Is Love Your Enemy Still Relevant in the War on Terror?

[Moses]

Well,
Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]...This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets...

Enemy..may be, but the still humans at least in the biological shape..
Bush calims he is a Christian and believe that "Love your enemy"
If the man called Christ was here..I am wondering what he say about dat...

 

[Gonzolo]

Wars can be quite shocking. I don't understand perfectly why Bush decided to go. It is quite remarkable that the military allows cameramen to follow them. Can anyone confirm who the cameraman/company was? I suspect he was American too.

 

[The_Professional]

Sure an Iraqi was killed inside a Mosque, but we really don't know the whole story. I didn't see any specifics, could it be the enemy was carrying a gun? could it be that the soldier was shocked that he accidentally shot him? was he perceived a possible threat during that 2 second time frame when the soldier shot him?

This is war and a split second decision could cost somebody his life.

 

[Gokul43201]

If someone fires at you and then ducks into a mosque, sure you shoot him there. I don't see any problem with something like that.

 

[jcsd]

The specifics were the man was unarmed and lying injured on the ground inside the mosque and was shot at point blank range.

The soldier committed a war crime (unless tyere's some miraculous new evidnece that has not yet been seen, but that seems unlikely) and he should receive the due punishment for that. You should not forget that the actions of this one soldier as severly damaged the US's reputation in Iraq and has also increased the danger that other US soldiers and whitewashing the incident would no much, much more damage.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, then this does look like a violation of the rules of war...and I believe an investigation is underway. But only because the person shot was not a threat, and not because he was in a mosque.

 

[jcsd]

Clearly if you are firing from a mosque then don't be too suprised if fire is returned.

The problem is that the US were actually breaking sevral rules of war systematically during Fallujah vis-a-vis hospitals ambulances, aid and firing at civilians for leaving their houses, but the Iraqi reaction was still quite muted to this, but this one action capture don TV has turned Fallujah into a PR diaster in Iraq for the US.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I see your perspective but I disagree with it. Being an extreme-secularist Agnostic I don't think religious places should be haven for individuals who did wrong. If this person did nothing wrong, then their death was unjust. The place of the death has no extra signifigance for me.

Concerning the burying(sp) issue I'm quite indifferent. I never really understood the signifigance of burials. Also, I think it's much more important that American soldiers (if they have to be in Iraq) work on stabilizing the country and diplomacy rather than burying enemy victims.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dooga, being insensitive and ignorant of other cultures is what resulted in much of this mess.

 

[BobG]

The specifics were the man was unarmed and lying injured on the ground inside the mosque and was shot at point blank range.

The soldier committed a war crime (unless tyere's some miraculous new evidnece that has not yet been seen, but that seems unlikely) and he should receive the due punishment for that. You should not forget that the actions of this one soldier as severly damaged the US's reputation in Iraq and has also increased the danger that other US soldiers and whitewashing the incident would no much, much more damage.

I don't think it's clear yet whether or not the soldier committed a war crime. In an actual battle, it's pretty much acknowledged that the combatants will be in a pretty unstable emotional state (at least in the context of the civilian world at home). Almost all the participants are in a survival mode type attitude and their decisions are always heavily tilted towards 'better that the other guy die than me'. Actions in a battle are seldom considered war crimes - it has to be proven the wounded had been screened and were under complete control.

The soldier is much more likely to be punished for something that falls a little short of either a war crime or murder. The Rules of Engagement for US forces are usually stricter than those normally applied for war crimes. In fact, a few of these have been in the news here, locally, as soldiers from the local Army post have returned.

Whatever the final result, this situation is nothing like Abu Graib, which I think probably would qualify as a war crime. One is premeditated in a relatively secure environment. The other is made in an environment where the rest of your life may only be a few seconds.

 

[Evo]

One of the unfortunate problems in this war is that the enemy are not clearly defined. They are not wearing uniforms and in combat units. They are indistinguishable from the civilian populace and fighting within the civilian populace, purposefully placing innocent civilians in harms way. How can you protect yourself when you cannot identify the enemy? This is a very frightening and dangerous situation for our military.

Our military, however, are easy targets.

 

[DaVinci]

And you believe what you see on CNN?

One thing I learned from being in Afghanistan (my unit was the first in besides CIA), is that the news media is full of dung. When I got out of the ARR and was able to watch the news, were talking about stories coming from the place I had just left, they were so far off the mark it was rediculous. I also have friends who are still serving in the Corps and have been to Iraq and thay have told me the same thing... load of crap on the news.

Remember that you can take a story and footage and spin it so well that the actual event has completely changed. Nor have I seen any footage of the actual event. The only one I have seen is a Marine walking through a room.

To go even further, these 'combatants' have been known to fake being injured and then start shooting G.I.'s when they turn their back. They have also been known to give their wounded grenades so when a GI walks in the room, they pull the pin and sacrifice themself to kill a few Americans.

If you walked into the room knowing this, and thought that the bad guy, armed or not, had a grenade and was about to use it, would you shot him? Or if one of them made a sudden move that you, being a combat experience veteran, perceived as a direct threat against your and your friends life, would you shot him?

You, nor I, know the whole story here. This is another case of the media being the bunch of ^$##^$#^#$^% that they are.

 

[Polly]

Hello DaVinci, would you tell us a bit more about the war in Iraq? Many thanks.

 

[jcsd]

I don't think it's clear yet whether or not the soldier committed a war crime.

Delibrately killing a wounded unarmed person is a war crime full stop, howvere anyone tries to excuse it (I'm sorry but there's always an excuse for everything, don't make it right) and 'heat of the moment' defence does not excuse war crimes (even in national law such a defnce in general could only be used in mitigation)
The relvenat passage is here:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

Article 3
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person. in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

 

[BobG]

Delibrately killing a wounded unarmed person is a war crime full stop, howvere anyone tries to excuse it (I'm sorry but there's always an excuse for everything, don't make it right) and 'heat of the moment' defence does not excuse war crimes (even in national law such a defnce in general could only be used in mitigation)
The relvenat passage is here:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

But it would have been legal to shoot the wounded Iraqi with the hidden grenade that the group had encountered the day before?

I think this is an example of the types of atrocities Kerry talked about back when he first got out of the service. They happen every war where you routinely push people beyond what the average person can handle.

The incredibly disciplined warrior that books glamorize (the kind who can slay 10 men with one swing of his samurai sword and gently provide a safe resting place for a passing butterfly on his backswing) may not be an unattainable state of mind, but it's certainly not the norm (otherwise, why would it be considered a trait of a truly great hero).

 

[jcsd]

Such incidents does not give anyone a carte blanche to shoot wounded unarmed people or systematically disreagrd the rules of war.

I can even accept that it may of been a mistake, but it is a mistake that cost someone their life so it is not one that can be easily excused or swept under the rug.

 

[BobG]

And you believe what you see on CNN?

You, nor I, know the whole story here. This is another case of the media being the bunch of ^$##^$#^#$^% that they are.

I haven't watched enough stations to really have a representative cross section, but I haven't seen any reporters that have jumped to conclusions on this. The reporters I've seen have seemed to feel you have to suspend judgement on this until all the facts are in.

Most of the discussion is about how this could be perceived. One tiny slice of info completely removed from the overall context. It's the new information age. Raw, unfiltered information available to the masses vs. info screened by experienced media to decide if it's info the masses could understand and handle.

Obviously, the masses will have problems handling unfilitered info for quite awhile. Just surf through the Internet. You can find info twisted to support any view you want. People having to evaluate the validity of the information available on their own instead of having someone screen their info is something that will take time to learn.

 

[Moses]

One of the unfortunate problems in this war is that the enemy are not clearly defined. They are not wearing uniforms and in combat units. They are indistinguishable from the civilian populace and fighting within the civilian populace, purposefully placing innocent civilians in harms way. How can you protect yourself when you cannot identify the enemy? This is a very frightening and dangerous situation for our military.

Our military, however, are easy targets.

Well, the enemy is not defined because simply there is a tiny..tiny amount of Iraqis are with our soldiers ..and among the "enemy" who can carry guns [fighter] or not [hoping to have a gun..or he/she is not "skilled enough" to fight] they are the bare-foot Vitnamese...

I feel really sorry for the soldiers..since the moral task in killing here is not easy...and the War in total fail in the moral test..and our soldiers are swimming in this torenado

Yeah...every single Iraqi U.S killed after we enter Baghdad "victory?" is a citizen...and carrying a gun. This how sadly i see it now..

 

[Moses]

The new news insure that new resistance people entered fallujah...
I am not sure with which side should i stand now: With our Army who attacking the city and are "trangressors" and violate the Human basic laws in wars..or with those guys who is fighting us and did not violate it yet...still the have a point..yes they have a point..in why they are fighting us inside there houses...and mosques..and may be churches later...

 

[jimmy p]

Urban fighting is not pretty. I have had training in urban fighting and it is a horrible business. I'm not siding with the soldier, but if the Iraqi had a grenade, then no-one in that room would have survived. Radicals are very much noted for their suicide bombing tendencies and an injured man writhing on the ground could still be trying to loose a grenade pin.

I think that the SAS would have done very much the same in that situation. There was a quite famous story that the SAS were evacuating hostages from a building, and one came towards then slightly hunched up, so three soldiers that were there emptied their magazines into hostage. It appeared that the hostage was actually a terrorist with a grenade. Had that snap decision not been made, then a lot of people could have been killed or injured. As it were, the terrorist ended up with 90+ bullets inside him before the pathologists gave up counting.

Would that have been considered a war-crime? Firing on an apparently unarmed man/hostage?

 

[Moses]

I see your perspective but I disagree with it. Being an extreme-secularist Agnostic I don't think religious places should be haven for individuals who did wrong. If this person did nothing wrong, then their death was unjust. The place of the death has no extra signifigance for me.

Concerning the burying(sp) issue I'm quite indifferent. I never really understood the signifigance of burials. Also, I think it's much more important that American soldiers (if they have to be in Iraq) work on stabilizing the country and diplomacy rather than burying enemy victims.

Oooh...so let's throuhg our did grandmas in the rubbish...we love them but it is also easier for us to get red out of them in this way...

Well, worshipping place for me even if it doesn't belong to the religion i follow should be EXTREMELY RESPECTED, it is not a bar...not a night club...it is a place for worship...

 

[Moses]

Would that have been considered a war-crime? Firing on an apparently unarmed man/hostage?

Turning this question to the main root of all of this mess,
Is entering fallujah justified? and entering Iraq before?
I am not making it complex...but Mr.Bush...God bless to the max... is making it that complex

 

[Gonzolo]

I never really understood the signifigance of burials...

Think a little before posting. You can surely figure this one out.

As for whether the killing is a war crime or not, only an investigation will shed light on the matter. A single camera shot without context is not much to base a judgement on. The victim might have been completely innocent, he might have been another suicidal booby trap.

 

[Moses]

What really makes me angry is this issue will pass easily via media since it is about the enemy rights!

A bunch of news had came recently, and every body almost forgot about that, I am exaggrating the issue, but i do not want it to be minimize too...

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, worshipping place for me even if it doesn't belong to the religion i follow should be EXTREMELY RESPECTED, it is not a bar...not a night club...it is a place for worship...

If that is so, are you equally angry with the Middle Eastern fighters that hide there ?

 

[Moses]

Well, war is bad thing, it's sooooo bad.
Still, there is a good and bad sides in the war fight "which it is bad and sometimes both are bad [sometimes both are good...]

On of the things in war which makes it bad is killing/destroying some people/things which is not justified in peace situation.

Yes, If a holy place is used as a fighting fortress, the best of the worst outcome is to attck it instead of beign killed there if this is the absolute last resort [The human life is more important than a worshipping place..and here we are protecting one's life by killing it's killer]

Middle Eastern fighters [BTW the term is not accurate to describe them..] are in the weak position in the war, they are the weak team in terms of weapons, strategies conrtol, and numbers, so i can "swallow" this action from them [it is totally different topic if i agree with what they fight for or not]

But i cannot swallow the situation of killing an injured man in a mosque...after that mosque "stop" being a fighting place [Yeah, our soldiers entered it, as they entered Iraq before, and achieve "victory" and thus "war finished" in that mosque]

 

[Gonzolo]

I don't think soldiers distinguish between which mosque is a fighting place and which isn't. When they decided to take control of Fallujah, all mosques became mere buildings among others to there eyes. And there is not much pity in war, neither for religion, places of warship, or for the "weak team". If the insurgents can choose when a mosque "becomes" a fighting place, so can the soldiers. Besides, I would believe that in order to take control of the city, every resident would be ordered to stay home. Mosques are excellent places for insurgents to regroup and organize themselves in that they are large, central, enclosed areas.

So I think that whether it was inside a mosque or not is irrelevant. Whether the soldier was justified for killing the guy at all, (and whether the US should've gone to Iraq in the first place) is an other matter.

 

[Moses]

Well, a worshipinig IS a difference the AIM will never justidy the MEANS to reach it, since the means are part of the aim sine they are the tools to reach it...

Whipping out people in this way in a plces where God is worhsipped EVEN a wrong religion is practising there [By NO MEANS I am stating here that Islam is wrong, i deeply respect that religion and love it] is a CRIME, if the Iraqis did it to the Americans churches here it will be baad, too baad!

By twisting language i can say: YEAH YEAH YEAH. Al-Qaeda was right in destroiyng the Twin Towers, since they are used to control the Global Economy...and the American Have some war actions starting from there to fight some countriesand nations [or help fighitng..like U.S support for Israel against Palestinians] So yes, it is OK, since this is WAR LAWS,

Totally...[fill in the blanks] argument,

I konw Gonzolo you were not doing that, but i think still that a peaceful place like house should be respected in the war, as well as a mosque...and killing there is worse [will add too much to the huge evil of unjustified killing...wherever place it happened]

 

[Gonzolo]

Do you really imagine an American soldier saying: "Woah! Hold your fire, they went in a mosque! Let's just camp here and starve them out! We only have to take control of the office buildings after all, and we're not in a hurry anyway."

 

[Moses]

YES! and i am saying it AGAIN :...YES! They have to hold fire if people from insdie hold fire...

If the war is moral...you shoudl always give your enemy the chance for surrender and stop fighting ...since fighitn is not "cool", simply.

Holr you fire, yes, they HAVE to. But if the resistance fighters start fire from inside, now it is justified that they HAVE to go inside...

The aim will not justify the tools we use to reach it...and the ways we use to reach it...

If you disagree with the last two lines i wrote, simply you agree that Al-Qaeda terrorist attack was "justified" since killing innocent people here was in the "justice war" process...

From the begginning, we should NOT, be in their land, we went to fight for a lie, and our poor soldiers spents their blood their in a war that WE, and WE are the worst team in it [still, there is a bunch of other bat teams there]

 

[loseyourname]

Well, a worshipinig IS a difference the AIM will never justidy the MEANS to reach it, since the means are part of the aim sine they are the tools to reach it...

Whipping out people in this way in a plces where God is worhsipped EVEN a wrong religion is practising there [By NO MEANS I am stating here that Islam is wrong, i deeply respect that religion and love it] is a CRIME, if the Iraqis did it to the Americans churches here it will be baad, too baad!

By twisting language i can say: YEAH YEAH YEAH. Al-Qaeda was right in destroiyng the Twin Towers, since they are used to control the Global Economy...and the American Have some war actions starting from there to fight some countriesand nations [or help fighitng..like U.S support for Israel against Palestinians] So yes, it is OK, since this is WAR LAWS,

Totally...[fill in the blanks] argument,

I konw Gonzolo you were not doing that, but i think still that a peaceful place like house should be respected in the war, as well as a mosque...and killing there is worse [will add too much to the huge evil of unjustified killing...wherever place it happened]

This is exactly why the insurgents hide out in and fight from mosques. Because they know that myopic Muslims will blame the US soldiers who are forced to fire at these mosques.

Tell me what you would do, Moses, if you came upon a man who appeared to be faking death, when you had already encountered booby-trapped bodies and just yesterday had been shot in the face by a man faking death. I'd like to know how any of you would react.

 

[Moses]

Loseyourname, i totally agree with you that they should be careful..and really careful [refering to soldiers] so that they will not be killed...

But..the argument hold here is really close to these arguments:

Kill this kid who is walking by, he COULD be carrying a bomb...
Kill this old old...he has the potential to be a fighter against us...
KILL THAT injured guy...since he COULD be trying to attack you...

Loseyourname...i can think crazily that your are trying to hack up my computer...and you join PF to gather Info about me..to make your mession suceed..It totally wrong to take that in tis way...

Yes, we should not be ignoring totally the small chances, specially at war...but if you know that this guy is injured..and having no harm..no way to kill him is justifed..

This situation i can expand it, since thousands of Iraqis in Fallujah and elsewhere were killed by our planes.."suspecting" that htier houses "could" have resistance fighters...we should be more careful...we are fighitng humans...not sheeps..even sheeps has animal rights..if i m not wrong

 

[Gonzolo]

YES! and i am saying it AGAIN :...YES! They have to hold fire if people from insdie hold fire...

If the war is moral...you shoudl always give your enemy the chance for surrender and stop fighting ...since fighitn is not "cool", simply.

Holr you fire, yes, they HAVE to. But if the resistance fighters start fire from inside, now it is justified that they HAVE to go inside...

The aim will not justify the tools we use to reach it...and the ways we use to reach it...

If you disagree with the last two lines i wrote, simply you agree that Al-Qaeda terrorist attack was "justified" since killing innocent people here was in the "justice war" process...

From the begginning, we should NOT, be in their land, we went to fight for a lie, and our poor soldiers spents their blood their in a war that WE, and WE are the worst team in it [still, there is a bunch of other bat teams there]

So the people inside decide when the fight starts and when it stops? How can this not be biased? Do you believe a US soldier would be safe if he entered a mosque to surrender? What would happen next? Being in their place, I would "probably" not try it.

If the war is moral?? Note that unlike the people in the mosque, the people inside the WTC were unnarmed, unprepared, unsuspecting, innocent, and in peace time. Would you say it was moral to slay them? Do you say a terrorist act, which nearly always against innocent, random people is moral? I have seen nothing moral from the insurgent side. Booby-trapped bodies, faking injuries, shooting from a place of worship, faking surrenders, beheading civilians (including a CARE worker), and supporting suicide bomber families financially are not moral acts as far as I am concerned (the Bush side also has a share of immoral acts to, but this thread is about the mosque location). Insurgents have made themselves a history of faking surrender in this war, which has ruined their credibility. Unfortunately for the "honest" ones, soldiers cannot risk their lives by guessing who is really surrendering and who is faking, and about to explode.

But location alone is not a sign of surrender. A mosque might work if all combattants from boths sides were all Muslim, but American soldiers probably don't learn such exeptions in soldier school.

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, i totally agree with you that they should be careful..and really careful [refering to soldiers] so that they will not be killed...

But..the argument hold here is really close to these arguments:

Kill this kid who is walking by, he COULD be carrying a bomb...
Kill this old old...he has the potential to be a fighter against us...
KILL THAT injured guy...since he COULD be trying to attack you...

Hey, I'm not saying he did the right thing, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge when we really have no idea what went on outside of the ten seconds we've seen on a grainy video with crappy sound.

Yes, we should not be ignoring totally the small chances, specially at war...but if you know that this guy is injured..and having no harm..no way to kill him is justifed..

That is correct, and I'm sure any soldier would agree with you. As it stands, I highly doubt that the marine in question knew the man to pose no threat. If that was the case, then heck, why would he have shot him? It seems like some people act like US forces are just running around shooting at everyone because it's fun. This isn't a game, and I don't see any reason to believe that the US forces are treating it as such. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a side in this war that is intentionally and indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians, and it is not the US. The endless criticism of the US by some people, the same people who make every excuse for the actions of the insurgents, baffles me. It is clear that it can only come from either bias or blind hatred, not any logical thought process.

This situation i can expand it, since thousands of Iraqis in Fallujah and elsewhere were killed by our planes.."suspecting" that htier houses "could" have resistance fighters...we should be more careful...we are fighitng humans...not sheeps..even sheeps has animal rights..if i m not wrong

I could be wrong, but I think rights are only granted to animals that are pets. Anyway, that's off-topic.

As far as the killing of civilians in Fallujah, I don't know the death-toll, and I would be highly wary of anybody telling you that an inordinate amount of innocent people were killed by US jets targeting the wrong places. I'm sure that a good amount of civilian deaths did occur, but you have to consider several things. First, several weeks notice was given that the city would be attacked, something that coalition forces did not have to do. Second, whose fault is this? Clearly, coalition forces had to take the city back if Iraq is ever to have any hope for peace. It is illegal and immoral for the insurgents to be basing their operations in civilians buildings in the middle of a large city, knowing that it would eventually be attacked and that civilian deaths would result. Air raids are conducted prior to invasions in part because if they were not, then fighting would be that much more vicious and drawn-out, possibly resulting in even more death.

I still contend that there is one force acting to end this war and minimize casualties, successfully or not, and there is another force working to ensure that Iraq does not see peace and that innocent people continue to die. Consider this, and decide very carefully which force your support should be behind. I don't advocate blind support. By all means, if it is found that this marine did commit a war-crime, then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Still, the bottom-line of the conflict at this point is that which I stated above.

Would you prefer to see the fighting stopped, the kidnappings ended, the destruction minimized, and free, peaceful elections take place and a new regime begin, or would you rather see a continuance of guerilla warfare ad infinitum?

 

[Moses]

Well, since we are the stronger team in the war in terms of weapons and soldiers, we HAVE to take into consideration that the first aim there is to reqiar our mistake now, not killing more of them.

Gonzolo, why biased? So the our army decide, and even if they resign or stop we will kick their head until we are sure there is no one lliving life in the city, this is not cool. We came to city, not they came to us...

I DID NEVER EVER SAY THE WTC IS MORAL?? I am eating crap to say that!
I am just saying: The Losers who did it did it for a cuase..and their cuase by no means justify what they did, SAME as our aim in Iraq will not justify our immoral actions there...

You know loseyourname, that the figthers has a point, yes they had, i read some newspapers in the middle east [ i lived thee for many years..so i learned there language..] that the fighter points is: The enemy will not by our judge men. They steal our oil, invade our land, will we trust them again in outting their agents into power?

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

This is their mian point. Yes it sucks so badly how both teams are doing lost of immoral acts...but i still saying, if we our being there is not justified there, it is all our fault in the first place, and the fighters share us part of it, but we still have the major part.

Going out of the city? Well, in 1948, Israelis destroy 300 arabs valleges in order to show their power, they were entering other cities with this record in the next war days to force peole to leave [since they show there army can do crimes, and do not care] people has hard choice here, but not leaving is the most bravest choice...to rock the other sides plans downs..still leaving is understandable. In Iraq the history repeat its self, but this time we claim we are having more accurate weapons, still w are in an immoral war...

 

[BobG]

That is correct, and I'm sure any soldier would agree with you. As it stands, I highly doubt that the marine in question knew the man to pose no threat.

I agree. If you listen as well as watch, the Marine was very hyped up by the environment and either did believe the Iraqi posed a threat ("He's faking he's dead", etc.) or else it was a premeditated acting job done because he knew the camera was on.

Overreacting to a stressful situation? Possibly. But definitely not a war crime or murder. Not in a battle environment. And definitely not when placed in the context of the Marine's experience in that battle ( a wounded Iraqi with a grenade had killed some Marines, the Marine in question shot just the day before).

 

[Gonzolo]

I think it all comes down to whether the guy in the mosque was completely innocent (unjustified killing), faking (justified), or surrenderring, which in my opinion means that he has to prove that he is compliant to any order. Being inside a place of worship doesn't seem sufficient in my opinion (especially not in wartime) to prove surrender. Not being able to filter the enemy from the friend in wartime will cause unfortunate incidents. If the soldier's answer comes up, it'll be interesting to hear.

 

[Moses]

Well, for me by the ned of the day..God knows eaxctly what happened and he will judge that soldier in the judgemant day..yeah i hope he is not guilty..but also i am very that about that human, that enemy..that Iraqi fighter who killed unjustified...

Gonzolo, place has a significance...can some body make a horse entering insider a chruch and then urinate there? I think no, so place has a significance...

One point i want to to reach here i got its proof now from your speeches, most of you:

Our Army is not allowing a fiar media coverage...we just know from the army...The ABC of any court is listening from both sides before judging. If one side somplains that the other injuried one of his eyes, listen to the second, because it could be that th first injuried both of the second eyes...

Does any of you think that i am feeling happy when i am sleaking about how our army is doing their in an unjustified war? I am feeling sad..so deeply, hoping that no difficult challenges will face our soldiers that much, even i know my hope is fo far to be happened in reality

 

[Andy]

Im not saying that the fallen soldiers don't deserve a burial, but the Allied forces are on the attack so do you think that they have time to drop their guard and bury the dead?

 

[Gonzolo]

Gonzolo, place has a significance...can some body make a horse entering insider a chruch and then urinate there? I think no, so place has a significance...

It's not a place for a weapon either, yet insurgents did apparently bring in weapons. Did you also notice that the soldier had his boots on? Why do you think he didn't take them off before going inside? You are really having a hard time putting yourself in a soldier's mind.

 

[Moses]

Simply no, i am having a hard time..and i will not say that you are having a hard time getting my point.
Well, i can simply reply in a general scale that our army till now destory 20 mosques there, i doubt if they where our churches they will do so...
I can say they mentality is WHO CARES, if its a mosque or not, we killed a guys there injuried which is a big issue, are you now talking about the samll issue which is the boot? [Who did the big...dont care about the small]

We start the thread talking about 3 issues, and we narrowed to one...simply they can send the red cross to take the dead bodies and heal the "ENEMY" who stopped fighting...instead of making them rotting in da streets, cats and dogs are eating them! are we proud that even the emeny bodies will be in the animals stomachs?

And a big surprise...the mosques from inside are an empty place, ITS TOTLALLY STUPID if any soldier entered there before they make sure that they killed every one there or make it really injured...they made sure to rock down the people inside by huge amoiunt of destruction they did to the mosuque,

some our soldiers sleep and their boots are on, so? I am not making fun of you or something, but we are in war 24/7 since many months there...still not justified what we did by the name of war...

 

[loseyourname]

that the fighter points is: The enemy will not by our judge men. They steal our oil, invade our land, will we trust them again in outting their agents into power?

So why weren't these insurgents up in arms when Saddam invaded Kuwait and tried to steal their oil? I can guarantee that Iraqi citizens (outside of ex-Baathists) will benefit far more from the presence of oil once a peaceful regime is in place than they ever did under Saddam.

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

They leaned what? Japan and Germany became first-world industrial powers because of US assistance after WWII. God forbid that an Arab nation should actually offer the promise of prosperity to all of its citizens.

This is their mian point. Yes it sucks so badly how both teams are doing lost of immoral acts...but i still saying, if we our being there is not justified there, it is all our fault in the first place, and the fighters share us part of it, but we still have the major part.

I don't buy into that. Even if I grant that the US went in without just cause, that doesn't justify breaking every international law on the books and terrorizing an entire nation just to make a point. The sooner they stop, the sooner the US is gone.

 

[BobG]

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

Wrong? Or am I just missing the point you're trying to make? What lessons could they have possibly learned from Japan and Germany that are relevant to the current situation in Iraq?

They leaned what? Japan and Germany became first-world industrial powers because of US assistance after WWII. God forbid that an Arab nation should actually offer the promise of prosperity to all of its citizens.

Not exactly accurate. Japan and Germany were first-world industrial powers before WWII, as well. But, yes, the Marshall Plan did allow both countries, as well as other European countries that sustained losses during the war, to return to their pre-war status much quicker. If the people you're giving money to already know what to do with it, the investment pays off pretty quickly.

The US benefited almost as much as Europe. A close relationship created business ties that helped both sides of the ocean.

Contrast that to Argentina who got squeezed out by a close US-Europe relationship. Even without war damages, they dropped from first-world industrial power to third world status just because they became an outsider instead of a part of one those relationships.

In the long run, it was the mutual close relationship with the US that benefited Europe - not the money. In other words, if process that liberates Iraq destroys the possibility of any sort of US-Middle East relationship, then neither side really gains very much (except maybe Europe - by not getting involved until the dust settles, they might wind up with a closer relationship with the Middle East than the US has).

 

[loseyourname]

Not exactly accurate.

It's plenty accurate, just not complete.

In the long run, it was the mutual close relationship with the US that benefited Europe - not the money. In other words, if process that liberates Iraq destroys the possibility of any sort of US-Middle East relationship, then neither side really gains very much (except maybe Europe - by not getting involved until the dust settles, they might wind up with a closer relationship with the Middle East than the US has).

Well, building a strong post-war relationship with the new Iraqi regime is part of the idea. If the Iraqis don't want prosperity, then they won't get it. Before UN sanctions, Iraq was also a first-world industrial power, and there is no reason to think they can't reattain that status, this time without the brutal dictatorship. If I remember correctly, they were in the top five in the size of their economy before the first gulf war.

 

[Gonzolo]

Simply no, i am having a hard time..and i will not say that you are having a hard time getting my point.
Well, i can simply reply in a general scale that our army till now destory 20 mosques there, i doubt if they where our churches they will do so...
I can say they mentality is WHO CARES, if its a mosque or not, we killed a guys there injuried which is a big issue, are you now talking about the samll issue which is the boot? [Who did the big...dont care about the small]

We start the thread talking about 3 issues, and we narrowed to one...simply they can send the red cross to take the dead bodies and heal the "ENEMY" who stopped fighting...instead of making them rotting in da streets, cats and dogs are eating them! are we proud that even the emeny bodies will be in the animals stomachs?

And a big surprise...the mosques from inside are an empty place, ITS TOTLALLY STUPID if any soldier entered there before they make sure that they killed every one there or make it really injured...they made sure to rock down the people inside by huge amoiunt of destruction they did to the mosuque,

some our soldiers sleep and their boots are on, so? I am not making fun of you or something, but we are in war 24/7 since many months there...still not justified what we did by the name of war...

I don't feel like you're making fun of me at all, don't worry. Hopefully, I am not either. (BTW, I am having a hard time seeing your point!).

I don't think anyone is proud of leaving unburied bodies, or killing inside a place of worship. It is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that securing the city is the utmost, single priority. Time spent burying is time not spent on guard. Places of worship have been destroyed in many wars (Stalingrad, Jerusalem, Hiroshima). Just like war is on 24/7 (no break for Ramada or Christmas etc.), it is (was?) on in all of Fallujah (no break in special places). It may suck, but it's normal in wartime, unfortunately. IMO, wartime decisions are based on security and safety, more than religion. Maybe some people value religion more than safety and vice-versa.

 

[Gonzolo]

Relevant news update (abc, Peter Jennings etc.) : weapons were found in 60 out of 100 mosques in Fallujah.

 

[Dark]

Im Iraqi... Ok you say weapons were found. Maybe that's for protection..hmmm... i meen have you been to Iraw, not as a soldier. I have last summer... There is no real police force their... ofcopurse youw ill carry a weapon for safty... its like saying will u carry a weapon while u at the zoo.. damnright i will those zebras might esacpe.. hahah

 

[SOS2008]

Right or wrong, true or false, perception is everything in winning the hearts and minds of people:

...Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]...This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets...

I'm sure the spin doctors are at work here and there, and a way to stop it is to have an exit strategy from the can of worms that the Middle East is (and I use that in a metaphorical, not derogatory way).

 

[Pengwuino]

Well,
Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]...This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets...

You obviously have no idea what actually went on in Iraq under saddam. Just because Peter Jennings didnt report it on a day to day basis doesn't mean the world was all peachy there. And hey, go talk to any WW2 vet and ask them what they think about people not being burried. You don't bury the dead until the battles over lest you want more of your soldiers to get shot.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When a man picks up a weopon and fights in a war he should expect that he will likely die. The fact that he was injured and hiding out in a mosque does not change this. If I believed unwaveringly in the rightousness of fighting my enemy I would fight until I was no longer capable, and if I reached that point alive I would think my enemies foolish to spare me because I would only continue to fight and sabatoge them when capable of doing so. This all ofcourse only if I truly believed in my cause otherwise I would not have picked up the weopon in the first place. In my opinion anyone who picks up a weopon to go to war should consider this before hand so if anyone is killed in this fashion it should not be a suprise.
And Moses, regardless of whether or not it was right to go into begin with it is now done. We are not continuing a war or invasion at this point only assuring that Iraq is secure to run it's elections for it's government so we can leave. The insurgents, currently, are the ones picking the fights. So if you're going to blame anyone for the continuation of violence shouldn't it be the insurgents?