Muslim People in Australia (3 Viewers)

[tempco]

1) I can't really see Americans, as evil as they apparently are, really deciding to just bust into a mosque and blow people away for kicks.

They aren't people. I've seen documentaries and interviews of American soldiers in Iraq... To some of them, it's a big video game. This article touches on the subject. Innocent people are being killed indiscriminantly. The earlier people realise this, the better.

 

[ogmzergrush]

They aren't people. I've seen documentaries and interviews of American soldiers in Iraq... To some of them, it's a big video game. This article touches on the subject. Innocent people are being killed indiscriminantly. The earlier people realise this, the better.

You've linked me to a page about troops protesting the war, in an attempt to convince me that they're killing machines with no regard for human life? I really have to wonder at your choice in sources at moments like this :/

 

[tempco]

You've linked me to a page about troops protesting the war, in an attempt to convince me that they're killing machines with no regard for human life? I really have to wonder at your choice in sources at moments like this :/

I'm not trying to convince you that all US soldiers kill indiscriminantly. If that were the case, there'd be no Iraq left.

And why do soldiers who've served in Iraq (but who are protesting against the war) lose all credibility?

2) I can't imagine that all these people really were just hanging out there to pray, though of course some probably were it seems peculiar that about one in five of them just happened to be from a radical militia.

That's what people do in mosques (the praying part).

 

[Nietzsche]

and i'm sure no one thought that a country started by settlements of exported convicts would work

???

Nice argument...

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'm not trying to convince you that all US soldiers kill indiscriminantly. If that were the case, there'd be no Iraq left.

It seems odd that I raised the point that the soldiers in question were being disciplined, and obviously had issues, and didn't reflect the overall deployment in Iraq, and you responded by suggesting that this was just the way some troops were. Essentially you've agreed that it's an exception to the rule by saying that "Some troops treat it like a game", but you've stated that in a manner which suggests argument to my point.

And why do soldiers who've served in Iraq (but who are protesting against the war) lose all credibility?

They don't lose credibility, my point was that their protesting AGAINST the war did not support the suggestion that they did not value the life of the Iraqi people.

That's what people do in mosques (the praying part).

So let's just stop talking about mosques for once, catholic priests should get away with sodomising little boys inside a church right, because church is for prayer, not anal? Even if you've got reports that little kids are being molested in the church, it shouldn't be acted upon, because well, it's for prayer, not doing anything wrong, and it's totally inconceivable that someone might use this assumption to their advantage.

Personally, if I was a member of a radical militia intending to cause as much trouble as I could, mosques would be exactly the sort of place I'd hang out, because then, in the event that anything happened to me, I'd be able to instantly win the support of everyone who assumed that I was in a mosque obviously because I was a devout follower and that I was slaughtered on the spot by the evil americans, despite a total (apparent) lack of wrongdoing on my part.

Seems to me that intelligence would not have pointed troops towards a mosque being used only for prayer. If the americans intended to destroy every mosque they came across, there would have been many more instances such as this by now, as there has been no lack of opportunity. My reading of the situation is that some individuals within the mosque were picked out by intelligence, somehow leading troops to the mosque in the process (Despite the fact that not all people there had done anything wrong), and that what followed was a mixed result, with both innocents and the radicals being killed. Of course, the killing is excessive, but I don't think it's as simple as a case of gung-ho americans soldiers deciding it was time to waste some mosque-goers.

 

[tempco]

It seems odd that I raised the point that the soldiers in question were being disciplined, and obviously had issues, and didn't reflect the overall deployment in Iraq, and you responded by suggesting that this was just the way some troops were. Essentially you've agreed that it's an exception to the rule by saying that "Some troops treat it like a game", but you've stated that in a manner which suggests argument to my point.

Well, I'm of the opinion that exceptions to the rule are more common than most people think.

They don't lose credibility, my point was that their protesting AGAINST the war did not support the suggestion that they did not value the life of the Iraqi people.

Becoming a peace activist, he says, has been a "cleansing" experience. "I'll never be normal again. I'll always have a sense of guilt." He tells us that he witnessed civilian Iraqis being killed indiscriminately. It would not be the most startling admission by the soldiers on the march.

...

"When IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] would go off by the side of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a lot." So innocent people were killed? "It happened, yes." (He says he did not carry out any such killings himself.)

...

What upset him the most about Iraq? "The total disregard for human life," he says, matter of factly. "I mean, you do what you do at the time because you feel like you need to. But then to watch it get kind of covered up, shoved under a rug ... 'Oh, that did not happen'."

What kind of abuses did he witness? "Well, I mean, I have seen innocent people being killed. IEDs go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you. You know, those people were out there trying to make a living, but on the other hand, you get hit by four or five of those IEDs and you get pretty tired of that, too."

Casey told us how, from the top down, there was little regard for the Iraqis, who were routinely called "hajjis", the Iraq equivalent of "gook". "They basically jam into your head: 'This is hajji! This is hajji!' You totally take the human being out of it and make them into a video game."

It was a way of dehumanising the Iraqis? "I mean, yeah - if you start looking at them as humans, and stuff like that, then how are you going to kill them?"

...

He says that soldiers who served in his area before his unit's arrival recommended them to keep spades on their vehicles so that if they killed innocent Iraqis, they could throw a spade off them to give the appearance that the dead Iraqi was digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

Seems to me that intelligence would not have pointed troops towards a mosque being used only for prayer. If the americans intended to destroy every mosque they came across, there would have been many more instances such as this by now, as there has been no lack of opportunity. My reading of the situation is that some individuals within the mosque were picked out by intelligence, somehow leading troops to the mosque in the process (Despite the fact that not all people there had done anything wrong), and that what followed was a mixed result, with both innocents and the radicals being killed. Of course, the killing is excessive, but I don't think it's as simple as a case of gung-ho americans soldiers deciding it was time to waste some mosque-goers.

And that's the point I'm getting to... it's unlikely that American soldiers killed all those people purely for kicks. However, they are more than willing to kill innocent civilians (and it seems like they don't take precautions to prevent civilians from being killed) if they're in the way. After all, they're just Hajjis.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Well, I'm of the opinion that exceptions to the rule are more common than most people think.

I'm not trying to convince you that all US soldiers kill indiscriminantly.

You're either playing word games with me or you're struggling to follow, I'm not sure which but it's making having a reasoned discussion with you somewhat challenging. Bearing in mind that the original point which has led to this line of discussion was:

1) I can't really see Americans, as evil as they apparently are, really deciding to just bust into a mosque and blow people away for kicks.

They aren't people. I've seen documentaries and interviews of American soldiers in Iraq... To some of them, it's a big video game. This article touches on the subject. Innocent people are being killed indiscriminantly. The earlier people realise this, the better.

Your stance here seems somewhat dynamic.

And that's the point I'm getting to... it's unlikely that American soldiers killed all those people purely for kicks. However, they are more than willing to kill innocent civilians (and it seems like they don't take precautions to prevent civilians from being killed) if they're in the way. After all, they're just Hajjis.

In order to prevent civilian casualties, people engaging in military action, for example, known radical militia members, should not chill with civilians. Yes it's unfortunate, yes the Americans could have handled it a lot better, no, the terrorist dickheads who were chilling in the mosque like they were invincible because they mix with civilians are not blameless.

One of the reasons civilian casualties in these situations are so high is the fact that the radicals are hiding amongst civilians. What do you propose the coalition does, let's any terrorist fuckhead who happens to have found a foster family go untouched?

Your Hajjis point does not make sense. This was a comment which the troops protesting AGAINST the war observed was made FROM people at the top of the command chain, ie. not the soldiers. The people responsible for this Hajjis type shit, are also the people currently in the process of court marshalling their own troops for killing said Hajjis. What exactly are you getting at here? As far as I can see you're telling me that american troops (Not all of them, but more than people think, as far as I can tell from what you've said) are inhumane because THEIR BOSSES call people hajjis, then the troops kill them (In some cases justifiably, in others not), then the troops who did the wrong thing get in shit over it, and oh yeah, at the same time other troops are at home protesting that they're BEING TOLD that all these people are all just Hajjis?

 

[sam04u]

ogmzergrush - & - Davin

So you support the invasion of iraq?
And you accept that this was done in the "best interest" of the Iraqis?

Also the U.S.A have a perfect government... right?
They had no interest in the Iraqi Oil... They were just trying to secure their safety by taking the Nuclear Weapons off Iraq!? Right?
No..No... i mean they Invaded to take Saddam out so the people could experience a Democratic government... Even though they didn't ask for it... we'll impose it on them... while killing them!? Right?

Also if they decide to vote who will lead their country... it must mean they have accepted democracy... While were at it we wont discuss the fact that many of the Geneva Codes on POW's have been violated.. and the loss of innocent life...(Hajjis)?
We'll just focus on the insurgency because the U.S.A aren't taking any oil according to davin; (The U.S are securing these contracts which means after Iraq is stabilised they have access to this Oil).

We'll Disregard the fact that it is their Oil... and they should be able to deal it however they like... We'll disregard the loss of human lives.. and their loss of profits...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Also... We won't remember anything else... like the U.S giving terrorists Money/Weaponry & Intelligence... Then generalising on these countries after these people have taken over them.

Re: Davin;

I really don't see what your point is. I never argued that terrorists are good....
I'm just arguing against the idiots like Katie who said; "We should judge all of Islam on the actions of these terrorists" as "These terrorists represent the wider muslim community".
Do you agree with those statements?
Regardless of whether they are being exploited I accept they what they're doing is wrong. But "their" intentions... not mine are not wrong. They don't beleive what they are doing is Wrong. They're fighting back... the best way they know how... you can't argue their intentions are wrong.
IT is the Americans who are ruining their country... whether it is directly or inversely. My point is.. Judging Islam on these people actions are wrong... as everyone should have a right to defend what they beleive in.

Muslims are against war, and people being killed.
Do you agree with that? If you look at figures.. of Crime/Rape/Murder and Many other things of the like... The Islamic figures will be significantly less... yet according to some... we are the barbaric ones?

However, I do contend that people who are Atheist aren't usually "violent" criminals... they probably fit into... lesser demographic... as statistically they are one of the more intelligent groups. Which still doesn't mean they are right.

So... to all those who wish to deviate the content of this thread... bare in mind that Islam is not a religion that advocates hate...
I just hope it doesn't sway in that direction again... (because statistically that is incorrect) it's just the media's hype... and all those who give in to it.. are apart of their system... lackeys in a system of millions of dollars... from governments and advertising....

 

[davin]

sam04u, i was opposed to the war initially because there were certain claims about why that i felt were inaccurate, but i am of the viewpoint that now that the coalition forces have gone in there, there is a responsibility to get iraq set up and help them until it is a stable gov't so iraq doesn't simply have another dictator or such rise to power
of course, i would wonder if you'd count it as "asking for democracy" when saddam killed thousands i believe back in the 90s after an attempt was made to remove him, if i recall that right.

They aren't people. I've seen documentaries and interviews of American soldiers in Iraq... To some of them, it's a big video game. This article touches on the subject. Innocent people are being killed indiscriminantly. The earlier people realise this, the better.

you're talking about a very small, although shameful, group of the coalition forces there, and you are trying to generalise. there are some that view this in ways they shouldn't, or have contempt for civilians there....but there are also many who feel otherwise, the people that are re-enlisting to go back to Iraq because they want to help the people there, for example. The attitudes of the soldiers there has never been something the media has cared about being particularly accurate about.
i do also agree with zergrush in that with insurgents hiding in the midst of the population, they're increasing the chances for innocent civilians being caught in cross fire and the like

 

[ogmzergrush]

ogmzergrush - & - Davin

So you support the invasion of iraq?

No.

And you accept that this was done in the "best interest" of the Iraqis?

No.

Also the U.S.A have a perfect government... right?

No.

They had no interest in the Iraqi Oil... They were just trying to secure their safety by taking the Nuclear Weapons off Iraq!? Right?

No.

No..No... i mean they Invaded to take Saddam out so the people could experience a Democratic government... Even though they didn't ask for it... we'll impose it on them... while killing them!? Right?

No.

Also if they decide to vote who will lead their country... it must mean they have accepted democracy... While were at it we wont discuss the fact that many of the Geneva Codes on POW's have been violated.. and the loss of innocent life...(Hajjis)?

Individuals involved in such actions are court-marshalled and this still represents a disturbing minority within the forces involved. Applying your logic, as I said earlier, it'd be reasonable to conclude that all Iraqis are terrorists, do you support that notion too? One sided generalisation is something to be avoided, it makes you look like a hypocrite and significantly lessens any credibility what you are saying may have had.

We'll just focus on the insurgency because the U.S.A aren't taking any oil according to davin; (The U.S are securing these contracts which means after Iraq is stabilised they have access to this Oil).

Is that even what anyone's talking about?

We'll Disregard the fact that it is their Oil... and they should be able to deal it however they like... We'll disregard the loss of human lives.. and their loss of profits...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Also... We won't remember anything else... like the U.S giving terrorists Money/Weaponry & Intelligence... Then generalising on these countries after these people have taken over them.

Seriously, go back and read what I've been talking about. You'll notice that I haven't supported the US administration at all, and in fact have been critical of it. I disagree with the invasion in the first place, but now they they're there and have caused so much instability there's really no alternative other than staying until it is resolved.

Perhaps if you read my posts, then responded accordingly, and saved the oh my god, america for oil, blood for oil, shit for someone who hasn't heard it a million times already, this would be a productive discussion.

The point I've been driving in my participation in this thread is that, despite the fact that there have been civilian deaths in an alarming quantity, the US are dealing with violent radicals and so on on a daily basis, and these people are not blameless in regard to the civilian deaths. While it's very easy to sit back and blame the American troops for everything, I think a rational evaluation of the situation would suggest that it does indeed take "Two to tango", and that if these morons didn't hole up in the middle of civilian towns and so on to shoot at troops, civilian casualties would be minimised. I don't see the sense in blaming America exclusively for this, as I'm sure it's not preferable for them either.

I at no stage (Within the last year plus at least), have made comments relating to support for the invasion, or indeed criticising it, but you'll find that back in the day when this hadn't been done to death, I did not agree with it and said as much. I have no idea why you've responded as such to me, but can only assume that it's because you're brimming with amazing new insight into the oil situation and felt the need to share. In future, please, don't.

 

[tempco]

You're either playing word games with me or you're struggling to follow, I'm not sure which but it's making having a reasoned discussion with you somewhat challenging. Bearing in mind that the original point which has led to this line of discussion was:

Your stance here seems somewhat dynamic.

My stance has been the same throughout - that some US soldiers are killing innocent civilians.

In order to prevent civilian casualties, people engaging in military action, for example, known radical militia members, should not chill with civilians. Yes it's unfortunate, yes the Americans could have handled it a lot better, no, the terrorist dickheads who were chilling in the mosque like they were invincible because they mix with civilians are not blameless.

One of the reasons civilian casualties in these situations are so high is the fact that the radicals are hiding amongst civilians. What do you propose the coalition does, let's any terrorist fuckhead who happens to have found a foster family go untouched?

And how are the civilans supposed to know who's a "radical militia member" or not? Iraq's on the brink of civil war, and many of these militia groups are the only ones protecting certain villages or towns from other militia groups. Some of these militia groups are Iraqis who want the US to get out of their country, and aren't any different from the civilians who were praying in the mosque. The Iraqi people aren't left with a choice anyway... either they find a means to fend for themselves, or risk being killed.

Your Hajjis point does not make sense. This was a comment which the troops protesting AGAINST the war observed was made FROM people at the top of the command chain, ie. not the soldiers. The people responsible for this Hajjis type shit, are also the people currently in the process of court marshalling their own troops for killing said Hajjis. What exactly are you getting at here? As far as I can see you're telling me that american troops (Not all of them, but more than people think, as far as I can tell from what you've said) are inhumane because THEIR BOSSES call people hajjis, then the troops kill them (In some cases justifiably, in others not), then the troops who did the wrong thing get in shit over it, and oh yeah, at the same time other troops are at home protesting that they're BEING TOLD that all these people are all just Hajjis?

What's the point of making the distinction between bosses and soldiers? It's the army, and what your commanding officer says goes. This doesn't absolve the guilt of the soldier for killing civilians. If they're being told that these people are just Hajjis, why isn't there outrage or complaints from within the US army? They're giving soldiers free passes to kill civilians, and there are people who will use them.

As for court marshalls, I'd like a link?

 

[ogmzergrush]

And how are the civilans supposed to know who's a "radical militia member" or not? Iraq's on the brink of civil war, and many of these militia groups are the only ones protecting certain villages or towns from other militia groups. Some of these militia groups are Iraqis who want the US to get out of their country, and aren't any different from the civilians who were praying in the mosque. The Iraqi people aren't left with a choice anyway... either they find a means to fend for themselves, or risk being killed.

I'm suggesting that perhaps the responsibility for the civilian deaths should be shared by the radicals who hide amongst them, not that civilians should be able to spot them and distance themselves. My point is simply that it's not rational to blame this entirely on US troops, however tempting it may be after you read the "OMG PEOPLE KILLED IN A MOSQUE" articles.

What's the point of making the distinction between bosses and soldiers?

Given that one is following orders and the other is giving them, does this even need an answer?

It's the army, and what your commanding officer says goes. This doesn't absolve the guilt of the soldier for killing civilians.

Hmn, I guess that must be why they're being investigated and disciplined accordingly, though this is getting off the point as nobody has specifically given orders to kill civilians so far as I can see, hence them getting in trouble when it happens.

If they're being told that these people are just Hajjis, why isn't there outrage or complaints from within the US army?

You mean outrage or complaint aside from the people protesting about it after returning home, in the article that YOU linked, right? Or do you expect them to drop their guns in the middle of Iraq, say fuck you to the military and ask for a ride home, landing in the shit for failing to perform their duty?

They're giving soldiers free passes to kill civilians, and there are people who will use them.

If there are people there who are going to kill civilians, they're going to do it regardless of what they're told from above. Also, it's not much of a free pass if they land in the shit for it.

As for court marshalls, I'd like a link?

Maybe you could have a look at the fucking site you linked!?

Last week, the U.S. military announced that a dozen Marines are under investigation for possible war crimes in the Nov. 19 incident, which left at least 23 Iraqis dead in addition to the Marine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101293.html

I know the title is attention grabbing and makes for a really good support of your "Americans are killing machines" point, but you actually need to read the entire thing... Presumably if these individuals are found to have been in the wrong, further steps will be taken. You may also be interested in this. Seems to me that there is a fair bit of disciplinary action going on there. Pretty weird when they're being told to just go massacre everyone don't think? More importantly, why are there British people in the shit over it too, I thought americans were the bad guys here? Further to that, why are there still so many civilians alive in Iraq? Given how many troops are there, if they're meant to be going nuts, surely they should pick up the pace a bit.

As enjoyable as debating this with you has been, I'm still failing to see any actual point in any of what you've said, short of half-assed attempts at demonising the american troops. Is there actually a point here, or are you just arguing with me because I took you to task on your narrow interpretation of the articles and your inference that the coalition have significantly wronged so many civilians, and that the blame accordingly rests entirely upon them and is not at least partially shared by insurgents? If it's the former, could you please make it, and if it's the latter, you don't appear to be supporting any of your suggestions terribly well.

 

[katie_tully]

Sam04, I cannot wait until I am in your sig.

I will be complete then.

 

[Dellaware]

Arnt muslims funny people.

 

[katie_tully]

Yeah...

Yeah, they've done a really good job too. Any more American liberation and Iraq will implode.

How would you know? At least under Saddam the Iraqi's had electricity, food, clean water, education, a roof over their heads and relative security.

Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.:wave:

 

[davin]

My stance has been the same throughout - that some US soldiers are killing innocent civilians.

intentionally or no?

 

[HotShot]

intentionally or no?

how many times can you 'accidently' kill few people? especiallys if you u serve in the military and are supposed to be a professional.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok, if you look at any other example of someone occupying a country where the majority are against the occupation and there is mass armed rebellion, I'm going to guess (by the relatively small number of estimated civilian casulties) that this war isn't really that bad in that department.

 

[sam04u]

Sam04, I cannot wait until I am in your sig.

I will be complete then.

Yeah you better believe its coming!

Will you be ready for it? Lol!?

I DONT THINK SO!

here is a preview; put it in your sig!

 

[davin]

how many times can you 'accidently' kill few people? especiallys if you u serve in the military and are supposed to be a professional.

so, you're making the claim that americans are delibiriately killing civilians...then what would be your basis for that?