Iraqi resistance

[Egeides]

Here's what I've found... if it's as worst as Human Right Watch proposes, it's really not going well. 20 civils killed in April, while US army DID NOT REPORT IT. Human Right Watch doesn't pretend to have complete evidence, but the elements that we have yet are bothering:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/06/18/human_rights/index.html

Also 2 civils were killed in peculiar circumstances:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N3263.salon.com/B1158282.5;sz=336x280;ord=517865985?

and a complete explanation of resistance here, which is an interview from Democracy Now, a well-known American radio channel:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc2119.html

PS: For those interested in seeing a part of the opposition, www.guerrillanews.com seems a good source, even if it doesn't share everyone's beliefs. Sources are extensively shown, links to other websites of all views are regular (N-Y Times...), there's interviews, regular updates, etc.

[GhostHunter]

Is there any real purpose for this thread except adding another petty American-trashing thread to the PRP boards? Look, civilians die in warfare, been that way since the beginning of time and it shall remain that way until the end of time. Innocent people died yes, but it was better that some died and helped all the others with a better and more free goverment plus ridding themselves of the horrible treatment and daily exacutions.

Now regarding the absence of the report, everyone makes mistakes and tries to cover them up, human nature so why don't you just drop this instead of trashing Capitalism?

[DukeLeto]

Now regarding the absence of the report, everyone makes mistakes and tries to cover them up, human nature

Yet you hate Clinton because he lied under oath after people pryed into his private life...amazing... ::)

[SurlyPIG]

Here's what I've found... if it's as worst as Human Right Watch proposes, it's really not going well. 20 civils killed in April, while US army DID NOT REPORT IT. Human Right Watch doesn't pretend to have complete evidence, but the elements that we have yet are bothering:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/06/18/human_rights/index.html

I think its odd how people buy into single-interest groups who claim themselves not to have evidence of HR abuse while accusing the US of not having evidence of WMDs in Iraq and ties to terrorism while there has been ample reporting of illegal weapons, previous declarations of massive amounts of chemical poisons and nerve agents, and documents revealing meetings between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda operatives...

Something to think about.

OT: Clinton could have just said, "That's my private life, my personal business, and I do not wish to comment on that," and it would be the end of it, but instead, he lied. I think he did a pretty good job in his time but he dug himself into that hole, nobody else buried him there.

[DukeLeto]

and documents revealing meetings between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda operatives...

On that note...captured High-level Al-Queada operatives recently told authorities that there were no connections btween Al-Queada and Iraq..furthermore, that Bin Laden himself had personally vetoes the proposal.

Source(s): Orlando Sentinel, Chicago Sun-Times, The Daily Show

[Acriku]

You would trust a captured Al-Queada official over the intelligence of Bush's Administration? Oh wait, stupid question...

[SurlyPIG]

Oh, sure, ok then. High level Al Qaeda operatives and Osama bin Laden. Yeah great idea lets listen to them they won't lie lol

It's not even that Acriku. The documents were found by journalists, not the Bush government, so corruption accusations are invalid.

[Acriku]

Ohhh now I remember that footage, with the papers being shown with the whiteout rubbed off and showing bin Laden's name a couple times.

[Egeides]

GhostHunter: The goal is too discuss Iraqi resistance, since there seems to have some, where ever it is coming from. And if you read the article, you know that the point is that civilians were killed when they shouldn't have been killed so it's not about "ohh, there's always dead people in wars".

ACE: What is the interest of this group? From what I recall, they simply search for any human right problem.

About the documents, well there wasn't alot showed. So little that a senator (or whattever it is called) recently asked for evidences... One document referring to Al Qaeda is not enough when there's so much going the other side.

Besides, anyone noticed that red, orange and yellow alerts were EXACTLY CORRESPONDING TO WHEN A BILL HAD TO BE PASSED?!!

[SurlyPIG]

"ACE: What is the interest of this group? From what I recall, they simply search for any human right problem."

My point was that it is not in their interest to be fair to the coalition military. Whenevery they report something, it gets their name into the media, perhaps attracting sponsors and new members...? See where I'm going? Just consider it from both sides.

"About the documents, well there wasn't alot showed. So little that a senator (or whattever it is called) recently asked for evidences... One document referring to Al Qaeda is not enough when there's so much going the other side."

I'm not talking about intel documents obtained by US intelligence, I'm talking about one that was found by the media. I think I've got a link to it buried somewhere in the Iraq thread.

[Acriku]

If anybody is found to be guilty of a warcrime in a neutral court of law, they will be convicted and sentenced. But can you prove that these killings were avoidable, and unnecessary?

About the documents, these are enormous evidences because they were not made by Colin Powell or Bush's speechwriter, but by Iraqi officials themselves! There is no reason to take these lightly.

[DukeLeto]

All I've heard is that mention Al-Qaeda and bin Laden...but in what context? They could say "bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda's a bunch of jackholes. i would never support them!" Unlikely, but you never know.

[Acriku]

The documents documented meetings between the two. That's the context that I read about.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

All I've heard is that mention Al-Qaeda and bin Laden...but in what context? They could say "bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda's a bunch of jackholes. i would never support them!" Unlikely, but you never know.

If Americans believe in what the Extremists are saying.

They should really get their brains examined, unless, if you put a gun on the side of their head and threaten them. ;D

But anyways, I'm not suprised about the URL's, the American military can basicly do whatever they want in the country.

They can kill a Iraqi just for fun whenever they want.

But I highly doubt it that they will kill them, unless if they're attacked.

Love the 'Geneva' law, which doesn't even influence war.

[Egeides]

Acriku, the HRW does not pretend to have proofs that US army killed 20 without being shot at, it only says that witnesses say the opposit and that there's no hole in the wall showing the army was shot at (or stuff like that). It wasn't meant as a proof but as something that should be investigated because it's presently incoherent.

[Acriku]

The credibility of those witnesses must be questioned as well, to be a fair investigation.

[Egeides]

Which is certainly done otherwise they're complete newbies (and they probably have experience)... But it changes nothing: there's something incoherent and explanations/investigations were asked.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

But you all are still forgetting one thing, true, the witnesses can't be really trustworthy, but the Americans aren't really trustworthy as well.

We can't see what they are doing right now, we can only see what we are seeing on the television and I doubt that the Military of America will allow the Media to watch other things, that is rather classified.