9 Americans dead including 4 brutally burned alive and hung!

[East Street Trader]

Maude fought the Turks along the Tigris in the Great War. He wooed the arabs - holding out the Turks as a common enemy. I am not sure that worked but equally I don't think he ran into arab opposition.

He died there of cholera.

The fact that this town has been the target of US/UK air raids does not justify the behaviour of the mob. They are a disgrace to themselves and to their people.

Police work and the administration of criminal justice must be as difficult as everything else is in Iraq right now. But I hope the Iraqis and/or the occupying forces try very hard to bring those most directly responsible to book.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The fact that this town has been the target of US/UK air raids does not justify the behaviour of the mob. They are a disgrace to themselves and to their people.

That is true, but what I was aiming at was the partyline that Falluja should be such a place of resistance, because they were particularily loyal to Saddam - and dependant on his goodwill towards them. That official analysis is perhaps not so accurate, as it might seem.

[debeest]

Originally posted by MrFun
Man, you are so full of yourself. Any reasonable person can distinguish between the legitimacy of authorized autopsies, and organ donations from that of inhumane, callous body mutilation.

Mr. Fun, I disagree. The Viking is being completely reasonable here. Killing people is harmful. Mutilating the bodies afterward can't do them much more harm. But just use common sense: if you hate someone so much that you think it's legitimate to kill them, why would it be at all out of bounds to show your hatred even further by torching the corpses?

I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. I'm just surprised that so many people think mutilating the bodies is of any consequence in comparison to killing them in the first place.

If they could come and chop up every American, some of them would choose to do so. They hate us! For good reasons and for bad reasons both, IMO, but how can anyone be surprised at any action that people take to try to drive away an occupying power?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by MrFun


Man, you are so full of yourself. Any reasonable person can distinguish between the legitimacy of authorized autopsies, and organ donations from that of inhumane, callous body mutilation.

Any reasonable "western" person in a "developed" nation.

I can distinguish. You can distinguish.

The point someone made is that mutilating a dead body violates a universal standard.

I say that many cultures would find it normal to mutilate the body or a war victim - cut off their ears as trophies, maybe cut off their head. But find it abnormal to cut up the body of a loved one for any purpose.

I don't think the term "inhumane" applies to the treatment of a corpse. I'm not sure it was callous.

It was intended to communicate a total lack of respect, a deep-seated hatred. Do you think it was effective?

[MrFun]

DUH -- of course the message came loud and clear, Viking -- they HATE us.

As for United States being a foreign, occupation power in Iraq -- isn't it true that the majority of Iraqis are cooperating with US soldiers and officers, and that they are happy with Saddam's overthrow?



As for whether or not it's acceptable to mutilate a corpse simply because the person is already dead. To me, there is no question -- it's callous, and repugnant. In fact, in the early 20th century, lynch mobs in United States took carnival-like pleasure in mutilating a corpse of a black lynch victim after they killed him.

This example shows that mutilation is meant to dehumanize the victim by show callous disregard for the body of the victim.

[DinoDoc]

Are we still on this stupid autopsies=mutilation of the dead arguement?

[debeest]

Without some means of collecting verifiable and trustworthy information about the feelings of the broad range of Iraqis, I think we would be fools to hold any particular belief as to whether they're happy we invaded and occupied them.

But it's pretty clear that more than a few of them are more passionate in their opposition to it than you probably are about anything in the world. They blow themselves up in order to kill a few of their own collaborating countrymen!

Given the strength of their feelings, do you really think that mutilation of the enemy's dead bodies, which of course is intended to dehumanize them, is either surprising or indicative of anything but a desperate, blinding hatred?

They're not more contemptible or barbarian or savage or evil just because they mutilate the dead bodies. They just hate the invaders more than you can imagine, and they have very little other opportunity to demonstrate it.

[lord of the mark]

An Iraqi Governing Council member stressed that those responsible represented just a small minority of Iraqis but also encouraged U.S. troops to think carefully about how to respond.


"In 1958, July 14th, some members of the royal family were killed and mutilated. Iraqis were ashamed for decades at this barbaric event," Samir Sumaidi said. "Now after this I feel that again Iraqis will hang their heads in shame." .

[lord of the mark]

"The term 'collateral damage' is inapplicable", says Ramsey Clark, pointing out that the attacks were in broad daylight, when much of the area would have been at its most populated. He states that attacks on civilians were stated by the military (then as now) were to "demoralize

Cite please where the military has stated that civilians were attacked with intent to demoralize.

Ramsey Clarke is not a particularly credible source, Im afraid.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ramsey Clarke is not a particularly credible source, Im afraid.

INTERNATIONAL ACTION CENTER

Founded by Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General

Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression within the United States

http://www.iacenter.org/

Sounds very credible to me.

[lord of the mark]

"[Y]ou've offered a view of those who oppose Bush's military plans that is seriously at odds with reality: The antiwar movement equals the left and the left equals the followers of Ramsey Clark, defender of Slobodan Milosevic and assorted Hutu genocidaires and other thugs, who is the founder of the International Action Center, which is closely linked to ANSWER, a front for the Workers World Party."

Katha Pollit, editor of the ultra-liberal Nation, trying to distinguish ordinary war protesters from Ramsey Clark.

[BeBMan]

Oh great another thread full of this "I'm not surprised"- nonsense.

[Tripledoc]

So Ramsey Clark is a Stalinist, a red fascist, a larouchite or what have you, but how does that detract from his credibility?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
So Ramsey Clark is a Stalinist, a red fascist, a larouchite or what have you, but how does that detract from his credibility?

erh, Stalinists have been known to lie, even more than Bush admin aides, when its helpful to advancing a political agenda.

[chequita guevara]

Clark's mind isn't what it once was. The idea that a former AG of the US would become a Red just doesn't strike me as someting that would happen if he were in complete control of his faculties. He's fallen in with a cult.