Camp Delta death chamber plan

[DOGG]

A court and execution chamber could be built at the US detention camp in Cuba under plans being drawn up by military officials.

Military tribunals for some of the hundreds of men detained at the US base on Guantanamo Bay moved a step closer last month with the appointment of a chief prosecutor and chief defence counsel.

Pentagon rules for the tribunals permit death sentences to be passed and the construction of a death chamber at the camp is among options being considered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2979076.stm

hope no innocent people get killed

[Canalien]

Hold on... they can EXECUTE prisoners of war (or whatever the term they give them is)?

[Happy Camper]

Hold on... they can EXECUTE prisoners of war (or whatever the term they give them is)?


Not under international law, but America doesn't understand 'the rest of the world'.

[Scythe]

Hold on... they can EXECUTE prisoners of war (or whatever the term they give them is)?

Not while a war is ongoing, or at least not as far as I know. But then, despite it being called a "War on Terror", the prisoners aren't being designated as Prisoners of War, but rather as 'enemy combatants', hence performing a nice little shuffle around the problem. Aren't semantics wonderful?

[Nodbugger]

When we convict them we can execute them.

[Afta Image]

What the FUCK!!!!!

Whether you refer these people as "Enemy Combatants" or as "P.O.W's" there is no justification for their execution and I consider that should America sentence any of these people to death during or after the war, I will consider it as an act of murder in the extreme.

America to even believe they have the right to kill these people mortifies me. Don't they understand that life is sacred? And for a country that is as a overall burying its head in consevative christianity, it is my hope that they remember that forgiveness is critical in their faith (though such points of view are all to often push aside when it is not convenient).

[JediKnight]

When we convict them we can execute them.
Don't you mean, IF they're convicted? Then again, I'm not expecting you to be any less ignorant than you usually are.

[darns]

Is anyone monitoring the tribunals and court proceedings there? Will there be UN or any other watchdog parties? I don't guess so. Will the trial be fair? Certainly not.

In a similar aspect, can the terrorists in Iraq claim that the foreigners they have "abducted" have been put through a Syariah court, and found to be conducting terrorism in their country, named as "enemy combatant" and thus sentenced to death by beheading with a very blunt knife. Videos will be posted on the internet to warn other potential foreign terrorists. Will that be legitimate? If not, are Americans conducting the very same terrorism acts as these Iraqi freedom fighters?

[Canalien]

When we convict them we can execute them.

Nodbugger, I hereby declare you caught, charged and convicted. Don't leave the state.

(yeah, you're laws mean about that much to the rest of the world too)

[Nodbugger]

You guys are complete and utter idiots, taking everything to the extreme.

Spouting of on Anti-American/anti-military rants making comments which have no basis on fact or reality and having no relevance to anything, only being said to further your completely biased, skewed, and completely wrong way of thinking.

[Blink]

America is claiming that the "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" (pick the term of your choice) are non-uniformed enemy combatants. Under the Geneva convention anyone who is a soldier for a particular country and is captured wearing civilian clothes or the uniform of a different country is classed as a saboteur / spy and can be executed, they have no rights under the Geneva convention. Thus during WWII, any escaped Allied prisoners who weren't wearing uniforms under their escape outfits were shot. Same with german saboteurs during the battle of the bulge, and the german saboteurs caught in America.

The trouble with this is that the Taliban didn't have military uniforms, and fighters in Iraq are more like the French Resistance or Viet Cong than any sort of army. It's a bit of a grey area whether they should be treated as POWs or not. Personally I give them the benefit of the doubt, because if you're not fighting as part of a regular army, how can you have a uniform?

[beowulf437]

The Geneva Convention does state that irregular combatants carrying arms in the open and organized as fighting units or impromtu militias fighting against invaders should be granted at least the minimum provisions of the convetion.

[Nodbugger]

The Geneva Convention does state that irregular combatants carrying arms in the open and organized as fighting units or impromtu militias fighting against invaders should be granted at least the minimum provisions of the convetion.


But they are not carrying arms in the open or in organized fighting units.

[beowulf437]

The ones captured in Afganistan were carrying arms in the open and organized as militias. The ones 'captured' elsewhere should have been charged as criminals. Therefore they should have had legal counsel, the right to present witnesses and evidence in their defense, the right to discovery, and the right to speedy trials.

[johny_roberts]

Kill them all. Save time and energy...

That is all.

[dozer]

thats pretty much whats happening now anyway, even inside prisons.

[Nodbugger]

The ones captured in Afganistan were carrying arms in the open and organized as militias. The ones 'captured' elsewhere should have been charged as criminals. Therefore they should have had legal counsel, the right to present witnesses and evidence in their defense, the right to discovery, and the right to speedy trials.


Except if we hand them back to Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Canalien]

Except if we hand them back to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Or Australia.

... making comments which have no basis on fact or reality and having no relevance to anything, only being said to further your completely biased, skewed, and completely wrong way of thinking.
Look in the mirror, pal.

[Uther Pendragon]

Nodbugger, I don't think you comprehend the fact that whist the USA says one thing and does another it is very hard to back up the policies overseas. Why should any country take the USA seriously on human rights issues when all they hear on the news is revelations of more abuse of human rights by the US government?

Seriously why should anybody take any notice of what the US says in regards to human rights when you have abu ghraib, guantanamo bay etc.

The first time you guys elected bush I was willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt but by re-electing that moron you have lost all credibility with me.

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger, I don't think you comprehend the fact that whist the USA says one thing and does another it is very hard to back up the policies overseas. Why should any country take the USA seriously on human rights issues when all they hear on the news is revelations of more abuse of human rights by the US government?

Seriously why should anybody take any notice of what the US says in regards to human rights when you have abu ghraib, guantanamo bay etc.

The first time you guys elected bush I was willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt but by re-electing that moron you have lost all credibility with me.


Because some times you need to throw down your morals and kick some ass, but it times of peace and in domestic issues care should always be taken.

But these assholes have it coming to them.

[Up_All_Night]

if you're willing to throw down your morals, then in essence dont you lack them to begin with

[Up_All_Night]

these assholes have it coming to them.

you know thats the same thing a suicide bomber thinks before he presses the button

[Nodbugger]

you know thats the same thing a suicide bomber thinks before he presses the button


No it isn't, the last thing they think is "Yay, now I will get 72 Virgins in heaven because i killed people who did not help the Islamic cause"

They are not fighting for Iraq, they are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting for a crazy belief.

Get that through your thick skull.

[Nodbugger]

if you're willing to throw down your morals, then in essence dont you lack them to begin with


You are a dumbass.

I think killing people is wrong, but if some attacks me or tries to hurt someone, I would have no problem killing them.

[MC SoD]

Don't you mean, IF they're convicted? Then again, I'm not expecting you to be any less ignorant than you usually are.

Perhaps he only means the guilty ones - they will be executed when convicted and not before... That's not to say he meant *all* prisoners are going to be convicted&executed.

[amj]

You are a dumbass.

I think killing people is wrong, but if some attacks me or tries to hurt someone, I would have no problem killing them.


so if I punched you in the face then you would kill me? Jesus, you must have killed a fair few people now then...or at least you will do by the time you finish life.


No it isn't, the last thing they think is "Yay, now I will get 72 Virgins in heaven because i killed people who did not help the Islamic cause"

They are not fighting for Iraq, they are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting for a crazy belief.

Get that through your thick skull.


Ah I assume you have conducted extensive research, interviewed many insurgents etc. And you still can not get round the idea that not everybody has the same beliefs, what's to say that christianty isn't crazy? Idiot.

[MC SoD]

Hmmm... this thread contains some idiotic posts... Some people just want another to chance to say "omg America, you bastard" and "oh NodB you have no grasp on reality" without saying much else, and at the point in the thread where NodB said:

You guys are complete and utter idiots, ...
Spouting of on Anti-American/anti-military rants making comments ... only being said to further your completely biased, skewed, and completely wrong way of thinking.

He was on the right track.

However, then Blink and beowulf made good contributions and then NodB went right off the deep end with the whole "what's coming to them" post and other intelligent ones like it.

If people could genuinely discuss or debate these things (i.e. what this thread would be like with certain posts removed*) it would be much better. The people who attacked NodB initially seemed to do it by assumption of what he was thinking or by what he has said or how he has argued in previous threads, rather than what his actual post said in this instance, and then it seems his later replies responded to that more than to the topic, and maybe that's why they became less intelligent and more ... whatever the idea is I am trying to convey.

Sorry for going off topic.
On topic, I would like to say, I'm against the naming of these prisoners in a certain way which means that they don't have the rights afforded to other accused persons (criminals). Apart from the fact that certain rights to defend yourself or have accusations properly examined, it implies that fighting for a different country is in someway worse than committing a crime - even murderers are afforded lawyers and other basic rights.

On the plus side, the article says:

"Renovation work such as rewiring has begun on a number of buildings which could later be designated as courts for the tribunals.

General Miller told AP there are also plans to build a permanent prison block for those convicted and sentenced and an execution chamber should any be sentenced to death."

The fact that they are building courts as well as execution chambers suggests that proper trials might be held in deciding these questions, but to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in that suggestion.

The whole issue of what evidence should or shouldn't be led, who can decide these questions, what rights to representation will exist, choice of forum and choice of law arise also in many discussions of the Corby case (which I have not followed, I just thought it an interesting parallel).**


*Including this post I guess
**PS - Someone who knows me, let me know if this is slightly too much rambling in my medicated state and I will edit/delete accordingly.

[Nodbugger]

so if I punched you in the face then you would kill me? Jesus, you must have killed a fair few people now then...or at least you will do by the time you finish life.



Ah I assume you have conducted extensive research, interviewed many insurgents etc. And you still can not get round the idea that not everybody has the same beliefs, what's to say that christianty isn't crazy? Idiot.


People who blow themselves up are crazy. I don't care what religion they are from.

[Up_All_Night]

You are a dumbass.

I think killing people is wrong, but if some attacks me or tries to hurt someone, I would have no problem killing them.

I am assuming you using this as a justification for americas war?
Iraq didnt attack or try to attack your country


and also from what you're saying, Iraq insurgents who have survived their houses being blown up are justified in killing american's as they tried to kill them first.

got ya

do you see how this logic of yours is flawed

[Nodbugger]

I am assuming you using this as a justification for americas war?
Iraq didnt attack or try to attack your country


and also from what you're saying, Iraq insurgents who have survived their houses being blown up are justified in killing american's as they tried to kill them first.

got ya

do you see how this logic of yours is flawed

No it is not flawed, because America would have been happy if no one fought them. We would have been perfectly content not having to fire a shot, we never shot first.

[Canalien]

Yeah but by invading their country you were asking for it, what did you expect, them to just lay down their arms because you think you're so superior?

[Nodbugger]

Yeah but by invading their country you were asking for it, what did you expect, them to just lay down their arms because you think you're so superior?


Your logic is flawed. This is a very simple explanation.


We said this a hundred fucking billion times.

Our problem is not with the Iraq people, but with the government of Iraq and the evil fucking things they do. We want them gone and Iraqis can live happily ever after.

Now to any level headed Iraqi, that would sound like a good deal. But no, you have to go and defend the stupid fuckers who are fighting.

Don't even try and reverse it saying well we could do they with America then. You know what, you can't. And no it is not a double standard. Iraq is not American. Saddam is not Bush. Bush hasn't done jack shit compared to Saddam. If you count everything Bush has done he is no where near Saddam. Even if you want to make Bush into the most evil person you will never ever ever get close to how evil Saddam and the bathists were. You will never match that.

So don't even try it, you dumb asses have been scratching for something to hold onto for the last 5 years. You will never get a grasp on anything.


Terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

We blew the shit outta them.

We have not had any major attacks since then.

Saddam is a fucking asshole.

you guys tried to make it out like we were going to take the oil. Well guess what, there hasn't been a drop taken. No one in the administration made one cent from going to Iraq. and they won't make any money afterwards. Only what they get from their jobs.

We got rid of him.

Iraq is a democracy.

All you can hold onto is that we killed a lot of people, but you don't complain about other things that kill even more people. Nor do you complain about all the people Saddam killed.

You say Iraq is going into a civil war, there is nothing that shows that. Have they fought at all? NO! They are fighting peacefully in the halls of a democratic arena. They are debating. they don't fully understand democracy yet, but it isn't nearly as bad as the news and you fuckers make it out to be.

You complain about the ineffiency of the Iraqi police and military. Of course they are not perfect. What do you expect? there hasn't been a decent soldier or cop in Iraq for the pas 30 years, they have all been murderous thugs. You can't just start it up instantly. Shit takes time.


You are trying to grasp onto everything in an attempt to make the US look bad.

Now you guys are trying to get into us torturing people. there is torture. There is interrogating. Scaring people is not torture, messing with their head dis not torture. Flush the Koran is not torture. Feeding them pork is not torture. Blind folding them is not torture. Keeping them in cuba and a 8x8 cell is not torture. Giving them 2 meals a day is nor torture. Allowing them to show and keep clean is not torture. Allowing them to practice their religion is not torture. There is no torture this is no evidence. These marks they say that have are from a number of things. Have any of you ever watched cops? have you seen are those nuts resist arrest? They get crazy and it can take 4 or 5 cops to take them down. Now add religious fanaticism to their list along with the willingness to die. They get very crazy. And it may take a few hits to get them down. they may get some bruises, they may get cut. They may break something. Sure the military may have hit some guys a few more times than they should have, but I really don't fucking care. I think if someone was just shooting at you in an attempt to kill you, I wouldn't care if they shot the fuckers right then and there. It won't bother me one bit.

[MC SoD]

"Terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

We blew the shit outta them.

We have not had any major attacks since then."

And i have a rock that keeps away snakes and a bear patrol for bears

[Up_All_Night]

No it is not flawed, because America would have been happy if no one fought them. We would have been perfectly content not having to fire a shot, we never shot first.


so america entered the country and walked through the streets and only started bombing and shooting once iraqi's attacked them. I must have missed that fox news report of bullshit

[Merudo]

we never shot first.


I must have missed the part where iraq invaded america then :rolleyes:

[Canalien]

yeah but scared american soldiers running headfirst into baghdad and shooting 'pretty much at ANYTHING that moved' is fucking stupid, wrong and illegal.
i use quotation marks because that's adirect quote from an american soldier who was there.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Our problem is not with the Iraq people, but with the government of Iraq and the evil fucking things they do. We want them gone and Iraqis can live happily ever after.

Now to any level headed Iraqi, that would sound like a good deal. But no, you have to go and defend the stupid fuckers who are fighting.


Nodbugger, who made the United States of America the worlds judge, jury and executioner when it comes to "evil"? It seems to me that the US cant seem to mind its own business. So what if Saddam Hussein was evil? I think that there are elements within the US government that are evil, does that give me the right to barge into the White House and blow the crap out of those people? I dont think so.

Do you see where the problem is? Iraq never launched an attack against the US. Yes Saddam Hussein would talk crap about launching a "Holy War" against the US, but realistically they couldnt even defend their own country for a month, what makes you think that they ever were any threat to the US?

Do you want to know what the "average" Iraqi thinks of the US? They regard them as a foreign invasion force, there without any justification or mandate. They regard their soldiers as barbaric and brutal (think Abu Graib). They watch the US soldiers act irrationally, either through fear or through apathy or because the soldiers consider themselves "above" the Iraqi people. Have you ever considered why the US forces are taking the brunt of terrorist attacks? The British soldiers are well trained in counter-insurgency tactics (through their years in Northern Ireland, they realise that the best way to "get through" to a community is by peacefully engaging them). The US soldiers dont even attempt to converse with the "average" Iraqi. They shoot first and ask questions later.


Don't even try and reverse it saying well we could do they with America then. You know what, you can't. And no it is not a double standard. Iraq is not American. Saddam is not Bush. Bush hasn't done jack shit compared to Saddam. If you count everything Bush has done he is no where near Saddam. Even if you want to make Bush into the most evil person you will never ever ever get close to how evil Saddam and the bathists were. You will never match that.

So don't even try it, you dumb asses have been scratching for something to hold onto for the last 5 years. You will never get a grasp on anything.


Since when has the US ever cared about "evil" people anyway. Cast your mind back to WW2, did they give a rats about Hitler? The US government did nothing to combat Hitlers "evil" until Pearl Harbour, and that only happened because there was American bloodshed. The US even refused to give asylum (http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_2.html#hitler) to Jews fleeing from Europe. Since WW2, where has there been US action to combat other evils in the world; Idi Amin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin) in Uganda, the Rwandan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_genocide) genocide, Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea) and Pol Pot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot) among others.
[/quote]


Terrorists attacked us on 9/11.
We blew the shit outta them.
We have not had any major attacks since then.
Saddam is a fucking asshole.


And please show me the evidence linking September 11 to Saddam Hussein.


Iraq is a democracy.

All you can hold onto is that we killed a lot of people, but you don't complain about other things that kill even more people. Nor do you complain about all the people Saddam killed.


The United States went into Iraq under false pretences. The French and Germans were ostracised because they insisted on seeing evidence, there was never any evidence that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism so what has happened is that all those people in Iraq (Iraqis and foreigners) were killed on the basis of a lie.


You say Iraq is going into a civil war, there is nothing that shows that. Have they fought at all? NO! They are fighting peacefully in the halls of a democratic arena. They are debating. they don't fully understand democracy yet, but it isn't nearly as bad as the news and you fuckers make it out to be.

You complain about the ineffiency of the Iraqi police and military. Of course they are not perfect. What do you expect? there hasn't been a decent soldier or cop in Iraq for the pas 30 years, they have all been murderous thugs. You can't just start it up instantly. Shit takes time.


No Iraq is not going into civil war. Care to explain this:
- Fresh Wave of Bombs Across Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4602019.stm) - BBC - 3/06/05
- Abducted governor found dead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4595879.stm) - BBC - 31/05/05
- Iraq bombers hit security forces (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4592763.stm) - BBC - 30/05/05
- Surge in Iraq violence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4537065.stm) - BBC - 24/05/05

Do I need to go on???

By the way, I once knew a former soldier from Iraq who escaped his country after Desert Storm I, he used to sell TV's at a local electronics store. He was quite a nice fellow, didnt seem like the "murderous thug" type.


You are trying to grasp onto everything in an attempt to make the US look bad.

Now you guys are trying to get into us torturing people. there is torture. There is interrogating. Scaring people is not torture, messing with their head dis not torture. Flush the Koran is not torture. Feeding them pork is not torture. Blind folding them is not torture. Keeping them in cuba and a 8x8 cell is not torture. Giving them 2 meals a day is nor torture. Allowing them to show and keep clean is not torture. Allowing them to practice their religion is not torture. There is no torture this is no evidence. These marks they say that have are from a number of things. Have any of you ever watched cops? have you seen are those nuts resist arrest? They get crazy and it can take 4 or 5 cops to take them down. Now add religious fanaticism to their list along with the willingness to die. They get very crazy. And it may take a few hits to get them down. they may get some bruises, they may get cut. They may break something. Sure the military may have hit some guys a few more times than they should have, but I really don't fucking care. I think if someone was just shooting at you in an attempt to kill you, I wouldn't care if they shot the fuckers right then and there. It won't bother me one bit.

This statement above demonstrates why most of the rest of the world have it in for the United States. "Its our way or the highway" has become your national mantra.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world dont respond well to threats. One day you will realise that the saying "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees" has alot of basis in truth.

[Nodbugger]

so america entered the country and walked through the streets and only started bombing and shooting once iraqi's attacked them. I must have missed that fox news report of bullshit


It took a while before we reached any towns, there was no resistance in any of the southern or northern areas. We walked in, the people said hello, we set up a few bases and headed towards Bahgdad. We would see a column of tanks (they were not civilian tanks) and we blew them up. Spotted a brigade or company of Iraq soldiers , we bombed them. And every time we ran into a legitimate force of the Iraqi military they took them out. What you dumb asses forget is that for the first month there were no insurgents, there were no car bombings. It was all military Vs. military.


BTW, you guys still haven't proved one thing about FOX being biased. You have only showed one documentary, which also provide no facts. It never provides a specific example. It only attacks the peoples personal beliefs, and puts quotes from OPINION shows in there. It never once goes into the news portion of FOX news.

[Nodbugger]

yeah but scared american soldiers running headfirst into baghdad and shooting 'pretty much at ANYTHING that moved' is fucking stupid, wrong and illegal.
i use quotation marks because that's adirect quote from an american soldier who was there.


Have you ever talked to a soldier before? they say a lot of things. It is a figure of speech. They didn't literally shoot at anything that moves. Christ you are a dumb fuck.

[moldy bread]

Have you ever talked to a soldier before? they say a lot of things. It is a figure of speech. They didn't literally shoot at anything that moves. Christ you are a dumb fuck.

Yes, I have. I talked to a soldier the other day. He told me that he had a faggot son in Chigago. I think he was talking about you.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Have you ever talked to a soldier before? they say a lot of things. It is a figure of speech. They didn't literally shoot at anything that moves. Christ you are a dumb fuck.

Nodbugger, hes actually right.

Ive met two people who were former soldiers in recent conflicts and served in warzones. One was an ex-Israeli tank man and another is an ex-Navy Seal, both of them now live in Australia.

The man who served in the Israeli army told me about a time when he and his tank crew were ordered into a slum in the Palestinian territories for patrol. They came under what they thought was enemy fire from a nearby shed, which they proceeded to machine-gun. Once the position had been silenced, they found two dead palestinian children, without weapons, that appeared to have been throwing rocks at the tank. His own words were that he would regret that action for the rest of his life, but that he was trained to perform in that manner, and he did.

The other fellow, a bloke I work with, an ex-navy Seal, has also told me some stories which make my hair stand on end. His stories are substantiated with combat footage that literally almost made me throw up - stuff you dont get to see on the 6PM news. He told me his unit was trained to neutralise a position "by any means necessary" and that they would fire on anyone or anything that approached them that they didnt recognise or respond. I dont know if he did anything questionable while he was there, he refuses to say anything, but he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder in a very bad way.

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger, who made the United States of America the worlds judge, jury and executioner when it comes to "evil"? It seems to me that the US cant seem to mind its own business. So what if Saddam Hussein was evil? I think that there are elements within the US government that are evil, does that give me the right to barge into the White House and blow the crap out of those people? I dont think so.

Do you see where the problem is? Iraq never launched an attack against the US. Yes Saddam Hussein would talk crap about launching a "Holy War" against the US, but realistically they couldnt even defend their own country for a month, what makes you think that they ever were any threat to the US?

Do you want to know what the "average" Iraqi thinks of the US? They regard them as a foreign invasion force, there without any justification or mandate. They regard their soldiers as barbaric and brutal (think Abu Graib). They watch the US soldiers act irrationally, either through fear or through apathy or because the soldiers consider themselves "above" the Iraqi people. Have you ever considered why the US forces are taking the brunt of terrorist attacks? The British soldiers are well trained in counter-insurgency tactics (through their years in Northern Ireland, they realise that the best way to "get through" to a community is by peacefully engaging them). The US soldiers dont even attempt to converse with the "average" Iraqi. They shoot first and ask questions later.

We did. It is that fucking simple. No one else is doing it. And it needs to be done.

Your ignorance astounds me. They didn't need to have a conventional military threat. You people still haven't learned anything from history. The British thought the colonists would be no trouble, we kicked their ass. In World War 2 we though Japan had no way of attacking us, and they destroyed pearl harbor. We didn't think anyone could attack the US, then Sept 11th happened. Do you see what I'm getting at? Think outside the box for once, Saddam was bad, he is a threat to anything progressive in the world. Get him out and the world will be better.

Where have you gotten this average Iraq crap? The Average Iraq wants to stay alive. The average Iraq hated Saddam. The Average Iraqi bought a Satelite Dish after we invaded because Saddam had out lawed them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm

This poll is over a year old, but the facts are still there. Things have gotten 100x better since then.

Here is another one.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_01_01_juancole_archive.html#10734533111816361 2


Then of course Iraqs website.

http://iraqcoalition.org/government/polling.html


How wrong you are....everytime.

And your comments about soldiers, completely wrong.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/17/1375/640/war_news07.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/17/1375/640/Iraqis%20celebrate%20freedom%2C%20newsweek%20photo %20of%20pow%20Jessica.jpg
http://svenrox.com/images/4b2/happy-iraqi.jpg
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/04/09/international/09cnd-bagh90.jpg
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/04/09/international/09cnd-free.slide5.jpg
http://www.estripes.com/photos/20964_311155318b.jpg
http://www.estripes.com/photos/20964_31115543b.jpg

OMG, I can't beleive we shot those Iraqis?!?!liek!!?!


Since when has the US ever cared about "evil" people anyway. Cast your mind back to WW2, did they give a rats about Hitler? The US government did nothing to combat Hitlers "evil" until Pearl Harbour, and that only happened because there was American bloodshed. The US even refused to give asylum to Jews fleeing from Europe. Since WW2, where has there been US action to combat other evils in the world; Idi Amin in Uganda, the Rwandan genocide, Cambodia and Pol Pot among others.


You know nothing about World war 2, we gave millions of dollars to Europe and Russia to help fight. I mean we didn't really have much time to get involved. He invaded Poland in 39'. We got atatcked in 41'. Remember WW1? We got invovled and had nothing to do with it. It was just another stupid european War. That is what we thought World War 2 was. Europeans don't have the balls to keep tabs on their neihbhors so fucked up shit happens. I can tell you right now if a country over here decided to do that it would never get started. Europe still hasn't learned their lesson. how many wars have there been over there? hundreds basically. How many have we had over here in the last 100 years? Maybe a handful. Even after World War 2, we went to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, all those south American countries. Kosovo. We set up stattions in Africa. We have been giving away billinos of dollars every year. US citizens personally donate hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

Those examples you give were taken up by the UN. They said they would do something about it, guess what. They didn't...as usual.

And please show me the evidence linking September 11 to Saddam Hussein.

Who ever said Saddam was connected to September 11th? he was connected to alqueda. But even if there was no connection it doesn't make him not a terrorist. That is another thing you people don't understand. Lets say a Gang kills a family member. Now do you attack that gang? Or attack all gangs? Wouldn't it make sense to attack every gang?

The United States went into Iraq under false pretences. The French and Germans were ostracised because they insisted on seeing evidence, there was never any evidence that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism so what has happened is that all those people in Iraq (Iraqis and foreigners) were killed on the basis of a lie./quote]

There was tons of evidence, you just were not paying any attention.

[quote]
No Iraq is not going into civil war. Care to explain this:
- Fresh Wave of Bombs Across Iraq - BBC - 3/06/05
- Abducted governor found dead - BBC - 31/05/05
- Iraq bombers hit security forces - BBC - 30/05/05
- Surge in Iraq violence - BBC - 24/05/05

Do I need to go on???

By the way, I once knew a former soldier from Iraq who escaped his country after Desert Storm I, he used to sell TV's at a local electronics store. He was quite a nice fellow, didnt seem like the "murderous thug" type.

how in any way is that a civil war? Is America going into a civil war because some dumb drunk shot his freind with a shotgun? Or because some guy decided to rob the 7/11? Hell no, a civil war requires two or more large factions. Right now you have 99% of Iraqis, Vs 1% of acrazy ass people. Iraq will never be a civil war. It is people versus terrorists.

As for the soldier, he was conscripted. He obviously didn't join. The ones that actually fight are. The ones that patrolled the streets were. The ones that raped women where. He escaped.

This statement above demonstrates why most of the rest of the world have it in for the United States. "Its our way or the highway" has become your national mantra.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world dont respond well to threats. One day you will realise that the saying "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees" has alot of basis in truth.



So then why are you on your knees?

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger, hes actually right.

Ive met two people who were former soldiers in recent conflicts and served in warzones. One was an ex-Israeli tank man and another is an ex-Navy Seal, both of them now live in Australia.

The man who served in the Israeli army told me about a time when he and his tank crew were ordered into a slum in the Palestinian territories for patrol. They came under what they thought was enemy fire from a nearby shed, which they proceeded to machine-gun. Once the position had been silenced, they found two dead palestinian children, without weapons, that appeared to have been throwing rocks at the tank. His own words were that he would regret that action for the rest of his life, but that he was trained to perform in that manner, and he did.

The other fellow, a bloke I work with, an ex-navy Seal, has also told me some stories which make my hair stand on end. His stories are substantiated with combat footage that literally almost made me throw up - stuff you dont get to see on the 6PM news. He told me his unit was trained to neutralise a position "by any means necessary" and that they would fire on anyone or anything that approached them that they didnt recognise or respond. I dont know if he did anything questionable while he was there, he refuses to say anything, but he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder in a very bad way.


they can't shoot at anything that moves. It is against the ROE. Unless their commanding officer had permission from way up there to neutralize that area, an American soldier cannot fire on a position or person unless fired upon.

I'm sure you guys have seen the movie black hawk down? When the Somalia soldiers fire on the civilians getting the rice. And e couldn't shoot back because they did not shoot at us. Or the other time when the machine gunner asks the Sergeant, "Hey they are shooting at us, what should we do" and he tells him " Well shoot back" . Or the part where the woman picks up the rifle, and the black is saying "Come on lady, don't shoot, the second she starts shooting the guy next time him shoots her" , that is exactly how it was there. Now they have gotten better at spotting things and finding stuff, just like they do in every war. But they cannot fire on anything that moves.

[jak]

they can't shoot at anything that moves. It is against the ROE. Unless their commanding officer had permission from way up there to neutralize that area, an American soldier cannot fire on a position or person unless fired upon.

I'm sure you guys have seen the movie black hawk down? When the Somalia soldiers fire on the civilians getting the rice. And e couldn't shoot back because they did not shoot at us. Or the other time when the machine gunner asks the Sergeant, "Hey they are shooting at us, what should we do" and he tells him " Well shoot back" . Or the part where the woman picks up the rifle, and the black is saying "Come on lady, don't shoot, the second she starts shooting the guy next time him shoots her" , that is exactly how it was there. Now they have gotten better at spotting things and finding stuff, just like they do in every war. But they cannot fire on anything that moves.

Am I correct to understand that you are taking what is depicted in a movie over the testimony of actual soldiers as your basis of what really happens in a war?

I shake my head in disbelief every time you post, Nodbugger.

[moldy bread]

they can't shoot at anything that moves. It is against the ROE. Unless their commanding officer had permission from way up there to neutralize that area, an American soldier cannot fire on a position or person unless fired upon.

I'm sure you guys have seen the movie black hawk down? When the Somalia soldiers fire on the civilians getting the rice. And e couldn't shoot back because they did not shoot at us. Or the other time when the machine gunner asks the Sergeant, "Hey they are shooting at us, what should we do" and he tells him " Well shoot back" . Or the part where the woman picks up the rifle, and the black is saying "Come on lady, don't shoot, the second she starts shooting the guy next time him shoots her" , that is exactly how it was there. Now they have gotten better at spotting things and finding stuff, just like they do in every war. But they cannot fire on anything that moves.

You're wrong.

Saying that soldiers have to follow the same rules as Black Hawk Down is wrong. It's more like RoboCop where all the soldiers have four prime directives.

http://www.answers.com/topic/robocop

1. Serve the public trust
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. Classified

The fourth one is classified and you have to have the security clerance level of someone in ROTC to know it so I can't tell you what it is.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

The British thought the colonists would be no trouble, we kicked their ass.


Not unlike those people in Iraq that you now refer to as "insurgents", who are fighting to remove a foreign power from their soil. The colonists were fighting for "freedom from tyranny". Are you starting to pick up my drift?



In World War 2 we though Japan had no way of attacking us, and they destroyed pearl harbor. We didn't think anyone could attack the US, then Sept 11th happened. Do you see what I'm getting at? Think outside the box for once, Saddam was bad, he is a threat to anything progressive in the world. Get him out and the world will be better.


Your intelligence services failed you. Lets see, a country that had aligned itself with the Axis and developed the policy of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/coprospr.htm) in 1940 which highlighted the removal of western powers from Asia (given that the US has the Phillipines as a colony back then is cause for concern, or so you would think), and the US did not perceive them as a threat??. Japan was at war with Britain, the Commonwealth countries, China, Thailand and France, but the US couldnt recognise them as a potential threat??? In comparison, Iraq invaded one country (Kuwait), a country notorious for its lack of human rights, an autocratic regime, a country that Iraq had said time and time again to the international community that it considered as part of its own territory (like China says about Taiwan and Tibet today).

Your thoughts about Saddam Hussein are exactly the same as those of millions of Arabs in the Middle East have about Bush. He invades countries he has no right invading, he supports a police state (Israel) that continues to oppress them, and he threatens to invade Iran on the basis that they are allegedly pursuing nuclear weapons.


Where have you gotten this average Iraq crap? The Average Iraq wants to stay alive. The average Iraq hated Saddam. The Average Iraqi bought a Satelite Dish after we invaded because Saddam had out lawed them.

Things have gotten 100x better since then.


What good is a satellite dish when you only have electricity for less than half the day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4543997.stm). In that same article, have a read from a more recent poll that suggests that the situation in Iraq is at its worst it has been in 25 years. This poll, taken in May 2005, sampled 22,000 people, over your poll from 2003 of 2,500.


Then of course Iraqs website.
http://iraqcoalition.org/government/polling.html


You would think that in a country that uses Arabic as its national language, the government would use Arabic on its official website? I never knew that Saddam Hussein's education system was so good that the "average" Iraqi also learned English.

And how convenient for the BBC poll link to be down!


How wrong you are....everytime.
And your comments about soldiers, completely wrong.


http://photos1.blogger.com/img/17/1375/640/war_news07.jpg
Dead link

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/17/1375/640/Iraqis%20celebrate%20freedom%2C%20newsweek%20photo %20of%20pow%20Jessica.jpg
Dead link - BTW dont even start on the fraud that was Jessica Lynch.

http://svenrox.com/images/4b2/happy-iraqi.jpg
A kid waving an American flag - How convincing.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/04/09/international/09cnd-bagh90.jpg
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/04/09/international/09cnd-free.slide5.jpg
http://www.estripes.com/photos/20964_311155318b.jpg
http://www.estripes.com/photos/20964_31115543b.jpg
Not all American soldiers are going to be hated by all Iraqis. As I recall, when the Nazi's invaded France, there were plenty of people they termed "collaborators" who were very friendly to the invading country. There were even plenty of women who were quite happy to lend their services to the visiting troops.


You know nothing about World war 2, we gave millions of dollars to Europe and Russia to help fight. I mean we didn't really have much time to get involved. He invaded Poland in 39'. We got atatcked in 41'.


I watched an interesting DVD recently about US involvement in WW2. Since the outset of the war, the US people were adament on keeping out of the war. However, it didnt stop the US from profiteering from the war through "Cash and Carry" and "Lend Lease".


Remember WW1? We got invovled and had nothing to do with it.

Besides the sinking of the Lusitania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania), a ship illegally carrying weapons from the US to Britain (yet another example of US profiteering).


I can tell you right now if a country over here decided to do that it would never get started.

Care to explain:

1) Cuba and Fidel Castro
2) Venezuela and Hugo Chavez
3) Colombia and its rip-roaring drugs trade and civil war
4) Argentina and the "Dirty War" of the 1980's
5) Haiti and its continual unrest
6) Peru and its Marxist terrorists

and the list goes on.



Europe still hasn't learned their lesson. how many wars have there been over there? hundreds basically. How many have we had over here in the last 100 years? Maybe a handful. Even after World War 2, we went to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, all those south American countries. Kosovo. We set up stattions in Africa. We have been giving away billinos of dollars every year. US citizens personally donate hundreds of billions of dollars each year.


Europe did learn. Why do you think France and Germany were so opposed to the Iraq war to begin with. At one point, they were two mortal enemies, and 60 years on they were pleading with the US to not pursue bloodshed with Iraq.

The US went to Korea and Vietnam to contain the spread of communism (in its own self-interest), there was no terrorist threat from them or any plans for an imminent invasion from them. They got their arses slammed in Somalia and they went in way too late in Kosovo. We all know what they did in South America, the CIA practically ran the place in the 1970's and thats why Latin America's economic status is precarious at best.


Who ever said Saddam was connected to September 11th? he was connected to alqueda. But even if there was no connection it doesn't make him not a terrorist. That is another thing you people don't understand. Lets say a Gang kills a family member. Now do you attack that gang? Or attack all gangs? Wouldn't it make sense to attack every gang?


Where is the proof he was a terrorist? Where is the proof that he was the mastermind of a terrorist plot to attack the United States?


There was tons of evidence, you just were not paying any attention.


Apparently, I, like the rest of the world who opposed the US invasion of Iraq, didnt see it. I guess when Tony Blair says that Iraq is capable of launching a biological attack anywhere in Iraq within 30 minutes, I was just a tad skeptical.


how in any way is that a civil war? Is America going into a civil war because some dumb drunk shot his freind with a shotgun? Or because some guy decided to rob the 7/11? Hell no, a civil war requires two or more large factions. Right now you have 99% of Iraqis, Vs 1% of acrazy ass people. Iraq will never be a civil war. It is people versus terrorists.


As listed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars), a List of Former and Current Civil wars. You will notice Iraq is listed.

I dont hear of suicide car bombings happening very often in the US.


So then why are you on your knees?
Because some dickhead prime minister decided to align himself with the US. Believe me, if the US or Indonesia or anyone else invaded my country, you can bet that I would be fighting a campaign against them.

[Nodbugger]

Your post does not warrant a response, it is wrong.

[Nodbugger]

Am I correct to understand that you are taking what is depicted in a movie over the testimony of actual soldiers as your basis of what really happens in a war?

I shake my head in disbelief every time you post, Nodbugger.

What do you mean the testimony of actual soldiers? Black Hawk down is based on actual soldiers. Actual soldiers are taught this. Actual soldiers follow this. It is printed on the inside of their helmets. I know what they have to do, so shut the fuck up. Those testimonials are complete bullshit.

[amj]

Your post does not warrant a response, it is wrong.

BUT YOU DID RESPOND LOLZ!!!!

KTHXBYE

[The Cunt]

It is against the ROE.
I thought that Samuel L Jackson kicked arse in that movie.

[Canalien]

You'll also remember that it was only the Rangers who were so uptight about following the rules in that movie Noddy. The Delta Force soldiers didn't give a shit, hence they carried their weapons around with the safety off and shot native animals from helicopters for dinner.
Just because the rules are there doesn't mean they follow them.

[Canalien]

Have you ever talked to a soldier before? they say a lot of things. It is a figure of speech. They didn't literally shoot at anything that moves. Christ you are a dumb fuck.

"There is a lot of innocent civilians that were killed. And I think that's because, uh the US Army, ya know, we came in, and we knew it wasn't gonna be easy, and they much pretty much at first shot anything that moved."

That's the whole unabridged quote.

[Nodbugger]

"There is a lot of innocent civilians that were killed. And I think that's because, uh the US Army, ya know, we came in, and we knew it wasn't gonna be easy, and they much pretty much at first shot anything that moved."

That's the whole unabridged quote.


Why does this soldier talk about himself in the third person?

[Nodbugger]

You'll also remember that it was only the Rangers who were so uptight about following the rules in that movie Noddy. The Delta Force soldiers didn't give a shit, hence they carried their weapons around with the safety off and shot native animals from helicopters for dinner.
Just because the rules are there doesn't mean they follow them.


Last time I checked Somalia did not have hunting restrictions.

[The Cunt]

Nodbugger wants to know why does this soldier talk about himself in the third person?
The Cunt also speaks in the third person. Maybe soldiering is The Cunt's other profession.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Your post does not warrant a response, it is wrong.

Prove me wrong. Were supposed to be intelligent people, if im wrong I want to know why.

[Hairyman]

He will not respond because his arguments are bankrupt and he is a coward. Unfit to lead a tune, let alone the soldiers of a civilised power.

[jak]

Those testimonials are complete bullshit.

Ah, so you have read these testimonials then?

What do you mean the testimony of actual soldiers?

Ah, so you haven't read them then?

Stop contradicting yourself, Nodbugger.

[Scythe]

Last time I checked Somalia did not have hunting restrictions.

And when exactly was the last time you checked Somali hunting restrictions?

Or are you simply going on the typical stereotype that because it is an African nation it is totally lawless?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

they can't shoot at anything that moves. It is against the ROE. Unless their commanding officer had permission from way up there to neutralize that area, an American soldier cannot fire on a position or person unless fired upon.


Were the US following the ROE in the Giuliana Sgrena (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4485429.stm) case? None of the reports show Sgrena or Nicola Capliari or anyone else "firing" at the US position.

And dont tell be that they were fired on because they were approaching the US position, given that the Italians had told the US that they were going to transport a freed hostage through that checkpoint at that time.

By the way, dont read too much into Black Hawk Down. Im sure, just like all other movies showing American soldiers as the "victims", they are a load of bollocks.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

And when exactly was the last time you checked Somali hunting restrictions?

Or are you simply going on the typical stereotype that because it is an African nation it is totally lawless?

Hes right for once, Somalia is a lawless state hence I doubt very much that there are hunting restrictions in place.

[Canalien]

Regardless, i doubt very much it would have made a difference to the guys shooting the pig.
A few years back in Operation Tandem Thrust (think it was that one) a group of US soldiers machine gunned a Cassowary for fun.

[beowulf437]

Well some people in this thread have brought up history so time for some history lessons.

In 1937 Germany had not the raw materials nor manufacturing capability to fight a protracted war in europe. Following the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France, Germany was able to annex Austria and the Sudatenland, the Sudatenland held the majority of Czechoslovakia's industrial cities. This gave the Nazis the industrial capability to equip a large military force. Trade agreements with the Soviet Union gave them access to strategic materials such as copper and aluminum.

It was only after the invasion of Poland that Britain and France declared war on Germany but they offered pitiously little help to the Poles. Germany would still have been bogged down by the vigorous Polish defense if it had not been for the second invasion by the Soviets under the auspices of the Soviet-German co-operation pact.

Still it was generally believed that Britain and France would easily defeat the Germans with their larger and better equipped militaries. The US at this time though not directly involved, did place an embargo on goods shipped to Germany and extended loans to Britain. After the fall of France it became clear that loans to Britain were going to be a problem, so new creative financial deals were sought. The destroyer deal of 1940 was one of these. In exchange for 50 destroyers the US was granted leases in the Carribean. This not only gave the British more ships for escort duty but an infusion of cash to purchase goods and materials. In early 1941 these creative financing options were running out and the US had begun transfering materials to Britain without agreement for payment but this was only a trickle that could be done via executive action, so lend-lease was proposed and became law in April of 1941. All this while the Soviet Union was happily selling the Nazis all the raw materials they could purchase. Sales to Germany by the Soviets countinued until the very day Operation Barbarosa began and Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941.

Now for the Pacific. In the early 1930's the bulk of Japanese mechanised forces were equipped with tanks, trucks and armoured cars purchased from Britain and France. French made tanks played key roles in both the Manchurian Incident and the Shanghai Incident of 1932. From the start the US sought a political solution to check Japanese expansion in Asia, in part because we were economically crippled at the time. After the Rape of Nanking in 1937 the US began to put as much political pressure as we could muster but it wasn't much as the European countries mostly discounted the US at the time. In 1940 the US suspended all treaties with Japan in response to the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere announcement. In July of 1941 with the announcement of the Tri-Axis Pact the US called for a complete international embargo of Japan. It was this act that lead directly to the attack on Pearl Harbour. Great Britain decared war on Japan on the same day the US did December 8, 1941. In January of 1942 a formal alliance between the US and the United Kingdom was signed, the first in history. The Neatherlands and France were not drawn into the Pacific war until the spring of 1942.

[Nodbugger]

He will not respond because his arguments are bankrupt and he is a coward. Unfit to lead a tune, let alone the soldiers of a civilised power.


I will not offer a rebuttal because it will be the same as my last post, and pretty much the same as many of my other posts on the topic. I hate repeating myself and that is all I will be doing. Every time someone attempts to rebut one of my longer more thought out posts it annoys me. Because there is no rebuttal to facts. If you bothered to read from my post to his attempted rebuttal you would have noticed he completely changed the subject.

[Nodbugger]

Were the US following the ROE in the Giuliana Sgrena (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4485429.stm) case? None of the reports show Sgrena or Nicola Capliari or anyone else "firing" at the US position.

And dont tell be that they were fired on because they were approaching the US position, given that the Italians had told the US that they were going to transport a freed hostage through that checkpoint at that time.

By the way, dont read too much into Black Hawk Down. Im sure, just like all other movies showing American soldiers as the "victims", they are a load of bollocks.


Yes they were, the vehicle was given proper warning and and did know to stop at checkpoints, they were speeding and breaking rules that they did know of.

The soldiers were being directly threatened and used the proper force to stop the car.

Oh, and no they didn't tell the anyone.

[Merudo]

Your ignorance astounds me.


<snip>

In World War 2 we thought Japan had no way of attacking us, and they destroyed pearl harbor.

<snip>

Remember WW1? We got invovled and had nothing to do with it. It was just another stupid european War. That is what we thought World War 2 was. Europeans don't have the balls to keep tabs on their neihbhors so fucked up shit happens. I can tell you right now if a country over here decided to do that it would never get started. Europe still hasn't learned their lesson. how many wars have there been over there? hundreds basically. How many have we had over here in the last 100 years?


<snip>

US citizens personally donate hundreds of billions of dollars each year.




LEGEND

Red coloured text - "Oh, the Irony!"
Blue coloured text - "What the fuck??"

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Well some people in this thread have brought up history so time for some history lessons.


Beowulf, while youre post is consistent with history, im trying to explore the reasons why the US decided to stay neutral for so many years.

Yes, Lend-Lease ended up benefitting the victors of the war, but it is classic profiteering using the guise of "neutrality" and isolationalism. Fact of the matter is that the US government of the day was too gutless to put an end to a tyrannical regime, and were happy to watch from the sidelines as they were making a brisk trade without incurring any casualties. The US werent the only ones doing it, besides the Swiss who were banking away all the gold that the Nazis stole from the Jews, the Swedish were manufacturing ball-bearings for the Wehrmacht. A declaration of neutrality can be so convenient sometimes.

As for Japan, the US intelligence services failed miserably. Besides the fact that they had no idea that an armada of ships and aircraft were headed to Pearl Harbour, none of their intelligence operatives had provided any information. You would think that the US military would be on a state of high alert, given Japans increasingly menacing attitude.

What saved America's arse in WW2 was its potential in terms of natural resources and its manpower. If Germany had possessed the territory that the US was on, and its population, we would all be speaking German now.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Yes they were, the vehicle was given proper warning and and did know to stop at checkpoints, they were speeding and breaking rules that they did know of.

The soldiers were being directly threatened and used the proper force to stop the car.

Oh, and no they didn't tell the anyone.

Thats not what the Italians say - Differing Acoounts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4325253.stm) - BBC

It looks like the US tried to cover up what happened there. Besides the destroying of all the activity logs of the incident, they also refused to allow an Italian military officer access to the scene.

Sorry, but I believe the Italian Government version of the story a whole lot more than the US Governments version of events. The US version has no evidence to justify its claims, and any evidence that could have confirmed its findings was conveniently destroyed.

That being said, I dont think Giuliana Sgrena was thinking rationally when she made her claims, I will grant you that. But her account differs from the Italian Governments findings anyway.

[moldy bread]

Yes they were, the vehicle was given proper warning and and did know to stop at checkpoints, they were speeding and breaking rules that they did know of.

The soldiers were being directly threatened and used the proper force to stop the car.

Oh, and no they didn't tell the anyone.

I see you have learned all you know about handling such situations from watching the OJ chase.

[Nodbugger]

Thats not what the Italians say - Differing Acoounts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4325253.stm) - BBC

It looks like the US tried to cover up what happened there. Besides the destroying of all the activity logs of the incident, they also refused to allow an Italian military officer access to the scene.

Sorry, but I believe the Italian Government version of the story a whole lot more than the US Governments version of events. The US version has no evidence to justify its claims, and any evidence that could have confirmed its findings was conveniently destroyed.

That being said, I dont think Giuliana Sgrena was thinking rationally when she made her claims, I will grant you that. But her account differs from the Italian Governments findings anyway.


And the Italians have any evidence?

Your ability to believe Italians over Americans even though neither side has sufficient evidence for their case shows your hatred for the US, now go way asshole.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

And the Italians have any evidence?

Your ability to believe Italians over Americans even though neither side has sufficient evidence for their case shows your hatred for the US, now go way asshole.

Yes they have eyewitness accounts from Sgrena herself. Once they finally got permission from the Policemen of the World, they conducted their own investigation and reported their findings to the Italian Government. Silvio Berlusconi, who normally arse-licks Monkey Man Bush, actually grew some balls this time around and demanded an explanation. The Policemen of the World refused to offer any explanation apart from their official report, which is littered with inconsistences and creates more questions than answers.

You know, theres one compelling reason why I believe the Italian version of events over the US version, besides the fact that I am of Italian origin and I know that Italians can be a shifty bunch. When it comes to matters of life and death they are the most brutally honest people you will ever come across. The Policemen of the World, on the other hand, have covered up many stuff-ups that have cost lives before, and this one is no exception. I know that you personally, or the state you represent, will never have the balls to say that you fucked it up.

I will suggest one thing, id desist from swearing if I were you. Up until now I have been very cordial with you, and have enjoyed our discussions. However, personal slander is where I draw the line so consider yourself warned.

[moldy bread]

All I know is what I can see with my own two eyes... well, as a fungus I really don't have eyes. But I still can tell who is the asshole here and it ain't the guy with the proper title in his name.

[Nodbugger]

Yes they have eyewitness accounts from Sgrena herself. Once they finally got permission from the Policemen of the World, they conducted their own investigation and reported their findings to the Italian Government. Silvio Berlusconi, who normally arse-licks Monkey Man Bush, actually grew some balls this time around and demanded an explanation. The Policemen of the World refused to offer any explanation apart from their official report, which is littered with inconsistences and creates more questions than answers.

You know, theres one compelling reason why I believe the Italian version of events over the US version, besides the fact that I am of Italian origin and I know that Italians can be a shifty bunch. When it comes to matters of life and death they are the most brutally honest people you will ever come across. The Policemen of the World, on the other hand, have covered up many stuff-ups that have cost lives before, and this one is no exception. I know that you personally, or the state you represent, will never have the balls to say that you fucked it up.

I will suggest one thing, id desist from swearing if I were you. Up until now I have been very cordial with you, and have enjoyed our discussions. However, personal slander is where I draw the line so consider yourself warned.


Hey I'm Italian too.

But this lady was there because she hated America, she was from a communist anti-American newspaper trying to say how noble the insurgents cause was, then she gets kidnapped. She already hated America, she figured she would make them look even worse by lying.

[moldy bread]

Hey I'm Italian too.

fucking wops, next thing you know some greaseball will own the site.

[Bostonmess]

Just because the Yanks don't want him he trys make out that he's Italian.

[amj]

fucking wops, next thing you know some greaseball will own the site.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moldy bread again.

(god, I never thought I would say that...)

[Scythe]

Hes right for once, Somalia is a lawless state hence I doubt very much that there are hunting restrictions in place.

I concur, but unlike Nodbugger I don't claim to know for certain, because I haven't looked it up, and so unlike him i'm not going to make a statement baldly asserting that a conjecture based on a stereotype is the truth. :cool:

[Jaz]

I thought this thread was going to be about killing Delta Goordrem