Forums > Social Discussion > THEY CAUGHT SADDAM!!!!! YESS!!!!!!!!

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
Switch
member
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Member Since: 4th Dec 2003
Total posts: 47
Posted:THEY CAUGHT HIM! GOD WHAT A GREAT XMAS PRESENT FOR THE WORLD! beerchug peace

I kinda ran over his dog, well replace the word kinda with repeatedly, and the word dog with son.

Delete Topic

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Joe, why were they shooting at the bus? Did the report show that? Maybe somebody shot at them from within the bus? Did you ever think of that? Maybe the bus tried to run a blockade. Of course the soldiers are going to think it to be an attack on them. That would be self-defense. I really doubt that the deliberate targeting of a journalist can be considered terrorism against the people of Iraq. Perhaps this journalist wasnt targeted just in the wrong place in the wrong time? Maybe the journalist was with a group of Iraqi militants or soldiers and was targeted (however wrong) along with the proper targets. The FAE weapon, an accident. Some terrible things happen in WAR! I am sure you have done nothing but study all you could about wars and how the US is nothing but an insurgent force bent on world conquest.

Regime change isnt a political aim as those forcing the change are not going to be in power, nor is anyone who they choose.


Astar, when you drop or fire a missile at something, you intend to. It isnt an accident. If your information is bad then you hit the wrong target, but despite the target you intend to fire that missile or drop that bomb.

Spanner, to answer your question, it is taken from my "Recent History" textbook. Here is another, The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion as read from the "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary". But really, do we have to get into a "pissing contest" over the definition.

I feel that the idea that a conventional war is terrorism is very preposterous.


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

joe_sixsteps
joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...
Member Since: 17th Oct 2003
Total posts: 310
Posted:I'm sorry about the following, but it will basically be a repeat of my earlier post:

Quote:
Joe, why were they shooting at the bus? Did the report show that? Maybe somebody shot at them from within the bus? Did you ever think of that? Maybe the bus tried to run a blockade. Of course the soldiers are going to think it to be an attack on them. That would be self-defense.


() The bus incident took place, as stated above, during the initial 'cavalry charge' entry into Baghdad - there were no roadblocks. There may well have been a shooter on the bus, but the footage clearly shows that no fire was coming from the bus during the slaughter of its passengers. And the woman shot in the back as she was running away? Laytin, think about it for a minute. We obviously disagree as to the degree to which the US army are a bunch of trigger-happy thugs... but that is irrelevant. Surely you can agree that this incident simply cannot represent 'an attempt to minimise civilian casualties'?

Quote:
I really doubt that the deliberate targeting of a journalist can be considered terrorism against the people of Iraq. Perhaps this journalist wasnt targeted just in the wrong place in the wrong time? Maybe the journalist was with a group of Iraqi militants or soldiers and was targeted (however wrong) along with the proper targets.


() The targetting of the journalist definately does not count as attacking the people of Iraq. For one thing, he wasn't an Iraqi. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which was a rejection of your claim that the US military does all it can to minimise civilian casualties. This was an example of an incident in which they deliberately targetted a civilian. There are many more, the others are just not as easily proveable, and I wanted to avoid getting into a debate over what did or didn't happen. At the time, he was staying in a hotel with a lot of other foreign journalists, and the US military knew he was in the hotel. The tank crew which fired on him claimed that they had been receiving fire from the floor which they attacked. Unfortunately for them, another television crew recorded the whole incident. The tank sits in one place for about five minutes, pointing its barrel at the floor in question. No fire is coming from that floor. The tank fires...

Quote:
The FAE weapon, an accident. Some terrible things happen in WAR!


() Laytin, the fuel air explosives used on the convoy were NOT AN ACCIDENT. There are transcripts of the pilots receiving authorisation to use the weapons. Several aid workers advised the USHC that the convoy consisted of fleeing civilians. This was in the first Gulf War, as stated above, so is less relevant however. If you still have any faith in the compassion and humanity of the US military then I advise you to read about this incident. Also, FAEs count as weapons of mass destruction under every categorisation system ever devised - they are specially designed to not damage armour, usable only against high densities of unprotected, unarmoured people. In the first gulf war, the US army used these weapons on a convoy which was fleeing the area of conflict, which they knew consisted predominently of civilians. Terrible things certainly do happen in war, which is why so many people try and avoid it at all costs. For a whole lot of rant about this incident on HOP, take a look at 'The things people say'.

I am happy to engage in debate about any possible justification for these incidents, but please do me the courtesy of researching the incidents in question before attempting to argue about them - it is what I would do if I were trying to reply to any of your examples. For one thing, your points will be a lot more credible if you are aware to any degree of the events you are talking about, and you will also allow this debate to be about underlying motivations or justifications, instead of just about 'did they or didn't they'.

Quote:
I am sure you have done nothing but study all you could about wars and how the US is nothing but an insurgent force bent on world conquest.


Forgive my naivety, but I can't work out whether you're being sarcastic or not. I genuinely believe that if the US could stretch to world conquest, it would have no compunction about doing so whatsoever. However, this makes it no different from pretty much any other country out there - the US is just more powerful so it's a bit more obvious. I don't have a grudge against the US in particular - most of my bile is reserved for Tony Blair, who I see as being more of my responsibility. However, it does make me slightly angry when people try and defend the US. Laytin, if you want and you can be bothered, I can PM you a list of recent US war crimes, complicity with dictatorial and oppressive regimes (Uzbekistan is an easy example, where a proportion of the $160m that the US has given to the security service goes to boiling political prisoners alive), contraventions of environmental, human rights and trade treaties... would you bother to spend the couple of hours it would take to verify EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT DETAILED?

Quote:
Regime change isnt a political aim as those forcing the change are not going to be in power, nor is anyone who they choose.



Do I even need to reply to this? Let us assume for the sake of the argument that everything which Bush and Blair say is true. Wow, quite an assumption isn't it? Bush has said that "the removal of Saddam, and the institution of a democratic government in Iraq, will bring stability to the area, and accelerate the the process of reform throughout the Middle East" - I think that was from a speech two days before the invasion, but I could be confused. I have a transcript but it isn't dated. Even if Bush and Blair really have absolutely no hand whatsoever in the government of Iraq, and if the people of Iraq are free to throw out all the Angloamerican companies and refuse to sell their oil to the west... even if all that is true, then bringing stability to an area which is characterised as being a hotbed of terrorism would be incontrovertibly a political aim.

Sorry about all of the above - it's just my last one all over again. So it goes. Laytin, if you want to continue debating the facts of these incidents, I suggest you read up on them (both the FAE bombing and the shooting of the journalist are well documented on the net) so we can have a proper debate, and then we should move to PM.

In my opinion the definition of words and their meaning are critically important - the difference between 'freedom fighter', 'insurgent' (which actually means a rebel or revolutionary - not something I would characterise the US army as at all) or 'terrorist'. Even the difference between 'liberating force' and 'occupying power' is huge.

Finally, though the invasion of Iraq could be described as a conventional war, the 'war on terror' is absolutely not.

Sorry everyone for the long rant! i'll go now...



The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:The bombing of power stations, hydro dams and water treatment plants was no accident. The military officials gloated about it being part of a plan to sweep Iraqs infastructure out from under it's feet to quicken the surrender. It worked. Why did they wish to bring about such a quick surrender? Because americans are cowards and can't stand to see any casultys in a war. Atleast not casultys on their own side.

Delete

MillenniuM
MillenniuM

Hyperloops suck

Member Since: 10th Jul 2003
Total posts: 595
Posted:Quote:
() The targetting of the journalist definately does not count as attacking the people of Iraq. For one thing, he wasn't an Iraqi. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which was a rejection of your claim that the US military does all it can to minimise civilian casualties. This was an example of an incident in which they deliberately targetted a civilian. There are many more, the others are just not as easily proveable, and I wanted to avoid getting into a debate over what did or didn't happen. At the time, he was staying in a hotel with a lot of other foreign journalists, and the US military knew he was in the hotel. The tank crew which fired on him claimed that they had been receiving fire from the floor which they attacked. Unfortunately for them, another television crew recorded the whole incident. The tank sits in one place for about five minutes, pointing its barrel at the floor in question. No fire is coming from that floor. The tank fires...



Erm, do you really think those soldiers wanted to kill journalists? Do you really think it was anything but an accidental attack, a communication error, or something similar? I understand your concern and frustration for such a terrible action, but the US military has no motive for killing journalists, nor are the so ignorant that they do not know they are being watched by the world.

I'm not justifying the actions, but scrutinizing every mistake doesn't solve a thing, in my opinion.


Delete

joe_sixsteps
joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...
Member Since: 17th Oct 2003
Total posts: 310
Posted:Quite what they thought they were doing is a good question. I would be very interested to know. The program on BBC, and John Pilger's investigation, managed to clear a lot of excuses, but never really got to the bottom of why the shot was fired. The long delay before the firing leads me to believe that either:
1) the tank crew were aiming at a very particular floor, or
2) they were in communication with somewhere else receiving authorisation to fire
The hotel was full of foreign journalists, and had been since the start of the war - the building was scrupulously avoided during the air strikes. The frightening thing is that the Al Jazeera camera crew were elsewhere on that floor... I hate to say it, but I would be prepared to believe that they were the target... though of course that is pure speculation.

The thing is, this incident has been painstakingly examined. USHC have had every opportunity to justify it - if it really was a communication error, or an accidental attack, then it could have been easily explained. The 'receiving fire' argument was made before the footage of the attack was released.

I agree with you though, worrying too much about whether they meant to kill the Al Jazeera crew, whether someone had given them a false tip off... whatever... is not too important. I, also, get sick of these email debates where one incident (about which no-one really knows the truth) gets talked over and over... I only brought up those exapmles because, of all the ones I know about, they're the easiest to verify.



The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:If they are receiving fire from a building they know is heavily occupied by innocents they should send in soldiers specially trained in close quarters combat. Fireing high explosive rounds in a situation like that is just cowardly and unacceptable. The fact is we value our soldiers lives more then their civilians lives. or else there would be more outcry over incidents like this.

Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:How can you, the person sitting at home, or anyone not THERE know what is or was deliberate?

I agree that the 'why' is one of the most important things. Now, not everything can be proven unless the people involved give their accounts. Motive without whitness or suspect doesnt exist.

Astar, tell me bud, how do you shut down a wide range of radar sites, radio stations and other tools an enimy force can use? You kill the power. You are right, it was no accident, it is a tactic, one leagle and widly used in almost every war since airal bombardment was invented!

Frankly Astar, do you want to see a bunch of your countrymen killed? If you answer 'no' you are not a cowerd. How is a long drawn out fight bravery? I call it stupidity. A short war is not cowerdace it is desireable to a military force. For someone who says they are "Chief of staff and military" frankly you dont know what you are talking about.

Another thing, your comment about the hotel filled with journalists...

Were there special forces at the ready at that particuler time?
Was there a valid plan of the building so that any SO can come up with a good "safe" plan?
What if the size of the occupying force was larger than SO could handle?


Joe, you cant verify anything, nor can I. Nor can alot of the people that were actually there. Have you ever read a police report of an accident that happend in a busy area? It usually has 4 or 5 differnt stories of what actually happend. BBC is notorious for only showing 2 at most! Even then it is usually two from similer ideals. Very rarly will they go into depth of opposing sides, especailly when the US military is involved.

As far as recieiving fire, how hard is it for a small group of people to take a pop shot at a few tanks and then run out the other side? The video may never have shown that.

The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact. Some do a little bit more research, but the majority do not and are ignorant to any of the possible reasons any one thing can happen.

Astar, are you saying that it is wrong to calue the life of a soldier? I imagine you would say yes.


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

bluecat
bluecat

geek, level 1
Location: everywhere
Member Since: 15th Dec 2002
Total posts: 5300
Posted:Quote:
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact.



but equally you appear to take the opposite view that what USHC says is cold hard fact.

a tricky situation where niether debater has any faith in the others objectivity....

confused
R



Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Delete

joe_sixsteps
joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...
Member Since: 17th Oct 2003
Total posts: 310
Posted:Quote:
Joe, you cant verify anything, nor can I. Nor can alot of the people that were actually there. Have you ever read a police report of an accident that happend in a busy area? It usually has 4 or 5 differnt stories of what actually happend. BBC is notorious for only showing 2 at most! Even then it is usually two from similer ideals. Very rarly will they go into depth of opposing sides, especailly when the US military is involved.



Aye, this is why I was suggesting you look into it yourself. It wasn't just the BBC (who, incidentally, are being slated for the degree to which their reporting is pro-US/UK biased). Neither of us will ever prove anything, and if this was a single, isolated incident, I would be fully ready to chalk it down to a fluke, unfortunate accident. But it's not. I keep saying this, but let's forget about this single incident.

My position is that the US military does not always try to minimise civilian casualties, is fully prepared to use HK weapons on civilian populations, and really isn't motivated by what is best for the world. I can site a plethora of examples, and you can say that I will never really know the truth of any of them. However, I guarantee that, for some of them at least, if you look into the evidence with a clear mind, you will draw the same conclusions. Accepting points of view that are diametrically opposed to your own is always difficult. I tell you what - you find me some examples of the US military genuinely trying to do what is best for the Iraqi people, (not what is best for them, and happens to benefit the Iraqis as well) and I will look into those examples and try to believe in them. What do you say?


The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete

joe_sixsteps
joe_sixsteps

mULti-torTOISe
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon,...
Member Since: 17th Oct 2003
Total posts: 310
Posted:P.S:

Quote:
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact. Some do a little bit more research, but the majority do not and are ignorant to any of the possible reasons any one thing can happen



I would say that, of the two of us Laytin, I am the one who makes a real effort to read around the subject and form objective viewpoints. Just because they disagree with your own does not mean they are unsubstantiated. For example, in the case of the FAEs, I have read the transcripts of the authorisation to deploy the weapons, seen printed testimony on the part of the aid workers who advised the USHC that the convoy consisted mainly of civilians, read John Pilger's fearful examination of possible reasons for the weapons to be deployed, seen photographic evidence of the aftermath (a series of the most horrifying photos I've ever seen), read the reports written by two of the survivors and read the US defense of its reasons for using such horrific weapons. Oh, and I read about it in the news.

I try and be as aware as possible of the issues which we are debating. If we were talking about the war on drugs in Colombia, a subject on which I know next to nothing, I would keep quite and try and learn. If I disagreed with someone else's opinion, I would research the subject in order to have grounds on which to frame my reply. Forgive me if I'm being presumptious, but I get the impression that this is something which you have not bothered to do before replying to either of my previous posts.

In this instance, I think I know enough to have an opinion. If you wish, as stated previously, I can PM you links to as much of the supporting evidence as I can retrieve. I offered this before, and you haven't replied. Could it be you, Laytin, who's not bothering to read up on the subject?


The Confusion Squid has many tentacles

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Quote:
But really, do we have to get into a "pissing contest" over the definition.



Save your breath. I'm not posting here to be spoken about like that.


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:Id say the life of a soldier equals the life of a civilian.



Delete

DeepSoulSheep
DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Sep 2002
Total posts: 2617
Posted:Depending on the situation, the civilian may not have decided to put their life on the line whereas that's a soldiers job and decision to risk it.

A foreign journalist knows they are entering a conflict zone. Putting that aside, comparing an Iraqi civilian, who's in his own country minding his own business with a foreign soldiar who's invaded their country illegally is a misnomer if you ask me.

It's a problem if innocents die so as not to risk the possibility of a soldier getting hurt just because the occupying army has the power to do that...


I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Joe, anything you wish to send me I will read. However, for someone like myself who does not only study history but as a hobby study military history. However I have not heard of this incident except by you. So, please feel free to post or PM any link that you wish. I offer a deal, you send me any and all information you have about questionable acts of the US military, and I will send you as much information about how the US military really acts and operates in a day to day and combat situations.


Spanner, I am not trying to insult you, I just dont think it is productive to argue/debate what the definition of terrorisim is. I am sorry you did not like the way I said it, I will keep that in mind and try not to be so offending.


Deep Soul Sheep, it is a problem if innocents die period. I'll tell you why, in the Military Code of Conduct, you will find an article (I forget what one and dont have the book infront of me) that talks about the treatment of civiliains. How if you kill a civilian it will actually give your enimy something to fight for. Instead of demoralising it will have the opposite effect.

However, keep this in mind, if there are civilians in the way, either by choice of their own or being forced against their will, a soldier's life is still worth the same as a civilians. Soldiers dont normally get hurt, the get dead! Especially when they are trying to prevent the death of people A while kill people B and especially when peoples A and B are in rather close quarters. Bad things will happen when there are civilians in a combat zone. Some will unfortunatly die.

Are you saying that just because a military has a few million people in it that they should take a knife to a gun fight just to try to prevent civilian lives?

Just because an army has superior numbers it doesnt mean that they will use that recklessly.


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:I think it's more like takeing a 120MM cannon fireing high explosive rounds to a infantry engagement.

Im not really to riled up about a lot of the civilian casulties because I understand the nature of the problem with saddam hussein routinely puts civilians near targets for the very purpose of tarnishing the image of the americans. There are a few incidents which are unacceptable and I see no formal investigation into them. Another one that gets me is the incident where 2 convoys were ambushed simoultaneously by men with assault rifles, The American forces responded by laying down saturation fire with Heavy machineguns (which concidentally are technicaly illegal to use on civilians) and light machineguns, while shelling 3 buildings.


Delete

wan hwo ren
wan hwo ren

member
Location: I'm not sure
Member Since: 27th Mar 2002
Total posts: 86
Posted:Quote:
....with Heavy machineguns (which concidentally are technicaly illegal to use on civilians)



Well I should hope so!


Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:I meant to type use on people.

Anything bigger then .50 cal is techically in violation of the geneva conventions if it's fired at anything but vehicles or equipment.


Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Okay, 120mm? A howitzer maybe, but that isnt a heavy machine gun nor is it outlawed by the Geniva Convention! It is an artiliery piece. There is nothing wrong (leagly) with th at.

Okay, a heavy machine gun... define heavy machine gun. Actually it is not the size or rate of fire of a gun, but the caliber of the round. Grenades and other area effecting rounds are not illeagle to use on point targets (aka people). Large caliber weapons are restricted in use to military equipment. Now there is a huge loop hole in the laws here because those assault rifles... are military equpiment.

Well have a nice day, this concludes your military law and Geniva Convention class tongue

Have a good weekend, I'll see you on monday peace


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:Im not saying the 120MM (m1 abram) cannons are violating the geneva convention. I am saying it's grossley reckless to be discharging them in a city at buildings when your under ambush from an inferior force. BTW a interesting thing about that ambush is the americans claimed they killed 18 and wounded 4 others (or something close to that) The Iraqi police say it was only 8 soldiers they killed and the rest were unarmed civilians.

This only happened a month ago.



Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Sounds like fun, though when the media, especially forgine, likes to look for only the bad, I think I will have to do a little digging.

Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Not what I was sent to look for, but interesting none the less.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_pro-con.htm


http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/21/editorial_wwwedit1c21.html


Take a gander smile


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:Funny where your digging lead you, global security arms and the enquirerer. *cough* source *cough*

Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Umm The Enquierer, is the Cincinati (a largish city in Ohio) Paper, not the Super Market Tabloid. Open thine eyes and you will see tongue

Ohh and the first little site I sent you to, I didnt even know where it was untill I posted it because I was using Ask Jeves, and if you notice with AJ.com they put up this lovly frame and you cant see the address unless you get rid of the frame. But it still shows an interesting view point.

That is what you are interested in right? Others view points?


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:you know laytin, i was reading a few of your posts and i admit that i didn't read through the whole thread cause i honestly didn't have the time and started to get annoyed. but i see that you are a history major or at least seem to study it a lot. and you have quoted from a number of your history books as your sources. and i just wanted to post this to challenge you to think beyond your books. move past the history of the rich folk and the white men and get the history of the working class, of the people who built the world. not everything you read is fact.

quoted from utah phillips.....

"when i went to high school i got the history of the ruling class; the generals and the industrialists and the presidents who didn't get caught. i got the history of the people who owned the wealth of the country, but none of the history of the people who created it. if i wanted a true history of where i came from, i had to go to my elders. many of them gave their whole lives to the mines, to the wheat harvest, to the logging camps, to the railroad, and got nothing for it...just fetched up on the skids livin' on short money. but they led those extraordinary lives that can never be lived again, and in the living of them, they gave me a history that is more profound, more beautiful, more powerful, more passionate, and ultimately more useful, that the best damn history book i ever read."


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

Laytin
member
Location: bottom left of the US
Member Since: 3rd Nov 2003
Total posts: 111
Posted:Okay I am doing a dangerous thing by assuming, but I am assuming that you want me to find history outside of the normal textbook. If I am wrong please redirect me but I didnt read what you really wanted me to do, perhaps I missed it? In keeping with the traditions of your quote, I went (or rather know something) to my own past. Here is a link to something my Great Grand Uncle did. That would be my Grandmothers Uncle.

http://www.ysu.edu/sports/traditions/penaltyflag.htm


Does that start to satisfy your thirst for knowledge of the past, though I must admit he is white, perhaps you were looking for something else.

Have you ever read Neil Gaiman's American Gods? I just started it and it is a good'un. Anyhow, the first chapter mentions the monsters that come from the "old world". You know how each country or region believes in some sort of evil vile creature, or maybe a god of some sort. These never seem to come into America. Anyhow to stop boring you, there are some great histories out there that never get written, that are so worth diving head first into.


Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

Delete

Azrelle
Azrelle

member
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Member Since: 24th Jan 2004
Total posts: 34
Posted:Running the risk here of opening up an old wound, but when i read this thread i couldnt help but throw in this little bit of information to realllllly get things going. All of what i'm about to say comes from all the media sources listed here

The US military did not locate and capture Saddam Hussein. The Kurds caught him first and decided that instead of holding him to trial in their own court (which would inevitably ended up with him being shot) they claimed the reward that was going for him.

Yes, like you are thinking right now, i at first said "yeh, right".... but a friend of mine just got back from Iran - he heard on the saturday night that the kurds caught him, the Sydney Herald reported that the Kurds caught him, the arabic news channels all reported the capture before the now infamous "we got 'im" speech.

Now, personally i dont care how he was got so long as he's out of power and i'm really not going to get into debates on US and UK foreign policy ( i have my views, you have your views so lets leave it at that)... but does nobody find it a little unsettling the varying degrees of reporting that we are getting back from this? Even between UK and US there's huge differences, such as the US hardly knows at all that the Dossier that was used as "evidence" to go to war has been almost completely discredited in the UK.

What strange times we live in


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:My questions to this are, why then did Sadam have a pistol and what was it $70,000 US dollars on him during his (re-)capture? Why did he not use the pistol to either kill himself or defend himself? Why in the world did he have the money?
I also question your source. I dont know it and have never heard of it, are you sure it is reliable?

Sorry, I know that no body here can really answer them, but man just too many questions.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Astar
member
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Member Since: 8th Nov 2002
Total posts: 1591
Posted:He had two AK-47's also.

Delete

Azrelle
Azrelle

member
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Member Since: 24th Jan 2004
Total posts: 34
Posted:Kurds dont like the US either so gave him the guns

put yourself in his shoes for a second... you have many guns, you know you are locked in a hole and soldiers are coming to get you. Shoot them, they shoot back, you die and the Kurds get one up on you as you die anyway and they still get their money. Dont shoot and they wont kill you as you are far too valuable alive and rely on the international courts condeming death sentence.

They money part is less clear however... .perhaps the US paid too much and they gave em the change back ^_^

Sources though are Reuters (trusted source internationally), Al Jazeerah (biggest arabic news network), and Aussie who reported and 3 british journalists who werent allowed to report in their newspapers. I get daily bulletins from middle east news networks and i still have the e-mail that said saddam had been caught and it's dated the sunday morning.


Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:I was refering to the website and the news agency that it was posted by. I had never heard of them that is why I questioned them.

Trust me... the US Gov. are a bunch of cheep basterds who will never over pay tongue


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Page: 123