US Troops Kill Seven Women and Children at Checkpoint: EDIT 10 Killed Conflicting Accounts of Event

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PIMPBOT5000

Member
Jan 9, 2003
89
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!
That is EXACTLY the ATTIUDE of the ROMAN EMPIRE, 2000 years ago. They RULED the world and had superior technology, education and just about everything. They were rich and decadent. Yet in a very short time (relatively) after their civilization peaked, Rome was INVADED and SACKED by the Goths and Vandals.

;)

Arrogance is never justified.

However, the Romans didn't have the level of military power we have today. If the Romans had nukes and were willing to use them then they would still be ruling today.
You are clearly wrong according to history . . . For their times, THEY DID have UNMATCHED technology and warfare science. After Rome weakened, I'd say "guerrilla fighting" ultimately broke Rome.

And if they did have Nukes, the dark ages would have lasted at least 100 times longer . . . ;)

rolleye.gif

Since when does a bunch of guys rowing a boat equal an aircraft carrier?
Since when does a catapult equal a tomahawk cruise missile?
Since when does a horse equal a M1A1 tank?
Since when does a.... wait, I forgot, the Romans didn't have any airplanes!

You would only be correct if their weapons inflicted as much destruction as ours do today.
We do much more damage with less weapons and people hence the US is the greatest military power in the history of mankind. Ask anyone they will tell you the same.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: PIMPBOT5000
I personally believe that we should kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible! With the most terrible means we have to do so I might add. By doing this we scare the **** out of everyone else and just maybe they will give up.

I say **** the Geneva Convention... They torture and execute our soldiers I think we should do the same, but make it public so as to set an example for the rest. That would send the message that either you give up or you will be caught and tortured until we think we have everything you know and then you will be shot.

I'm glad the tree hugging liberals don't run this country 'cause if they did we would be a bunch of facist nazis!!! :|

War is War, no matter how you put it... either you or me is gonna die, and I don't feel like dying today!
That is EXACTLY the ATTIUDE of the ROMAN EMPIRE, 2000 years ago. They RULED the world and had superior technology, education and just about everything. They were rich and decadent. Yet in a very short time (relatively) after their civilization peaked, Rome was INVADED and SACKED by the Goths and Vandals.

;)

Arrogance is never justified.

However, the Romans didn't have the level of military power we have today. If the Romans had nukes and were willing to use them then they would still be ruling today.
You are clearly wrong according to history . . . For their times, THEY DID have UNMATCHED technology and warfare science. After Rome weakened, I'd say "guerrilla fighting" ultimately broke Rome.

And if they did have Nukes, the dark ages would have lasted at least 100 times longer . . . ;)

rolleye.gif

Since when does a bunch of guys rowing a boat equal an aircraft carrier?
Since when does a catapult equal a tomahawk cruise missile?
Since when does a horse equal a M1A1 tank?
Since when does a.... wait, I forgot, the Romans didn't have any airplanes!

You would only be correct if their weapons inflicted as much destruction as ours do today.
We do much more damage with less weapons and people hence the US is the greatest military power in the history of mankind. Ask anyone they will tell you the same.
I am talking comparisons. When the Roman armies faced their opponents in the field they OVERWHELMINGLY WON. The CRUSHED their enemies (even the relatively sophisticated warfare of the Greeks). They elevated war strategy to a science. In their days they absolutely STRUCK FEAR into their enemies. NO ONE sould stand up to them. Thry RULED the civilized world (as far as they went).

I'd say the Superiority of the Roman's Forces over the European tribes is as the US to Iraq. Really.

I always hoped World Hisory could come in handy.;)

:D
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
I honestly believe that if Saddam Hussein was found driving a truck full of barrels of chemical weapons, running over Iraqi civilians, anal raping a U.S. serviceman, and dragging a dog tied to the bumper of the truck you would still find a way to be apologetic for him. I can hear it now.... "Oh he was just driving that truck to turn it over to inspectors, he wasn't trying to run down those people...he was just trying to push them along so they could get to the border faster, he stopped and decided to give Sgt. Bob a ride because he saw him stranded in the desert, then Sgt. Bob sat on something and had it lodged in his rectum and Saddam was just trying to help him find it, and it's obvious he was taking the dog to the vet to get dipped for fleas."

Damn you for making that statement too big for a sig...hehe
Sorry...use parts of it as you please....

;)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
As for "serious consequences" everyone who voted for it knew what that meant. They just didn't have the balls to back it up when it became apparent that 1441 had been violated. Heck forget 1441.....Iraq has over and over again violated the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War and that alone is more than enough justification for the current action.

Now YOU are spreading propaganda. They agreed on that language for the sole reason it was sufficiently VAGUE to satisfy everyone's interests. Do you really believe Syria, Germany, or France was voting for UN-sanctioned invasion of Iraq? Syria knew Saddam would never FULLY comply . . . those are two POS peas in a pod. Even Blair sold 1441 in the UK as a resolution for clarification of responsibilities NOT a blueprint for warfare.
He said he did not believe Mr Bush would disregard the UN in deciding on action against Iraq.
Blair is either an idiot or a liar.

Blair toast on BBC Newsnight I give the man props for standing up for his beliefs.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you saying there's already an authorisation for war?

TONY BLAIR: No, what I'm saying is this. In the Resolution that we passed last November we said that Iraq, it's actually interesting to look at the Resolution. Iraq had what was called a final opportunity to comply.

The duty of compliance was defined as full co-operation with the UN Inspectors. The Resolution then goes on to say "any failure to co-operate fully is a breach of this Resolution and serious consequences i.e. action, would follow". Now, we then also put in that

Resolution that there will be a further discussion in the Security Council. But the clear understanding was that if the inspectors do say that Iraq is not complying and there is a breach of that resolution, then we have to act.

Now if someone comes along and says, OK I accept there's a breach of Resolution 1441 but I'm issuing a veto I think that would be unreasonable. Incidentally I don't think that's what will happen. I think that we will, if the inspectors do end up in a situation where they're saying there is not compliance by Iraq then I think a second resolution will issue.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
IS this for REAL? The entire transcript is FASCINATING:
JEREMY PAXMAN: Good evening, welcome to a Newsnight special in which we'll be cross-examining the Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq.

After yesterday's performance at the UN America looks more determined than ever to go to war.

Our government is George Bush's closest ally yet many here and around the world would not believe the case for war has been made.

Tonight in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead we've invited the Prime Minister to face an audience of ordinary people from here in the north-east, all of whom are sceptical about the arguments for war with Iraq.

Facing them is the Prime Minister. He has confessed himself worried he has not yet made the case for war.

Tonight, taking questions from our audience and from me he'll have the chance to do so.

Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it?

TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now there is no danger, it's a danger some time in the future.

TONY BLAIR: I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region.

If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world.

And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well you said of those UN resolutions and the sanctions which followed them in the year 2000, you said that they had contained him. What's happened since?

TONY BLAIR: I didn't actually, I said they'd been contained him up to a point and the fact is - ¿

JEREMY PAXMAN: I'm sorry Prime Minister - we believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last ten years, you said that in November 2000.

TONY BLAIR: Well I can assure you I've said every time I'm asked about this, they have contained him up to a point and the fact is the sanctions regime was beginning to crumble, it's why it's subsequent in fact to that quote we had a whole series of negotiations about tightening the sanctions regime but the truth is the inspectors were put out of Iraq so -

JEREMY PAXMAN: They were not put out of Iraq, Prime Minister, that is just not true. The weapons inspectors left Iraq after being told by the American government that bombs will be dropped on the country.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, that is simply not right. What happened is that the inspectors told us that they were unable to carry out their work, they couldn't do their work because they weren't being allowed access to the sites.

They detailed that in the reports to the Security Council. On that basis, we said they should come out because they couldn't do their job properly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: That wasn't what you said, you said they were thrown out of Iraq -

TONY BLAIR: Well they were effectively because they couldn't do the work they were supposed to do

JEREMY PAXMAN: No, effectively they were not thrown out of Iraq, they withdraw.

TONY BLAIR: No I sorry Jeremy, I'm not allowing you away with that, that is completely wrong. Let me just explain to you what happened.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You've just said the decision was taken by the inspectors to leave the country. They were therefore not thrown out.

TONY BLAIR: They were effectively thrown out for the reason that I will give you. Prior to them leaving Iraq they had come back to the Security Council, again and again, and said we are not being given access to sites. For example, things were being designated as presidential palaces, they weren't being allowed to go in there.

As a result of that, they came back to the United Nations and said we can't carry out the work as inspectors; therefore we said you must leave because we will have to try and enforce this action a different way. So when you say the inspectors, when you imply the inspectors were in there doing their work, that is simply not the case.

JEREMY PAXMAN: I did not imply that, I merely stated the fact that they were not thrown out, they were withdrawn. And you concede they were withdrawn.

TONY BLAIR: They were withdrawn because they couldn't do their job. I mean let's not be ridiculous about this, there's no point in the inspectors being in there unless they can do the job they're put in there to do.

And the fact is we know that Iraq throughout that time was concealing its weapons.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right.

TONY BLAIR: Well hang on, you say right, they were concealing their weapons, they lied both about the existence of their nuclear weapons programme and their biological weapons programme and it was only when people were interviewed, when they defected from the Iraq regime and were interviewed, that we discovered the existence, full existence of those programmes at all.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Has not Colin Powell demonstrated yesterday, quite conclusively, that a regime in which those weapons inspectors are back in Iraq is one in which it is impossible for Saddam Hussein to continue developing weapons of mass destruction?

TONY BLAIR: No, because what he is doing is engaging in a systematic campaign of concealment and what Colin Powell was doing yesterday was giving evidence, for example, intelligence evidence and other evidence, of direct conversations which are evidence of the concealment is happening.

We still don't know, for example, what has happened to the thousands of litres of botulin and anthrax that were unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 1999. So, you know, the idea that -

JEREMY PAXMAN: And you believe American intelligence?

TONY BLAIR: Well I do actually believe this intelligence -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because there are a lot of dead people in an aspirin factory in Sudan who don't.

TONY BLAIR: Come on. This intelligence is backed up by our own intelligence and in any event, you know, we're not coming to this without any history. I mean let's not be absurdly naïve about this -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence of hiding of weapons.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, what Hans Blix has said is that the Iraqis are not cooperating properly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence, either of weapons manufacture, or that they had been concealed.

TONY BLAIR: No, I don't think again that is right. I think what he said was that the evidence that he had indicated that the Iraqis were not cooperating properly and that, for example, he thought that the nerve agent VX may have been weaponised.

And he also said that the discovery of the war heads might be - I think I'm quoting here - may be the tip of an iceberg. I think you'll find that in that report.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You produced a dossier last September in which you outlined Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. All the sites in that report were visited by UN inspectors who found no evidence of the weapons or no evidence of there having been hidden.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, it is absolutely clear what has been happening over the past few months, which is of course, I mean the moment we mentioned those in our intelligence reports we were aware of the fact that the Iraqis would then have a significant period of time in which they could conceal these weapons.

But, you know, if this were some country that we had no history of this problem with and this was the first time anyone had ever raised the issue, there might be a point in what you're saying. It is absurd in the case -

JEREMY PAXMAN: But you concede it's true -

TONY BLAIR: I don't concede it's true at all. It is absurd¿

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, your own foreign minister Mike O'Brian said it is true.

TONY BLAIR: It is absurd to say in a situation where Iraq has definitely had these weapons, developed them over a long period of time, concealed them, that there is nothing to be suspicious of when they can't even account for the weapons that we know were there when the Inspectors left in 1999.
Then it goes to the audience (which is also interesting but WAAY too LOONg to post).


Think GW would allow an interview like that? :p

:D
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Attorney General's Iraq response

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, spelled out the UK Government's legal basis for military action in a parliamentary written answer.

He argued that the combined effect of previous UN resolutions on Iraq dating back to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait allowed "the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".

Below is the full text of his statement.

All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.

Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
"
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
The ENTIRE point is that the US/Britain/allies BELIEVE there is legal basis for action - TRUE. HOWEVER, the REST of the UN nations do NOT agree with this "belief" - mostly they say it is NOT justified. And the UN has been severely weakened, NATO alliances have been shaken and even our European partners are disagreeing (to the point of promising a veto) .

So it will undoubtedly go to the world court. Years from now.
 

yhlee

Senior member
Jun 15, 2000
342
0
0
shinerburke, please follow rule 3 of the house rules. you make some decent points but it doesn't really help your argument out much when you add statements like "you have no debating skills" and the such. plus your tone is just annoying :p

another link to this story
bbc

interesting site i've been reading (especially the gru reports):
linky

-young
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
I don't think there is any rules against women fanatics. All it would take is for a single female suicide driver with either willing or unwilling passengers to create a propaganda nigthmare.

This is Calvin Ball after all.
 

iamWolverine

Senior member
May 20, 2001
763
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
That's too bad :( The worst part is, we hear about it in the US and we (the majority) are saddenned. I get the feeling if you reverse the words "Iraqi Troops kill Seven American women and children" and most in the middle east start dancing around celebrating.

Question of values I suppose.

I think you are confused about what civilians in the middle east think, feel and hold as values . . . That great majority of civilians there do not automatically equate American people with American government & policies, they know there is a difference because they see the difference everyday living under dictatorships supported at some time or another by the American government and policies.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Morph
You know what's funny? Any Iraqi civilians trying to cross the lines to the Coalition side are being fired on from behind by Iraqi soldiers (according to all the media reports, anyways) and now they are being fired upon from the front by Coalition forces. These people just can't win. :p
Seeing you get so much pleasure over such a horrific event really pisses me off. I can just imagine the poor young men who found themselves having to do such an awful thing because they were fearful of another Suicide/Homicide Bombing. The young soldiers are going to be scarred for life. I also feel anguish and great sorry for those innocent women and children that lost their lives or loved ones over this unfortunate incident. There is no glory when innocent civilians die like this and there is no glory when the Armies of Iraq resort to using Women and Children as propaganda and human shields even if this incident might not be that case.

Well said.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: LP29
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Shouldn't that read Iraq kills 7 Iraqi Women and children?

?
rolleye.gif

Shouldn't that read Iraqi war tactic kills 7 Iraqi Women and children? better?

It amazes me the simplicity of thinking here sometimes. Iraq firing under a white flag and them using suicide bombers is going to result in ALOT of dead Iraqi civilians. I feel bad about it, but guess what the blood is not on our hands as it is on the Iraqi regime for being the lieing deceptive little worm that he is.

I prefer to think of it as a win/win situation for Saddam. His troops must fight to the death now, if the desert, they are shot in the back by their comrades. f they make it to the coalition side they can be shot because of the underhandedness of Saddam.

It would not surprise me in the least if Saddam had ordered them to drive through the checkpost to both test the Americans as well as call them women and child murderers if they do kill them. I feel sorry for the vans occupants if they were in fact innocent, but it just makes me hate Saddam even more.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: LP29
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Shouldn't that read Iraq kills 7 Iraqi Women and children?

?
rolleye.gif

Shouldn't that read Iraqi war tactic kills 7 Iraqi Women and children? better?

It amazes me the simplicity of thinking here sometimes. Iraq firing under a white flag and them using suicide bombers is going to result in ALOT of dead Iraqi civilians. I feel bad about it, but guess what the blood is not on our hands as it is on the Iraqi regime for being the lieing deceptive little worm that he is.

But wouldn't have the troops have opened fire even if the suicide bombing had not taken place? I mean, if a vehicle drives straight through the checkpoint - then its going to get taken out - right?

Andy
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: LP29
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Shouldn't that read Iraq kills 7 Iraqi Women and children?

?
rolleye.gif

Shouldn't that read Iraqi war tactic kills 7 Iraqi Women and children? better?

It amazes me the simplicity of thinking here sometimes. Iraq firing under a white flag and them using suicide bombers is going to result in ALOT of dead Iraqi civilians. I feel bad about it, but guess what the blood is not on our hands as it is on the Iraqi regime for being the lieing deceptive little worm that he is.

But wouldn't have the troops have opened fire even if the suicide bombing had not taken place? I mean, if a vehicle drives straight through the checkpoint - then its going to get taken out - right?

Andy


Not necessarily, they tried to shoot out the engine block, next step would have been the tires except they were getting within detonation range.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: LP29
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Shouldn't that read Iraq kills 7 Iraqi Women and children?

?
rolleye.gif

Shouldn't that read Iraqi war tactic kills 7 Iraqi Women and children? better?

It amazes me the simplicity of thinking here sometimes. Iraq firing under a white flag and them using suicide bombers is going to result in ALOT of dead Iraqi civilians. I feel bad about it, but guess what the blood is not on our hands as it is on the Iraqi regime for being the lieing deceptive little worm that he is.

But wouldn't have the troops have opened fire even if the suicide bombing had not taken place? I mean, if a vehicle drives straight through the checkpoint - then its going to get taken out - right?

Andy


Not necessarily, they tried to shoot out the engine block, next step would have been the tires except they were getting within detonation range.

I understand that they went for the engine first - I do find it hard to believe that if it was really near them they wouldn't go for the kill -and not the tyres - even if their had been no suicide bomb. How many chances would they get? (anyone know the ROE regarding this before the bombing happened?)

Cheers,

Andy
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.
 

justint

Banned
Dec 6, 1999
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.

That's the real problem. We will definately win the war, but winning the peace is the hard part of this operation.
 

paulj2

Member
May 31, 2001
26
0
0
I am sick an tired of people like you abusing our president. He is not a fascist.
fas·cism (f?sh'?z'?m)
n.
often Fascism.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: paulj2
I am sick an tired of people like you abusing our president. He is not a fascist.
fas·cism (f?sh'?z'?m)
n.
often Fascism.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


If you're going to refer to an earlier post it's cuctomary to quote that post or use the persons username. Otherwise you just confuse everyone.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.

They did not use a "checkpoint" as an excuse to "blow away a minivan full of women and children". I'm sure the last thing anyone wanted to do was shoot up a car of innocents, of course there is always people like Flavio who believe that their fellow countrymen will look for any reason to blow away some innocent children.

I was wondering how long it would take before the shouts of "baby killer!!!!" would start against our troops. Looks like it's just shy of 2 weeks...........

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: yhlee
shinerburke, please follow rule 3 of the house rules. you make some decent points but it doesn't really help your argument out much when you add statements like "you have no debating skills" and the such. plus your tone is just annoying :p

another link to this story
bbc

interesting site i've been reading (especially the gru reports):
linky

-young
Just for clarification....I'm not the one that said someone had "no debating skills." That is something apoppin said to me when he told me he wasn't going to reply to me. It's his way of covering his ears and saying I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! I know my tone is annoying....can't help it....appopin and his ilk annoy me and it shows through in my posts.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.

I imagine I would be pissed. Do you have an example of someone doing that.

The story this thread is about does not qualify in any way with the criteria in your post.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: flavio
Imagine how pissed you would be if some country invaded the US, set up a checkpoint, and used it as an excuse to blow away a minivan full of women and children in Indiana.

I imagine I would be pissed. Do you have an example of someone doing that.

The story this thread is about does not qualify in any way with the criteria in your post.
Actually it DOES, from the Iraqi Point-of-View.
;)

 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
An unfortunate incident, but I don't see any way to blame the soldiers or the civilians in this case--both parties were probably scared out of their minds, in which case their behavior was understandable. The blame must rest squarely on Saddam's regime for making perfidy the centerpiece of its war strategy. This is a textbook example of why fighting in civilian attire is considered a war crime.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: exp
An unfortunate incident, but I don't see any way to blame the soldiers or the civilians in this case--both parties were probably scared out of their minds, in which case their behavior was understandable. The blame must rest squarely on Saddam's regime for making perfidy the centerpiece of its war strategy. This is a textbook example of why fighting in civilian attire is considered a war crime.
TRUE . . . BUT How do we get the Iraqi people to understand it was "necessary"? We are told by the coalition of the importance of "the battle for their hearts and minds". We are LOSING that "war".