Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 700

[kumkap]

to believe Allied troops go out of their way to kill innocent civilians is nonsense. Sure they are examples where mistakes happened and some soldiers may have shot innocent civilians however these cases are in extreme minority. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

armat there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, but you have to look for it b/c it's not reported in the american media. here are a few excerpts from an article that appeared in the uk times newspaper entitled us marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death. pay attention to the bolded parts:

 

My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.

 

Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.

 

Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery.

 

Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition’s supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved.

 

One man’s body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes. His savings, perhaps.

 

Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing.

 

Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi woman — perhaps the girl’s mother — was dead, slumped in the back seat. A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies.

 

This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey.

 

As I walked away, Lieutenant Matt Martin, whose third child, Isabella, was born while he was on board ship en route to the Gulf, appeared beside me.

 

“Did you see all that?” he asked, his eyes filled with tears. “Did you see that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I could but I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being killed like this, but we had no choice.”

 

Martin’s distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. “The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,” said Corporal Ryan Dupre. “I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.”

 

my question when i read this is, who is held responsible for this? no one. one group of human beings slaughters another (and now we know for no reason whatsover - iraq was no threat to the united states and had nothing to do with 9/11), and no one is punished. that's the double standard i am talking about.

 

But it was also the turning point when the jovial band of brothers from America lost all their assumptions about the war and became jittery aggressors who talked of wanting to “nuke” the place.

 

ok, so iraqis are at the mercy of people who want to "nuke the place". imagine that the lapd is run by people who want to nuke your neighborhood. why do they want to nuke the place, iraq never did anything to them and americans have no reason to be in their country, none whatsoever.

 

“I was shooting down a street when suddenly a woman came out and casually began to cross the street with a child no older than 10,” said Gunnery Sergeant John Merriman, another Gulf war veteran. “At first I froze on seeing the civilian woman. She then crossed back again with the child and went behind a wall. Within less than a minute a guy with an RPG came out and fired at us from behind the same wall. This happened a second time so I thought, ‘Okay, I get it. Let her come out again’.

 

She did and this time I took her out with my M-16.” Others were less sanguine.

 

so this guy gunned down an unarmed woman and child. that's a war crime, and will never be punished. remember, no double standards when it comes to the value of human life. americans have no right to be there in the first place.

 

here are some excerpts from article that appeared in the publication online journal called army reservist witnesses war crimes:

 

Aiden Delgado, an Army Reservist in the 320th Military Police Company, served in Iraq from April 1, 2003 through April 1, 2004. After spending six months in Nasiriyah in Southern Iraq, he spent six months helping to run the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad. The handsome 23-year-old mechanic was a witness to widespread, almost daily, U.S. war crimes in Iraq. His story contains new revelations about ongoing brutality at Abu Ghraib, information yet to be reported in national media.

 

Delgado says he observed mutilation of the dead, trophy photos of dead Iraqis, mass roundups of innocent noncombatants, positioning of prisoners in the line of fire—all violations of the Geneva conventions. His own buddies—decent, Christian men, as he describes them—shot unarmed prisoners.

 

note: this is what serbs are being tried for war crimes for.

 

In one government class for seniors, Delgado presented graphic images, his own photos of a soldier playing with a skull, the charred remains of children, kids riddled with bullets, a soldier from his unit scooping out the brains of a prisoner. Some students were squeamish, like myself, and turned their heads. Others rubbed tears from their eyes.

 

...Here is Aiden Delgado story.

 

Q: When did you begin to turn against the military and the war?

 

DELGADO: From the very earliest time I was in Iraq, I began to see ugly strains of racism among our troops—anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiments.

 

Q: What are some examples?

 

DELGADO: There was a Master Sergeant. A Master Sergeant is one of the highest enlisted ranks. He whipped this group of Iraqi children with a steel Humvee antenna. He just lashed them with it because they were crowding around, bothering him, and he was tired of talking. Another time, a Marine, a Lance Corporal—a big guy about six-foot-two—planted a boot on a kid's chest, when a kid came up to him and asked him for a soda. The First Sergeant said, "That won't be necessary Lance Corporal." And that was the end of that. It was a matter of routine for guys in my unit to drive by in a Humvee and shatter bottles over Iraqis heads as they went by. And these were guys I considered friends. And I told them: "What the hell are you doing? What does that accomplish?" One said back: "I hate being here. I hate looking at them. I hate being surrounded by all these Hajjis."

 

Q: They refer to Iraqis as "Hajjis"?

 

DELGADO: "Hajji" is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as "gook," "Charlie," or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It's real common. There was really a thick aura of racism....

 

Q: How were the civilians killed?

 

DELGADO: It was common practice to set up blockades. The Third Infantry would block off a road. In advance of the assault, civilians would flee the city in a panic. As they approached us, someone would yell: "Stop, stop!" In English. Of course they couldn't understand. Their cars were blown up with cannons, or crushed with tanks. Killing noncombatants at checkpoints happened routinely, not only with the Third Infantry, but the First Marines. And it is still going on today. If you check last week's MSNBC, they dug out a father and mother and her six children. We were constantly getting reports of vehicles that were destroyed (with people in them) at checkpoints.

 

Q: Your unit, the 320th Military Police, was stationed at Abu Ghraib for six months. Who were the prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Where did they come from? Do you have any new information not yet reported in the media?

 

DELGADO: There were 4,000 to 6,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I got to work with a lot of officers, so I got to see the paperwork. I found out that a lot of prisoners were imprisoned for no crime at all. They were not insurgents. Some were inside for petty theft or drunkenness. But the majority—over 60 percent—were not imprisoned for crimes committed against the coalition.

 

Q: How did so many noncombatants get imprisoned?

 

DELGADO: Every time our base came under attack, we sent out teams to sweep up all men between the ages of 17 and 50. There were random sweeps. The paperwork to get them out of prison took six months or a year. It was hellish inside. A lot of completely innocent civilians were in prison camp for no offense. It sounds completely outrageous. But look at the 2005 Department of Defense Report, where it talks about prisoners.

 

Q: When you arrived at Abu Ghraib, what did you see, beyond what we all learned from the scandal in the news? And how were you affected?

 

DELGADO: I was becoming disillusioned. I expected brutality from the enemy. That was a given. But to see brutality from our own side, that was really tough for me. It was hard to see the army fall so much in my esteem. The prisoners were housed outside in tents, 60 to 80 prisoners per tent. It rained a lot. The detainees lived in the mud. It was freezing cold outside, and the prisoners had no cold-weather clothing. Our soldiers lived inside in cells, with four walls that protected us from the bombardment. The Military Police used the cold weather to control the prisoners. If there was an infraction, detainees would be removed from their tents. Next, their blankets were confiscated. Then even their clothing was taken away. Almost naked, in underwear, the POWs would huddle together on a platform outside to keep warm. There was overcrowding, and almost everyone got TB. Eighteen members of our unit who worked closely with the prisoners got TB, too. The food was rotten and prisoners got dysentery. The unsanitary conditions, the debris and muck everywhere, the overcrowding in cold weather, led to disease, an epidemic, pandemic conditions. The attitude of the guards was brutal. To them Iraqis were the scum of the earth. Detainees were beaten within inches of their life.

 

Q: Were any detainees killed?

 

DELGADO: More than 50 prisoners were killed.

 

Q: What happened?

 

DELGADO: The enemy around Baghdad randomly shelled our base. Under the Geneva Conventions, an occupying power cannot place protected persons in areas exposed to the hazards of war. More than 50 detainees were killed because they were housed outside in tents, directly in the line of fire, with no protection, nowhere to run. They were hemmed in by barbed wire. They were trapped, and they had to sit and wait and hope they would survive. I know what it was like because a single mortar round would flatten a whole line of tires on the Humvees, a whole line of windshields. That's how I thought about the damage because I was the mechanic who had to replace the windshields. So the mortar bombardments killed and wounded many prisoners.

 

Q: So your commanders knowingly kept your prisoners in the line of fire? How many U.S. soldiers were killed during the shellings?

 

DELGADO: There were two U.S. soldiers killed during my stay.

 

Q: Were there any other incidents?

 

DELGADO: The worst incident that I was privy to was in late November. The prisoners were protesting nightly because of their living conditions. They protested the cold, the lack of clothing, the rotting food that was causing dysentery. And they wanted cigarettes. They tore up pieces of clothing, made banners and signs. One demonstration became intense and got unruly. The prisoners picked up stones, pieces of wood, and threw them at the guards. One of my buddies got hit in the face. He got a bloody nose. But he wasn't hurt. The guards asked permission to use lethal force. They got it. They opened fire on the prisoners with the machine guns. They shot twelve and killed three. I know because I talked to the guy who did the killing. He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. "Oh," he said, "I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open." He talked like the Terminator. "I shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death." I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: "You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone." He said, "Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down."

 

how about this:

 

Marine Cleared in Killing of Unarmed Iraqis

 

A marine who shot and killed two unarmed Iraqis at point blank range has been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by the military. Immediately following the decision, the soldier, Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, said he did not regret killing the men. Prosecutors alleged that Pantano intended to make an example of the men by shooting them 60 times and hanging a sign over their corpses that read "No better friend, no worse enemy." Pantano did not deny hanging the sign or shooting the men repeatedly after stopping their vehicle at a checkpoint. He admitted emptying one magazine of bullets into the Iraqis, then reloading and firing 30 more rounds. Pantano will continue his work training marines at Camp Lejune and his lawyer says he hopes to return to Iraq.

 

in america, this person would be given the death penalty in most states. killing an unarmed human being is cold-blooded murder. but because the victims were iraqi, this psychopath gets sent back to iraq to prey on more innocent people.

 

have you seen the abu ghraib photos? why was that necessary? do they strip naked and put collars around the necks of prisoners in u.s. prisons? they show you this is about more than policing a community. it's about brutalizing and humiliating another culture and society, for no other reason than to dominate over another people. the u.s. and britain have done this over and over again in their history. and the world just sits by and does nothing. eventually people say enough is enough and do something to fight back and reclaim their dignity. if this is a war (and one the u.s. started, iraq didn't start it), then why should only one side suffer. there is no punishment for the aggressors, so why should they escape justice? the u.s. and britain call themselves democracies, so that means that the actions of their governments reflect the will of the people, and by this logic the american and british peoples are fair game. iraq on the other was not a democracy, therefore its people should not have been punished for whatever criminal actions its government took. and yet the people of iraq have been punished.

 

i have collected a lot more information like this, some of it posted to "meet the u.s." those who don't read it should not expect other people to care about the armenian genocide. i will post more b/c it is our duty as human beings to take notice when crimes against humanity are committed and not turn our backs on the people who are suffering. this is a lesson i've learned from belonging to a nation that suffered genocide.

 

 

btw this quote

 

Please if left on their own Arab nations would rot another century in despotism, oppression of civil liberties, massacres (Kurds) etc.

 

shows a lot of ignorance about the history of the middle east since ww1. britain, france, and the u.s. have constantly meddled, interfered, and brutalized the middle east since the ottoman empire fell apart, and it was the arabs that helped them defeat the turks during the war. they drew all the borders for their own benefit, and created countries like iraq, with shii's in the south, sunnis in the central part, and kurds in the north that should never have been countries. they installed their own despots in jordan, kuwait, saudi arabia, iran (you've never heard of mossadegh and the shah?) and iraq (the party of hussein, the baath, was brought to power by the cia. hussein never would have been democratically elected in iraq, he started out as a cia hitman in cairo assasinating communists). these installed regimes do everything to thwart indigenous democratic movements, and the u.s. does everything to keep them in power. their biggest crime was allowing the creation of and patronizing israel, a country born of an ethnic cleansing that has shown nothing but utter contempt for its neighbors (read the iron wall: israel and the arabs by avi shlaim - professor at oxford - for a rebuttal of the israeli national myth of innocence) and caused nothing but problems since it was created. this little racist colonial settler state and its sympathizers in the u.s and british governments are the root of most of the problems in the middle east. it is in violation of more u.n. resolutions than probably all the arab countries combined.

Edited July 9, 2005 by kumkap

[Armat]

kumkap,

 

Again you compare incidents to ideology driven fanatics whose mindset are coming from Islamic fundamentalism.

 

I am reasonably knowledgeable about Middle East history and have decent number of books on the subject however what you are missing is the mindset sort of collective psychosis, which has deep roots in Islam and has been the main culprit of archaic mentality.

Can you honestly contribute present lack of democracy in Egypt, Syria, S. Arabia to Imperial powers? I think not! If the people were not in collective Islamic psychosis they would of thrown their dictators long ego. It is rather easy to blame everything on the west. Inferior mindset always looks for scapegoats instead of taking action. What prevents people of Iran getting out on the streets and throwing out the mullahs! The western imperialists? They just elected even more fundamentalists Mullah for president! Blame it on Islam! For that matter what motivated the Afghan mujahadens fighting against Armenians in Artsagh war. Jihad! That freakin word which we have given great deal of blood over centuries.

Edited July 9, 2005 by Armat

[vava]

vava,

 

to me he is just  observing from certain segments of american society the same chauvinism inherent to manifest destiny that serves as a motivating factor in the violence against a foreign non-white people and that same white instinct to exterminate that was unleashed on native americans.  the difference he points out that is that muslims are a much larger block with perhaps a greater sense of group solidarity and much greater resistance to cultural and military domination than perhaps the native americans were, although i admit i am not an expert on native american cultures and society. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Perhaps you've grasped his point better than I, yet I still maintain that his comparison was crudely phrased, and as a result came across as an unfortunate analogy.

 

The "democracy" and "liberty" rheotoric are simple lies. A liar who never confessed of his old lies will surely keep lying and deceiving. These guys have not solved a single problem in the world as far as security and fighting terrorism are concerned. They have only added to the world terrorism by their own acts, and created even more reasons for more muslim terrorists to show up. ....... in the meantime, the number of victims on boths sides keeps increasing.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sasun jan, sometimes we disagree, sometimes we agree - but on this point you've summed it up perfectly.

 

Is an extremely smart man.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Um. No. (Sly? Perhaps....)

 

I am reasonably knowledgeable about Middle East history and have decent number of books on the subject however what you are missing is the mindset sort of collective psychosis, which has deep roots in Islam and has been the main culprit of archaic mentality.

Can you honestly contribute present lack of democracy in Egypt, Syria, S. Arabia to Imperial powers? I think not! If the people were not in collective Islamic psychosis they would of thrown their dictators long ego. It is rather easy to blame everything on the west. Inferior mindset always looks for scapegoats instead of taking action. What prevents people of Iran getting out on the streets and throwing out the mullahs! The western imperialists? They just elected even more fundamentalists Mullah for president! Blame it on Islam!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armat, don't you think it's easy to just go and blame Islam? I mean it's a small minority of fundamentalists that are the driving force behind what you've referred to as a group phsychosis. And the same parallel can be found amonst the Christian fundamentalists that are (pretty much) ruling your nation. In fact, the real culprits lie on all sides (right or left, Christian or Muslim, etc. etc.) - but they're at the extremes.

[skhara]

yah yah yah Shkara, so i left the J word out, sue me is there anything else that I have missed ?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I didn't say anything about Jewels

Edited July 9, 2005 by skhara

[Sasun]

Sasun,your argument is unreasonable. Has there been a conflict where innocent people did not die?

Armat, every war has victims, including civilian. In addition, all wars cause economic hardships and all kinds of damages to the society. In short, there is nothing good in a war. And my point exactly is that whenever one country starts war against another it is consciously killing civilians and doing all the damages.

Remember that even before Iraqi conflict the Muslim terrorists were killing innocent civilians such as bombings of the embassies in Africa, world trade center etc.

I still maintain that comparison of the writer of the article  is not of logical order.

It had nothing to do with Iraq though. It is puzzling how many people are buying this lie of connecting Iraq to Islamic terrorism.

It is interesting to see if large Muslim community in London would comes out in large street protests against terrorism, which carry under the name of Islam. It is sadly the case that most of these communities are silently approve the killings even though it goes against the Islamic teachings.

style_images/master/snapback.png

The only legitimate excuse to start a war and envade a country is if the US and UK and the others were attacked. Envading Afghanistan for the purpose of hunting the real terrorists was justified, but envading Iraq was just a plain aggression and an attempt to punish Saddam Husein for his defiance, and by that establishing a world power.

[Sasun]

Sasun jan, sometimes we disagree, sometimes we agree - but on this point you've summed it up perfectly.

style_images/master/snapback.png

It seems commonsense, but then you never know

[ED]

I just remembered an old saying

 

When two elephants are fighting, the who one suffers, is always the grass underneath.

[phantom22]

What is the logic of taking American Christian Fundamentalist preachers along with US troops to Iraq? They are not there to minister to American Christian Fundamentalist troops but to convert Iraqis. They have made very few Moslem converts. Where they have been more successful is by converting Chaldean, Assyrian and Armenian Christians. Even as an American born Armenian from an Armenian Catholic heritage (raised as a Methodist), I find the approach to Christianity of the Fundamentalist Southern Christians reprehensible. The Christians of Iraq have a long history. Why does the US government use my tax dollars to indoctrinate my people in Iraq (Armenians, Assyrians and Chaldeans) with this type of Christianity?

[Z'areh]

What is the logic of taking American Christian Fundamentalist preachers along with US troops to Iraq? They are not there to minister to American Christian Fundamentalist troops but to convert Iraqis.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Apparently these preachers' actions are directed not towards the natives of Iraq but towards the US army personnel. There was this report lately about the discontent of many soldiers who felt that Fundamentalist Christianism is being shoved down their throats in the daily lives of the ground personnel in Iraq. It is directed for "internal" recruitment. The principal chaplain of the army resigned over this "shoving" incident and now there's an enquiry to see if there is active recruitment policy by some "patriotic" segments of the army.

 

It turns out that American patriotism is more and more connected to Southern Fundamentalist Baptist faith. The less faith you have in this branch of Christianity the less patriotic you are.

 

Soon we will have an Ayatogod Americakomayni to dictate Washington’s affairs.

 

I don't know why the US complains about Iran, they are looking more and more like the Iranian leadership, you'd think they would embrace one another.

[phantom22]

Z'areh,

 

A recent AP news story, showcased the Iraqi Christians who had been converted by American Fundamentalist ministers. The article explained that a few Moslems had been converted, but that the majority of converts were from the various Christian sects in Iraq.

 

There is no doubt that the American troops are being proselytized, but these folks did not stop there.

 

As for your statement that the American ayatollas are mirror images of the Iranian aytollahs, I could not agree with you more. What seperates them is that the American ayatollas are avidly pro-Israel while the Iranian aytollas are anti-Israel.

 

Bush has the affluent conservative Jews on his side to pursue the evangelization of the world. That is why the majority of the American press has been mute on a lot of critical issues.

Edited July 10, 2005 by phantom22

[kumkap]

kumkap,

 

Again you compare incidents to ideology driven fanatics whose mindset are coming from  Islamic fundamentalism.

 

I am reasonably knowledgeable about Middle East history and have decent number of books on the subject however what you are missing is the mindset sort of collective psychosis, which has deep roots in Islam and has been the main culprit of archaic mentality.

Can you honestly contribute present lack of democracy in Egypt, Syria, S. Arabia to Imperial powers? I think not! If the people were not in collective Islamic psychosis they would of thrown their dictators long ego. It is rather easy to blame everything on the west. Inferior mindset always looks for scapegoats instead of taking action. What prevents people of Iran getting out on the streets and throwing out the mullahs! The western imperialists? They just elected even more fundamentalists Mullah for president! Blame it on Islam! For that matter what motivated the Afghan mujahadens fighting against Armenians in Artsagh war. Jihad! That freakin word which we have given great deal of blood over centuries.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

well i disagree. i disagree because it is not fundamentally an ideology that drives the london bombers and other muslim terrorists, it is revenge. revenge is not an ideology, it is a human instinct. to see this i think you only need to look at the statements of responsibility the terrorists make. they tell you plainly and straightforwardly the reasons behind each attack. in my mind in this aspect they are vastly better than the terrorists bush and blair, who lie and lie and lie with no shame. every justification they have given for the iraq war has turned out to be hideous lie. if what they are doing is right, why do they need to lie? read the london bombers statement:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660391.stm

 

i do not see much at all about promoting or spreading a religious (islamic) vision of the world. the motivating factor is simply retaliation, retaliation for attacks on the land and people of islam.

 

the following is much more interesting. it is a letter from bin ladin "to america". i have never seen this mentioned or discussed by american media or politicians. but why? isn't "know thy enemy" the first rule of war? the reason i think is that it gives you a quite devastating catalogue of direct and indirect u.s. oppression and brutalization of arab countries over the last fifty years. it brings up many crimes that are never mentioned in public discussion and also have never been punished. do you ever see a public discussion in the u.s. about why the u.s. is so closely allied to israel? do the benefits of this alliance outweigh the disadvantages? why didn't the u.s. just stay neutral in this conflict and help enforce the u.n resolutions? was the government or media ever honest with the public about the human cost that the u.n. iraq sanctions, which the u.s. refused to lift, had over twelve years (between 600,000 and 1 million iraqis died from preventable diseases, malnutrition, u.n. officials resigned in protest of the "genocidal" effects of the sanctions)? how many americans know what happened in iran in 1953? how many americans understand the hypocrisy of the u.s. talking about spreading democracy, while simulatneously propping up the most undemocratic regime in the middle east, saudi arabia? why do 90% americans perceive jews to be the victims in the palestinian-israeli conflict and palestinians the aggressors, when any objective examination of the facts can only lead to the opposite conclusion. there are countless u.n. resolutions (and there would be many more if the u.s. hadn't started vetoing every anti-israeli one) attesting to this fact.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/s...,845725,00.html

 

i admit i do not agree with everything that is said, but the disagreements i have relate to the statements asserting that islam is the true relgion, sharia is the true law, etc. aside from these however, i am in almost full agreement with the historical issues that he brings up.

 

as for the point you made about karabagh, yeah afghan muslims fought armenians in karabagh. but arab muslims from syria visited dzidzernagaberd this year and showed their solidarity with armenians. iran, a theocratic islamic regime, has been a better home for armenians than turkey, a secular muslim one. so it's not possible to make generalizations.

Edited July 11, 2005 by kumkap

[skhara]

Skrewed Up posting. Edited July 11, 2005 by skhara

[skhara]

so this guy gunned down an unarmed woman and child. that's a war crime, and will never be punished. remember, no double standards when it comes to the value of human life. americans have no right to be there in the first place.

 

Well kumkamp. As far as I'm concerned, that's not even relevant. Either one is for or against the war. This is only one incident, there are countless incidents of brutality, both by the invading forces and the resistance forces. As far as I'm concerned, the invasion itself is a war-crime, everything else is not even relevant.

 

note: this is what serbs are being tried for war crimes for.

 

Serbs are being tried because the true war criminals are desperately trying to justify their own vicious barbarity against the civilian serbian population (day cares and hospitals among their targets). Serbs didn't behave and act any different from what any sovereign nation and independent people would have. They didn't lick the nwo's ass, so they got punished for it.

 

 

As far as the London bombing is concerned:

 

Why do all of you automatically assume that Muslim Arabs did it? I see that everywhere. People are automatically assuming that Muslims did it. Hence its an Arabs are guilty until proven innocent mentality.

 

Well, in my case, I will automatically assume that the Jews did it until it can be proven that they did not. As far as I'm concerned this has all the hallmarks of a Mossad false-flag and every one knows that it doesn't take much to creat a website, call it,

 

www.abu-baba-al-fatwah-jihad-allah.com and type

 

The Zionist Crusaders have been punished, allah will prevail, JIHAD! blah blah blah blah, whatever whatever whatever, etc....

 

Allah Akhbar!

[skhara]

Here is a worthwhile read:

 

 

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/facts/makow.html

 

 

I quote the parts that I find informative, strongly agree with, or like:

 

 

This policy of "reprisals" or "provocation and revenge" was also called "covert aggression." The U.S. "war on terror" is a continuation of it. Essentially it involves disguising a policy of aggression as retaliation for sham provocations.

 

For example, Israeli patrols would cross the border to attack Jordanians or Egyptians, and then claim the actions took place in Israel. Once attacked, the army pursued the "aggressors" into enemy territory and wreaked havoc. Ariel Sharon was the leader of a squad ("Unit 101") that specialized in these murderous forays. His 1953 raid on the Jordanian village of Kibiyah killed dozens of civilians. (30) 

 

In June-July 1954 an Israeli terrorist squad blew up many British and American institutions in Cairo in an attempt to sour relations between the Arabs and the West. Dubbed the "Levon Affair," possibly this was a precursor to the attack on the World Trade Centre.

 

 

Most Arab terrorism is no doubt authentic. But I wouldn't be surprised if at critical junctures, Israel's "security establishment was behind it.

 

From childhood Jews are taught that they are disliked for no rational reason and Israel is insurance against another holocaust. This attitude dehumanizes their opponents and obviates the need for genuine self-criticism. Often the question is not, is something true or false? Right or wrong? But, "Is it good for the Jews?"

 

Americans have been incited to become oppressors by a phoney Muslim threat. Unaware of what's done in their name. Americans are now like Jews asking, "Why do they hate us?"

Edited July 11, 2005 by skhara

[theguywhosavedtheuniverse]

They have created an enemy which has no boundaries, no country, we can’t see or know who they are

 

 

Wow... that is the dumbest thing I've heard. They would look like an Arab or a Paki. Of all places you'd notice them in a clountry ike England, where most of the indegenous people are whiter than snowflakes.

[Sip]

They would look like an Arab or a Paki.

 

Or an Armenian, or a Turk, or a Lebanese, or a Jew, or an Italian, or an Egyptian, or a Greek, or a Persian, or an Afghani, or an Iraqi, (should I keep going?)

 

If you really think you can distinguish one of "them" by looks from say a typical Armenian from Iran, then I say I hope you're not in charge of any kind of security because you'll fail miserably.

[vava]

Wow... that is the dumbest thing I've heard. They would look like an Arab or a Paki.  Of all places you'd notice them in a clountry ike England, where most of the indegenous people are whiter than snowflakes.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Obviously someone has never been to London.

[Sip]

Obviously someone has never been to London.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

... or anywhere else in Europe

[theguywhosavedtheuniverse]

Or an Armenian, or a Turk, or a Lebanese, or a Jew, or an Italian, or an Egyptian, or a Greek, or a Persian, or an Afghani, or an Iraqi, (should I keep going?)

 

If you really think you can distinguish one of "them" by looks from say a typical Armenian from Iran, then I say I hope you're not in charge of any kind of security because you'll fail miserably.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I said "Arab". Smart idea making your list longer by naming all the sub groups.

 

And that was not what the original message was about. He said that the enemy "had no country" or did not look a certain way. All of these terrorists come from Islamic countries and most of them have certain distinguishable features that seperate them from the rest of the First World.

[theguywhosavedtheuniverse]

Obviously someone has never been to London.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Do you know what the word "indigenous" means?

[theguywhosavedtheuniverse]

... or anywhere else in Europe 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I was born in France.

[vava]

Well in that case I'll spell it out for you:

 

If you've been to large cities (such as london, or paris etc.) you'll surely have noticed the large number of 'arab' or 'islamist' looking people that make up a significant group of it's citizens. (The fact that the 'indigenous' population looks a certain way is largely irrelevant.)

 

The vast majority of those who look like their 'islamists', may not even be muslims, much less, islamic fundamentalists. "An enemy we can't see" is exactly right - terrorists may be anybody, and as soon as you start screening potential criminals by their racial backgrounds and what they look like, it will become a slippery slope.

 

Ultimately, with racial profiling, we're going to suffer - like it or not, most Armenians are part of visible minority.

[vava]

and welcome to HF

[armjan]

how did theguywhosavedtheuniverse indeed save the universe?

 

more importantly, from who?

 

Did you see something worth saving?

Edited July 12, 2005 by armjan

[theguywhosavedtheuniverse]

Well in that case I'll spell it out for you:

 

If you've been to large cities (such as london, or paris etc.) you'll surely have noticed the large number of 'arab' or 'islamist' looking people that make up a significant group of it's citizens. (The fact that the 'indigenous' population looks a certain way is largely irrelevant.)

 

The vast majority of those who look like their 'islamists', may not even be muslims, much less, islamic fundamentalists. "An enemy we can't see" is exactly right - terrorists may be anybody, and as soon as you start screening potential criminals by their racial backgrounds and what they look like, it will become a slippery slope.

 

Ultimately, with racial profiling, we're going to suffer - like it or not, most Armenians are part of visible minority.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You are going in a more PC direction than I am. The point is that modern day international terrorists are almost all Arab, South Asian, North African. So of course if Terrorists hijack a plane somewhere in Europe or America you are going to focus the investigation on the people that have links to those parts of world.

 

The terrorist "can" be anybody, but in all probability it won't be your gay German Barber. It''ll probably be a Muhammed Hassan, or Ahmed Hussien. Of course it'll be a slippery slope to screen them by race, but it is worth it if it saves the lives of scores of innocent people.