The View from the OTHER Side

[Jmman]

All media panders to their respective audiences. That is why it is prudent to make your own judgements based upon all available resources. The US media panders to the US audience that overwhelmingly supports the war, and Al-Jazeera panders to the anti-US crowd. The truth almost certainly is in the middle of those two...........

 

[apoppin]

From the China Post (Taiwan)edit forget this one - it's an LA Times article

And in Japan

Islam-OnlineNews(for the really alternative view)

 

[LunarRay]

David's sling holds more than a rock as Golith approaches.
I have been listening to the retired army pundits explain how we own the this and that and like a gopher if (Iraqis) they show their head we'll simply kill them. I wish we'd be less arrogant.... I use that word as defined...
I have concluded that my response to another thread wherein propounded was the query regarding the use of WMD. If I be in the Iraqi shoes (Saddam's) .... Folks .... I'd use it... because at this point he has the support of the other Arab folks that can support him. Can.... meaning no need for ties to the US and friends. Now... it seems to me that Bush et. al. are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. I sure hope they don't but if they didn't we wouldn't be there now... no need to be.. as I see it... I am become scared for our guys over there and our folks here... Soon I fear reality will reach us.... even into my box, out of which I wish to unbe.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HJD1
David's sling holds more than a rock as Golith approaches.
I have been listening to the retired army pundits explain how we own the this and that and like a gopher if (Iraqis) they show their head we'll simply kill them. I wish we'd be less arrogant.... I use that word as defined...
I have concluded that my response to another thread wherein propounded was the query regarding the use of WMD. If I be in the Iraqi shoes (Saddam's) .... Folks .... I'd use it... because at this point he has the support of the other Arab folks that can support him. Can.... meaning no need for ties to the US and friends. Now... it seems to me that Bush et. al. are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. I sure hope they don't but if they didn't we wouldn't be there now... no need to be.. as I see it... I am become scared for our guys over there and our folks here... Soon I fear reality will reach us.... even into my box, out of which I wish to unbe.

You have some intgeresting views that seem to have modified over the last couple of days.



I'm surprised you havent posted your prediction here

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

Dead men don't shoot back!

I guess they will have to make that decision now. I saw on the BBC last night where the Coalition forces shot civilians when their pickup engine backfired . . . bad "timing" .

I see that the coalition is TRYING to be honorable and fight according to the "rules of warefare". The Iraqis see the war as an illegal invasion where the rules don't apply to them.

If I were them I would be as ruthless but then I wouldn't expect to survive if my side loss.

Damn . . . we're agreed!

It's logical and I bet the Iraqi militia doesN'T expect to survice if their side loses. People with "nothing to lose" are extraordinarily dangerous and it shows in Iraq.

UPDATE: On Nightline tonight - Coalition forces are CLEARED to shoot ANY CIVILIANS that approach and do not stop when ordered - "even if it's a woman and a child". :Q

So there we go. The "rules of warfare" are obviously flexible.

 

[Thraxen]

Coalition forces are CLEARED to shoot any civilians that approach and do not stop when ordered - "even if it's a woman and a child".

Well, when you have already suffered one suicide bomber and a bus running into a group of Marines in a region that has decades of history with suicide bombers and history has shown that anyone can be a potential bomber and you have checkpoints clearly marked with signs saying to stop and soldiers with guns....would you want to take the chance when someone doesn't stop?

 

[Mookow]

people who have been starved by UN sanctions and deformed by depleted uranium since 1991 will greet them as saviours.

Point 1: Who has been diverting funds from the UN Oil-for-Food program into building palaces and missiles?

Point 2: Q: Who made public the biggest study on DU and its effects on Iraqis? A: Saddam
Q: What happened when the W.H.O. offered to come to Iraq and investigate/confirm? A: Saddam said "fvck no"

Linkage for DU and its ill effects, ripped from a previous post of mine:

link

"DoD conducted over 34 experiments designed to measure the amount of DU that may be inhaled. This includes DU munitions hitting a variety of armored vehicles as well as fires involving depleted uranium munitions. What we have consistently found is that levels may exceed peacetime safety standards only if you are in, on or near - less than 50 meters - a vehicle at the time it is hit by a DU munition.

"Almost as soon as the round hits and the dust has settled, the standards on the outside of the vehicle will rapidly fall to levels that are a lot lower than the safety standards," he said.

Considering the part in bold, I would have to say that the effects of it after it is dispersed by wind, water, etc, are neglible. So, since the only people that could really be effected are the guys within 50 meters of impact, and considering that the armor on a T-72 (the best tank the Iraqis have in quantity) is almost always going to be ineffective against US fired DU rounds, the only people at risk are the guys outside the tanks, but within 50 meters, NOT "soldiers using the weapons... and civilians, leading to birth defects in children". The targets that get hit by DU usually dont have to worry about the long term effects of DU. Only the guys around the targets.

EDIT: link #2
link #3

Second, some of the opposition is the result of a successful Iraqi disinformation campaign claiming that exposure to DU had caused thousands of cancers and birth defects to innocent civilians. When the WHO offered to investigate the claims, Iraqi officials flatly refused the offer

Link #4

A 2001 WHO study found that DU's hazards are "likely to be very small." A RAND Corporation study in 1999 and another 2001 project funded by the European Parliament concurred.

 

[LunarRay]

Q]You have some intgeresting views that seem to have modified over the last couple of days.

I'm surprised you havent posted your prediction here[/quote]

I Have been boxed in and didn't notice the thread... I'm new to this forum or any other for that matter.
As for my position on things... I've always supported the right to protest...
I am changing my mind regarding the support for the mission we are undertaking... not because of it being right or wrong...I could change there too, but, because I find the effort ripe for all sorts of bad things to befall the troops and people all over the world... not by Saddam but by the Jihadists looking for something to destroy especially now that other Arab sects are outwardly supporting Saddam/the arab muslim people of Iraq.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Q]You have some intgeresting views that seem to have modified over the last couple of days.

I'm surprised you havent posted your prediction here

I Have been boxed in and didn't notice the thread... I'm new to this forum or any other for that matter.
As for my position on things... I've always supported the right to protest...
I am changing my mind regarding the support for the mission we are undertaking... not because of it being right or wrong...I could change there too, but, because I find the effort ripe for all sorts of bad things to befall the troops and people all over the world... not by Saddam but by the Jihadists looking for something to destroy especially now that other Arab sects are outwardly supporting Saddam/the arab muslim people of Iraq.[/quote]

don't worry about it, when terrorists are supplied with a nasty bio weapon and it tries to break into your house, just tell it you're french-canadian....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: HJD1
Q]You have some intgeresting views that seem to have modified over the last couple of days.

I'm surprised you havent posted your prediction here

I Have been boxed in and didn't notice the thread... I'm new to this forum or any other for that matter.
As for my position on things... I've always supported the right to protest...
I am changing my mind regarding the support for the mission we are undertaking... not because of it being right or wrong...I could change there too, but, because I find the effort ripe for all sorts of bad things to befall the troops and people all over the world... not by Saddam but by the Jihadists looking for something to destroy especially now that other Arab sects are outwardly supporting Saddam/the arab muslim people of Iraq.

don't worry about it, when terrorists are supplied with a nasty bio weapon and it tries to break into your house, just tell it you're french-canadian....

[/quote]
The VAST majority of the people of this planet are against the war - weapons don't really descriminate - they aren't that smart.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Phuz
US Media = Cheerleaders.

Canadian= Beneficiary of another country that defends your freedom!

Defends his freedom from who? Which country is it that threatens Canada to prevent it from legalizing marijuana despite popular support?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Phuz
US Media = Cheerleaders.

Canadian= Beneficiary of another country that defends your freedom!

Defends his freedom from who? Which country is it that threatens Canada to prevent it from legalizing marijuana despite popular support?

The USA?

 

[rahvin]

Amid the battle for hearts and minds in the most information-controlled war in history, one measure of the importance of those American PoW pictures and the images of the dead British soldiers is surely the sustained "shock and awe" hacking campaign directed at aljazeera.net since the start of the war. As I write, the al-Jazeera website has been down for three days and few here doubt that the provenance of the attack is the Pentagon. Meanwhile, our hosting company, the US-based DataPipe, has terminated our contract after lobbying by other clients whose websites have been brought down by the hacking.

They should spend the $$$ and hire a hosting company and IT professionals that can handle a DDOS. DDOS's are common and cracking insecure systems is par for the course. Any website that can be defamed will be. Script kiddies are drawn like moths to a flame to pages that have such rising page hit counts. Not only is the target vulernable because of lack of experience the system is likely to be virgin. To blame their own incompetence on the Pentagon is stupidity.

 

[LunarRay]

I Have been boxed in and didn't notice the thread... I'm new to this forum or any other for that matter.
As for my position on things... I've always supported the right to protest...
I am changing my mind regarding the support for the mission we are undertaking... not because of it being right or wrong...I could change there too, but, because I find the effort ripe for all sorts of bad things to befall the troops and people all over the world... not by Saddam but by the Jihadists looking for something to destroy especially now that other Arab sects are outwardly supporting Saddam/the arab muslim people of Iraq.[/quote]

don't worry about it, when terrorists are supplied with a nasty bio weapon and it tries to break into your house, just tell it you're french-canadian....

[/quote]

Heck, I don't even know how to spell French-Canadian.... let alone be one.

 

[LunarRay]

The VAST majority of the people of this planet are against the war - weapons don't really descriminate - they aren't that smart. [/quote]

Are you saying that all the dialog on the news from our Military regarding the IQ of our bombs and missles is all a bunch of wishfull thinking?? And, are you suggesting that perhaps the vast majority would be for the war if they were a strong super power?? Or that Iraqis are, as McGovern suggests just the first on the list... Now you can say "how did you get that from my post" well, all the letters were there I just rearrainged them to suit my question... I've learned that lately..They do teach you much in War College..

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HJD1
The VAST majority of the people of this planet are against the war - weapons don't really descriminate - they aren't that smart.

Are you saying that all the dialog on the news from our Military regarding the IQ of our bombs and missles is all a bunch of wishfull thinking?? And, are you suggesting that perhaps the vast majority would be for the war if they were a strong super power?? Or that Iraqis are, as McGovern suggests just the first on the list... Now you can say "how did you get that from my post" well, all the letters were there I just rearrainged them to suit my question... I've learned that lately..They do teach you much in War College..[/quote]I was being much more simplistic that that . . . I was just stating that the VAST majority of the people of this planet are against the war.

Who else want's it besides supporters of President Bush?

Who?

(and yes, Iraq is just the "first stop" on Bush's "hit list")


EDIT: The guided bombs are "pretty smart" but when the target is set, they will blow up anybody there without descrimination.