Our soldiers put their life on the line everyday trying to help the people of Iraq. We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!!
The BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians.
The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.
The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people.
A spokesman for US forces in Iraq told the BBC an inquiry was under way.
The new evidence comes in the wake of the alleged massacre in Haditha, where US marines are suspected of killing up to 24 Iraqi civilians in November 2005 and covering up the deaths.
The incident is being investigated by the Pentagon.
The US military has announced that coalition troops in Iraq are to have ethical training following the furore surrounding the alleged killings.
For the next 30 days, they would receive lessons in "core warrior values", a military statement said.
The news of ethical training for US-led troops is likely to be greeted with cynicism by many Iraqis, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says, as the troops have long been accused of deliberately targeting civilians.
The video pictures obtained by the BBC appear to contradict the US account of the events in Ishaqi, about 100km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, on 15 March 2006.
The US authorities said they were involved in a firefight after a tip-off that an al-Qaeda supporter was visiting the house.
According to the Americans, the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.
But a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.
The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.
The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces.
It has been cross-checked with other images taken at the time of events and is believed to be genuine, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says.
No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.
You should be banned from this message board. You bring nothing to the table but an EXTREMELY one-sided, self-serving viewpoint with the most provacative, polarizing tone and demeanor of anybody I've ever come across.... What you just posted above pretty much sums it all up for you, which is pathetic.
We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER heard international outcry about that...
You never heard any international outcry about Sadaams atrocities against his own people? Interesting. I remember demonstrations on the streets of London after the Kurds were gassed at Halabja in 1998. There was also loud condemnation of it in Parliament at the time. Interestingly, Tony Blair was in the opposition party at the time, but neither his, nor Jack Straws names appeared on the list of those who condemned the atrocities.
There was also no international outcry against Sadaam at the end of the first Gulf war when he was given free reign by the U.S and Britain to "restore order" in Iraq, and proceeded to massaccre tens of thousands of Iraqi's involved in an atempt to overthrow him.
'According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[2]
Establishing the culprit
'..The most authoritative investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [3] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times [4] opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George H.W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" [5]. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion. [6] Saddam Hussein himself, in recordings played in Iraqi court in 2007, settled the question by openly discussing gassing civilian populations. ("Hussein’s Voice Speaks in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities," by John F. Burns, NYTimes Jan 9, 2007, [7])'
You should be banned from this message board. You bring nothing to the table but an EXTREMELY one-sided, self-serving viewpoint with the most provacative, polarizing tone and demeanor of anybody I've ever come across.... What you just posted above pretty much sums it all up for you, which is pathetic.
You brand American soldiers "murderers"? You're a fucking ignorant dickhead! Our soldiers removed one of the worst dictators of the 20th century - a psychopath that murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands ONLY to keep himself in power. He stole from everybody he could to build dozens of lavish palaces. His sons Uday and Qusay were thugs of the first order who were known to have their own "rape rooms" where they had their way with countless innocent women. The atrocities are almost endless...
American soldiers fought and died to topple this most corrupt regime and brought justice to a man who is responsible for countless atrocites and basically subjigating a people for decades. We did this in order to make the world a safer place, PERIOD! If we were there to steal oil, we would have fucking done so, but we have not. If we were there to steal oil, we could have just battled our way to the infastructure, secured it, gaurd it and pump it all back to America. Have we done this? Fuck NO!!!!
Our soldiers put their life on the line everyday trying to help the people of Iraq. We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER heard international outcry about that... only when America gets involved...
All of the Iraqis you speak about who were killed, were not all killed at the hands of Americans. The vast majority have been killed by a combination of Islamic extremists from foreign countries, Sunni and Shia death squads and regular murderous criminals.
Fuck you and your attitude towards America!
First of all, "one of the worst dictators of the 20th century" is a bit of a stretch. He is competing with Hitler, Staline, Mussolini, Pinochet and Pol Pot, don't give him that much credit.
Secondly, I agree calling american soldiers murderers is completetly uncalled for. Some surely have, some have not but they all follows orders, it's not like it was their idea to go to Iraq shoot civilians for the fun of it. However there have been murders (as well as there has been torture) of innocent and most likely no one (on the american side at least) will be sentenced for that, this is an unfair point.
Third point is, well you heard that one a thousand time : thank you for making the world a safer place, now would you please go rid the world of the rest of the dictators? Thank you very much. (In case you didn't get that, it means "why this one?").
Finally on the international outrcy. You are wrong, people all around the world have been accusing sadam for what he was, in fact people have been accusing my government as well as yours about the help we have provided him throughout the 80's. Problem is if you're not willing to hear about it you won't. 2003 put Iraq back on the map. But you see, if you do some research on africa or south-east asia for example you will find horrifying stories and you will find international outcry. The fact that occidental governments don't do anything (for their personal agendas for example) about it doesn't mean everyone shuts up.
No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.
and how do you feel about your own government?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
You should be banned from this message board. You bring nothing to the table but an EXTREMELY one-sided, self-serving viewpoint with the most provacative, polarizing tone and demeanor of anybody I've ever come across.... What you just posted above pretty much sums it all up for you, which is pathetic.
"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune".
- Noam Chomsky
First of all, "one of the worst dictators of the 20th century" is a bit of a stretch. He is competing with Hitler, Staline, Mussolini, Pinochet and Pol Pot, don't give him that much credit.
Secondly, I agree calling american soldiers murderers is completetly uncalled for. Some surely have, some have not but they all follows orders, it's not like it was their idea to go to Iraq shoot civilians for the fun of it. However there have been murders (as well as there has been torture) of innocent and most likely no one (on the american side at least) will be sentenced for that, this is an unfair point.
Third point is, well you heard that one a thousand time : thank you for making the world a safer place, now would you please go rid the world of the rest of the dictators? Thank you very much. (In case you didn't get that, it means "why this one?").
Finally on the international outrcy. You are wrong, people all around the world have been accusing sadam for what he was, in fact people have been accusing my government as well as yours about the help we have provided him throughout the 80's. Problem is if you're not willing to hear about it you won't. 2003 put Iraq back on the map. But you see, if you do some research on africa or south-east asia for example you will find horrifying stories and you will find international outcry. The fact that occidental governments don't do anything (for their personal agendas for example) about it doesn't mean everyone shuts up.
Saddam was no Hitler or Stalin to be sure, but he is easily one of the most vile and wicked heads of state of the last century.
American soldiers have already been convicted of murder, rape and torture and are serving their sentences as we speak...
On the international outcry, I realize that Saddam's government was condemed. My point was that in comparison to the protesting against the US, versus the protesting towards Saddam Hussien - America was condemend FAR worse than Saddam ever was. COrrect me if I'm wrong but I never saw half a million people walk through the streets of London or New York shouting "World's biggest terrorists" about Saddam... that was my only point there.
"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune".
- Noam Chomsky
Chomsky... now there is an intelctual giant. He never was nor ever will be accepted as the academic he thinks he is.
COrrect me if I'm wrong but I never saw half a million people walk through the streets of London or New York shouting "World's biggest terrorists" about Saddam... that was my only point there.
That's because at the time when Sadaam was committing his atrocities he was our friend.
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
That's because at the time when Sadaam was committing his atrocities he was our friend.
Ah, so that means that you made the same mistake we did huh? Why is it I never feel the need to throw that in your face as do mine all the time?
Could it be that we collectively learned from our mistakes, which is a good thing? Our foriegn policy in the Middle East today hardly resembles our real politik of the 1980's.
Yes, we give the Saudi's more leeway than we should - but we are hooked on their oil and can't do much about that right now.
Ah, so that means that you made the same mistake we did huh? Why is it I never feel the need to throw that in your face as do mine all the time?
Could it be that we collectively learned from our mistakes, which is a good thing? Our foriegn policy in the Middle East today hardly resembles our real politik of the 1980's.
Yes, we give the Saudi's more leeway than we should - but we are hooked on their oil and can't do much about that right now.
I wouldn't call it a mistake. Our leaders knew, and continue to know, full well what they're doing.
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
That's equal to Guns and Ammo awarding George Bush the best president of all time...
Yes all those things are arrogant except for the the last two because if germany hadnt invaded another country and stuck its nose in there then there would be no need to intervene. We call that a just war. Your point about the man stabbing the woman is just ridiculus , firstly you cant apply individual morals where whole states are concerned and secondly are you sincerely comparing the american invasion of Iraq to somebody stopping a woman being stabbed?. To intervene here is a good thing and it saves a life. America cost thousands of people their lives by invading Iraq and helped no one. Noboby wanted their help, a woman being stabbed would certainly want help. Do you actually think for a moment that there are any pure motives behind any war started by your country. do you actually think it wanted to free the Iraqis. If so arguing with you is futile because you are too far gone
Right, so if someone disagrees with you, arguing with them is futile and they are too far gone. Nice logic doughnut. You're no better than those who say that anyone against the Iraq war is clueless, terrorist loving and wouldn't even support World War II. To be quite frank with you I wouldn't give a shit if the woman told me to fuck off or not I would still stop it happening. Iraq stuck its nose into Kuwaits business, Saddam stuck his nose in to his own people's business. With rights come responsibilities. With the right to not be invaded comes the condition to not treat people like shit. And I don't care if only one Iraqi wanted Saddam outed that 1 person is a fucking human being not some number.
You are like George Bush - someone is either completely in agreement with you or completely against you. I do not support the war in Iraq but there are people who do who have very valid reasons. Did the Iraq war save lives? Yes. Did it cost more than it saved? I don't know, and I don't pretend to - I'm not arrogant.
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.
My first response to this was to ask you who or what do you think the American government is especially since we are going all the way back to the 80's and things change. Leadership changes, people die, corporations go out of business so what is the same? Actually when dealing with Iraq, most of the players are the same today as during the 1980's. Reagan is gone but there is Cheney, Rumsfeld who is now out of the picture and maybe there's not the same Bush but a Bush. Then there are the big bad oil companies. Who exactly controls the oil companies here? Do Americans only own them or do foreigners own some as well? There's OPEC so are they part of it?
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
American soldiers have already been convicted of murder, rape and torture and are serving their sentences as we speak....
If your anger is at American soldiers being labelled murderers then that's fair enough.
If you remember anything about the Vietnam era, or have studied the subject, then you'll know that the peace movement was made up largely of Vietnam veterans protesting the crimes of their Government. The label 'Baby killer' was something bandied around and presumed by the authorites to be directed at the soldiers on the ground. In actual fact it was aimed at those in power, sitting comfortably in leather chairs, in offices in the Pentagon and elsewhere. You may notice that many voices of the left today are calling for the troops to be brought home. Wars of occupation have often had a tendency to brutalise those on the ground doing the occupying. They have also, almost always failed.
'Bring the troops home!' isn't an attack on the troops. It's an attack against a pointless, brutal war, which is serving nobody's interest except the pigs at Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, and those in the Bush Administration e.t.c getting fatter from it.
Prospect was launched in October 1995 by its present editor David Goodhart, a senior correspondent for the Financial Times, and chairman Derek Coombs. The aim was to launch a monthly that was "more readable than the Economist, more relevant than the Spectator, more romantic than the New Statesman," as Sir Jeremy Isaacs subsequently described Prospect.
Prospect has acquired a reputation as the most intelligent magazine of current affairs and cultural debate in Britain. Both challenging and entertaining, the magazine seeks to make complex ideas accessible and enjoyable by commissioning the best writers, editing them vigorously and packaging their work in a well designed and illustrated monthly.
It follows that Prospect has attracted a mature, educated, affluent and discerning readership, many of whom have reached the top of their profession. Specific details can be viewed on the advertise pages.
Prospect is growing rapidly. Our latest audit confirmed our circulation at 24,740 (ABC Jan-Dec 2005).'
My first response to this was to ask you who or what do you think the American government is especially since we are going all the way back to the 80's and things change. Leadership changes, people die, corporations go out of business so what is the same? Actually when dealing with Iraq, most of the players are the same today as during the 1980's. Reagan is gone but there is Cheney, Rumsfeld who is now out of the picture and maybe there's not the same Bush but a Bush. Then there are the big bad oil companies. Who exactly controls the oil companies here? Do Americans only own them or do foreigners own some as well? There's OPEC so are they part of it?
You've pretty much answered your question for me. So, yeah, 'The Government' consists of all the familiar faces we know and love. Ultimately though, these fucks are powerless to the point that they rely almost solely on the big business community for support and guidance. It's all become quite conveniently obvious over the past few years where, why, and how the strings of power in America are pulled. I merely need to reel of a few names. Just join the dots: Halliburton, Enron, Dick Cheney, Saudi Arabia, Texas Oil, e.t.c, e.t.c ad - not so - infinitum.
I'm noticing, NCfan, that you're doing your share of attacking the messenger and not the message in this thread. Is that because you don't have reasoned critique or support backing your arguments?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You brand American soldiers "murderers"? You're a fucking ignorant dickhead! Our soldiers removed one of the worst dictators of the 20th century - a psychopath that murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands ONLY to keep himself in power. He stole from everybody he could to build dozens of lavish palaces. His sons Uday and Qusay were thugs of the first order who were known to have their own "rape rooms" where they had their way with countless innocent women. The atrocities are almost endless...
American soldiers fought and died to topple this most corrupt regime and brought justice to a man who is responsible for countless atrocites and basically subjigating a people for decades. We did this in order to make the world a safer place, PERIOD! If we were there to steal oil, we would have fucking done so, but we have not. If we were there to steal oil, we could have just battled our way to the infastructure, secured it, gaurd it and pump it all back to America. Have we done this? Fuck NO!!!!
Our soldiers put their life on the line everyday trying to help the people of Iraq. We don't go around trying to kill the innocents, which is EXACTLY what the death squads and sectarian fighters and Saddam did!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER heard international outcry about that... only when America gets involved...
All of the Iraqis you speak about who were killed, were not all killed at the hands of Americans. The vast majority have been killed by a combination of Islamic extremists from foreign countries, Sunni and Shia death squads and regular murderous criminals.
Fuck you and your attitude towards America!
Ignorant people like you are what is wrong with the world and its people like you who also give perfectly rational intelligent americans a bad name.
You got rid of Sadam Hussen who was an evil man, but its not your place to invade another country and tell them who should be in charge, it wasnt your place to get rid of him, who do you think you are! Also your soldiers bombed cities where civilians live and killed many of them so therefore they are murderers, murderers of innocent civilians, people who dont want you in their country. And what did ridding the world of sadam do it created a civil war in that country which continues to claim many innocent lives today. Your point about all american soldiers being noble and fighting for the good of the Iraqis is also complete bullshit, i recall one incident where a fourteen year old Iraqi girl was raped by four American soldiers before they murdered her and her entire family. On a larger scale i recall the illegal torturing of Iraqi soldiers which was given much media attention. I bet the Iraqis must be so grateful to you good civilised Americans for liberating them
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
Comments
Ummmm cuz we're stupid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053006J.shtml
New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
The BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians.
The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.
The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people.
A spokesman for US forces in Iraq told the BBC an inquiry was under way.
The new evidence comes in the wake of the alleged massacre in Haditha, where US marines are suspected of killing up to 24 Iraqi civilians in November 2005 and covering up the deaths.
The incident is being investigated by the Pentagon.
The US military has announced that coalition troops in Iraq are to have ethical training following the furore surrounding the alleged killings.
For the next 30 days, they would receive lessons in "core warrior values", a military statement said.
The news of ethical training for US-led troops is likely to be greeted with cynicism by many Iraqis, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says, as the troops have long been accused of deliberately targeting civilians.
The video pictures obtained by the BBC appear to contradict the US account of the events in Ishaqi, about 100km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, on 15 March 2006.
The US authorities said they were involved in a firefight after a tip-off that an al-Qaeda supporter was visiting the house.
According to the Americans, the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.
But a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.
The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.
The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces.
It has been cross-checked with other images taken at the time of events and is believed to be genuine, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says.
No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.
You should be banned from this message board. You bring nothing to the table but an EXTREMELY one-sided, self-serving viewpoint with the most provacative, polarizing tone and demeanor of anybody I've ever come across.... What you just posted above pretty much sums it all up for you, which is pathetic.
You never heard any international outcry about Sadaams atrocities against his own people? Interesting. I remember demonstrations on the streets of London after the Kurds were gassed at Halabja in 1998. There was also loud condemnation of it in Parliament at the time. Interestingly, Tony Blair was in the opposition party at the time, but neither his, nor Jack Straws names appeared on the list of those who condemned the atrocities.
There was also no international outcry against Sadaam at the end of the first Gulf war when he was given free reign by the U.S and Britain to "restore order" in Iraq, and proceeded to massaccre tens of thousands of Iraqi's involved in an atempt to overthrow him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
'According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[2]
Establishing the culprit
'..The most authoritative investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [3] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times [4] opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George H.W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" [5]. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion. [6] Saddam Hussein himself, in recordings played in Iraqi court in 2007, settled the question by openly discussing gassing civilian populations. ("Hussein’s Voice Speaks in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities," by John F. Burns, NYTimes Jan 9, 2007, [7])'
Flattery will get you nowhere! :rolleyes:
First of all, "one of the worst dictators of the 20th century" is a bit of a stretch. He is competing with Hitler, Staline, Mussolini, Pinochet and Pol Pot, don't give him that much credit.
Secondly, I agree calling american soldiers murderers is completetly uncalled for. Some surely have, some have not but they all follows orders, it's not like it was their idea to go to Iraq shoot civilians for the fun of it. However there have been murders (as well as there has been torture) of innocent and most likely no one (on the american side at least) will be sentenced for that, this is an unfair point.
Third point is, well you heard that one a thousand time : thank you for making the world a safer place, now would you please go rid the world of the rest of the dictators? Thank you very much. (In case you didn't get that, it means "why this one?").
Finally on the international outrcy. You are wrong, people all around the world have been accusing sadam for what he was, in fact people have been accusing my government as well as yours about the help we have provided him throughout the 80's. Problem is if you're not willing to hear about it you won't. 2003 put Iraq back on the map. But you see, if you do some research on africa or south-east asia for example you will find horrifying stories and you will find international outcry. The fact that occidental governments don't do anything (for their personal agendas for example) about it doesn't mean everyone shuts up.
Whatever man, you're pathetic and deep down somewhere under all your layers of bullshit you know it.
and how do you feel about your own government?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think my feelings about my own Government are quite clear. Feel free to check my post history.
"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune".
- Noam Chomsky
Saddam was no Hitler or Stalin to be sure, but he is easily one of the most vile and wicked heads of state of the last century.
American soldiers have already been convicted of murder, rape and torture and are serving their sentences as we speak...
On the international outcry, I realize that Saddam's government was condemed. My point was that in comparison to the protesting against the US, versus the protesting towards Saddam Hussien - America was condemend FAR worse than Saddam ever was. COrrect me if I'm wrong but I never saw half a million people walk through the streets of London or New York shouting "World's biggest terrorists" about Saddam... that was my only point there.
Chomsky... now there is an intelctual giant. He never was nor ever will be accepted as the academic he thinks he is.
That's because at the time when Sadaam was committing his atrocities he was our friend.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html#article_continue
Chomsky is voted world's top public intellectual
Duncan Campbell
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The Guardian
He is in his 70s and first became known for his theory of transformational grammar - and now he is top of the thinkers' hit parade. Noam Chomsky, the linguistics professor who has become one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy, has won a poll that names him as the world's top public intellectual.
Chomsky, who was underwhelmed by the honour, beat off challenges from Umberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens to win the Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.
More than 20,000 voters from around the world took part in selecting the winners from a list of 100. The most striking aspect of the list is the shortage of the young, the female and the French. Only two of the top 10, Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, were born after the war, and Naomi Klein is the highest placed woman, at 11. France provides one name in the top 40, fewer than Peru and Iran.
Since the poll was for the world's leading intellectuals, it should come as no surprise that websites manned by supporters of Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush were used to draw attention to the poll. Chomsky's supporters are clearly the most energetic: he took 4,800 votes to Eco's 2,500. Voters came mainly from Britain and the US. "I don't pay a lot of attention to them," said Chomsky of the poll last night. "It was probably padded by some friends of mine."
Pondering the absence of younger intellectuals from the list, David Herman asks in the new issue of Prospect: "Who are the younger equivalents to [Jürgen] Habermas, Chomsky and Havel? Great names are formed by great events. But there has been no shortage of terrible events in the last 10 years." Only two of the top 20 have yet to reach the age of 50.
The choice of Chomsky will be welcomed and contested by many of the same names who responded delightedly or furiously to the award of the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter last week.
In recognition of this, Prospect offers alternative perspectives, with Robin Blackburn arguing for Chomsky's right to head the list as both a brilliant expositor of linguistics and a vital critic of the US abroad, while Oliver Kamm dismisses him as a kneejerk anti-American who is cavalier about his sources.
Top five
1 Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
2 Umberto Eco writer and academic
3 Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
4 Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
5 Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist
Ah, so that means that you made the same mistake we did huh? Why is it I never feel the need to throw that in your face as do mine all the time?
Could it be that we collectively learned from our mistakes, which is a good thing? Our foriegn policy in the Middle East today hardly resembles our real politik of the 1980's.
Yes, we give the Saudi's more leeway than we should - but we are hooked on their oil and can't do much about that right now.
I wouldn't call it a mistake. Our leaders knew, and continue to know, full well what they're doing.
That's equal to Guns and Ammo awarding George Bush the best president of all time...
Right, so if someone disagrees with you, arguing with them is futile and they are too far gone. Nice logic doughnut. You're no better than those who say that anyone against the Iraq war is clueless, terrorist loving and wouldn't even support World War II. To be quite frank with you I wouldn't give a shit if the woman told me to fuck off or not I would still stop it happening. Iraq stuck its nose into Kuwaits business, Saddam stuck his nose in to his own people's business. With rights come responsibilities. With the right to not be invaded comes the condition to not treat people like shit. And I don't care if only one Iraqi wanted Saddam outed that 1 person is a fucking human being not some number.
You are like George Bush - someone is either completely in agreement with you or completely against you. I do not support the war in Iraq but there are people who do who have very valid reasons. Did the Iraq war save lives? Yes. Did it cost more than it saved? I don't know, and I don't pretend to - I'm not arrogant.
Because lord and allah knows you have to agree with your opinions to be 'intelligent'.
There are a lot of intelligent people for the war as well as against it.
Okay, let's call it "wrong" then. The premise still holds true.
That's hilarious, and at least partly true.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My first response to this was to ask you who or what do you think the American government is especially since we are going all the way back to the 80's and things change. Leadership changes, people die, corporations go out of business so what is the same? Actually when dealing with Iraq, most of the players are the same today as during the 1980's. Reagan is gone but there is Cheney, Rumsfeld who is now out of the picture and maybe there's not the same Bush but a Bush. Then there are the big bad oil companies. Who exactly controls the oil companies here? Do Americans only own them or do foreigners own some as well? There's OPEC so are they part of it?
If your anger is at American soldiers being labelled murderers then that's fair enough.
If you remember anything about the Vietnam era, or have studied the subject, then you'll know that the peace movement was made up largely of Vietnam veterans protesting the crimes of their Government. The label 'Baby killer' was something bandied around and presumed by the authorites to be directed at the soldiers on the ground. In actual fact it was aimed at those in power, sitting comfortably in leather chairs, in offices in the Pentagon and elsewhere. You may notice that many voices of the left today are calling for the troops to be brought home. Wars of occupation have often had a tendency to brutalise those on the ground doing the occupying. They have also, almost always failed.
'Bring the troops home!' isn't an attack on the troops. It's an attack against a pointless, brutal war, which is serving nobody's interest except the pigs at Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, and those in the Bush Administration e.t.c getting fatter from it.
Really?
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/static.php?screen=aboutus
'Britain's intelligent conversation
Prospect was launched in October 1995 by its present editor David Goodhart, a senior correspondent for the Financial Times, and chairman Derek Coombs. The aim was to launch a monthly that was "more readable than the Economist, more relevant than the Spectator, more romantic than the New Statesman," as Sir Jeremy Isaacs subsequently described Prospect.
Prospect has acquired a reputation as the most intelligent magazine of current affairs and cultural debate in Britain. Both challenging and entertaining, the magazine seeks to make complex ideas accessible and enjoyable by commissioning the best writers, editing them vigorously and packaging their work in a well designed and illustrated monthly.
It follows that Prospect has attracted a mature, educated, affluent and discerning readership, many of whom have reached the top of their profession. Specific details can be viewed on the advertise pages.
Prospect is growing rapidly. Our latest audit confirmed our circulation at 24,740 (ABC Jan-Dec 2005).'
You've pretty much answered your question for me. So, yeah, 'The Government' consists of all the familiar faces we know and love. Ultimately though, these fucks are powerless to the point that they rely almost solely on the big business community for support and guidance. It's all become quite conveniently obvious over the past few years where, why, and how the strings of power in America are pulled. I merely need to reel of a few names. Just join the dots: Halliburton, Enron, Dick Cheney, Saudi Arabia, Texas Oil, e.t.c, e.t.c ad - not so - infinitum.
This shows how much you actually know about Chomsky, very little.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You got rid of Sadam Hussen who was an evil man, but its not your place to invade another country and tell them who should be in charge, it wasnt your place to get rid of him, who do you think you are! Also your soldiers bombed cities where civilians live and killed many of them so therefore they are murderers, murderers of innocent civilians, people who dont want you in their country. And what did ridding the world of sadam do it created a civil war in that country which continues to claim many innocent lives today. Your point about all american soldiers being noble and fighting for the good of the Iraqis is also complete bullshit, i recall one incident where a fourteen year old Iraqi girl was raped by four American soldiers before they murdered her and her entire family. On a larger scale i recall the illegal torturing of Iraqi soldiers which was given much media attention. I bet the Iraqis must be so grateful to you good civilised Americans for liberating them