Iraqis screwing with people as always...

Did anybody hear about the civillians that were ambushed recently? Their burning corpses were hauled out of their vehicles, and paraded around the town while Iraqis chanted idiotic things about their sham religion and other non sensical bull crap.
The bodies were then hung from a bridge, to the delight of many Iraqi people.
This comes from the Americans not being hard enough, every Iraqi we killed should have had it's head cut off, boiled in tar, and then displayed on a pike. Just like the british used to do. We'd be sending the message, "this i what happens to those who oppose us" Whereas the Iraqi people are currently sending the message "This is what happens to people we don't know, for absolutely no reason, but we sure are happy about it" :icon16:

IRAQIS screwing with us like always? is that what you said?
we are in there country. we are screwing with them.
they didn't ask for us to be there. they dont like us.
if you have a goddamn problem with what is going on why dont you register and vote for john kerry.
bush is an ass. i would never go to war under him.

I was writing this tongue in cheek, in satire of the U.S. screwing with people as always thread. So don't think I honestly believe Iraq is always screwing with people.
As for the point you made - SO WHAT? There are plenty of Americans who don't like Mexicans, and don't want them to be here - but do you see them blowing up their cars, then dragging their charred bodies around and chanting pro-USA crap? No!
Of course many Iraqis don't want us there, it's understandable. But if you think that it makes it allright for them to just start killing people for no reason, then you're the one who's wrong.
If somebody comes to your house uninvited, does that give you the right to kill them, and then hang their corpse from your roof? No, I didn't think so.

Silly mcdrunky, you must be drunk/stoned/retarded/brain-damaged-from-liberalism again! Come back when you're sober and can speak coherently, then you'll make more sense!

2stroke, whether you're being sarcastic or not, this is the way those people are. They just don't care about life. I'd say they're about on par with how the rest of the world was in the dark ages, 'who cares about this life, it's all about the after life and what we have to do while we live to get there'.

I've always said that one thing the air force could do to help is get rid of all the pig-shit that our pig farms over here in the US produce by dumping out of planes over cities in whatever arab country we're attacking....right before we bomb them. They DO have a religious aversion to anything of the swine persuasion, so a little pig shit would go a long way to hitting them where it hurts, in the religion.

Have our soldiers dip all their ammunition in pigs blood, oil their rifles with pig-fat laced oil... etc. That would probably discourage some of the fundamentalists from dying for 'allah' since 'allah' would reject them for having anything to do with pork. (at least I think he would, if not it's still nice and degrading.) Make dying for their religion pointless, and they'll stop the suicide bombing.

I wonder about it's validity as a historical piece, but is this your idea?
~~~~~~~~
GENERAL JOHN JOSEPH "BLACK JACK" PERSHING

General "Black Jack" Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, MS. he died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, DC
Highlights of his life include:
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brig. General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty Education West Point.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their byproducts. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

I can’t even begin to express how horrendous those actions are. Its not enough that the people were killed but to have their bodies desecrated like that is lower then if they were performing necrophilia.

Anyone who gets any type of pleasure seeing this happen to these people should immediately swallow a gallon of anti-freeze. :angryfire













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I wonder about it's validity as a historical piece, but is this your idea?
~~~~~~~~
GENERAL JOHN JOSEPH "BLACK JACK" PERSHING

General "Black Jack" Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, MS. he died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, DC
Highlights of his life include:
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brig. General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty Education West Point.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their byproducts. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

WHOAH! Now THAT would be how to deal with the bastards! Too bad CNN and any other news source would be on a general who did that like flies on shit, and the muslims know it, that's why they know they can get away with doing crazy shit like this.

Silly mcdrunky, you must be drunk/stoned/retarded/brain-damaged-from-liberalism again! Come back when you're sober and can speak coherently, then you'll make more sense!

2stroke, whether you're being sarcastic or not, this is the way those people are. They just don't care about life. I'd say they're about on par with how the rest of the world was in the dark ages, 'who cares about this life, it's all about the after life and what we have to do while we live to get there'.

I've always said that one thing the air force could do to help is get rid of all the pig-shit that our pig farms over here in the US produce by dumping out of planes over cities in whatever arab country we're attacking....right before we bomb them. They DO have a religious aversion to anything of the swine persuasion, so a little pig shit would go a long way to hitting them where it hurts, in the religion.

Have our soldiers dip all their ammunition in pigs blood, oil their rifles with pig-fat laced oil... etc. That would probably discourage some of the fundamentalists from dying for 'allah' since 'allah' would reject them for having anything to do with pork. (at least I think he would, if not it's still nice and degrading.) Make dying for their religion pointless, and they'll stop the suicide bombing.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Repellent :disappoin

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Repellent :disappoin

and you wonder why they keep up with what they do... 'the poor helpless little murderous suicide bombers! Lets coddle them and tell them we're sorry for not being islamic, then maybe they'll stop bombing us!' Riiiight....

Your opinion on that is just as repellent to me, letting them get away with what they do is no better than killing them in return.

This is just like Somalia, 93. Let me guess, it's a good thing the Americans are there to sort the dirty muslim sand niggers out and turn them into respectable people? :rolleyes:

I see racism is still alive and well in some minds.

If you think this act was heinous, compare it with the bombing of the civilian Amiriyah Bomb Shelter under Bush Snr during desert storm.

At least 400 women and children were incinerated, boiled and steamed to death when 2 smart bombs pierced into the basement where water tanks and gas cylinders were stored for cooking food.

Ever since that Feb 14th 1991, people in the area will not use any of the 35 bomb shelters when US bombs are falling.

5 down, at least 395 to go. Payback is a bitch ain't it?

[sarcasm mode on] But hey, they deserve it, right? [/sarcasm mode off]

Unfortunately his ignorant and repulsive views are widespread.

If only there were enough intelligent/informed people to offset this :(

I see racism is still alive and well in some minds.

If you think this act was heinous, compare it with the bombing of the civilian Amiriyah Bomb Shelter under Bush Snr during desert storm.

Here's the difference, once they were dead, we didn't drag their bodies around, and chant "Christians are the greatest, America rules!" You see the difference here? :disappoin

I know what you mean. It's ok to kill em as long as you dont chant about it later. What do you think is feeding this hate anyway?

Hate is fueled by stupidity, ignorance, and missunderstanding (you see, all those things go hand in hand with eachother)
And no I don't believe killing people is right, but the big difference is that the Americans weren't braggin "Hey we killed some innocent people that we didn't know, isn't that just the greatest!" "Score for America!"

Amongst other things, hate is also fuelled by hostility.

and you wonder why they keep up with what they do... 'the poor helpless little murderous suicide bombers! Lets coddle them and tell them we're sorry for not being islamic, then maybe they'll stop bombing us!' Riiiight....

Your opinion on that is just as repellent to me, letting them get away with what they do is no better than killing them in return.
What you advocate is like fighting fire with fire. The only way the fire goes out is when there is nothing left to burn. Nothing left to burn = genocide.

There was a British military officer who remarked on the Arabs following world war one. He said there were two ways to rule them, either with religion or with brutality.

I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, and I think it's all too common in the US right now.

I don't think that's very common sentiment here.

I don't think that's very common sentiment here.

I've heard it, or a very similar sentiment, more than a few times... That to me, makes it all too common.

Yeah, well you're all too common. :)
I seriously doubt most Americans think that way, since so many are still caught up in the Saddam is an evil madman dictator propaganda.
It seems to me that most of the people that want a hardline dictator ruling them, are the Iraqi people.

I wish we (U.S.) weren't there at all, I wish we would just withdraw, but they've gone too far, and I don't see them stopping this anytime soon. When you're killing peace workers and dragging their bodies through the street, you've gotten out of hand to say the least. I don't agree we should be in Iraq, but I don't think that killing civilians and our soldiers alike is a good solution. Whoever said Iraq was stuck in the middle ages is absolutely right, they only respond to violence, sadly. I know I'll get flamed for that statement, but it's true. This isn't the first time we've been there, if they could deal with negotiating then we wouldn't have been there. Our troops have supposedly withdrawn from Fallujah and are gathering forces for some kind of attack/movement, and it's not a second too soon. Things have gotten out of hand.

I wish we (U.S.) weren't there at all, I wish we would just withdraw.....
See, you do have something in common
...but they've gone too far, and I don't see them stopping this anytime soon....
You even see things the same way - but from opposite sides.
.....When you're killing peace workers and dragging their bodies through the street, you've gotten out of hand to say the least.
They were security contractors - which is a euphemism for mercenaries. For mine, the images of the tortured corpses purported to be Uday and Qusay was just as "out of hand".
Whoever said Iraq was stuck in the middle ages is absolutely right, they only respond to violence, sadly. I know I'll get flamed for that statement, but it's true.
Yeah, right - and they hate freedom too huh :rolleyes:

Yes, they respond to violence, and their response is indicative of the violence inflicted upon them. If someone was part of a group that bombed, degraded and killed my family, home and civilisation - you can bet that I would respond as soon as they came within my reach.

I hear one of the liberators hanging from the bridge finally got his flowers from the Iraqi people.
This isn't the first time we've been there, if they could deal with negotiating then we wouldn't have been there.
You're kidding right?
THEY wouldn't negotiate?
Negotiate with what?
Non-existent WMD?
Non-existent links with Al-Qaeda?
[sarcasm mode on]
Oh that's right - their one bargaining chip - trading oil in Euros vs US$. How dare they challenge the hegemoney of the US$! - lets bomb the shit out of them and poison the land sea and air with depleted uranium. That'll learn 'em!!
[/sarcasm mode off]
Our troops have supposedly withdrawn from Fallujah and are gathering forces for some kind of attack/movement, and it's not a second too soon. Things have gotten out of hand.
[sarcasm mode on]
It's absolutely not true that they have withdrawn for their own safety. It's absolutely not true that they have lost control of the city.
It's absolutely not true that any offensive will consist of long range weapons deployed from a safe impersonal distance where we don't have to see the mangled bodies of the children.
It's absolutely not true that the resistence is made up of the general population rather than Saddam loyalists who hate freedom and want Saddam back in power.
[/sarcasm mode off]

Alright, you made some good points, I didn't know those were "mercenaries" killed, my bad. We didn't drag Uday and Qusay through the streets, and I wouldn't say that we tortured them either. We had to show footage, what do you think would've made them believe? Hell, look how long they were told we weren't even in the country? I agree, Iraq did not have any WMD's, or if they did, got rid of them before we showed up, problem is, if they just let inspectors in right off the bat instead of restricting their access and delaying, we wouldn't have been suspicious in the first place. And I didn't say we withdrew from Fallujah for our own safety entirely, we're regrouping, supposedly we'll be attacking someone or some group soon, if our soldiers are being killed there, then safety is a part of it. I believe Saddam did have links with Al Qaeda, and while I can't find any articles or remember any I found to back that up, I'm curious as to what you have to back up the notion that he had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. When I say "things are out of hand" don't make it sound like I'm talking about some, "crazy Iraqi's" it's the situation that is out of hand, I don't believe we need to be there, and I don't know what Iraqi's should do to get us out, but I can guarantee you attacking soldiers is not going to do anything but cause us to retaliate in return. Yes, we started this, yes, we should get the hell out, but neither side can sit there and play innocent. Both sides are suffering losses, and nobody seems to know what the hell the point is.

...We didn't drag Uday and Qusay through the streets, and I wouldn't say that we tortured them either. We had to show footage, what do you think would've made them believe?
While many might consider this aconspiracy theory, you will find enough in this link to raise doubt as to the identity and cause of death of those two corpses: http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/hussein.html

I agree, Iraq did not have any WMD's, or if they did, got rid of them before we showed up, problem is, if they just let inspectors in right off the bat instead of restricting their access and delaying, we wouldn't have been suspicious in the first place.Prior to the invasion, unrestricted access was given. The report presented by Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors unequivocally stated that there were no WMD.

So where did the so called intel that there were WMD come from?
Most came through "The Office of Special Plans": http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/kwiatkowski.html
Some came from a CIA assett known as the "Iraqi National Congress". These guys were Iraqis who had fled Iraq and were based in London and financed by the CIA. Their leader was Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon wanted on 22 counts of embezzlement and fraud in several countries for many years. Chalabi just so happens to be the leading light in the present US appointed Interim Governing Council operating under the control of Paul Bremers Coalition Provisional Authority.

And I didn't say we withdrew from Fallujah for our own safety entirely.
No you didn't, and neither did I (well not in so many words :cwm27: )

....we're regrouping, supposedly we'll be attacking someone or some group soon, if our soldiers are being killed there, then safety is a part of it.
Attacking who? Do you know who the enemy is?
And if your soldiers aren't there, wouldn't that be safer all round?

I believe Saddam did have links with Al Qaeda, and while I can't find any articles or remember any I found to back that up, I'm curious as to what you have to back up the notion that he had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.
Saddam was a secular dictator with a secular government. He did not tolerate radicals and indeed viewed them as a threat.

Where you may have got the idea that there were links with Al-Qaeda might have something to do with certain politicians using 911 and Iraq or terrorist and Iraq or Al Qaeda and Iraq in the same paragraph or even sentence. It's called subliminal suggestion.

If that doesn't do it for you, then read this: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

...When I say "things are out of hand" don't make it sound like I'm talking about some, "crazy Iraqi's" it's the situation that is out of hand, I don't believe we need to be there, and I don't know what Iraqi's should do to get us out, but I can guarantee you attacking soldiers is not going to do anything but cause us to retaliate in return. Yes, we started this, yes, we should get the hell out, but neither side can sit there and play innocent. Both sides are suffering losses, and nobody seems to know what the hell the point is.

Kinda sounds like Vietnam doesn't it?
...and it's...
1,2,3 what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn
next stop - Vietnam.........................

Look no further than Standard Oil and it's subsidiaries, defence contractors, the hegemoney of the US$, control of the worlds energy reserves, and the preservation of Israel.

Oh, and maybe liberation for Arabs if we can fit it in.

I wish we (U.S.) weren't there at all, I wish we would just withdraw, but they've gone too far, and I don't see them stopping this anytime soon. When you're killing peace workers and dragging their bodies through the street, you've gotten out of hand to say the least. I don't agree we should be in Iraq, but I don't think that killing civilians and our soldiers alike is a good solution.

I don't think we should've gone there in the first place, but we're there, and I believe we should be there until we've cleaned up what we destroyed. It seems though, that the Iraqi people don't want us to help them - so what to do? Should we say "screw you, clean up your own damn country" or should we finish up anyway?
These people are violent. I agree. To believe otherwise would be rather foolish. Look at any other country that has been ruled by violent leaders for a long time, and you'll see that alot of people in those countries(but not all) are very violent, just look at Colombia, or Guatemala. For most of the people in these countries, you really don't want to get on their bad side... You might have a mob after you shouting for your hanging.
However, I think once the Iraqis take control of their country again, that this violence will rapidly fade (hopefully)

I don't think we should've gone there in the first place, but we're there, and I believe we should be there until we've cleaned up what we destroyed. It seems though, that the Iraqi people don't want us to help them - so what to do? Should we say "screw you, clean up your own damn country" or should we finish up anyway?
A very large portion of the reconstruction budget is being spent on security. It's bleeding the US dry and reduces the amount left for actual reconstruction. Meanwhile, taxpayer money is being funnelled into the likes of Bechtel, Kellog Brown Root, Halliburton etc. There is an alarming growth in the business of private security contractors (mercenaries) in Iraq with reports of ex-special forces personnel earning up to 600 British pounds per day. Something else being kept out of the media is the construction of PERMANENT US military bases in Iraq. Expect these to be staffed with forces transferred from the US bases in Europe.

When midnight raids on residential homes by coalition troops and degrading treatment of those raided is occuring , along with men being detained for months without notification to their families of what happened to them- it only serves to make things worse.

The security situation is unlikely to change unless the coalition either vastly increases it's presence and improves it's treatment of the general population, or leaves. Witness the size of the IDF forces in occupied Palestine and the prevailing conditions there. It's assymetric warfare tactics that are being used by the resistance and there just aren't enough coalition troops there to win it decisively.

I think that the quickest practical solution is to heed the calls from Sistani (the respected Shia leader) for direct elections as soon as humanly possible. The coalition can be thankful that Sistani has so far managed to restrain the Shia - shows how much respect his people have for him.

My suggestion is that the first thing to do is clean house in the US. Take the liars and decievers and make examples of them. Iraqis can distinguish between corrupt leaders and ordinary people as well as anyone.

Next, negotiate with the Iraqis on who would constitute an acceptable peacekeeping force. The UN is the logical flag for this force but there is still some distrust of the institution. The upside is that once security is under multi-lateral control, I predict that troops and reconstruction money will flow in from the other countries who opposed the war.

These people are violent. I agree. To believe otherwise would be rather foolish. Look at any other country that has been ruled by violent leaders for a long time, and you'll see that alot of people in those countries(but not all) are very violent, just look at Colombia, or Guatemala. For most of the people in these countries, you really don't want to get on their bad side... You might have a mob after you shouting for your hanging.
The latin American situation has many similarities with the situation in the Middle East. Same motives, same players, but more underhanded tactics.

However, I think once the Iraqis take control of their country again, that this violence will rapidly fade (hopefully)
I agree, however the Iraqis must believe that they are actually in control and that their government is not a US puppet. They will not accept the authority of the US appointed IGC as a legitimate government upon handover. At best, they may tolerate the IGC for a period to see how things are shaping up for a truly elected goverment.

At this point the Shia will rule by sheer numbers. The Sunnis might just go along with it if the Shias behave well. But the Kurds will want to retain control of the North. I think that this would be ok with the Shia and Sunni as it was with Saddam. The fly in the ointment is Turkey, the last thing they want is a Kurdish state.

However, as long as the US and it's coalition partners maintain a presence in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East, the Wahabists will fight them.

Very well put, T4 Primera!

If there is to be democracy in Iraq, the inevitable leader will be the spiritual/religious leader of the shiite muslims, who at this point is the Ayatollah Sistani. He's been waiting the US out, he knows they can't afford to stay in Iraq forever. He hasn't been cooperating, he hasn't been resisting, he knows that he can afford to wait, and that the US can't.

If the US leaves, Sistani is sure to take power, either through democratic means, or by sheer popular support, and military power. They might as well just appoint him as dictator now, and try to have good relations with the new theocratic Iraq.

Something else being kept out of the media is the construction of PERMANENT US military bases in Iraq. Expect these to be staffed with forces transferred from the US bases in Europe.


Can you back this claim up?

Can you back this claim up?

Nobody has admitted it officially - yet. It was officially denied back in April last year - interpret the meaning of that as you wish. Be patient, it won't be long.

Here's one to get you started:
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/57998.php

It fits the profile:
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1181

Do a google on "US permanent military bases Iraq" and judge for yourself.

Of course, to make this all legal, an agreement has to be reached with an Iraqi government, hence the interim constitution and handpicked IGC in place when the planned handover takes place. Direct elections as insisted upon by Sistani, or UN control of the handover would have obstructed this agreement - usually termed a "Statement of Forces".

If and when Iraq becomes truly democratic, why should they honour any agreements made with the CPA (Bremer) selected IGC (Chalabi)? And why should they feel bound by a constitution that was forced upon them?

Quick Quiz Question:
What does the company "Kellog Brown Root" specialise in?

I find it funny when muslims come to our country and kill us like 9/11. People will do anything nowadays to get there pointout. Praise ALLAH!
I mean why does everyone think that america is the best country to be in? How do you think it got that way, we scare every country into believing that so when one country opposes us we attack them. I hope they do more damage next time then just blowing up 2 buildings...

America is the worst country to live in i wish i was in iraq to fight the us...

W33ZY

Good call on the banning. What a maroon.

Yeah, guys like that need to be deported. I'll bet he wouldn't make it a month before he'd be begging to come home, we have it pretty easy here.

Agreed. There are things wrong in this country but the good thing is we have the ability to change them.

If some of you don't know, the reason why the Arab nations have a grudge against American and British governments is because of their history. If I'm not mistaken there were 8 crusades led by British forces on these lands, the things that were done to the people were horrible. But alas they were stopped and the Arab people have not forgotten how they were mistreated

Edit* It's not so much the countries they don't like, it's the religion