You've probably heard the story already, 55 died in a market place...Here's the article in case you haven't
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d_blasts_dc_26
This is why war should be a last resort mr preemptive action president
Printable View
You've probably heard the story already, 55 died in a market place...Here's the article in case you haven't
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d_blasts_dc_26
This is why war should be a last resort mr preemptive action president
Well, last time it happened it was (or we were told) an Iraqi missile that missed its target and came down in the wrong place. Could be the same thing again.
Wasn't ours, the pentagon clearly stated that, it was possible, but highly unlikely since we had no bombs released in the area.
::edit::
i really think you people should back the hell off, they are doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualities, inclusing putting our soldiers at extreme risk, have you not heard the brits in basra complaining about the restrictions!
and i guess you havn't heard about the fid ayin masacaring civilians either?
When did I say the US did it?
EDIT:
It really doesn't matter who did it, I'm still ........ed off
your blame us no?
It's awful when any civilians die in war. But you just have to keep in the front of your mind that we are doing this for the greater good.
Y'know, I normally like to leave things like this alone, but, no-one, for your arguments to look in any way decent, learn how to fscking spell.
So you're saying this is acceptable?Quote:
i really think you people should back the hell off, they are doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualities, inclusing putting our soldiers at extreme risk, have you not heard the brits in basra complaining about the restrictions!
and i guess you havn't heard about the fid ayin masacaring civilians either?
EDIT:
I seriously cannot even believe that I am getting crap for feeling remorse for dead civilians...I dont' know what your views are about being open minded and 'looking at the bigger picture' and crap...that's not open minded...it's just ... omfg forget it
He's giving you crap because in his mind, you're implying the US did it. I know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
So you're saying this is acceptable?
EDIT:
I seriously cannot even believe that I am getting crap for feeling remorse for dead civilians...I dont' know what your views are about being open minded and 'looking at the bigger picture' and crap...that's not open minded...it's just ... omfg forget it
Ohhhh, no no no, I didn't ever imply the united states actually killed the people, that's a moot point because they're just as did no matter who did it. I made a pass at Bush for starting the war. I don't like war, can you tell?
How is tgat not an implication that it is the fault of the US? Not neccesarily an implication that the US themselves did the bombing, yet that the bombing would have never taken place if it weren't for the US. How about that dictators shouldn't committ atrocities that may cause a"preemptive" president to bring their nation to war?Quote:
This is why war should be a last resort mr preemptive action president
Guys... Come on...
war should be an absolute last resort. This atrocity would have never happened if we werent' in the war.
>Y'know, I normally like to leave things like this alone, but, no-one, for your arguments to look in any way decent, learn how to fscking spell.
<
i have a $$$$ty keyboard, + I suffer from some kind of "Mental" wierdness/illness/disease where is try to spell things backwards, im sorry, but i can't help it., my spelling on the othr hand is well above the national average, only held back by stupidity.
well furter research says its dyslexia, though i suffer from very few of its symptoms.
>So you're saying this is acceptable?
by no means, govt. is right.
>
I seriously cannot even believe that I am getting crap for feeling remorse for dead civilians...I dont' know what your views are about being open minded and 'looking at the bigger picture' and crap...that's not open minded...it's just ... omfg forget it
<
your not, chill.
>I made a pass at Bush for starting the war.
please call him a monkey or something, im greatly apreciative that he started the war, hes potentially saving thousands of Americans and Iraqi's.
>I don't like war, can you tell?
its kinda obvious.
>war should be an absolute last resort. This atrocity would have never happened if we werent' in the war.
they had already been happening, and you cannot blame us for the evils of Saddam, because we are at war, he kills his own people for propaganda, and to maintain control, not because of us, we are doing everything in our power to keep civilians alive.
I just don't want anyone to die for any reason...especially people that aren't even fighting. I really hope this war accomplishes something, and I'm not going to argue after this because I can't make good political arguments...I just don't want anyone to die...
neither do we nor does Bush, i believe thats why the war is being fought.
Exactly, and beyond that, the start of this war was more than drawn out. How many times did Bush say the war was going to start in an attempt to threaten Saddam before the war actually started? Months and months. We were waiting, kept saying we'd go to war but we didn't in hopes of solving it diplomaticly.
Sometimes, believe it or not, diplomacy fails.
I think you would have received a lot less heat if you would have kept this as your whole point and left out the preemptive president bit. :) Either way, I understand your point, but sometimes people will have to loser their life for a greater cause. That's the way life works and will always work...sad but true...Quote:
...I just don't want anyone to die...
(not trying to be a dick)silvercord i completly understand your point i just dont understand how you cant be more supportive of this military action. civilians died under saddam but there wasnt any posts about that
You would have not said this if you were in Iraq!Quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
...Either way, I understand your point, but sometimes people will have to loser their life for a greater cause. That's the way life works and will always work...sad but true...
US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth. They make up stories which are only fictitious and pleasing to the Americans, while the truth remains totally different. The Americans are totally astray from the truth. I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the only ones which are showing the right thing happeing in and around the war, I know this is right because I live in Kuwait and have a live view of the same.
It could be the other way too, the US could have miss-fired or more likely targeted. There was this thing more than a week back, when a US missile had back fired into Kuwait itself. Ofcourse, things like these never come up in media, or rather US media. I know this for sure because I saw this missile hit a fish market about 3kms from where I live which shook the whole area up and the sirens never sounded, upon enquiry we came to know that the sirens never sounded because the missile was not from the enemy Iraq but from the supposedly saviours; US.Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Well, last time it happened it was (or we were told) an Iraqi missile that missed its target and came down in the wrong place. Could be the same thing again.
Bush has gone MAD, and the people supporting the cause do not know why they are doing so or for what. Just beacuse he uses some "Americanization" terms, does not mean he is right. Think about the others, the civilians who suffer the most. The civilians are not suffering from the "Dictator" or his atrocities, but the sanctions imposed on them by the "Americanization". All that the Iraqi people need for their benefit is a better economy support and not a war. They are better of without a war than without Saddam and the quest to remove him from power. If Bush really wants to rid the world of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", he should be the first to disarm and look upon it's allies like Israel who are being openly supported with Bio/Chem/Nuke wepons. This is not a point to flare up pro/anti Israel views, but only talking the fact.
<<You would have not said this if you were in Iraq!
US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth. They make up stories which are only fictitious and pleasing to the Americans, while the truth remains totally different. The Americans are totally astray from the truth. I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the only ones which are showing the right thing happeing in and around the war, I know this is right because I live in Kuwait and have a live view of the same.
>>
Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the soldiers to capture everything that happens?
In vietnam lots of reporters followed the army filming every destruction on there way, american and v-cong victims.
But then the americans started protesting against this war because they saw such awfull things on television. I guess pretty much the same things happen nowadays, its just not captured on tape.Bullets stay bullets no matta wat.
Just my opinion .
>I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the
>only ones which are showing the right thing happeing
I wonder if there is any channel showing the right thing happening, whatever is right. Most channels I can see here, Dutch, German, French, American, several Arabic channels and more show the news from a certain point of view. Germany and France are against a war and that can be seen in the news on their channels, they usually show what the coalition does wrong and tell us that not everything is going as the coalition expected. The Dutch television only shows the American prisoners of war and their families, but doesn't show the families of Iraqi prisoners of wars.
Recently Al Jazeera showed a picture of a young boy whose head was broken apart and you could see his brains lying on the street. A terrible picture.
What would the American public opinion be if the reports shown on Al Jazeera of the Iraqi deaths, of badly hurt Iraqi children or Iraqi children killed by the results of bombardements or other explosives, were shown by CNN?
Every time I see pictures or hear reports of civilians being killed in this war it saddens me. But every time I try and keep the thought, in the front of my mind, that they died for the greater good.
Does anyone here disagree that the Iraqi people will have more chance of leading a better life with more freedom, choice and a higher standard of living without Hussein in power? I believe they will and I believe that we should do what we can to help them get to a situation where they have the same liberties that we enjoy and frankly take for granted here in the west. Those liberties that we enjoy in the west, did not however, come without a price. The English civil war lasted 6 years, the American civil war lasted 4 years (I think). Both wars involved huge bloodshed and destruction of people's homes, not to mention the general hardship of living in a country at war for years on end. The war with Iraq is being fought in a manner designed to bring about minimal civillian casualties. Can you imagine how Saddam would treat his civillians if they were to try and invoke a civil war to remove him? Is it not better that they have the most powerful alliance in the world on their side for this revolution? There will regretably be civilian casualties, but compared to the bloodshed other countries suffered in bringing about new leadership and compared to the likely bloodshed of the Iraqi people trying to remove him on their own, I believe this war will be over quickly and with minimal loss.
>Bush has gone MAD, and the people supporting the cause do not know why they are doing so or for what. Just beacuse he uses some "Americanization" terms, does not mean he is right. <
This statement certainly would have and did apply to U.S. involvement in Vietnam--a huge mistake which we are still paying for.
But it does not apply to this decision to oust Saddam Hussein.
We know full well why the U.S. is in Iraq, what the risks are, what the objectives are, and what the benefits of winning this
war will be. That's the big difference between here and Vietnam
and why in the U.S. and Britain there is more support for this
war than there ever was for our involvement in Vietnam. Peace
at any price led us into World War II; the same philosophy here
could easily lead us into WW III.
<<That's the big difference between here and Vietnam
and why in the U.S. and Britain there is more support for this
war than there ever was for our involvement in Vietnam. Peace
at any price led us into World War II; the same philosophy here
could easily lead us into WW III.
And thats exactly why the UN was organized after WW 2.
To make sure that something like that wouldnt happen again. Nowadays the UN apparently doesnt count anylonger. America doesnt has the right to attack Iraq without permision of the UN (wich they didnt gave). Thats what stunned me the most, that the UN doesnt seem to act while someone is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
> US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth.
You know what's really neat, is proof. You know, likes links that actually prove this sort of claim instead of saying "only the truth". I could claim that the Indian Ocean's full of chocolate pudding, but that doesn't really mean anything without anything backing it up, does it.
> Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the soldiers to capture everything that happens?
I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations) and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he was? That's right.
> is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
edit: We have a peace treaty with Iraq? That's a new one.
People, quit making claims you can't back up or have no intention of backing up.
> Here's my favourite news story for today. It's got pictures. In colour. It must be true.
I know what you mean, but it'd be better than people just shouting out "I HEARD THE US IS GOING TO ANNEX LIECHTENSTEIN AS THE 51ST STATE!".
>> Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent
>> reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the
>> soldiers to capture everything that happens?
>
> I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations)
> and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he
> was? That's right.
Yes, there are reporters with the soldiers and they probably can capture everything that happens. But I wonder if the stations are allowed to show everything the reporters have captured. Also what the reporters show is, I think, quite one sided.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2885179.stm
http://www.bangkokpost.net/en/Realti...03_real24.html
http://www.welt.de/data/2003/03/21/5...d&searchHILI=1
dunno who said this anyway
<<> is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
edit: We have a peace treaty with Iraq? That's a new one.
>>
kduh not with Iraq. I mean all the nations who are in the UN have signed something. And if a country that is in the UN wants to have a war with some other country they need permission of the UN. Without permission of the UN they violate every thing the UN stands for.
UN was set up to keep warfare out of the world. But apparently some countries that who are in the UN dont go by the book.
<<I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations) and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he was? That's right.
Sry but yesterday i watched something about vietnam and the images you saw there cant compete against those we see now.
What i saw yesterday about vietnam were American soldiers who are lying in the gutter .....four men dragging someone (also a soldier) through the mud to evacuate him. Because his legs were blown of. I even saw a doctor whos hand was blown off by a grenade. Children from a village running around burned from head to toe.
Now have i seen such things on CNN nada.. yeah maybe once ..but not all the time..
I'm not an American but i do know that the Americans left Vietnam just because public opinion was against this war. Because of the fact that almost every day there was a plane flying back to the us carrying dead soldiers.....
I'm also not saying that i need to see such things on tv im just saying that right now the media is much more controlled by governments.....geeeh i wonder why they even blew up some tv-station in Iraq??? (all media controlled by governments)...OR NAH wait that station had some biological mass destruction weapons underground.... too bad that Saddam is too stupid to use his mass destruction weapons.... his country is being bombarded and he has MDW, but he's just a wuss thats mayb the reason that hes not using them.... or no mayb he jsut aint got those MDW... go figure.
When they were still trying to investigate wether sadam had MDW
they said on tele ...we have images of trucks carrying MDW but oooh we cannot locate them...
::sarcastic tone::
BUT we can launch missiles that are so accurate that there will be no civilian casulties ..
its all one big joke this war
:p :D :p
> And if a country that is in the UN wants to have a war with some other country they need permission of the UN.
That's the UN - it's not a peace treaty. There's a difference.
> Sry but yesterday i watched something about vietnam and the images you saw there cant compete against those we see now.
What i saw yesterday about vietnam were American soldiers who are lying in the gutter .....four men dragging someone (also a soldier) through the mud to evacuate him. Because his legs were blown of. I even saw a doctor whos hand was blown off by a grenade. Children from a village running around burned from head to toe.
Would you like to see that sort of thing? Ever think maybe that hasn't happened in Iraq, or maybe the journalists just weren't there for it? What sort of a crappy argument is that?
>Sry but yesterday i watched something about vietnam and the
>images you saw there cant compete against those we see now.
Then look at Al Jazeera instead of western TV stations if you want to see such.
>too bad that Saddam is too stupid to use his mass destruction weapons
He knows public opinion will be totally against him when he uses mass destruct weapons, probably only when he has nothing more to lose he will use them I'm afraid. They inspectors couldn't find them, but I think he has them. Perhaps they were kept in a safe place, like in Libia or some other country. I don't know, it is all speculation.
i calerly stated that i didnt wanted to see such thing .. lathough i know they happen.. but maybe they should be shown as well on CNN.
public opinion is something very powerfull.....if you would see such images every day on tv ....well ill stick to my opinion.
its all one big fat joke now.
last week i heard on radio... 1 farmer has shot a helicopter out the air ..reports iraqi ppl....
next minute you hear general or Lt whoever, said they were facing serious antiaircraft $$$$ etc... funny aint it :d:d
>last week i heard on radio... 1 farmer has shot a helicopter out
>the air ..reports iraqi ppl.... next minute you hear general or Lt
>whoever, said they were facing serious antiaircraft $$$$ etc..
At the Dutch television I heard that the helicopter pilot had made a forced landing. The helicopter looked quite undamaged and, unless I have missed something, the pilots were not found.
And yes, public opinion is quite powerfull. The difficult thing however is that public opinion is heavily based on the reports the public sees on TV, hears on radio and reads in papers. Those reports are often controlled and often in some way biassed.
im gonna assume this is all a joke or some weird dream and go on.
edit:: i'm gonna post this on the 'Spirits and ouija boards' thread
Invading Iraq seems pointless unless we stop everyone else who poses a potential threat.
>>Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the soldiers to capture everything that happens?
there are, there called "imbedded"
i dont care what news you watch "oh german news tells the "truth" and everyone else is just lying" ...NO news channel is getting it right, we never find out what really happend until years later, like i said in an earlier post, if you actually believe everything you see on cnn (or whatever your media outlet is) youre an idiot, plain and simple
I can imagine the horrors of war without having to see an Iraqi child with his brains blown out on the ground. Unfortunately, before this war began, the majority of war supporters had a simplistic line of thinking: (1) America is great, good, and powerful; (2) America is right and knows best; (3) Saddam Hussein is an evil "one of them" who has committed genocide against his own people; (3) Saddam is trying to get weapons he can use against American interests; (4) the president said he had to go so let's get out the flag and support our fighting men and women who are defending God and country! Too many people follow this line because they are ignorant: They don't bother thinking about history, cultural differences, the possibility that America is not perfect, etc. All they know is the biased propaganda they've known since they were born and which the news media, which are owned by corporate conglomerates, continue to show.
Every time someone, knowledgably or ignorantly, chooses to speak his or her opinion against this war, that person is drowned out by a flood of "patriots" dressed in their red, white, and blue parroting the Bush propaganda they've heard without ever considering that maybe President Bush is not right. It's not that I don't value diversity of opinion, but what these "patriots" are doing is disgusting: Why can't people just use their brains for a change? I've heard too much about the pro-war demonstations already. When are the media going to realize there is a minority in this country (10-25% I'd estimate) that values more intellectual depth in foreign policy than blind patriotism. Americans are marching like lemmings behind Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration over a cliff.
So much for dreams of democracy and civil liberties for Iraqis if they become indignant after their "liberation" and democratically elect a government even more anti-American than Saddam Hussein's! So much for liberty in Iraq if a fundamentalist Islamic revolution were to happen afterwards as happened in Iran. So much for national security if Islamic terrorists and anti-Americans in general become more imbittered, and our allies in Europe couldn't care less after Bush's betrayal.
So much for peace if pre-emption means taking on one "rogue state" after another in an effort to accomodate a global atmosphere supportive of unrestrained corporate growth.
1) i thought it was called embedded but that doesnt matter..Quote:
there are, there called "imbedded"
i dont care what news you watch "oh german news tells the "truth" and everyone else is just lying" ...NO news channel is getting it right, we never find out what really happend until years later, like i said in an earlier post, if you actually believe everything you see on cnn (or whatever your media outlet is) youre an idiot, plain and simple
2) im not german + i dont watch the news anylonger bout Iraq .
im a egoistic person, and i really just dont give a $$$$anylonger.
although mayb newt week im going to be protesting in front of
the american ambessy in belgium ... just to check out the
watercannon and pepperspray that cops use.
3) i dont rely on one source
4) this is the final point ... gonna jet
>>1) i thought it was called embedded but that doesnt matter..
LMAO, youre right, i cant believe i made an ass of myself like that :cool:
it wasnt an attack on you, so i hope you didnt take it that way, all im saying to the people of the board who only watch one media outlet (cnn/msnbc/foxnews all count as 1) and dont look at this whole war objectively are hurting themselves...and the rest of us...by being misinformed and biased, im not for the war, but im not against it by any means... a lot of people on this board have one mind set and stick to it and then tell others to have an open mind about things(:rolleyes: )....simply, look at the big picture, its ok to watch cnn, but dont come screamin to the board saying stuff like its the word of God or something(i know, thats a whole new thread) if you've been watching the news...just keep watching and listen for all the backtracking the media is doing..
ex) missile hits civilian target...20 min later missile might have hit civilian target,....missile went astray.....wasnt a missile, was iraqi anti aircraft fire....??????? i mean COME ON! i'd rather hear a news story a week late and it be acurate than having news reports that are wrong every 30 seconds
>>gonna jet
i wish i could but debating is so much more fun, i love reading someones post and it making my blood boil :)
whew....i think thats it :)
The sooner that Saddam is exhiled, or fataly injured, the sooner we can stop worrying about it all and go onto the next 'big chapter' of our lives.
>The sooner that Saddam is exhiled, or fataly injured, the sooner we can stop worrying about it all and go onto the next 'big chapter' of our lives.
No, it's not as simple as it sounds. America had created enough enemies for itself till now and this move (war) is just a littile more "fuel to fire" to the cause of global islamic fundamentalism, which is only going to grow more.
>>islamic fundamentalism
[sarcasm]and what a better way to put out the good word on your religion by blowing stuff up[/sarcasm]
>>>islamic fundamentalism
>[sarcasm]and what a better way to put out the good word on your religion by blowing stuff up[/sarcasm]
"Fundamentalism" is the word understood by this world for anything related to the Muslims and their strife, and it was only in this context did I refer it with this term. Otherwise, in a language not understood to others it is called "Jehad".
> "Fundamentalism" is the word understood by this world for anything related to the Muslims and their strife,
Wrong. The term fundamentalism is just rigid adherence to the principles of whatever theology someone holds. Usually it also means the total dismissal of anyone's beliefs who do not match their own. There are Christian fundamentalists, too, but they tend not to explode so often. They're usually just annoying.
Yes, also the conflict between protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland has a bit to do with Christian fundamentalism. Also in other parts of Europe there are Christian fundamentalists who disagree with eachother, usually they don't use very much violence to fight eachother, but there sure is aggression between several Christian groups. The only thing is that their violence is usually a little less extreme than Muslim fundamentalists use and therefore it is less in the news.
>Wrong. The term fundamentalism is just rigid adherence to the principles of whatever theology someone holds.
That's exactly right, and what I meant. This is what the muslims are doing, fighting the oppression tried on them, ofcourse in a very aggressive style, not that they began in this style, but has only grown into this style, a style adopted from the enemy.
>The only thing is that their violence is usually a little less extreme than Muslim fundamentalists use and therefore it is less in the news.
Don't you get news about that is happening in and around Israel, a land controlled by "Man of Peace" , a Christian?
Search for more and you'll get plenty more.Quote:
In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood. We then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.'
In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.
In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.
this is what i found when i did a little search
in 2001: 19 devout islamic fundamenalist, hi-jacked 4 planes. flew 2 airplanes into the world trade center, 1 into the pentagon, and crashed one into a field in Pennsylvania. killing 3,021 and injuring 2,337
I would think that a true fundementalist of any religion would be governed by the doctrines of the religion. In every religion I am aware of, one of the tenets is not to kill.
that would be my understanding, a TRUE fundamentalist, isnt one at all
The "19 devout islamic fundamenalist" did not do what they did just for fun or with an attitude "let's have a death ride", they had a cause, a remorse.
Anyway, "3,021" is not a big number I guess when compared to the following numbers:
* 1.5 million people in Iraq, over half of them children under five, have died as a direct result of the US led UN sanctions
* More than 2,000 people have died in Palestine due to Israel's atrocity supported by the US
* There are more, don't have time to list them all
i forgot that the us coalition counts as fundamentalists