PDA

View Full Version : Is this "collateral damage" ?



deeyala
06-19-2007, 10:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek4ooEyYBAc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhometownbaghdad%2Ecom%2F

deeyala
06-19-2007, 10:11 AM
Sister in law : "We used to like the American people. We thought they were good people, but by force- by military actions, is not the best action."
.........
"Maybe with Nimet we can say that some mistakes happen, but if mistakes happen more than that, I have to consider them my enemy."


Nephew: "The American forces, they're not here to help us. From the breaking into my grandma's house to my uncle dead, I don't see anything good and it's been four years."


Brother:"I've lost him becasue an American soldier thought he might be a terrorist".
.....
"My brother is one of thousands of people who have been killed wrong- for nothing.

Huse
06-19-2007, 10:13 AM
Welcome to being in a guerilla war deeyala, was it colatteral damage when hamas executed those men in front of their families, or when they threw someone off a 15 story roof? oh nvm you only care about what americans do since you're such a pro-western egyptian girl

deeyala
06-19-2007, 10:20 AM
Welcome to being in a guerilla war deeyala, was it colatteral damage when hamas executed those men in front of their families, or when they threw someone off a 15 story roof?

Stick to the topic at hand.
Did you even watch the video? I doubt it.

Unless you want me to start viewing your troops there , through the same shades you look at Hamas , then you'd better leave such pointless comparisons outside this thread.

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:24 AM
Welcome to being in a guerilla war deeyala, was it colatteral damage when hamas executed those men in front of their families, or when they threw someone off a 15 story roof? oh nvm you only care about what americans do since you're such a pro-western egyptian girl


Aren't you the one who was peeved about the bringing up of the fact that nuggztheninja was israeli?

Strong hypocrite

Huse
06-19-2007, 10:25 AM
Stick to the topic at hand.
Did you even watch the video? I doubt it.

Unless you want me to start viewing your troops there , through the same shades you look at Hamas , then you'd better leave such pointless comparisions outside this thread.

Nope because I can't watch videos at work. In any case can you explain to me why an egyptian feels the need to post threads about such 'collateral damage' stories, but only pertaining to the few instances in which americans are involved and no when your next door neighbors a few miles over are doing the same thing?

Huse
06-19-2007, 10:26 AM
Aren't you the one who was peeved about the bringing up of the fact that nuggztheninja was israeli?

Strong hypocrite

He wasn't israeli,
Strong Moron (But I like how you completely dodged my posts to you in earlier threads, fool)

IraHays
06-19-2007, 10:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek4ooEyYBAc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhometownbaghdad%2Ecom%2F

Yes, it is collateral damage.

When the enemy does not wear uniforms this type of stuff is going to happen. It's a shame.

This is also a deliberate tactic by the insurgents to increase civilian deaths.

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:28 AM
Nope because I can't watch videos at work. In any case can you explain to me why an egyptian feels the need to post threads about such 'collateral damage' stories, but only pertaining to the few instances in which americans are involved and no when your next door neighbors a few miles over are doing the same thing?


Are you stupid? Are israelis the only ones allowed to have an opinion about the state of the world? What doesn nationality have to do with anything?

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:31 AM
He wasn't israeli,
Strong Moron (But I like how you completely dodged my posts to you in earlier threads, fool)


Yes but that wasn't your point. In fact you thought he was israeli and were peeved that anyone would bring it up. Nice try but no cigar.

Also I don't need to "dodge" you posts. You're taking yourself entirely too seriously. You're a silly hysterical kid and I generally don't read your ridiculous rants. I was in fact ignoring you.

Ignore> "dodge"

Beatitude
06-19-2007, 10:32 AM
Deeyala what do you think would be the best course of action for the Americans at this point in time?

devire1
06-19-2007, 10:39 AM
remember....... they h8 us for r freedums...

Huse
06-19-2007, 10:41 AM
Yes but that wasn't your point. In fact you thought he was israeli and were peeved that anyone would bring it up. Nice try but no cigar.


Sup flat-out lie. Nice try but no CIGAR!!!1 lol!!!



Also I don't need to "dodge" you posts. You're taking yourself entirely too seriously. You're a silly hysterical kid and I generally don't read your ridiculous rants. I was in fact ignoring you.

Ignore> "dodge"

O rly, judging on your responses to my 2-liners and how you have to resort to lying, I think ya do. I RLY RLY THINK YA DO!

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:41 AM
Yes, it is collateral damage.

When the enemy does not wear uniforms this type of stuff is going to happen. It's a shame.

This is also a deliberate tactic by the insurgents to increase civilian deaths.


you would consider Abu Ghraib collateral damage

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:44 AM
Sup flat-out lie. Nice try but no CIGAR!!!1 lol!!!



O rly, judging on your responses to my 2-liners and how you have to resort to lying, I think ya do. I RLY RLY THINK YA DO!

:rolleyes:

You still haven't told us what her nationality has to do anything. We're waiting...

Huse
06-19-2007, 10:47 AM
:rolleyes:

You still haven't told us what her nationality has to do anything. We're waiting...

You are a flat-out liar a racist and a sexist. You can keep waiting sugar pie

IraHays
06-19-2007, 10:48 AM
you would consider Abu Ghraib collateral damage

No dumbass, why would I?

BVAV
06-19-2007, 10:54 AM
You are a flat-out liar a racist and a sexist. You can keep waiting sugar pie


Apparently you can't explain yet another of your rants. Apparently her nationality is irrelevant after all.

RasLion
06-19-2007, 11:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek4ooEyYBAc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhometownbaghdad%2Ecom%2F

This video is great as well as the whole series of videos. I really like seeing this from an Iraq's point of view without any media spin and american propoganda.

We don't know the circumstances behind why his uncle was killed so... for as much as we know it is collateral damage.. and sure its a damn shame that innocent people have to die but as I asked before, Deeyala, and someone else has asked: What should America do RIGHT now? Should we simply leave?

Do you think that the Sunni's and Shiites will stop fighting when America leaves? Do you think that the uncle could have also died between the fighting of Sunnis and Shiites?

majortrepak
06-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Sister in law : "We used to like the American people. We thought they were good people, but by force- by military actions, is not the best action."
.........
"Maybe with Nimet we can say that some mistakes happen, but if mistakes happen more than that, I have to consider them my enemy."


Nephew: "The American forces, they're not here to help us. From the breaking into my grandma's house to my uncle dead, I don't see anything good and it's been four years."


Brother:"I've lost him becasue an American soldier thought he might be a terrorist".
.....
"My brother is one of thousands of people who have been killed wrong- for nothing.
Depends on what made the soldier "think" he was a terrorist, skimmed the vid and didn't see anything to that effect.

majortrepak
06-19-2007, 11:42 AM
\We don't know the circumstances behind why his uncle was killed so... for as much as we know it is collateral damage..
Exactly, some reasons would be legit some would not.

majortrepak
06-19-2007, 11:45 AM
What doesn nationality have to do with anything?
The Muslim Brotherhoodis the largest political opposition organization in many Arab nations, particularly Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt_%281954-present%29

BVAV
06-19-2007, 12:12 PM
The Muslim Brotherhoodis the largest political opposition organization in many Arab nations, particularly Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt_%281954-present%29


So? She's responsible for the Muslim Brotherhood because she's Egyptian?

jmonty
06-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Deeyala what do you think would be the best course of action for the Americans at this point in time?
i think she thinks we should just leave. i'm against that because it would sacrafice all for which we have fought. :(

deeyala
06-19-2007, 12:35 PM
i think she thinks we should just leave. i'm against that because it would sacrafice all for which we have fought. :(

How you still can't see that you fought for nothing is beyond me.
What did you fight for?
And more importantly, what did you achieve?

If what you were fighting for is a 10/10, how much did you achieve out of that 10?
As I see it, the troops are only there to save face.
So that the entire world wouldn't say that they walked in, messed up Iraq then left.

This is putting the American "prestige" above the Iraqi well-being, which what was claimed they were after in the first place

Beatitude
06-19-2007, 12:39 PM
i think she thinks we should just leave. i'm against that because it would sacrafice all for which we have fought. :(

Meh. I think leaving sounds like the best option as well. Americans need to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics and just leave them alone. But I want to hear her opinion.

deeyala
06-19-2007, 12:41 PM
The Muslim Brotherhoodis the largest political opposition organization in many Arab nations, particularly Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt_%281954-present%29

WOW! :D
You might want to check this out ;)

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1977111&highlight=muslim+brotherhood

kvk1
06-19-2007, 12:51 PM
All politics and this group is right/wrong aside that's some sad ****.

May that guy rest in peace.

deeyala
06-19-2007, 12:51 PM
This video is great as well as the whole series of videos. I really like seeing this from an Iraq's point of view without any media spin and american propoganda.
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/
I like this blog,too.
Just for the record, the lady writing it is fuming.



We don't know the circumstances behind why his uncle was killed so... for as much as we know it is collateral damage.. and sure its a damn shame that innocent people have to die but as I asked before, Deeyala,
We've got the testimony of those who were there vs indifference on the American side.
They were driving on the wrong side of the road, he lifted his hands not to shoot. His car has received like 30 bullets.
I understand if they're getting over-paranoid in a heated-up war-zone. But I can't understand why no one is looking into it.
I think in this war, people started taking the term "collateral damage" way too much for granted.
This should not be how we disregard the value of the human life.


and someone else has asked: What should America do RIGHT now? Should we simply leave?
Yes, leave.
You're not doing any good there, so you might as well not give others an excuse for making things even worse.


Do you think that the Sunni's and Shiites will stop fighting when America leaves?
No, I don't.
They will take their time to make their own peace, on their own terms.
Your presence there is actually escalating the inter-sect violence. You do know that some are killed because they are suspected of being "collaborators" ?
You do know some get killed on road side bombs that target American troops?
Anyway, i look at it , I see the American presence there is causing more violence.


Do you think that the uncle could have also died between the fighting of Sunnis and Shiites?
yes, he could.
But that's not what eye witnesses claimed.
Plus for underground militias, 30 bullets are far too precious to be wasted on a single car with a single person in it.

BVAV
06-19-2007, 12:51 PM
Meh. I think leaving sounds like the best option as well. Americans need to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics and just leave them alone. But I want to hear her opinion.



"irrationality of Middle Eastern politics" who did I hear saying this new buzz phrase all week on CNN...?

deeyala
06-19-2007, 12:54 PM
Yes, it is collateral damage.

When the enemy does not wear uniforms this type of stuff is going to happen. It's a shame.

This is also a deliberate tactic by the insurgents to increase civilian deaths.


"Maybe with Nimet we can say that some mistakes happen, but if mistakes happen more than that, I have to consider them my enemy."
^^^ I can't say more than what the lady has said.
If you looked back through their videos, you'd find that Ausama at one point said he wanted the American troops to stay.
All it took to change his mind is ONE person dead in his family.
Judging by how things are going right now, it wouldn't be long before your troops there are going to be in real trouble.
I say pull them out.

IraHays
06-19-2007, 12:57 PM
^^^ I can't say more than what the lady has said.
If you looked back through their videos, you'd find that Ausama at one point said he wanted the American troops to stay.
All it took to change his mind is ONE person dead in his family.
Judging by how things are going right now, it wouldn't be long before your troops there are going to be in real trouble.
I say pull them out.


Is there any advantage for the USA to kill innocent Iraqi civilians?

Is there any advantage for the "insurgents" if the USA kills innocent Iraqi civilians?


I agree, pull them out.

deeyala
06-19-2007, 12:59 PM
Meh. I think leaving sounds like the best option as well. Americans need to understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics and just leave them alone. But I want to hear her opinion.

Well, their politics were somehow a bit more rational when America was out of it :D

deeyala
06-19-2007, 01:04 PM
Is their any advantage for the USA to kill innocent Iraqi civilians?

Is their any advantage for the "insurgents" if the USA kills innocent Iraqi civilians?


I agree, pull them out.

If a soldier is out there and having to make a decision based on doubt, at all costs, what he was taught is against it.
But a soldier is just a man, and if at one point he perceives something as a threat- then it's his life vs the other guy's life
That's a human factor I can understand.

But when soldiers start to panic, they're just men stuck in the wrong place in the wrong time. An army is not trained for that type of war going on in Iraq.
If they aren't trained enough , as soldiers, for this situation- then they simply become ordinary men in what can't be described as an ordinary situation.

IraHays
06-19-2007, 01:06 PM
If a soldier is out there and having to make a decision based on doubt, at all costs, what he was taught is against it.
But a soldier is just a man, and if at one point he perceives something as a threat- then it's his life vs the other guy's life
That's a human factor I can understand.

But when soldiers start to panic, they're just men stuck in the wrong place in the wrong time. An army is not trained for that type of war going on in Iraq.
If they aren't trained enough , as soldiers, for this situation- then they simply become ordinary men in what can't be described as an ordinary situation.

Then you agree it is collateral damage?

jmonty
06-19-2007, 01:06 PM
many of them are just boys to be honest.. and they are doing the best they can in a ****ty situation.

deeyala
06-19-2007, 01:08 PM
Then you agree it is collateral damage?

No, not what I described, at least.
collateral damage is when you shoot at X, and wind up hitting "Y" too.

What I described is hitting "Y" before checking wether he's "X" or not, because you're just too scared to wait long enough to find out.

jmonty
06-19-2007, 01:08 PM
Well, their politics were somehow a bit more rational when America was out of it :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Ali

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1674089&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

i couldn't resist. ;)

deeyala
06-19-2007, 01:09 PM
many of them are just boys to be honest.. and they are doing the best they can in a ****ty situation.

True, but they are boys who represent an entire nation.
They should try better.

deeyala
06-19-2007, 01:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Ali

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1674089&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

i couldn't resist. ;)

Please don't make me dig up the "Hussein was an American puppet" links :D

deeyala
06-19-2007, 01:15 PM
Nope because I can't watch videos at work. In any case can you explain to me why an egyptian feels the need to post threads about such 'collateral damage' stories, but only pertaining to the few instances in which americans are involved and no when your next door neighbors a few miles over are doing the same thing?

Actually I did point those out as well, but with this being an American -based board, no one seemed to care.
I don't remember seeing you on that other thread.
You want me to PM you whenever I start a thread?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3219981

RasLion
06-19-2007, 01:20 PM
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/
I like this blog,too.
Just for the record, the lady writing it is fuming.



We've got the testimony of those who were there vs indifference on the American side.
They were driving on the wrong side of the road, he lifted his hands not to shoot. His car has received like 30 bullets.
I understand if they're getting over-paranoid in a heated-up war-zone. But I can't understand why no one is looking into it.


Again like I said we really don't know what the troops have to say. For all we know he could have been out there planting an i.e.d or something. Who knows. But I dont think it would be entirely fair to judge anyone only hearing one side of the story. An emotional side at that.



I think in this war, people started taking the term "collateral damage" way too much for granted.
This should not be how we disregard the value of the human life.


Unfortunatley.. Almost every nation in the world has a disregard for human life. We see DAILY "X amount of Iraqi's killed in road side bomb" and it goes in one ear and out the other.



Yes, leave.

You're not doing any good there, so you might as well not give others an excuse for making things even worse.


I agree. We need to leave. I was never for this war. Ever. Unfortunately I dont think this will happen until we get a new President. So expect us to be there for another 1.5 yrs minimum.



No, I don't.
They will take their time to make their own peace, on their own terms.
Your presence there is actually escalating the inter-sect violence. You do know that some are killed because they are suspected of being "collaborators" ?
You do know some get killed on road side bombs that target American troops?
Anyway, i look at it , I see the American presence there is causing more violence.


I think there will be violence there regardless if Americans are there or not with all the secular violence. Muslims are always painting a picture that Americans are the catalysts for everything. I dont know if you've read the Jill Carrol story... but one of her captors said: "Shiites (or sunni, I get confused) is Enemy #1, America is #2"
It almost sounds as if you are saying its America's fault when a fellow Iraqi gets KIA from an IED. No way. This is THEIR (Terrorists, Insurgents) collateral damage. If everyone could put down their arms and stop fighting America will leave sooner.




yes, he could.


But that's not what eye witnesses claimed.
Plus for underground militias, 30 bullets are far too precious to be wasted on a single car with a single person in it.

I was just saying that if America was not there he could have died by gunfire due to Secular violence.

IraHays
06-19-2007, 01:20 PM
What I described is hitting "Y" before checking wether he's "X" or not, because you're just too scared to wait long enough to find out.

The reason they are "too scared" to find out is because the enemy does not identify themselves as combatents and not civilians.

This is done intentionally, obviously to hide, but a bigger reason is to ensure as many civilians as possible get killed. This encourages more recruites.

I have no doubt they have moles giving out wrong information in order to ensure more civilians get killed.

They are responsible for civilian death, imo. The US has no motive to kill civlians, it does not help them at all.

I put the blame on the insurgents and I consider it collateral damage because if they knew they were civilians they would not kill them.

RasLion
06-19-2007, 01:27 PM
How you still can't see that you fought for nothing is beyond me.
What did you fight for?
And more importantly, what did you achieve?

If what you were fighting for is a 10/10, how much did you achieve out of that 10?
As I see it, the troops are only there to save face.
So that the entire world wouldn't say that they walked in, messed up Iraq then left.

This is putting the American "prestige" above the Iraqi well-being, which what was claimed they were after in the first place

Many people will disagree whole heartedly with me... But I say the real reason G. W. took us to Iraq is for the oil. America also fears countries who are not democratic.

To those who disagree: The original reason we went to war with iraq was fear over WMDs. When those werent found we were just given excuse after excuse.

Deeyala is right, we are now trying to save face. We dont wan to look like fools. Our pride,... no... George Bush's pride is at stake.

Fk the oil... Lets just start pulling out. We can leave a small force there maybe to attack al queda but this policing the streets BS needs to stop.

RangerX
06-19-2007, 01:38 PM
Many people will disagree whole heartedly with me... But I say the real reason G. W. took us to Iraq is for the oil. America also fears countries who are not democratic.


control and influence.

majortrepak
06-19-2007, 02:24 PM
So? She's responsible for the Muslim Brotherhood because she's Egyptian?
WHen did I say that?

jmonty
06-19-2007, 02:30 PM
Please don't make me dig up the "Hussein was an American puppet" links :D
deja vu.. hmm.

devire1
06-19-2007, 02:39 PM
Many people will disagree whole heartedly with me... But I say the real reason G. W. took us to Iraq is for the oil. America also fears countries who are not democratic.



possibly that and for israel's interests. see this thread i made for more information.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3038721


in 2002, the year before the congress passed the iraq resolution, the soft money contributions of the pro-israel lobby tripled from the previous election cycle from roughly $400,000 to $1.4 million. it was only around 100,000 and 170,000 dollars the previous 2 election cycles.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=1992

in the 2000 presidential election, george bush recieved a total of $131,650 from the pro-israel lobby, compared to the $9,250 al gore recieved. this was the most money, even when adjusted for inflation, by far any presidential candidate has ever recieved from the pro-israel lobby up to that point.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=2000&recipdetail=P&Mem=N&sortorder=U

in the 2004 presidential election, bush recieved a total of $262,766, breaking his old record.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=Q05&Cycle=2004&recipdetail=P&Mem=N&sortorder=U


saddam hussein gave 20,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers to bomb israel. so ousting him was of huge benefit to israel.

the u.s. occupation of iraq acts as buffer zone between israel and iran, so if israel or the u.s. ever decide to strike iran, iran would have to go through a u.s. occupied iraq to retaliate.

CandyStripes
06-19-2007, 02:57 PM
Sister in law : "We used to like the American people. We thought they were good people, but by force- by military actions, is not the best action."
.........
"Maybe with Nimet we can say that some mistakes happen, but if mistakes happen more than that, I have to consider them my enemy."


Nephew: "The American forces, they're not here to help us. From the breaking into my grandma's house to my uncle dead, I don't see anything good and it's been four years."


Brother:"I've lost him becasue an American soldier thought he might be a terrorist".
.....
"My brother is one of thousands of people who have been killed wrong- for nothing.

I find all these situations sad. It's always sad when innocent people are killed. I don't mean to offend any Americans, but it seems like most Americans don't care when an innocent person is killed as long as they're not American. I think that's partly because they have no deep connection to the Iraqi people, sometimes I wonder if they think of them as normal human beings who have familes and like most of the things they do.

paolo59
06-19-2007, 03:05 PM
Is it collateral damage when mosques are truck bombed deliberately at prayer services on Friday afternoon? That innocents die in a war is a given. That the service men and women of the United States go to extremes to ensure that this is minimized, often endangering their own lives in the process, is unquestionable. Those who perpetrate these horrors would as quickly kill you for some "distinction" in your beliefs in regards to their own. To point out the horrible and unfortunate things that can happen in a war vis a vis the United States Army and ignore the deliberate murder, maiming, incitement of civil war by acts of terrorism and barbarity perpetrated by muslims against fellow muslims is the epitome of hypocrisy.

deeyala
06-20-2007, 12:36 AM
Again like I said we really don't know what the troops have to say. For all we know he could have been out there planting an i.e.d or something. Who knows. But I dont think it would be entirely fair to judge anyone only hearing one side of the story. An emotional side at that.
But they didn't say anything. Don't you see this as a problem?
Don't you think people started to take the term "collateral damage" way too much for granted?
Initially, I think this term was invented to classify the unmeant damage, that sometimes was inevitable, nowadays it's actually used as a justification.
Like whenever an event turns to be collateral damage, we're to automatically ignore it.
This shouldn't be the case.
The nomencalture doesn't exempt us from further 1-trying to avoid it at all costs and 2- actually investigating it

Plus, true we don't have a satisfying account of the incident, but IF what they claimed is true- does that classify as "collateral damage"- that was my question.

Plus I don't think it's fair, either to claim that he was there planting IED's.




Unfortunatley.. Almost every nation in the world has a disregard for human life. We see DAILY "X amount of Iraqi's killed in road side bomb" and it goes in one ear and out the other.
Do you mean people planting those? Or Iraqis who are living through such circumstances?




I agree. We need to leave. I was never for this war. Ever. Unfortunately I dont think this will happen until we get a new President. So expect us to be there for another 1.5 yrs minimum.
At least we agree to that much.
But I don't think it's possible for the next president to just wash his hands off what he perceives as Bush's business. I think nowadays, it's the American reputation at stake. I don't think any American president can sacrifice that much, without un-diplocatically painting this situation as Bush's fault, and to be remembered as such in history books.
Ideally, this is what I hope for. But I can't see it happening




I think there will be violence there regardless if Americans are there or not with all the secular violence. Muslims are always painting a picture that Americans are the catalysts for everything. I dont know if you've read the Jill Carrol story... but one of her captors said: "Shiites (or sunni, I get confused) is Enemy #1, America is #2"
I guess we will never know and I can't base an arguement on facts that start with "if".
Fact is such sectarian violence wasn't there before the American invasion. And don't bring Anfal into it, since No, that wasn't Sectarian violence . It was a secular, Ba'athist dictator suppressing rebellion against his tyrannical rule.
Going to Iraq while on "war against terrorism", thinking "since we're there we can isntall a democracy while we're fighting terrorism in Afghanistan", WITHOUT securing the Iraqi borders is just inviting AL-Qaeda into Iraq. And I believe It was "foreign fighters" who were intially responsible for igniting the sectarian violence
If this was done intentionally, to make Iraq the theatre for such a war- to keep it away from the US, then that is just sick.
If it was done un-intentionally then this is just stupid.
So yes, I think the US basically invited Al-Qaeda and any other armed group who has a grudge against the US into Iraq.


It almost sounds as if you are saying its America's fault when a fellow Iraqi gets KIA from an IED. No way. This is THEIR (Terrorists, Insurgents) collateral damage.
See above
I can't neither totally blame , nor absolve her.


If everyone could put down their arms and stop fighting America will leave sooner.
I understand you mean the sectarian violence.
Does that include fighting America,too?
Are you saying that if, among other things, Iraqis stopped fighting American troops, the US will leave?
Does that make sense?
Under international law, they are entitled to fight the occupying force, are you unwilling to grant them that much?

deeyala
06-20-2007, 12:41 AM
Is it collateral damage when mosques are truck bombed deliberately at prayer services on Friday afternoon? That innocents die in a war is a given. That the service men and women of the United States go to extremes to ensure that this is minimized, often endangering their own lives in the process, is unquestionable. Those who perpetrate these horrors would as quickly kill you for some "distinction" in your beliefs in regards to their own. To point out the horrible and unfortunate things that can happen in a war vis a vis the United States Army and ignore the deliberate murder, maiming, incitement of civil war by acts of terrorism and barbarity perpetrated by muslims against fellow muslims is the epitome of hypocrisy.

You might want to check post# 41 for a starter.
You might want to check out the current very first page on the forum,too.

And you might want to point out where I "hypocritically ignored" anything.

Secondly, terrorists don't have any legit targets to even afford having "collateral damage". By saying terrorists who bomb mosques cause "collateral damage", you're implying they actually have a legit target of damage, which they don't.
If you are going to compare fatalities caused by the US army to those caused by terrorists, then it would be YOUR "epitome of hypocrisy" when you start objecting to me when I start comparing the American army to terrorists.

Would you want me to do that?

deeyala
06-20-2007, 12:46 AM
possibly that and for israel's interests. see this thread i made for more information.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3038721

You might find this interesting as well
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

deeyala
06-20-2007, 12:50 AM
The reason they are "too scared" to find out is because the enemy does not identify themselves as combatents and not civilians.

This is done intentionally, obviously to hide, but a bigger reason is to ensure as many civilians as possible get killed. This encourages more recruites.

I have no doubt they have moles giving out wrong information in order to ensure more civilians get killed.

They are responsible for civilian death, imo. The US has no motive to kill civlians, it does not help them at all.

I put the blame on the insurgents and I consider it collateral damage because if they knew they were civilians they would not kill them.

Rather because the soldiers out there are untrained t deal with such a situation. They don't know how to fight such an enemy.

Plus you can't completely absolve them of that, based on lack of knowledge or lack of morals of their enemy.
By your logic, If a terrorist made himself look like a civilian , if a soldier went killing every civilian that crosses his line of vision, it still would be the terrorist's fault.

paolo59
06-20-2007, 01:16 AM
You might want to check post# 41 for a starter.
You might want to check out the current very first page on the forum,too.

And you might want to point out where I "hypocritically ignored" anything.

Secondly, terrorists don't have any legit targets to even afford having "collateral damage". By saying terrorists who bomb mosques cause "collateral damage", you're implying they actually have a legit target of damage, which they don't.
If you are going to compare fatalities caused by the US army to those caused by terrorists, then it would be YOUR "epitome of hypocrisy" when you start objecting to me when I start comparing the American army to terrorists.

Would you want me to do that?

Your "apolegetics" are lacking. Stand up and advocate the maiming and murder of your own faith! It could as easily happen in Egypt! You don't know who your neighbor is! He could as easily cut the throat of you, your younger sister, or brother. Don't blame the west for the situation that exists. It is a "home grown" reality, and the "west" has nothing to do with it! It is time that the "Muslim" world stood up and accepted the situation that faces them square in the eyes. You despise the government that you have, it "bows down to the west," has made peace with Israel, and according to you, is nothing more than a subservient pawn in the hands of western interests. Have elections, and see what the results would be! Another "Palestine" bathed in the blood of "brothers!" When Islam quits hating itself and has done with murder and mayhem against those who are supposedly of the same faith, then we can begin to talk.

jugssexmotox
06-20-2007, 01:21 AM
Rather because the soldiers out there are untrained t deal with such a situation. They don't know how to fight such an enemy.

Plus you can't completely absolve them of that, based on lack of knowledge or lack of morals of their enemy.
By your logic, If a terrorist made himself look like a civilian , if a soldier went killing every civilian that crosses his line of vision, it still would be the terrorist's fault.

Hey, I was just wondering what you're background in military strategy is? Are you a coordinator of some kind?

deeyala
06-20-2007, 01:28 AM
Your "apolegetics" are lacking. Stand up and advocate the maiming and murder of your own faith! It could as easily happen in Egypt! You don't know who your neighbor is! He could as easily cut the throat of you, your younger sister, or brother. Don't blame the west for the situation that exists. It is a "home grown" reality, and the "west" has nothing to do with it! It is time that the "Muslim" world stood up and accepted the situation that faces them square in the eyes. You despise the government that you have, it "bows down to the west, has made peace with Israel, and according to you, is nothing more than a subservient pawn in the hands of western interests. Have elections, and see what the results would be! Another "Palestine" bathed in the blood of "brothers!" When Islam quits hating itself and has done with murder and mayhem against those who are supposedly of the same faith, then we can begin to talk.

Come back when you're willing to acknowledge that moving an army into a country in a full land invasion has, at least, "something" to do with the instability created there.
Did you expect an army is to be received with open arms, and then people would just go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
Do you think walking into Iraq while declaring yourself to be on "war with terror" without securing the borders, is not inviting every single terrorist into Iraq?

And I can't see what my faith or country has to do with the topic at hand.
Feel free to start a thread on either and I 'll make sure I'll visit you there.

deeyala
06-20-2007, 01:29 AM
Hey, I was just wondering what you're background in military strategy is? Are you a coordinator of some kind?

None.
I don't recall making any conclusion based on any

paolo59
06-20-2007, 01:52 AM
Come back when you're willing to acknowledge that moving an army into a country in a full land invasion has, at least, "something" to do with the instability created there.
Did you expect an army is to be received with open arms, and then people would just go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
Do you think walking into Iraq while declaring yourself to be on "war with terror" without securing the borders, is not inviting every single terrorist into Iraq?

And I can't see what my faith or country has to do with the topic at hand.
Feel free to start a thread on either and I 'll make sure I'll visit you there.

It has always been amazing to me, when "islam" murders, rapes and pillages "islam," the "arab" world has nothing to say. When a western nation inserts its' nose into the "mix" the Islamic world goes nuts! LOL Whether you would want to agree with me or not, your government was more than pleased to see Saddam Hussein overthrown. It would as well be quite pleased if the current president of Iran, and its' leadership, were to find themselves "persona non grata" within their own country. Don't presume to imply that Islam is a monolithic religion, agreed upon who is the prophet, and who is going to come back to fulfill the "end of the age!" Islam is as "splintered" as were the Catholics and Protestants during the "Hundred Years War!" You are an eighth of an inch from finding yourselves in outright "religious war." Blame the west if you'd like. It won't stand the test of time!

deeyala
06-20-2007, 02:06 AM
It has always been amazing to me, when "islam" murders, rapes and pillages "islam," the "arab" world has nothing to say.
And how much contact do you have with the Arab world?
I presume none.
You think if Arabs are addressing other Arabs , they will do so in English?
You think they will do so on CNN?


When a western nation inserts its' nose into the "mix" the Islamic world goes nuts! LOL
Yeah, it does on CNN.




Whether you would want to agree with me or not, your government was more than pleased to see Saddam Hussein overthrown. It would as well be quite pleased if the current president of Iran, and its' leadership, were to find themselves "persona non grata" within their own country.
Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a news headline saying "The Egyptian president approves of the invasion". or another saying "We're happy that Saddam is dead and Iraq is liberated" .
What are you basing your claim on?





Don't presume to imply that Islam is a monolithic religion, agreed upon who is the prophet, and who is going to come back to fulfill the "end of the age!"
Actually I will make such a claim and it stands as long as you can't prove otherwise


Islam is as "splintered" as were the Catholics and Protestants during the "Hundred Years War!" You are an eighth of an inch from finding yourselves in outright "religious war." Blame the west if you'd like. It won't stand the test of time!

When was the Hundred Years' war painted as a religious war?
We're talking about the France-England thing, right?

BTW, wash your hands off all the blame all you like. You very well know when and how it started.

paolo59
06-20-2007, 02:36 AM
And how much contact do you have with the Arab world?
I presume none.
You think if Arabs are addressing other Arabs , they will do so in English?
You think they will do so on CNN?


Yeah, it does on CNN.




Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a news headline saying "The Egyptian president approves of the invasion". or another saying "We're happy that Saddam is dead and Iraq is liberated" .
What are you basing your claim on?





Actually I will make such a claim and it stands as long as you can't prove otherwise



When was the Hundred Years' war painted as a religious war?
We're talking about the France-England thing, right?

BTW, wash your hands off all the blame all you like. You very well know when and how it started.

I would think that you as an Egyptian would know quite well the political "leanings" of your own government, whether you agree with them or not. Or are you one of those who accepts the political speeches for "internal consumption" as the official line of the Egyptian government?

deeyala
06-20-2007, 02:42 AM
I would think that you as an Egyptian would know quite well the political "leanings" of your own government, whether you agree with them or not. Or are you one of those who accepts the political speeches for "internal consumption" as the official line of the Egyptian government?

Exactly.
Now I am asking you what are you basing your claims on?

jugssexmotox
06-20-2007, 02:48 AM
None.
I don't recall making any conclusion based on any

Oh ok. I was just wondering because you seem to know alot more about how to deal with the enemy than 4 star generals and Commanders, but now that you clarified...

Popsicle52
06-20-2007, 06:12 AM
i think she thinks we should just leave. i'm against that because it would sacrafice all for which we have fought. :(

People said that in Vietnam too, to keep fighting to that no one dies in vain.

Fighting longer so that the people who died before didn't die in vain just means more people die.

RasLion
06-20-2007, 08:46 AM
But they didn't say anything. Don't you see this as a problem?
Don't you think people started to take the term "collateral damage" way too much for granted?
Initially, I think this term was invented to classify the unmeant damage, that sometimes was inevitable, nowadays it's actually used as a justification.
Like whenever an event turns to be collateral damage, we're to automatically ignore it.
This shouldn't be the case.
The nomencalture doesn't exempt us from further 1-trying to avoid it at all costs and 2- actually investigating it


I agree that there should be some kind of investigation. Question is: Do we even have the resources over there to investigate?



Plus, true we don't have a satisfying account of the incident, but IF what they claimed is true- does that classify as "collateral damage"- that was my question.

Plus I don't think it's fair, either to claim that he was there planting IED's.


Unfortunately its not so black and white... so its so hard to say if it is indeed collateral damage. To assume, however, that American soldiers killed him in cold blood is not a fair assesment. *You didnt say it... but just in case anyone is thinking that :)

Also, I did not say he WAS planting an IED but I was just giving a hypothetical situation for why American Soldiers might shoot someone.



Do you mean people planting those? Or Iraqis who are living through such circumstances?


I was just making a generalized statement of the world.



At least we agree to that much.
But I don't think it's possible for the next president to just wash his hands off what he perceives as Bush's business. I think nowadays, it's the American reputation at stake. I don't think any American president can sacrifice that much, without un-diplocatically painting this situation as Bush's fault, and to be remembered as such in history books.
Ideally, this is what I hope for. But I can't see it happening


The American people no longer want this war to continue. I believe the next president voted into office will be anti-war and will implement a plan to pull our troops out. I think this action alone will start to rebuild America's reputation.



I guess we will never know and I can't base an arguement on facts that start with "if".
Fact is such sectarian violence wasn't there before the American invasion. And don't bring Anfal into it, since No, that wasn't Sectarian violence . It was a secular, Ba'athist dictator suppressing rebellion against his tyrannical rule.
Going to Iraq while on "war against terrorism", thinking "since we're there we can isntall a democracy while we're fighting terrorism in Afghanistan", WITHOUT securing the Iraqi borders is just inviting AL-Qaeda into Iraq. And I believe It was "foreign fighters" who were intially responsible for igniting the sectarian violence
If this was done intentionally, to make Iraq the theatre for such a war- to keep it away from the US, then that is just sick.
If it was done un-intentionally then this is just stupid.
So yes, I think the US basically invited Al-Qaeda and any other armed group who has a grudge against the US into Iraq.


Do you think America is so powerful to make Sunni's and Shia's start fighting eachother? No way. There was lots of bad blood there to begin with. I think Saddam had everyone in check thats why there was no fighting.

Al-qaeda supposedly has independant cells so they make it seem as though they can attack the U.S. and fight in Iraq at the same time. Besides why is the arab world and al-qaeda so mad about Iraq and not Afghanistan?




See above
I can't neither totally blame , nor absolve her.


I understand you mean the sectarian violence.
Does that include fighting America,too?
Are you saying that if, among other things, Iraqis stopped fighting American troops, the US will leave?
Does that make sense?
Under international law, they are entitled to fight the occupying force, are you unwilling to grant them that much?

Yes that includes fighting America too. We are fighting those who fight us. The sooner the fighting stops... the sooner we can stabilize the government, train the Iraqi army, and set up a police force. Then we can leave. Muslims make it seem like we want to stay there forever. No way.

deeyala
06-20-2007, 09:07 AM
I agree that there should be some kind of investigation. Question is: Do we even have the resources over there to investigate?
No, I don't think you have the resources there to investigate. One more reason why I think you shouldn't be there





Do you think America is so powerful to make Sunni's and Shia's start fighting eachother? No way. There was lots of bad blood there to begin with. I think Saddam had everyone in check thats why there was no fighting.
No, I don't think America is powerful enough to do so, but careless enough to let it happen.
I believe it was last year's Samarra attack on a Shiite mosque that made the sectarian violence erupt. Those responisble for it are yet to be found.
I don't think there were any bad blood to start with. I think that with the power and leadership remaining a virtual vacancy, for each group their sect is nothing more than a uniform, a convenient way to tell friend from enemy in a fight for power.



Besides why is the arab world and al-qaeda so mad about Iraq and not Afghanistan?
Because personally speaking, I think the US had the right to go to Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible for 9/11.
Why it ventured into Iraq is beyond my understanding,though and no explanation seems to make sense.
So I am left assuming that was an irresponsible cowboy expedition, seeking probably glory on the expense of the lives and security of others.



Yes that includes fighting America too. We are fighting those who fight us. The sooner the fighting stops... the sooner we can stabilize the government, train the Iraqi army, and set up a police force. Then we can leave. Muslims make it seem like we want to stay there forever. No way.

That doesn't make any sense.
If I walk into your home, for whatever reason, claiming to straighten it out.
What you can see, is that your house turned from bad to worse, and such a conversion simultaneously took place as I stepped in to correct things.
If you blame me for the mess that is now your house, isn't it logical to want me out?
Better still, you think If I, who wether directly or indirectly messed your life, asked you to stop fighting me so that I can leave your house, will you??

As far as you're concerned I lied. I said I am making things better and they turned worse. Setting aside wether it was intentional or not, you only have the outcome to judge.
Why should you trust me?

FSUFan4
06-20-2007, 09:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek4ooEyYBAc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhometownbaghdad%2Ecom%2F
Yes, collateral damage.

Huse
06-20-2007, 09:53 AM
I think there was a cruel dictator over in Iraq, his name was saddam hussein or something, who killed thousands of his own people and bombed Israel for no reason except for being Israel. Is this true?

deeyala
06-20-2007, 10:03 AM
I think there was a cruel dictator over in Iraq, his name was saddam hussein or something, who killed thousands of his own people and bombed Israel for no reason except for being Israel. Is this true?

I think you 're finding it very hard to stay on topic.
Plus you got it awfully wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMeaKTjGjE
You were saying? ;)

BVAV
06-20-2007, 10:13 AM
I think you 're finding it very hard to stay on topic.
Plus you got it awfully wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMeaKTjGjE
You were saying? ;)


Reality is irrelevant to him. He's a ardent israeli supporter after all.

Huse
06-20-2007, 10:14 AM
I think you 're finding it very hard to stay on topic.
Plus you got it awfully wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMeaKTjGjE
You were saying? ;)

I was actually referring to the 91' gulf war when Iraq launched scud missiles at Israel even though Israel wasn't even part of the anti-Iraq coalition. Good thing Israel did the pre-emptive measures against Iraq's nuke program though.

I'm just pointing out that Iraq wasn't exactly nondeserving of an invasion.

deeyala
06-20-2007, 10:20 AM
I was actually referring to the 91' gulf war when Iraq launched scud missiles at Israel even though Israel wasn't even part of the anti-Iraq coalition. Good thing Israel did the pre-emptive measures against Iraq's nuke program though.

I'm just pointing out that Iraq wasn't exactly nondeserving of an invasion.

So the fact that Israel bombed their nuclear reactor TEN years before Saddam fired missiles towards it, you find irrelevent?

And the fact that during the same war, Saddam fired missiles against KSA is equally irrelevent?
Are you willing to equally claim that Saddam attacked KSA in '91, "for no reason except for being KSA" ???
Got double standards?

Huse
06-20-2007, 10:26 AM
So the fact that Israel started the animosity TEN years before Saddam fired missiles towards it, you find irrelevent?

And the fact that during the same war, Saddam fired missiles against KSA is equally irrelevent?
Are you willing to equally claim that Saddam attacked KSA in '91, "for no reason except for being KSA" ???
Got double standards?

Well, if we're going back in time here I would say that Iraq started the animosity, along with good ole egypt at around 1948 when they invaded Israel.

Not really sure what point you are making in your second statement. Cause if you're trying to make Saddam look like the good guy, you sure are failing

RasLion
06-20-2007, 10:54 AM
Well, if we're going back in time here I would say that Iraq started the animosity, along with good ole egypt at around 1948 when they invaded Israel.

Not really sure what point you are making in your second statement. Cause if you're trying to make Saddam look like the good guy, you sure are failing

I don't think she is saying Saddam is the good guy. I think she is saying he wasnt so bad as to justify war with Iraq.......... a second time.

RasLion
06-20-2007, 10:57 AM
No, I don't think you have the resources there to investigate. One more reason why I think you shouldn't be there



No, I don't think America is powerful enough to do so, but careless enough to let it happen.
I believe it was last year's Samarra attack on a Shiite mosque that made the sectarian violence erupt. Those responisble for it are yet to be found.
I don't think there were any bad blood to start with. I think that with the power and leadership remaining a virtual vacancy, for each group their sect is nothing more than a uniform, a convenient way to tell friend from enemy in a fight for power.



Because personally speaking, I think the US had the right to go to Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible for 9/11.
Why it ventured into Iraq is beyond my understanding,though and no explanation seems to make sense.
So I am left assuming that was an irresponsible cowboy expedition, seeking probably glory on the expense of the lives and security of others.




That doesn't make any sense.
If I walk into your home, for whatever reason, claiming to straighten it out.
What you can see, is that your house turned from bad to worse, and such a conversion simultaneously took place as I stepped in to correct things.
If you blame me for the mess that is now your house, isn't it logical to want me out?
Better still, you think If I, who wether directly or indirectly messed your life, asked you to stop fighting me so that I can leave your house, will you??

As far as you're concerned I lied. I said I am making things better and they turned worse. Setting aside wether it was intentional or not, you only have the outcome to judge.
Why should you trust me?

I am going to agree with everything you say here :)

I understand Iraq's are pissed. I just want American troops to come home safe and let the Iraq's duke it out themselves. Better yet I want all the violence to stop. Its not an easy situation we ALL are in.

majortrepak
06-20-2007, 11:53 AM
People said that in Vietnam too, to keep fighting to that no one dies in vain.

That is said in every single war


Fighting longer so that the people who died before didn't die in vain just means more people die.
I really wouldn't expect you to "get it".