Iraqi militia fire mortars into crowds of civilians

[Mark R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2894425.stm

<!-- E IIMA --><B>Iraqi militia have opened fire on up to 2,000 civilians leaving the southern city of Basra, according to British military officials.</B>
They said that UK forces were returning fire after paramilitaries turned mortars and machine guns on the residents of Iraq's second city.

 

[apoppin]

Why am I not surprised?



:Q

Baghdad will be far worse when Saddam unleashess his WMDs on his own people.

 

[LordRaiden]

And people want us to strike up peace with these guys and leave because we're the evil hostile agressors?? HITH are we the bad guys here when their own military will kill their own people indiscriminately. I say we need to hang every darned one of those evil ********.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LordRaiden
And people want us to strike up peace with these guys and leave because we're the evil hostile agressors?? HITH are we the bad guys here when their own military will kill their own people indiscriminately. I say we need to hang every darned one of those evil ********.

sorry hanging has been reserved for Iraqi woman that WAVE to coalition forces..

 

[Nitemare]

Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

yup, were just sending a ton of food and medical care to get them back to good health before we start to hunt them....

We will never kill more Iraqi's than Saddam has, at the rate he is killing them in this conflict alone he will outnumber us 10 to 1, forget about the millions of woman and children that died because of sanctions due to 12 years of his noncompliance.

Iraqi POW's get better treatment from the US military than their own.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

yup, were just sending a ton of food and medical care to get them back to good health before we start to hunt them....

We will never kill more Iraqi's than Saddam has, at the rate he is killing them in this conflict alone he will outnumber us 10 to 1, forget about the millions of woman and children that died because of sanctions due to 12 years of his noncompliance.

Iraqi POW's get better treatment from the US military than their own.

I think you are forgetting that we are NOT at war with the suffering people of Iraq - just it's evil administration.

And I think Saddam will turn his own WMDs on millions of his own people just to force a general Arab-Western war . . . what are we gonna do about that?

 

[boggsie]

The really interesting thing about this development is that it seems so surprising to so many people.

It seems obvious that the IRAQ military is not a military organization of the type that the western world is accoustomed to dealing with. IRAQ is purposely using hospitals and other civilian compounds to hide troops and weaponry. Essentially, they guarantee that if the coailition strikes at their military targets, some colateral damage will occur. It is also quite plausible that Sadam would kill increasing numbers of his own citizens in order to then broadcast news stories of their corpses, under the guise that they had been, in fact, killed by the coalition.

During WWII, when the Allies were carpetbombing most of Germany, what kinds of outcry did we have back here in the U.S.?

Why not resort to the same technique here? Pound everything absolutely flat and help them to use all of their Oil money to build good things, as opposed to trying to buy WMD technology from France, Germany and Russia.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: boggsie
The really interesting thing about this development is that it seems so surprising to so many people.

Why not resort to the same technique here? Pound everything absolutely flat and help them to use all of their Oil money to build good things, as opposed to trying to buy WMD technology from France, Germany and Russia.

So, in your words - Why NOT MURDER MILLIONS OF INNOCENT IRAQIs?



:Q

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

you are an elite member I thought for sure you would know better than that. I was talking about dropping a cruise missile on the militia firing mortars into the civilians.

I do not like to see civilians die regardless of whether they are American or Iraqi

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

you are an elite member I thought for sure you would know better than that. I was talking about dropping a cruise missile on the militia firing mortars into the civilians.

im not even elite and i knew that you meant dropping a cruise missile on the mortars...supposing the mortars themselves arent surround by alot of civilians, which they probably are

 

[prontospyder]

I wonder if the Arab press reports incidents like this....

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: boggsie
The really interesting thing about this development is that it seems so surprising to so many people.

Why not resort to the same technique here? Pound everything absolutely flat and help them to use all of their Oil money to build good things, as opposed to trying to buy WMD technology from France, Germany and Russia.

So, in your words - Why NOT MURDER MILLIONS OF INNOCENT IRAQIs?



:Q

An interesting twist to what I said. I would ask; who decides the criteria for innocence? I might argue the point, if you permit yourself to be used as a human shield, you might not be as innocent as you think.

I do not believe that the coailition forces are prepared to deal with the scenarios that they are presently facing and will continue to face. Saddam is using his own citizens as human shields. If they don't stand still and permit themselves to be used as human shields, those they would be shielding, are going to put a bullet in the back of their head.

In the end, Saddam is going to continue to kill his own people. He has done it before, he is doing it now and there's no reason for him to consider stopping. Most of the Arab world, while they find his acts deplorable, do not appear to be willing to openly stand against him.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can think of a place where a tomahawk would come in handy.

Where? I am not sure I understand . . . you want to kill more Iraqi cicilians?

you are an elite member I thought for sure you would know better than that. I was talking about dropping a cruise missile on the militia firing mortars into the civilians.

im not even elite and i knew that you meant dropping a cruise missile on the mortars...supposing the mortars themselves arent surround by alot of civilians, which they probably are

What does "elite" have to do with anything else?

ALL I was doing was asking for your clarification. Thank-you.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: boggsie
The really interesting thing about this development is that it seems so surprising to so many people.

Why not resort to the same technique here? Pound everything absolutely flat and help them to use all of their Oil money to build good things, as opposed to trying to buy WMD technology from France, Germany and Russia.

So, in your words - Why NOT MURDER MILLIONS OF INNOCENT IRAQIs?



:Q

An interesting twist to what I said. I would ask; who decides the criteria for innocence? I might argue the point, if you permit yourself to be used as a human shield, you might not be as innocent as you think.

I do not believe that the coailition forces are prepared to deal with the scenarios that they are presently facing and will continue to face. Saddam is using his own citizens as human shields. If they don't stand still and permit themselves to be used as human shields, those they would be shielding, are going to put a bullet in the back of their head.

In the end, Saddam is going to continue to kill his own people. He has done it before, he is doing it now and there's no reason for him to consider stopping. Most of the Arab world, while they find his acts deplorable, do not appear to be willing to openly stand against him.

I am not trying to twist what you said . . .

Being used as a human shield may mean being herded up at gunpoint and taken to military targets does not strike me as "voluntary". Being shot or tortured and then killed for refusal adds weight to my argument.

My scenario is MUCH WORSE than anyone here seems willing to accept -
That Saddam is going to wait until the Coalition enters Baghdad and his forces are nearing defeat and then USE all of his WMD at ONCE - laying waste to his Capital and MILLIONS of people.

So what do "we" do about that LIKELY scenario? I think war supporters can't even begin to deal with this.

 

[steell]

Exactly "what" are you saying? That we should not have invaded because Saddam might kill millions of his own people? AFAIK we have done everytrhing in our power (and are still trying) to kill Saddam and the rest of the leadership, to prevent just such an occurance (among other reasons). It is not for nothing that he is known as "The Butcher of Bagdad" and should he actually attempt to kill millions of his own people, how is it our fault?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: steell
Exactly "what" are you saying? That we should not have invaded because Saddam might kill millions of his own people? AFAIK we have done everytrhing in our power (and are still trying) to kill Saddam and the rest of the leadership, to prevent just such an occurance (among other reasons). It is not for nothing that he is known as "The Butcher of Bagdad" and should he actually attempt to kill millions of his own people, how is it our fault?

That we should have waited until we were 1)PREPARED (we were not - there are major problems with overextended Coalition supply lines along "Ambush Alley"; the relief for the Iraqi people is still on hold and their situation is DESPERATE - they blame it on US); 2) We need the FULL backing of the United Nations - that would shut the Arab dissent down.

We didn't do our "homework" - Bush was too ineffective with the UN and too eager to strike - and we may pay the full price with thousands of our young soldiers dead. (Don't get me wrong this is MY worst nightmare).

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: steell
Exactly "what" are you saying? That we should not have invaded because Saddam might kill millions of his own people? AFAIK we have done everytrhing in our power (and are still trying) to kill Saddam and the rest of the leadership, to prevent just such an occurance (among other reasons). It is not for nothing that he is known as "The Butcher of Bagdad" and should he actually attempt to kill millions of his own people, how is it our fault?

That we should have waited until we were 1)PREPARED (we were not - there are major problems with overextended Coalition supply lines along "Ambush Alley"; the relief for the Iraqi people is still on hold and their situation is DESPERATE - they blame it on US); 2) We need the FULL backing of the United Nations - that would shut the Arab dissent down.

We didn't do our "homework" - Bush was too ineffective with the UN and too eager to strike - and we may pay the full price with thousands of our young soldiers dead. (Don't get me wrong this is MY worst nightmare).

#1 - point taken as it would appear that our intel vastly overanticipated the Iraqi populus rising up in arms against Saddam.

#2 - I don't believe that a scenario exists that would have guaranteed this. In some way, France, Germany and Russia are, in effect, selling technology to Iraq that would ultimately lead to the development of WMD. An attack on Iraq and the toppling of the Saddam regeime, puts one of their customers out of business.

Even if both of these worked out differently, we are still at the same point. Coailition forces in a showdown with heavily armed militants using civilians as human shields. Given the inevitability of the civilians being killed, I opt for the option that results in the least amount of risk for Coailition forces - carpet bomb it flat and start over.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Why am I not surprised?



:Q

Baghdad will be far worse when Saddam unleashess his WMDs on his own people.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: steell
Exactly "what" are you saying? That we should not have invaded because Saddam might kill millions of his own people? AFAIK we have done everytrhing in our power (and are still trying) to kill Saddam and the rest of the leadership, to prevent just such an occurance (among other reasons). It is not for nothing that he is known as "The Butcher of Bagdad" and should he actually attempt to kill millions of his own people, how is it our fault?

That we should have waited until we were 1)PREPARED (we were not - there are major problems with overextended Coalition supply lines along "Ambush Alley"; the relief for the Iraqi people is still on hold and their situation is DESPERATE - they blame it on US); 2) We need the FULL backing of the United Nations - that would shut the Arab dissent down.

We didn't do our "homework" - Bush was too ineffective with the UN and too eager to strike - and we may pay the full price with thousands of our young soldiers dead. (Don't get me wrong this is MY worst nightmare).

#1 - point taken as it would appear that our intel vastly overanticipated the Iraqi populus rising up in arms against Saddam.

#2 - I don't believe that a scenario exists that would have guaranteed this. In some way, France, Germany and Russia are, in effect, selling technology to Iraq that would ultimately lead to the development of WMD. An attack on Iraq and the toppling of the Saddam regeime, puts one of their customers out of business.

Even if both of these worked out differently, we are still at the same point. Coailition forces in a showdown with heavily armed militants using civilians as human shields. Given the inevitability of the civilians being killed, I opt for the option that results in the least amount of risk for Coailition forces - carpet bomb it flat and start over.

No . . . No . . . no! You are missing my point. IF the UN forces - a true coalition - were attacking Iraq, Saddam might still kill millions of people but the ARAB WORLD could not then justify jihad; what - against the entire world?

Since it is really the US and Britain that are attacking Baghdad, it is VERY EASY for the arabs to believe that we are killing Iraqi citizens and that we are there for oil. How many will not think that WE destroyed Baghdad when we were in danger of losing? Now there will be jihad against the West.

It's WWWIII . . . :Q