Bush withdrew the USA from the International criminal court. And declared that no US citizen could be prosecuted by the international criminal court.


Tell me.. was the US prosecuted for using Agent Orange, a biological agent in Vietnam?

What about US soldiers shooting innocent children, was the US prosecuted for that for warcrimes?

What about the massacre in Tinamen square in China of peaceful protesters?

Everyone with a sliver of commen sense knows, that the powerful don't get prosecuted for their war crimes. By the statement you made you are implying that because no one has been "brought to justice" no crime has been committed, however the fact remains that the US has and probably never will be prosecuted for its warcrimes.
Another example of this is the detention of the prisoners at Guantanemo bay which is illegal under the Geneva Convention and also a warcrime.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
i don't call that deliberate targetting since thats what the intial point was about. Falujah is currently akin to a warzone. Some would argue local residents are playing a large part in maintaining that situation. tbh they've helped create the mess for themselves as well. I'd hope the Americans are trying to keep stray attacks down. Jowever their priority is to restore order as more people will eventually die if that is not achieved.

Yes America is "liberating" Iraq by "pacifying" it. How much longer will people continue to believe the propaganda?

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
not the same thing victor. at most the situations you describe were cases where the soldiers misinterpeted a situation. Thats not the same as deliberate murder.

"minsinterpreted" how do you know that? because they say so? They shot and killed innocents without any justification... thats murder.. by any stretch of the law... why do you try to defend the indefensible?

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
daith1, that is sufficient justification for the above actions? Have the relatives of the four men killed now the right to butcher some residents of Fallujah?

ah but you CONVIENTLY IGNORE the most fundamentel FACT of the situation..

the four american mercs has NO RIGHT to be in Iraq, or to have weapons. They are hostile invaders and as such died to people defending their land.. they had it coming...

the american's are using their deaths as an excuse to exert more violent control over the country through force of arms and killings of civillians

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
i don't call that deliberate targetting since thats what the intial point was about. Falujah is currently akin to a warzone. Some would argue local residents are playing a large part in maintaining that situation. tbh they've helped create the mess for themselves as well. I'd hope the Americans are trying to keep stray attacks down. Jowever their priority is to restore order as more people will eventually die if that is not achieved.

Ok vorbis, let's see what your buddies have been up to overnight.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A73529F1-1554-4C68-8774-BA478D565B02.htm

Among the casualties were a family sitting in a car parked behind the Abd al-Aziz al-Samarai mosque when it was bombed by a US airplane.

Well, at least the Americans didn't target them, so that's ok then?

Here's the excuse/reason the came out with:

American forces initially said those killed in Wednesday's attack on the mosque were fighters taking refuge.
But a marine officer was later forced to admit that US forces had failed to find any bodies.

So, they were working under the assumption that there were fighters there? They had false intelligence? The misread a situation? i.e. people were shooting at them, they figured they were in the mosque, so they blew the hell out of it.

Maybe I'm naive, but if an army is in a residential area and they're going to respond to someone attacking them should they not be 100% sure before they start opening fire with heavy artillery? They could have withdrawn from their positions, but no they launched rockets.

"When we hit that building I thought we had killed all the bad guys, but when we went in they didn't find any bad guys in the building," Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne told reporters.

Bad guys? Does he think it's some sort of game they're playing?
They should probably do less thinking and stop the constant brute force reactions to every situation they're put in. If the death tolls continue rising the insurgents/terrorists (whatever you want to call them) will get increased support. Remember what happened in the North after the British Army got trigger happy during a peaceful protest not so long ago?
Being perfectly honest, I can see why the people who carried out the killing of those 4 "contractors" could have such contempt towards westerners.

Just a word of warning. There's a picture of a baby on that page that appears to have been killed, sorry - collaterally damaged, in the attacks. Just in case anyone finds that upsetting.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Im sure if a war crime is committed that the appropriate parties will be brought to justice.

As a matter of interest Sand...is there any precedence that you're aware of to show that the Americans will seriously investigate any allegations of war-crimes against their own, and will come to a balanced and fair decision?

While its a slightly weighted question, I'll admit, the thing is that I'm not aware of any such internal investigation on American military exercises, let alone any convictions, so I'm wondering where your surity comes from.

As someone (you?) has pointed out before, only the losers ever commit war crimes.

jc

Hobbes

What amazes me is the "OMG See what is happening!".

It is business as usual.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/

For those who don't like that site...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

As for civilians being killed.

I've seen some of the footage of what has been done to civilians and it is no better then what has happened to the Americans.

The only difference is the media feeds it as space invaders where you get to kill the "bad guy" from high up in the air.

vorbis

the area needs to be brought back under control. Frankly, I would blame the terrorists for any civilian deaths caused by firefights THEY started. Memnoch, the double standards you impose on the Americans are ludricous. The militia in Falujah is imo responsible for most of the deaths in this latest round of fighting.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
Frankly, I would blame the terrorists for any civilian deaths caused by firefights THEY started.

Yeah that makes sense. The Americans seal off the city and bomb it, but it's the terrorists' fault?
Are you actually reading any of the aritcles that have been posted here and elsewhere? Have you watched the news? Listened to the radio?

Take a look (if you're bothered) here - Also, small warning, there's pictures of dead children along with the article. For those who'd rather not see them.

US helicopters and snipers are firing on ambulances and civilian vehicles trying to take the wounded to clinics or the hospital, the correspondent said.
Many children have been killed in the US attacks on Falluja
"One civilian car trying to reach a clinic hoisted a white flag but still came under fire," he said."

That's the terrorists' fault is it?

Frankly, I would blame the terrorists for any civilian deaths caused by firefights THEY started

Actually since they're fighting within their own country's borders, they'd be "resistence fighters", or even "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists. The word terrorist is being applied to too many incidents these days.

vorbis

sorry Frank, I don't trust Al Jazeera any more than I would Fox News. Also the city wouldn't have been sealed off were it not for the previous atrocities. The terrorists who did that were deliberately trying to escalate the situation with no concern at all for the Falujah inhabitants.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by vorbis
sorry Frank, I don't trust Al Jazeera any more than I would Fox News.

Your posts seem to follow a Fox/CNN line, but if you don't want to believe AJ that's your prerogative.

Also the city wouldn't have been sealed off were it not for the previous atrocities

The killing of 4 people does not justify what the Americans are doing there at the moment.

vorbis

The killing of 4 people does not justify what the Americans are doing there at the moment.

I guess we differ over this. Fair enough.