ShockV1.89 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/iraqgenocide/Genocide2.html (do not click on it if a little bit of violence and harsh language offends you) Now, I believe that it's websites and publications like this one that foster so much anti-americanism in the world. Read through this, and see if you can pick up on this guys slightly twisted report of what happened in Iraq. See it? What do you think of this article? I'll post my opinion later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoguePhotonic Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well what do people expect?...the occupation of a country is a violent thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Now, I believe that it's websites and publications like this one that foster so much anti-americanism in the world. shock mate, the problem isnt that people are anti-american. The problem is that your current administration is arrogant and stupid. Pre-bush, there was not that much that people could complain about (except kyoto), but bush is acting like a playground bully and the rest of the world wont stand for it. Everything about bush and the things he does is antagonising teh rest of the world. We see it butit seems the american public is blind to it. Couple of months ago there was a TV show about why america is hated these days and there were polls taken from a number of countries, 75% of the world regards bush as a greater threat to world peace than Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. heres a link to a site with the show available for download (big file) its very interesting. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/2997248.stm I aint anti-american, i'm anti right-wing. american people are great, but face it your government is a joke. a scary joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 You know what? It is a joke right now. But that's no reason to label the entire country and government and military as "arrogant satanic baby killing demons" as that fool did in his essay, as well as placing a huge, rather uneducated twist on events unfolding in Iraq. It's this twist that I cant stand. Read this quote from the section in which he describes the events concerning the van that didnt stop at the checkpoint a few days after the truck bombs hit. Only one or two of the soldiers were horrified and remorseful when they saw all the butchered, bloodied children. Ryan Dupre [the gunner] and the rest of the U.S. Army filth simply sneered at their mangled victims. Now come on now... I'm sorry, these are not demons from hell. These are human beings, many no older than me (21). They have morals. Perhaps a few sneered and were truly evil. This exists everywhere. But the entire US military? No... Similar twists and exaggerations on the facts appeared elsewhere in this essay. It's this twist that I have a huge problem with. It doesnt bother me that people dont agree with my governments actions. I dont agree with many of them myself! But people from other countries read this filth and get this view of the American military as "demonic, baby killing monsters who laugh as they slaughter children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 The american military is not to blame in the slightest, after all they are doing a job that the government sent them to do and as should be expected they are doing it. And like you say they are just american people underneath the camo and american people are great folk. The miltary cannot be held accountable for the decisions of a bad government. You guys really need the democrats back in power unlikely as it may be. The republicans seem to go around blowing everyone up and the democrats come back and fix the economy and the international relations. Clinton was the best thing to happen to the states in years, shame he cant have a 3rd 4th or 5th term. I see it like this:- before bush seized power the u.s was the leader of the free world and now the government over there is "DICTATING" over the free world. It really does not feel like he wants to work WITH us rather than command us. btw that article is baised bullsh!t even me a borderline communist can see that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Discounting 95% of the text. I think the site provides a good service to those who want to see the real Iraqi war. I believe they are correct in saying it is treated as a video game. Because thats what the military want you to believe. The US bombed the aljazeera offices in a residential area of Baghdad, just as they did with Afghanistan. They don't want the truth to get out about the war. So in that respect, I think the website is good for people who want to see pictures of the real war, what is really going on. The miltary cannot be held accountable for the decisions of a bad government. Wasn't it the US president who told the Iraqis not to use chemicals even if ordered? I don't think this really applies in this war, since it seems a bit of a hipocracy. Similar twists and exaggerations on the facts appeared elsewhere in this essay. Be careful what you call facts. You are really only relying on what you have been told as well. Likewise, it is only their take on their facts ie what they have been told. I hope you don't rely only on the mainstream media, I would say to watch Aljazeera as well. Despite what has been said I believe them to be neutral to the war on Iraq. However, their offices were bombed, so their capacity to tell you what is going on is very diminished. All I can say is how convenient? It was in a residential area to. Here are some websites to look at. Aljazeera accused of running 'shock and awe' campaign Aljazeera Office Hit NYSE boots Aljazeera NBC Fires Journalist for Giving Interview with Iraqi TV Pro-US Arabic-language news network to be launched in Middle East Extremely good link. Was given to Australian Senators. Is a PDF file Media under fire : reporting conflict in Iraq PS: Obligalitory Disclaimer: I'm not anti-american, I have done research into this matter and have taken what I believe an objective view. What I found was that the US military and government as well as to an extent the western mainstream [commercial] media largely controlled what we were and are allowed to see from the war in Iraq. Thus, this is what limits our opinions to the facts [what we believe happened] in Iraq. Whoever, was their to show an alternative view or opinion was either bombed (Aljazeera) or sacked (Peter Arnett, Politzer prize winning journalist from the Vietnam war). What happened to Aljazeera and Peter Arnett are facts and both were labelled as anti-american. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 there was something else i wanted to mention. GREED. what more can i say? It is blatantly obvious that while the american government was "elected"? to serve the interests of the american people the rest of the world is affected just as much by the u.s government as the american people are. As long as the government goes around riding roughshod over any nation that does not conform to the american ideal and leeching the wealth of the rest of the world there will always be anti-amercian feeling. I for one dont want a right wing government that i have no power to influence having control over the world i live in. With every passing day they are pushing us closer and closer to an East vs West war of epic proportions. come on america you got rid of Nixon who was a fool, open your eyes and see what bush is doing to your country, he may be doing what can be seen as being right for america, however he is damaging global relations to the nth degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Count Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 There was never so much anti American feelings# until Bush became president, I mean who wants to support an obnoxious moron, however I will admit too many ignorant people are mindlessly jumping on the anti Bush bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 You know what? It is a joke right now. But that's no reason to label the entire country and government and military as "arrogant satanic baby killing demons" as that fool did in his essay, as well as placing a huge, rather uneducated twist on events unfolding in Iraq. Well, after reading these posts, there is nothing I can add. What I would have said would be "the government sucks, and I do not like right-wing capitalism (I am a liberal socialist), but the people Rule." With a capital R. USA in a nutshell. My biggest issue with the states is that it is slightly ignorant when it comes to geography (11% of US adults could not find the USA on a map ). However, they (by far) make up for that with their diversity. Yes, they have a racist past, but name one country that is not racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Though it is needless to say so, the person who made that page is an idiot. His rhetoric is as bad as his web design. Demonic babykillers? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<JOTD>Jedi Hunter Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I think the war was needed. Clinton was just too afraid to do it. Bush stood up and acted like a man. Took that bastard out of power. Though I don't agree with why he did it (oil of course). I do like that the people of Irag are free from him. As is the rest of this world. Anti amercanism doesn't matter to most of us americans. Because we love our country, and that is all that matters. If any of you non americans lived here, you'd love it too. We're powerful, we have powerful allies. We are virtually unstopable. But, do we conquer other countries? No, we aided Iraq, as we did the rest of you. Could you imagine if they launched one of their missles at Australia or England or Italy? I couldn't. I grow enraged at the thought. Keep that in mind before you bash us. We protected you as much as we did us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter Anti amercanism doesn't matter to most of us americans. Because we love our country, and that is all that matters. You sound like you don't get out much. By 'out' I mean the country of course. As one who occasionally travels overseas, I can tell you that anti-American sentiments affect me a great deal. And as one with many non-American friends, I'd say the same. Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter We're powerful, we have powerful allies. We are virtually unstopable. But, do we conquer other countries? No, we aided Iraq, as we did the rest of you. Small difference between aided and conquer. While I'd like to agree with you, and do to an extent, I also understand that the rest of the world might not have reason to. Bombing the sh*t out of their infrastructure, destroying their military ability, killing several thousand civilians in the process.... I'd say they're about as conquered as they can be. Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter Could you imagine if they launched one of their missles at Australia or England or Italy? I couldn't. I grow enraged at the thought. Keep that in mind before you bash us. We protected you as much as we did us. And this is evidence of how well the Bush administration's propaganda machine works. The intent of the admin was to convince your average citizen, who was more than willing to remain ignorant of such things, that Iraq posed a threat. It did not. Iraq was not in the least bit capable of launching a missile at anyone beyond its own borders. There was no nuclear capability. There was no delivery capability of chemical or biological weapons. There seems to be no evidence of any WMDs in the country. The sad truth is that through the power-hungry advances of the Bush Administration, we've squandered all of the good will that we had directed toward us from nearly every country in the world after 9/11. We basically told the UN to **ck off. As we've been doing for 30 years. It isn't hard to see why there are anti-American sentiments when we allow our government to engage in terrorist activities that we condemn the rest of the world for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<JOTD>Jedi Hunter Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Though I truely respect your views on the matter. You provided very interesting points. I do not like being called ignorent. The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay. I remain glad he is not in power. For my own reasons. Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay. oh my... try telling that to the orphans in Iraq, the parents who have lost children, the brothers & sisters that are now alone, the children who have lost limbs, those that have no home due to allied bombings, need i go on? All this in the name of plundering the IRAQI's natural resources. bush and Blair should stand trial for what they have done. They simply did Hussein's work for him... Seriously bush is literally waving a red flag at a bull by throwing down the gauntlet to the terrorists. With the American economy in its current state it would only take one large scale mainland u.s terrorist strike to utterly destroy the u.s economy. Frankly if i got the opportunity i would assasinate bush, and i aint kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter I do not like being called ignorent. ... Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive. I used the word "ignorant" in its actual definition, not its colloquial one. Ignorant: Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened. The colloquial definition is "ignorant = stupid," which, ironically, is an ignorant definition. If the "average citizen" were to be left ignorant uninformed of the issues, it would be easier for a government to have its way with the populace. If you truly find the word or description of "ignorant" offensive, you need only to educate yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<JOTD>Jedi Hunter Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 My mistake, I thought you were taking a shot at me. Sorry about that. You know you're very interesting. I really enjoy reading your opinions. So many valid points with many facts to back them up. Upon rereading your statement, I think my views have changed a bit. You make valid points. Anti Americanism is a problem. And we need to fix this. The war on Iraq I still believe was wrong. But I remain pleased that he's out of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by <JOTD>Jedi Hunter The civilian loss in the war is tragic, but that is the price you pay. I remain glad he is not in power. For my own reasons. Which I will not state here, because someone might take it upon themselves to call me ignorent. Which I find highly offensive. eccept for the fact you said it was for oil;, i couldnt agree with you more. loss of life happens in war, but if we hadnt done that so many more than who were casualties of war woulda died because of saddam. my evaluation-not ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler eccept for the fact you said it was for oil;, i couldnt agree with you more. loss of life happens in war, but if we hadnt done that so many more than who were casualties of war woulda died because of saddam. my evaluation-not ignorant. I guess you've been brushing off your magicness on me, because I'm agreeing with everything your saying today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 America invaded Iraq with no absolute just cause. Simple as that. I live in america but I really dispise our government leaders. Especially congress and Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 If the "average citizen" were to be left ignorant uninformed of the issues, it would be easier for a government to have its way with the populace. Thats exactly what I found in my research. Since the US government and military largely controls what comes out of Iraq, they can choose what you are told and get to see. Thus, peoples opinions are based on this data which is largely skewed. This is in contrast to Vietnam where you were able to see the results of what happened. Especially on the Allied side. Anyone who didn't conform to the governments view would just be labelled anti-american. Aljazeera was bombed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Taking Aljazeera out of the picture would mean you have a lot more control over what people see and hear. In a way, the governments want us to be ignorant. A pulitzer prize winning journalist was also sacked and labelled anti-american. Both in the early 1990's Gulf conflict and the most recent. We must also remember it is very easy to balk at civilian casualties. But if it happened to one of us, I'm sure revenge of the government/country who did it would come to mind. We mustn't view others with a superiority complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 try telling that to the orphans in Iraq, the parents who have lost children, the brothers & sisters that are now alone, the children who have lost limbs, those that have no home due to allied bombings, need i go on? I find this very untouching This was WAR broth, not some charity game. People die their, sometimes good sometimes bad, but not the one who lost more civilians is considered a loser. Stop judging everything by the number, stop judging at all. U.S never blamed civilians of Iraq for attack of september, never did a normal Iraqi cevilian blamed U.S. for striking for no reason. Civilians die always and everywhere, but there is only one criterion we can use to consider such things, an international right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 Ok how would you take it if a foreign country invaded your homeland and killed your family? would you turn around and say oh well sh!t happens and after all its war? I didnt think so... If you think its ok to kill civilians then thats your look out, I on the other hand have morals and a conscience. For the record i think you will find that there are plenty of Iraqis that are extremely angry with the west for this war and for killing their citizens. besides what has broth (soup) got do do with anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 For the record i think you will find that there are plenty of Iraqis that are extremely angry with the west for this war and for killing their citizens. I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing. Ok how would you take it if a foreign country invaded your homeland and killed your family? would you turn around and say oh well sh!t happens and after all its war? I didnt think so... Revenge is one thing. I would probably revenge, and then I'll go to jail. But really to resolve the conflict no emotions can help If you think its ok to kill civilians then thats your look out, I on the other hand have morals and a conscience. I didn't say it's OK, I say it's inevitable. But my compassion towartds families of these people doesn't mean a thing. As does not mean HOW many innocent people dyed in the war, but that the war took place and war means victims. A solely civilian dying in a war would be the same tragedy as if thousands dyed. Trying to compare such things in numbers isn't moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 ok one by one now:- I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing. Assuming you mean september 11th, It is widely known that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it, in case you hadnt noticed it was Al Qaeda which are primarily Saudi Arabian in origin. So why the comparison? no logic there. If people are hating Iraq because of the the two towers then that shows how ignorant and misguided they are. Revenge is one thing. I would probably revenge, and then I'll go to jail. But really to resolve the conflict no emotions can help So you agree then. I didn't say it's OK, I say it's inevitable. But my compassion towartds families of these people doesn't mean a thing. As does not mean HOW many innocent people dyed in the war, but that the war took place and war means victims. A solely civilian dying in a war would be the same tragedy as if thousands dyed. Trying to compare such things in numbers isn't moral. Again we agree, The comparison of a single death compared to thousands is pointless. The fact that even one person died to allegedly save these people from Hussein is just as digusting as if a thousand or a million died, hence the war is wrong. bush and Blair must answer for their crimes against humanity as should Hussein. We are led to believe that bush and Blair are christians, what do you think god's take on the situation would be? Going by the letter of the bible they will burn in hell without doubt. The undeniable truth is that they are responsible for killing civillians just as saddam has done, whether it was with the intent of doing good or not is by the by, the fact remains they killed INNOCENT civilians and should be held accountable. The bible renounces violence at every level, christ himself turned the other cheek after all. i hate to have to repeat myself, but collateral damage is a concept invented by those that simply have no regard for sanctity of human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I think you'll find quite a lot americans (especially those who lived the september or families of those who didn't) who hate Iraqis. Or you can find a lot europeans doing the same thing. September 11th shouldn't even be a part of the equation when talking about the War on Iraq. Iraq had zero to do with it. Unfortunately, however, 9/11 gets cited time and again when proponants of the invasion attempt to justify their feelings. This, I suppose is natural... we want an enemy we can take our revenge out on... Bin Laden is well-hidden and the terrorists directly responsible died in the attacks. But that doesn't change that 9/11 is not part of the equation... we keep putting it there and the math is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.