View Full Version : Americans Killed in Iraq
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3589057.stm)
Only seen BBC news report myself who didn't show pictures as too graphic.
Murder like that goes beyond all politics & cannot be excused.
Similar event in Somalia made Clinton pull the troops out & be interesting to see what happens this time.
can't expect to stick their fingers in a fire without getting burnt. terrible to see anyone lose their life, but I find it hard to have any sympathy
tiktok
01/04/2004, 3:03 PM
in fairness Eanna, these guys were building contractors, they most likely wouldn't have been armed, and they certainly weren't being protected by troops.
i don't know the ins and outs of what provoked the attack, but the results of it were brutal.
it's clear at this stage that in their planning for quickly winning the 'war', the US administration completely missed planning for the peace, and for the slow burning guerilla tactics that (inevitably?) followed. I understand where you're coming form when you talk about the US getting their fingers burned, but i can't help having sympathy for these guys.
in fairness Eanna, these guys were building contractors, they most likely wouldn't have been armed, and they certainly weren't being protected by troops.
True. Still even if they troops no one deserves the description of their death & aftermath.
Will be a hard sell for the Bush Administration to tell voters Iraq all going to plan now.
Will be a hard sell for the Bush Administration to tell voters Iraq all going to plan now.
Not really. The American media, for the most part are compliant with the White House line that everything is going well, democracy has taken root, blah, blah blah
Only very serious injuries and deaths are reported, nothing about the nightly attacks on American bases etc. Once they hand over to some sort of Iraqi grouping in June, they can continue to peddle the lie. It's only the East and West coasts that are questioning Fox news and all that sh*te. The vast majority of middle America are behind "our Boys".
...or the refusal to show images of the many who jumped from the Twin Towers...just weird really...
Why would you want to see such images?
liamon
02/04/2004, 9:33 AM
[QUOTE=Conor74]I have no interest in such images.
But being opposed to censorship by the government is a totally different argument.
[QUOTE]
Is publication of those images banned? I thought it was just a decision not to show people dying in such a horrible manner, as it's not necessary.
I agree with the general tone that the media do give a very biased view of the Iraqi war. Fox News is pretty bad. However, the British media is almost as bad.
liamon
02/04/2004, 11:08 AM
I think part of the reason that the media don't present an unbiased version of any war is the military/government generate an awful lot of data/press releases/interviews/etc and it's just cheap and easy for the press to copy this stuff into their daily broadcasts/news columns. Didn't Gnome Chomsky write a series of books about this?
I doubt if newspapers have sufficient resources to generate their own news these days. Too busy diverting resources into celebrity watching. As we move away from real news coverage and deeper into the realm of The Sun/Hello/big brother, then I would expect this trend to continue. Most people seem to care more about the antics of Jordan in the Jungle than they care about war in the Middle East.
And just to play Devil's advocate, historically, doesn't the media always act as a propoganda tool for the government in most countries during wartime?
NJTom
02/04/2004, 12:54 PM
I have no interest in such images.
But being opposed to censorship by the government is a totally different argument.
I have no interest in reading the Socialist Worker, but I'd object strongly if its publication was banned. Geddit?
There is no government censorship of the images from the WTC. I've seen plenty of footage and pictures of people jumping to their deaths that day, I don't want to see them anymore. As Liamon pointed out, it is a decision by the news media not to show people dying.
Sometimes pictures are just too graphic to be shown on Prime Time tv.
liamon
02/04/2004, 3:55 PM
Do you have to see somehting to believe it? (Mr Gibson clearly thinks so, but that belongson another topic)
The American public don't want to see gore if there are US citizens involved, so the networks comply. Pictures of Britney are much more popular, to the detriment of real news. :(
The link Conor posted is strange. Why does the writer feel the need to see pictures in relation to Sept 11 memorials. When looking back at Armstice Day, do you expect to see pictures on UK/German TV of torn bodies at the Somme? I don't think anyone shows such images when remembering tragic national events.
As a matter of fact, would such pics not merely add "fuel" to the hatred felt by Americans towards Muslims and further promote the Bush war against Iraq?
Some fairly gruesome, and disgusting pictures were shown on Prime Time last night followed by quite an interesting piece from an Iraqi lawyer. If you could ignore Miriam O'Callaghan's indignation and petulance, what he had to say, while unpalatable to Miriam, (and I suspect, to most of us), is probably the crux of the whole issue.
He said the images and savagery were apparant for all to see, and impossible for us in the West to understand. However, when you have watched your children, family, neighbours, and countrymen/women being torn to pieces, burned and mutilated by cluster bombs, bunker busters, massively powerful explosives, armour piercing bullets and shells, and the kill first, ask questions later attitude of an invading force, you don't really see too much wrong with an incident such as this.
So we in the West can only see the savagery of the Iraqis, (and from a distance), the Iraqis, (and others), live daily in the reality with the savagery resulting from the effectiveness of modern armaments.
And before I'm attacked, I'm simply pointing out that there are at least 2 sides to every story.
Imagine (welll try not to) seeing your relatives in that state.
Kill them all-the animals
Exactly the sentiments of Iraqis, I'd say, in reply to the mutilation and murder of their relatives.
So we (the West) say, shoot them all, they are animals.
Iraqis say, shoot them all, they are animals.
So we shoot them.
They shoot us.
We shoot some more.
They shoot some more.
They are animals.
We are animals.
We shoot.
They shoot.
Getting repetative, isn't it?
(btw, it now seems the people who were killed were "security consultants", otherwise known as mercenaries. Doesn't excuse killing them though)
liam88
04/04/2004, 4:09 PM
Sorry-was angry. Get your point.
in fairness Eanna, these guys were building contractors, they most likely wouldn't have been armed, and they certainly weren't being protected by troops.
the building contractors etc who are in Iraq are just as bad. They are vultures who are going over to make money on the back of an illegal war. They are just as much an occupying force as any soldiers.
the building contractors etc who are in Iraq are just as bad. They are vultures who are going over to make money on the back of an illegal war. They are just as much an occupying force as any soldiers.
Would you say the same thing if were irish guys working for an American contractor as i'd guess good chance some irish lads over there.
What if some irish engineers or nurses were bombed in Saudi Arabia? Would it be their own fault for propping up the Saudi Royalty regime?
:rolleyes:
the building contractors etc who are in Iraq are just as bad. They are vultures who are going over to make money on the back of an illegal war. They are just as much an occupying force as any soldiers.
Or they are there to build schools, hospitials and mosques for the people and to attempt to put right what went on during the illegal war.
tiktok
05/04/2004, 3:33 PM
the building contractors etc who are in Iraq are just as bad. They are vultures who are going over to make money on the back of an illegal war. They are just as much an occupying force as any soldiers.
This isn't quite the same thing as the Carpetbaggers after the American civil war, Haliburton (Dick Cheney's old employers btw) might well be vultures who are delighted that the 'war' went ahead so that they could get their hands on the 70billion rebuilding fund, but that doesn't make their unarmed employees 'legitimate targets' (and i hate the phrase btw).
This isn't quite the same thing as the Carpetbaggers after the American civil war, Haliburton (Dick Cheney's old employers btw) might well be vultures who are delighted that the 'war' went ahead so that they could get their hands on the 70billion rebuilding fund, but that doesn't make their unarmed employees 'legitimate targets' (and i hate the phrase btw).
answer me this then. who in their right mind would go to Iraq right now if they were an american (or from any western country actually) and travel around unarmed. I'm not defending the killing of anyone, but the iraqi people have avery justifiable sense of anger and I can't see how any sane individual would willingly go there right now! And while I don't agree with the phrase legitimate targets, I do think some targets are more legitimate than others. And anyone working for Haliburton is very far from the moral high ground giving the way they are behaving right now.
Or they are there to build schools, hospitials and mosques for the people and to attempt to put right what went on during the illegal war.
not bloody likely. and even if they were, they must have known they were taking their life in their hand. killing is never right, but its more than understandable in this instance
coyney
05/04/2004, 4:11 PM
Would you say the same thing if were irish guys working for an American contractor as i'd guess good chance some irish lads over there.
What if some irish engineers or nurses were bombed in Saudi Arabia? Would it be their own fault for propping up the Saudi Royalty regime?
:rolleyes:
the contract workers are mostly ex-american servicemen and the 4 guys who were killed last week were ex special forces. their over there to make a killing in more ways than one...
The "contractors" were ex-soldiers, employed for their "security" knowledge as much as anything else.
We are not talking about a work gang from a Wallace building site.
They were identified by their "dog-tags", so these guys were no wide-eyed innocents, they knew the risks, and were being suitably recompensed for it.
NOTHING excuses the kind of savage death they recieved, but they knew very well just how dangerous a job they took on.
Why some people are so shocked by the savagery of this killings, but seem to not bat an eyelid at the end result of the sickeningly named "Shock and Awe", is something I do not understand.
pretty much exactly what I was trying to say patsh, but you put it better than I managed!
liam88
05/04/2004, 5:33 PM
[QUOTE=patsh]
NOTHING excuses the kind of savage death they recievedQUOTE]
Enough said.
liamon
06/04/2004, 10:16 AM
Why some people are so shocked by the savagery of this killings, but seem to not bat an eyelid at the end result of the sickeningly named "Shock and Awe", is something I do not understand.
Perhaps it's because we are told to admire the clean technological warfare of the West, while we despise the "blood on your hands" type savage response of the poor. I remember everyone raving about the magnificent, wonderful cruise missiles that the West used in the first gulf war. Yet we all deplore the killing when it's done by hand.
It's all in the presentation and news is heavily biased. And the general public are sheep that can be lead so easily. Manufacturing consent. Journalism is dead.
ccfcman
06/04/2004, 10:26 AM
[QUOTE=Éanna]. I'm not defending the killing of anyone, And while I don't agree with the phrase legitimate targets, I do think some targets are more legitimate than others.[ QUOTE]
which targets are they?
Why some people are so shocked by the savagery of this killings, but seem to not bat an eyelid at the end result of the sickeningly named "Shock and Awe", is something I do not understand.
Just cos Iraqis die horribly is hardly an excuse to be happy Americans dying similarily.
liam88
06/04/2004, 12:45 PM
I know this sounds horrible and it is I know, but there is a phycological thing which makes the murder of Irish/English/Americans seem so much worse TO SOME PEOPLE than the murder of Iraquis, Palastinians etc.
I'm not saying that anybody is right or wrong here and not taking either side, just pointing out how the mind works to some people even if they don't want it to be that way.
For years the news has been plastered with people dying in the Middle East and not that many people in the West let it affect their day to day lives.
The "Shock and Awe" was the talk of our school but most people just carried on with their learning.
Then, the day when the first British soldiers were killed, it was a helicopter crash, the school went mad, the fences were torn down, hundreds just sat on the playground instead of going to lessons, people kicked down fences and ran out of school-the whole thing went wild and it took the killing of two British to provoke this.
We dicussed this the subsequent student council meeting and although we all agreeed that it sounds horrible that people find the killing of Westeners more horrific we also agreed that that was the case.
Interesting ey.
Éanna
07/04/2004, 10:54 AM
I know this sounds horrible and it is I know, but there is a phycological thing which makes the murder of Irish/English/Americans seem so much worse TO SOME PEOPLE than the murder of Iraquis, Palastinians etc.
there's no doubt about that at all
Peadar
07/04/2004, 12:08 PM
Does anyone know exactly how many US service people have lost their lives in Iraq since the conflict began last year?
The seem to be loosing 10 a day lately.
Seen figures at weekend & think its 800+ dead, 12,000 or 18,000 medicational evacuations all since the invasion begun.
Estimate 13,000 Iraqi civilians dead.
From CNN.com
There have been 637 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war, 447 from hostile fire, 190 in non-hostile incidents. Of those, 498 were killed after President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.
. I'm not defending the killing of anyone, And while I don't agree with the phrase legitimate targets, I do think some targets are more legitimate than others.
which targets are they?
a lot of people will disagree with me, but to be perfectly honest- if you invade someone elses country and throw the place into chaos, and shoot on demonstrators when they tell you to leave them to run their own country, I don't think you can have much cause for complaint if they start shooting back.
Would you say the same thing if were irish guys working for an American contractor as i'd guess good chance some irish lads over there.
yes and yes. you can't waltz into someone else's country all guns blazing and expect a hug and a pint to welcome you.
liamon
07/04/2004, 2:31 PM
yes and yes. you can't waltz into someone else's country all guns blazing and expect a hug and a pint to welcome you.
I don't know many nurses/engineers working in Saudi Arabia who brought guns with them.
Do they deserve to die for working in the Middle East and being from Europe?
If so, don't any Arabs who live in Madrid deserve to die? C'mon Eanna, you can't be serious. :rolleyes:
Jim Smith
07/04/2004, 3:26 PM
I don't know many nurses/engineers working in Saudi Arabia who brought guns with them.
These guys were "security consultants" in what is effectively a war zone. They went into an area where they knew that a significant portion of the population hate the Americans and their allies with a passion that is hard for someone from the West to understand. They knew the risk they were taking and were happy to take the money. Their situation is a bit different to nurses/engineers working in Saudi Arabia.
Just cos Iraqis die horribly is hardly an excuse to be happy Americans dying similarily.
Now now, pete, at least address the issue I raised.... :rolleyes:
Where in my post did I say anything about one death excusing another?
And anything about being "happy"??
Read my post again, and if you have any comment on that, please tell me.
Do not try to twist my words to suit your own ends.
Duncan Gardner
10/04/2004, 8:33 AM
Yes, I can think of numerous armed conflicts featuring illegal US intervention (ie, almost any of them apart from the one Davros is alluding to) :)
Aberdonian Stu
10/04/2004, 1:15 PM
Don't want to get dragged into the nitty gritty just want to point out the point about the numbers that died. Of those 190 are non-hostile. This one of the great needless tragedies of warfare, the number of accidental or non-conflict related deaths in warfare is always shocking when you look at the sheer numbers but as it generally makes up just a small percentage (although not seemingly on this occasion) it generally goes unnoticed.
liamon
13/04/2004, 10:13 AM
Just to take this a stage further, there are now multiple abductions taking place. Some of these people are aid workers, who went there to help the local people. Do they deserve to die?
Jim Smith
13/04/2004, 11:43 AM
As a matter of curiosity, what is the overall point you are trying to make? That they deserved to die?
No. The point that I was trying to make is that equating the death of mercenaries in a war zone with nurses and engineers in Saudia Arabia isn't particularly valid. Where did I say that I thought anyone "deserved to die"?
Jim Smith
13/04/2004, 12:50 PM
No, I was asking if that's what you were implying, not stating that it was what you were implying.
No, you were implying that I was implying that they deserved to die...
So there can be no confusion, I do not feel "that they deserved to die?" nor "that they 'kind of' deserved to die?" I don't actually think that anyone deserves to die. I do, however, have less sympathy for twenty-first century mercenaries dying in their chosen profession than for plumbers and gas-fitters.
Jim Smith
13/04/2004, 1:17 PM
As a matter of curiosity, what is the overall point you are trying to make? That they deserved to die? That they 'kind of' deserved to die?
Sure, there's no whiff of an implication in that.... ;)
Peadar
13/04/2004, 1:25 PM
I do, however, have less sympathy for twenty-first century mercenaries dying in their chosen profession than for plumbers and gas-fitters.
I read a few articles on this at the weekend and it appears that many of the "Security Contractors" didn't have appropriate training or weapons to deal with the situation they were in. The offer of GBP£100,000 PA was too much for some out-of-work ex-soldiers to refuse.
This being the case it's understandable that some of us have less sympathy for them. In West Cork, certain people are considered hero's for their part in the termination of "Black & Tans."
Is this too dissimilar?
liamon
13/04/2004, 1:26 PM
No. The point that I was trying to make is that equating the death of mercenaries in a war zone with nurses and engineers in Saudia Arabia isn't particularly valid. ..."?
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.....apart from Eanna (see previous page).
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.....apart from Eanna (see previous page).
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: He's said exactly the same thing as me. The "yes and yes" I posted was referring to the first part of pete's post. I meant to edit the quote. It should have (and now does) read:
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Would you say the same thing if were irish guys working for an American contractor as i'd guess good chance some irish lads over there.
yes and yes. you can't waltz into someone else's country all guns blazing and expect a hug and a pint to welcome you.
sorry bout that. i didn't really look at it when i was posting it- can't believe the way it came out. :o
Duncan Gardner
13/04/2004, 6:31 PM
So,you choose to ignore what's gone in 'your own back yard' then.....
No, but I don't recall any illegal US intervention there, during my lifetime or before.
Do you ever actually read what anyone else says, ye dum-dum?
Duncan Gardner
13/04/2004, 6:38 PM
What about Noraid? It's a legally registered charity in the USA. If people want to send money back to the oul' sod, so what? Or are you suggesting that's equivalent to bombing civilians in Faluja?
Duncan Gardner
13/04/2004, 6:57 PM
No they haven't. Stop talking nonsense or you'll not be allowed on the trip to the Wisla!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.