Do Barbaric Peoples Really Deserve Freedom?

[Davros]

After the disastrous Russian occupation of Afghanistan, are we truly surprised by what is happening in Iraq. Sure this event touches new lows of barbarism, but I'm not amazed, and I don't see why anyone else should be. This sort of suicidal and murderous resistance should have been factored into any entrance and exit strategy. That things are going so poorly tells me that we didn't learn our lesson from Russia.

Iraq will continue to take a terrible toll on marines, foriegn civilians, and it's own nationals that "collaborate". It will happen up to any handover of power, and it will continue after that handover of power. Let's not make any pretence that just because some guy in the White House said the war is over that this war is really over.

What's the answer - I don't think there is one. The coalition has achieved it's goal on the Sadman, but we wuz always gunna stir up a pot full of hate.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: No, the rules of war were codified more than 3,000 years ago and the rule that those who did not bear arms against you could not be slain was strictly adhered to - until secular rulers like Saddam appeared on the scene in modern history. In the main, when a christian city fell, not only were the inhabitants spared - but they were even allowed to continue worshiping in their churches. Christian crusaders did the opposite - putting everyone to the sword and desecrating mosques. That's the problem with being unwilling to stand in the other guys shoes. You rarely get an accurate picture or understanding of the situation - or indeed the history.

ROTHFLMAO
I guess that the actions of Attila, Genghis Khan, Rome agianst Carthinage(sp?), Assyrians conquering the 10 northen tribes of Israel and carting ALL the people off, Babylonian conquest of Judea and empting the entire country of people, The crusades, the Otthaman empires march through Greece and the Balklins didn't happen during the last 3000 years. "Hale" I could go on for pages and pages.

Now what was that about understanding history?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: No, the rules of war were codified more than 3,000 years ago and the rule that those who did not bear arms against you could not be slain was strictly adhered to - until secular rulers like Saddam appeared on the scene in modern history. In the main, when a christian city fell, not only were the inhabitants spared - but they were even allowed to continue worshiping in their churches. Christian crusaders did the opposite - putting everyone to the sword and desecrating mosques. That's the problem with being unwilling to stand in the other guys shoes. You rarely get an accurate picture or understanding of the situation - or indeed the history.

ROTHFLMAO
I guess that the actions of Attila, Genghis Khan, Rome agianst Carthinage(sp?), Assyrians conquering the 10 northen tribes of Israel and carting ALL the people off, Babylonian conquest of Judea and empting the entire country of people, The crusades, the Otthaman empires march through Greece and the Balklins didn't happen during the last 3000 years. "Hale" I could go on for pages and pages.

Now what was that about understanding history? [/QUOTE]You've not only proved my point, you've also demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea which civilisations followed which religion!

"Hale" I think it would be best if you didn't go on for pages and pages

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: No, the rules of war were codified more than 3,000 years ago and the rule that those who did not bear arms against you could not be slain was strictly adhered to - until secular rulers like Saddam appeared on the scene in modern history. In the main, when a christian city fell, not only were the inhabitants spared - but they were even allowed to continue worshiping in their churches. Christian crusaders did the opposite - putting everyone to the sword and desecrating mosques. That's the problem with being unwilling to stand in the other guys shoes. You rarely get an accurate picture or understanding of the situation - or indeed the history.

ROTHFLMAO
I guess that the actions of Attila, Genghis Khan, Rome agianst Carthinage(sp?), Assyrians conquering the 10 northen tribes of Israel and carting ALL the people off, Babylonian conquest of Judea and empting the entire country of people, The crusades, the Otthaman empires march through Greece and the Balklins didn't happen during the last 3000 years. "Hale" I could go on for pages and pages.

Now what was that about understanding history? [/QUOTE]You've not only proved my point, you've also demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea which civilisations followed which religion!

"Hale" I think it would be best if you didn't go on for pages and pages [/QUOTE]That's your problem Skunk you're stuck in the religious aspect as if that is the only one that mattered. Please show me where this is a discussion of which religions go to which civilization? and I'll show you where this is a discussion of Barbarism and acts that make one a barbarian by somebody's standards.

Now on a personal note if you want to get into a piss'n contest, bring it on
I believe you'll find you added to the discusion (part quoted by me in my post) about the rules of war were Codified 3,000 years ago. then went off mentioning alittle about the crusades. OH yeah your quote was a direct reply to my statement:
After all this is the Cradle of Civilization the wonderful area of this dust ball we call home, where the policy was to UTTERLY destroy your enemy that resisted you. To kill every man, woman, child, even kill their livstock and pets, if they did not submit.

JDH sings to self:Where, oh where is the religion part? Where, oh where could it be? With it's bannedness from the IW board! Where, Oh where is the religion part? Where, Oh where could it be.

Oh yeah you might want to check out that the vast majority of rulers in the ancient world where considered to rule by divine right, either they were considered gods ie: Pharohs, Hittite kings, Sumarian Kings, Ceasers etc. or dicret desendants of the gods. The only notable exception was the Hebrew Kings which were rulers against the will of their divine being.

[john]

There were barbaric things done by both sides in most wars.In Vietnam both sides were guilty of horrible mutilations,when you come upon a friend whos been sliced up and mutilated it does things to you ! And you lose part of your humanity.We were guilty of such things as were the VC in that war.In WW2 the Japanese were well known for such atrocities,and I'm sure going back to the American Indian wars both sides were .War brings out the worst of man and it will never change.Look what even talking about it here on this forum does to us!!There is nothing good about any war and never will be...I may not be as eloquint a writer as most on this board are but talking is definitly better than fighting .Peace, love ,Woodstock!!

[Timber Loftis]

John, the distinction I make is between acts of the military and acts by the population at large. And, in such a discussion, I would exclude Vietnam, because the population there faced a tough decision -- i.e. rat out the VC to the American troops turning your town upside down today, only to face execution and burning of the town by the V.C. tomorrow, and vice versa. Iraqis don't face that dilemma.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Skunk: It's the result of the process of dehumanisation. When you are used to seeing dead and burnt bodies of friends and loved ones; when your cities have crumbled under the weight of bombs, when there is no work and no food on the table, when bandits rule the night and foreign troops are controlling the little that's left of your lives during the day, it's not inconceivable that the part of humanity that should be appalled by such acts has also been burnt out. This is a classic example of what temporary insanity looks like - and its our frankenstein.

oh, yeah, It's USA's fault huh? yeh... keep telling yourself that.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think the fallujah thing last year was addressed here, but I can't be bothered to search out the posts. I totally object to using US action as an excuse for killing -- BARBARICALLY -- civilians who are trying to do the right thing and rebuild the country so it can be handed over to the Iraqis.

I agree with you Timber. I will never think of Skunk the same way after reading that post, Skunk. Sorry, it's just a cop-out.

[ 04-02-2004, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ...because the population there faced a tough decision -- i.e. rat out the VC to the American troops turning your town upside down today, only to face execution and burning of the town by the V.C. tomorrow, and vice versa. Iraqis don't face that dilemma.

Poppycock I say. We shall probably never know exactly how many Iraqis were killed for collaborating with the occupying forces and the government they installed. Iraqis do face that same dilemma and some have paid the final irrevocable price for their cooperation.

[Chewbacca]

Link


Iraqis who hate U.S. ashamed at desecration

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- As the rage cooled in Fallujah yesterday and the burned and beaten bodies of four American civilians were wrapped in white cloth, many townspeople said they were torn between pride in the attack and shame over the mutilations.

Many said they supported the killing of four security consultants -- three identified by family and friends as Jerko "Jerry" Zovko, 32, Michael Teague, 38, and Scott Helvenston, 38 -- because they were Americans and Americans are despised.

But some of those same people said they felt embarrassed when mobs tore the bodies apart afterward and dragged them through the streets, turning this town in the heart of the Sunni Triangle into a symbol not only of resistance but of barbarity.

Iraqi television crews caught the end of the mayhem.

The images beamed worldwide were reminiscent of scenes from Somalia in 1993, when a mob dragged the body of an American soldier through the streets of Mogadishu.

"This is a bad advertisement for everything we stand for," said Muhammad Khalifa, a spare parts trader who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "We may hate Americans. We may hate them with all our hearts. But all men are creatures of God."

In the morning, a team of U.S. officials rushed to a meeting with Fallujah's mayor and top clerics. U.S. officials said the clerics promised to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, at Friday Prayer to condemn the ambush and the grisly aftermath.

One of the gravest sins in Islam is desecrating the dead.

Meanwhile, military commanders acknowledged that the violence on Wednesday would make it more difficult for them to stick to their low-key approach.

We were going to roll in there all quiet like the fog," said Col. J.C. Coleman, chief of staff for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. "Now these people are invigorated. They're all stirred up. They've gotten worldwide press. It makes our job harder."

The Marines took over control of the Fallujah area from the Army just last week and announced a shift away from aggressive tactics. They wanted to win friends by doling out $540 million in reconstruction projects. Now, commanders say, they will have to root out the insurgents.

In Washington, administration officials said the attacks in Fallujah could hamper the entire reconstruction effort by making it harder to persuade Spain and other countries to keep troops in Iraq or to convince allies like India and Pakistan to send forces.

"This raises the difficulty level for everything, including our ability to reach a political solution to the governance of Iraq," an official said.

Fallujah has been one of the most difficult spots to occupy in Iraq, a place where support for Saddam Hussein runs strong. Saddam built a powerful network here, handing out choice jobs and privileges to tribal elders and powerful sheiks. At a traffic circle downtown, there are still signs that read, "Viva Saddam!" and "Long live Fallujah, the cemetery for invaders."

Sometimes, it seems like the American overseers have few friends. But yesterday, a group of clerics and policemen helped American authorities recover the bodies of the four security consultants.

After the four were shot, they were yanked from burning vehicles by a jeering mob and dragged to a bridge over the Euphrates River where at least two of the bodies were strung up by a rope and dangled over the water.

Neither U.S. forces nor the Iraqi police responded to the chaos. More than 4,000 Marines are stationed near Fallujah, about 35 miles west of Baghdad. Marine commanders yesterday defended their decision not to intervene.

"Should we have sent in a tank so we could have gotten, with all due respect, four dead bodies back?" said Col. Michael Walker, a civil affairs commander. "What good would that have done? A mob is a mob. All we would have done was provoke them."

An Iraqi policeman said he and his colleagues were united about what to do when the violence started. "We had to stay away," Muhammad al-Esawi said. "What happened was between Americans and insurgents. If we got involved, we would have been killed. Who's going to take care of my kids then?"

Yesterday, the violence continued. An Iraqi employed by the Marines was shot in the neck as he was leaving work. He was in critical condition last night.

Also yesterday, a Marine Humvee was attacked -- twice. First it was disabled by a roadside bomb, which wounded three Marines. Then, after the Marines abandoned the vehicle, a crowd set it on fire in a scene reminiscent of the blazing vehicles on Wednesday. A roadside bomb killed five soldiers Wednesday.

U.S. troops have pulled back to the outskirts of the city. Residents said they had not seen Marines in town for days.

American military commanders, though, said they were not retreating from Fallujah, a city of low houses punctuated by the minarets of Sunni Muslim mosques.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a series of meetings at the Pentagon with his top advisers, including the commander in the Persian Gulf, Gen. John Abizaid, to discuss Iraq and how to deal with Fallujah. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, also attended the meetings.

A senior military official said that U.S. forces in Iraq were already planning an "appropriate response" to the grisly killings and overall violence in Fallujah.

"We're not getting panicky over this," the senior official said.

In Iraq, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for the occupation forces, said, "We will respond. It's going to be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."

He added, "We will pacify Fallujah."