What's new

Troops 'took turns' to rape Iraqi

A.Rahman said:
Thank-God for US invasion of Iraq, Finally Iraq is liberated. I can go to bed happliy as long as US troops dont kill more people then Saddam.

I think you are forgettin, who armed saddam & gave him WMD in first place?
Well it was the Russians and French who armed him but I'm certainly not celebrating the civilian deaths post invasion.
I'm simply trying to put a statistical analysis to this
sigatoka said:
1. I never said that, but even in his terrible form Saddam was unable to send as many civilians to their early grave than the U.S. invasion has.
Any reason why my thread "a show of hands" got locked?
 
parihaka said:
Well it was the Russians and French who armed him but I'm certainly not celebrating the civilian deaths post invasion.
On August 18, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

I'm simply trying to put a statistical analysis to this
Any reason why my thread "a show of hands" got locked?

its open.
 
Rahman, for a moderator you speak incredibly immoderate comments. Where is the evidence for the wild accussations you constantly throw around?

And I have not started with you yet Sigtoka, you propaganda meister.
 
MrConcerned said:
Rahman, for a moderator you speak incredibly immoderate comments. Where is the evidence for the wild accussations you constantly throw around?

And I have not started with you yet Sigtoka, you propaganda meister.

please quote post numbers, I will provide the evidence
 
A.Rahman said:
On August 18, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.
Yeah I know, advice, intel. and satellite photos. It was the French and Russians who supplied their weaponry however.


A.Rahman said:
its open.
Thankyou:)
 
Post 30 for starters.

With all respect, the ignorance shown by you and some other Muslim posters is incredible.

who gave him WMD? Who armed Saddam? Who got his orders from the White House? When did he start disobeying, implying there were orders and Saddam was obeying them?

Four huge accussations you must prove beyond doubt in this thread or be shown up.

The first I am dead sure you have no evidence. On the second point, may I point out, CHINA is a bigger armer of Saddam than by far USA, and therefore by your logic, is much more responsible for the death of Muslims. Where is your quibbly excuses for this?

From a neutral source:

23287775ca28e762c5b2cc980cafa83c.jpg
 
A.Rahman said:
Americans can never win the hearts & minds of Iraqis, how can they forget the civilian-casulties they got by US invasion.

As compared to Saddam?

A.Rahman said:
Resistance is pretty much active in Iraq, but US occupation has made life hell for normal people.

Yes, for those who learned to live with Saddam's terrorny.

A.Rahman said:
The damage was already done:
1) US marines killing civilians.
2) Abu gharaib scandal
3) butt-pyramid & Marines gay orgies
4)now rape

Vis-a-vi against what Saddam did, it's a hell of alot less. Look, you may not see it. What the Americans provided with their invasion was HOPE. That's it. HOPE! The Americans screwed up in more ways than one. In more ways than Saddam would have! BUT the HOPE remains. Who can look at the ELECTIONS and NOT have HOPE! The Iraqis still have HOPE! The day they lose the HOPE is the day the Americans LOST and NOT ONE DAY SOONER!
 
Officer of Engineers is the only person I will take single liners from on this board, Sigtoka take note.

As evidence for OOE's comment about hope:

__________

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.

Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228

________

I suspect some of you would never want your fellow Muslims in Iraq to have a good life, which is improving for many of them now, just so to fuel your irrational hatred.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
1. What the Americans provided with their invasion was HOPE. That's it. HOPE! The Americans screwed up in more ways than one. In more ways than Saddam would have! BUT the HOPE remains. Who can look at the ELECTIONS and NOT have HOPE!

2. The day they lose the HOPE is the day the Americans LOST and NOT ONE DAY SOONER!

1. Elections is merely an instrument in determining social choice (types and quantities of public goods). Elections in of itself (no matter how the U.S. admin. tries to potray it) mean nothing.

2. Bring back the British Raj for the savages of the East have no chance of running themselves without the "kind" help of the white man.

The Chinese economy is bigger than all of Western Europe without the "kind" rule of the U.S. or U.S. marines.
 
MrConcerned said:
Some? What percentage? 10%? 20%?

How come only a very few cases have come to light? Some is a dubious term. A few is much more accurate. And I think, compared to the long and bloody history of man, that is already *comparatively* better.

some of you don't understand that the reason US army persecutes wrong doers in its own ranks is not just because of damage to its reputation but also because it wants to maintain high discipline and honour. It's not just a selfless thing, hence there is very much incentive to clear out their ranks of these few bastards. An army that wants to stay at the top must be willing to go after law breakers, incompetents and cowards, no matter the price.

Training, doctrine and tradition.
If they still manage to breed rapists, that talk amounts to little anything but air.

The problem I was pointing out towards was that when you use the military as an occupation force, it tends to become a "Master-Slave" relationship between the occupiers and the locals.

An example's the British occupation of India. Also an army that prides in upholding "honor". Honor's a bullshit term to be associated with war. The soldier's are not seen as hope, not seen as liberators. They are just another bunch of Saddams.

Well in actuality their politician bosses are, but they are the ones on the ground, acting as tools for those bosses to implement their occupation.

When Pakistan was liberated, it was by Pakistanis. There already was a Pakistani political setup. America just tore down a political set up without already having one in place. Furthermore, its presence has fueled the shia-sunni strife into armed conflict.

Perhaps before toppling Saddam a sound leadership should've been sought amongst the Iraqis. If you're bringing down Saddam for the lack of democracy you should have someone who'd bring democracy. Instead America, just toppled the biggest bad guy and asked for the smaller bad guys to come together. To be nice they are asking the samller bad guys to play it good.

With so much power to decide the fate of the Iraqis, why shouldn't the Master soldiers, degrade to raping the Slave Iraqis?
 
I'm surprised to how people here are trying to justify US soldiers' acts by comparing them to what the Iraqis went through under Saddam, saying, 'so what? Saddam did much worse!' Do two wrongs make a right?

Then someone talked about 'hope' being the main thing about the US invasion. Really? Since when did nations go on rampaging warfare across a certain region with 'hope' as their objective? Wars are fought when there are clear objectives in a strategy that need to be achieved so that mission success is achieved.

Clearly the US has had no 'clearly defined' objectives in Iraq. First it was Saddam's WMDs, then Saddam's regime change, liberating Iraqi people, securing Oil supplies, now prevention of civil war with still no exit strategy on the drawing boards.
 
MrConcerned said:
Post 30 for starters.

With all respect, the ignorance shown by you and some other Muslim posters is incredible.

who gave him WMD? Who armed Saddam? Who got his orders from the White House? When did he start disobeying, implying there were orders and Saddam was obeying them?

Four huge accussations you must prove beyond doubt in this thread or be shown up.

The first I am dead sure you have no evidence. On the second point, may I point out, CHINA is a bigger armer of Saddam than by far USA, and therefore by your logic, is much more responsible for the death of Muslims. Where is your quibbly excuses for this?

From a neutral source:

http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG

The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters which were used by the Iraqi military in the war

Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline however on June 9, 1992 reported: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]."

The U.S., U.K., and Germany also provided "dual use" technology (computers, engines, etc) that allowed Iraq to expand its missile program and radar defenses.

The U.S. Commerce department, in violation of procedure, gave out licenses to companies for $1.5 billion dual-use items to be sent to Iraq. The State Department was not informed of this.

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Anthrax Bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding that "these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program


report by Berlin's Die Tageszeitung in 2002 reported that Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council listed 150 foreign companies that supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Twenty-four U.S. firms were involved in exporting arms and materials to Baghdad.

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

US played Iraq like a pawn in dirty chess game.

Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iranian civilians, killing many in villages and hospitals. Many civilians suffered severe burns and health problems, and still suffer from them. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.

The United States was not concerned with Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against Iranians at that time. According to a report by the New York Times, "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose".

Saddam disobeyed the orders from white house after he attacked kuwait, hence gulf war & liberation of Iraq, now Iraq can have another puppet government, that will think of US interest before its own people's.
 
how long did it take you, abdul rahman, it looks like all day, to selectively pick and choose information into a highly misleading piece of propaganda? it would take me five minutes to humiliate you but I'm considering whether to do it.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom