Originally posted by chancremechanicYou are absolutely right.
Shav, why are all of your "examples" American "atrocities"?..why can't you share the wealth and submit some non-American atrocities, such as the rape of Nanking by the Japs...where they tossed babies onto bayonets, Stalins atrocities against Russian Jews and others sent to the Gulags, the Germans and the blood of 6,000,000 Jews (women and childr ...[text shortened]... at only America could do, but nobody else...it really makes you seem, well, Talibanish.....😕 🙄
The reason I chose American attrocities is because I was replying to USC203-whatever, and I presume he is an American. He was talking about HIS army not having baby-killing on the agenda. I was just making it very clear that they DO have baby killing on the agenda. If not in writing, certainly in deed.
Obviously EVERY army which participates in urban warfare knows full well they are gonna be killing women and children as well.
--------
On the second part of your post about the atom-bomb.
Let's get a few things straight: War is about rich people wanting to become richer and wanting to own more land.
Now if people are dumb enough* to join armies and put their lives at risk to help these 'poor' rich people, that's up to them. Leave the women and children out of it.
As you will have noticed, the US owning and using the atom bomb hasn't decreased the number of wars the US has been involved in. So, the long term effect of using it has only been other people building it as well.
As for the short term: Japan had no way of feeding the millions in Japan any more. A reasonable embargo would have brought them to their knees and would have saved LOTS of civilian life (Their high-command was already flirting with surrender). And after WWII...what did happen to their beloved emperor. I can't remember seeing his face at Nuremberg.
Don't get me wrong on this. Hitler and the emperor had to go. No two doubts about it. But I don't think the goal always justifies the means. Just because Hitler gassed 6.000.000+ doesn't justify Dresden, for example.
If we are fighting for the moral high ground, we must show and prove that we actually DO OWN that very moral high ground.
* Obviously some countries tie joining the army with esteem or education. It seems to me that forcing people to become hired killers just so they can afford an education is a problem that these individual countries have to address. Or more to the point: the working classes should be addressing these situations in their respective countries.
Originally posted by slimjimThere are always some people who believe all their military tells them. Unfortunately for the apologists for the American military, the camera was rolling before and during the attack. Neither the video or the soundtrack showed shooting or weapons amongst the crowd.
They were armed. They were shooting up in the air on top of the tank when the copter fired on it. The pilots should be commended on a job well done.
The Bradley (not a tank) was an inferno. Standing on top of it would be like standing on a stovetop. Any weapons inside would have been destroyed in the intense blaze and certainly could not be retrieved.If you are guessing what happened or if your media are not telling you what your troops are doing, look again at the pictures and video.
What the crowd was doing was rejoicing at the destruction of the military vehicle. The freedom that has been brought to Iraq by Bush does not appear to include the freedom to oppose the US and jeer at their military failures. The military PR man could not admit the helicopter pilot delibaretly targetted unarmed civilians.
Originally posted by slimjimSo waving a flag is a sufficient reason to kill civilians?
Well thats because your priorities show you live in lala land and never served in the military. Those so-called civilians were carrying a banner loyal to Zarquawi so the question of them being unarmed civilians is kind of lame. I don't see any condemnation of the killing of one US soldier and wounding of three others in this incident. Is it because they are ...[text shortened]... care less what you Kiwis think. I bet the dumb SOB's won't climb up on another tank will they?
Even a dumnb kiwi knows a Bradley is not a tank. Just how extensive is your militry knowledge?
Originally posted by steerpikeDo you have a more recent or better link than the original one given? I'd like to see some more information before I comment again.
So waving a flag is a sufficient reason to kill civilians?
Even a dumnb kiwi knows a Bradley is not a tank. Just how extensive is your militry knowledge?
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt has been fairly well reported - here are a few from around the world:
Do you have a more recent or better link than the original one given? I'd like to see some more information before I comment again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4489927,00.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6224
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040912/API/409120634
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10749717%255E2703,00.html
The clip was shown on my local New Zealand news - and it clarly contradicts the US position. It was dramatic stuff - the Bradley was shown burning in broad daylight, a crowd of onlookers, sone cheering and some watching, a child was throwing palm branches on the fire, and the reporter began his report, the burning vehicle in the background. The crowd looked up and pointed and there was an explosion with blood spots appearing on the lens. The reporter called "I'm dying. I'm dying". No weapons or shots were apparent before the attack.It is possible the child shown was killed - I m relying in memory but I think about a 12 year old boy.
Was this shown in the US? I had assumed it was widely aired. Was if reported at all? It was certainly news outside the US - but CNN did not cover it. The US news media showed Abu Ghraib - I presume they are not just running military PR?
Finally look at the picture on this link, taken just before the attack and decide for yourself if the vehicle could be looted for weapons and had to be destroyed at the cost of a dozen lives. You can spot the palm branches thrown in the hatch by the child - a sufficent reason to kill him?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B13F5DC7-E9A9-4D86-8C05-235CBF641973.htm
Originally posted by steerpikeTo cut through the crap.
"The helicopter fired on the Bradley to destroy it after it had been hit earlier and it was on fire", said Major Phil Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. "It was for the safety of the people around it."
So -in the interests of safety - a helicopter bombs and machine guns a crowd of civilians. killing 12 and injuring 61. The dead included children ...[text shortened]... it."
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=561021
"Either you are for us, or you are against us."
Good on them. Thirty dead creaps.
Not?
My biggest dream remains when we finally realize we are at war.
and kill al jazirra. And anyone who is in favor of the baby killers.
Including those in the UK and the Us. Just kill them.
The war just took on a whole nother meaning as a silent man in Utah recognized the meaning of "all out war".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWelcome back Star - been away for a while?
To cut through the crap.
"Either you are for us, or you are against us."
Good on them. Thirty dead creaps.
Not?
My biggest dream remains when we finally realize we are at war.
and kill al jazirra. And anyone who is in favor of the baby killers.
Including those in the UK and the Us. Just kill them.
The war just took on a whole nother meaning as a silent man in Utah recognized the meaning of "all out war".
At least you are honest - I can't see you making your living as a military PR man.You would have said it - they weren't for us, so they were against us. The people against are terrorists - so we killed us a bunch of terrorists. Sure, it may have included children but they are still terrorist and we intend to continue to kill any man, woman and child who do not support us - even if have to kill 20 million in Iraq before moving on to the UK and US. I bet France and New Zealand are in your plasns for global genocide too?
I am feeling good today - New Zealand troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this month. We sent in a reconstruction team, did our best to rebuild schools and infrastructure, and stayed for the year they committed to. With allies like SVW, what country would like to continue standing beside the Americans?
2 edits
Originally posted by steerpikeA baby terrorist is still a terrorist.
Welcome back Star - been away for a while?
At least you are honest - I can't see you making your living as a military PR man.You would have said it - they weren't for us, so they were against us. The people against are terrorists - s ...[text shortened]... would like to continue standing beside the Americans?
All out war.
Read about it and learn.
Are you for Facists? Or against them?
Decide. Or can there be a "pseudo-facist" that is totally acceptable?
Those who send out a thirty minute warning before they kill your kids in a school?
edit... I admire the troops who helped. I don't admire you. And I'll bet they don't admire you either. Any bets? By the way... when do you get out? Are you planning on any burgles or theft? How are you going to make a living outside of having all your meals provided?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI admire them too. They were asked to do a job they may not have agreed with. As time went on, the justification for the war put forward by Bush and Blair proved to be false. But they did their job anyway.
edit... I admire the troops who helped. I don't admire you. And I'll bet they don't admire you either
They were fortunate in being based in Basra, not in the area controlled by the US which is where most of the fighting is. Perhaps the UK got it easy, as it was a Shiite area and the Shiites were pleased to see Saddam go. But you Americans managed to start a Shiite rebellion in Najaf and Sadr City, to take some pressure of the Sunni insurgents. Perhaps you might learn something from your allies. The UK are not pussies - they are prepared to kill those that threaten them but they have learnt from Ireland indiscriminate killings is not a winning strategy.
The battle that destroyed the Bradley took place following an attack on a convoy of armoured vehicles, within a few hundred metres of tne Green zone which houses the American embassy. In broad daylight, within earshot of the American headquarters, armoured vehicles burn and what you regard as terrorists can only be attacked by helicopter - it was too dangerous to send ground troops. How much worse can it get for America?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm not famed for my left-wing views, but even I raise an eyebrow at the 'baby terrorists' comment.
If you ever have children, you will know the truth of it.
The point has been made that we (the rich West) are at war with Islamist terrorists (or perhaps it's the other way 'round). I'm not sure if a world view that allows for the eradication of 'baby terrorists' is one that is worth preserving over another.
SVW - just think about what you wrote. Does that sentiment *really* represent your view?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI am not sure if you are joking but I think it is bad taste to joke about killing children.
A baby terrorist is still a terrorist.
All out war.
You appear to place the same value on the life of a child as the terrorists at Beslan. Or Lietenant Callley, who stated at his trial he saw a baby in the arms of a mother as his enemy.
Perhaps you might like to clarify at what age it is permissible to regard a child as a legitiimate target.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe attack on Fallujah yesterday killed woman and children as well SVW. Check out the BBC report (it's also mentioned on Dutch channels, although I did notice that CNN did not mention the civilian casualties).
To cut through the crap.
"Either you are for us, or you are against us."
Good on them. Thirty dead creaps.
Not?
My biggest dream remains when we finally realize we are at war.
and kill al jazirra. And anyone who is in favor of the baby killers.
Including those in the UK and the Us. Just kill them.
The war just took on a whole nother meaning as a silent man in Utah recognized the meaning of "all out war".
The attacks were carried out by the US army and airforce. Are these the baby-killers you are referring to?