US Occupation Steals Iraqi Childhood

[YamahaR1]

We're all happy Saddam's gone, however the use of force was uneccessary.

Can you please tell me how Saddam would be removed without the use of force? I'm truly interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

 

[minaz]

Let the UN inspectors continue their investigations and take it from there

 

[Genius]

I think Zarqawi, Saddam and Bush are all guilty in ruining the lives of Iraqi children, this is the most balanced view one can hold.

Saddam spent his time ordering his thugs to put bullets in the skulls of kurdish and shia children.

Zarqawi indiscriminately attacks Iraqi's regardless of their religon, gender and age.

America used uranium shells in both wars, starved Iraqi's through sanctions, supported Saddam in the 80's, and killed Iraqi's outright in bombing campaigns over the last decade.

Arguing that one side is better than the other is rather futile unless you are a neo con or terrorist lover like Hash.

 

[YamahaR1]

Let the UN inspectors continue their investigations and take it from there

It is common knowledge that Saddam was rigging the inspections. He even bugged the hotel rooms where inspectors were staying among other things. He knew when the inspections were going to happen and where the inspectors were going. So, how were the inspections effective and how would they have led to the removal of Saddam?

 

[minaz]

You are right in all the points you posted there (esp Hash)

 

[YamahaR1]

I think Zarqawi, Saddam and Bush are all guilty in ruining the lives of Iraqi children, this is the most balanced view one can hold.

Saddam spent his time ordering his thugs to put bullets in the skulls of kurdish and shia children.

Zarqawi indiscriminately attacks Iraqi's regardless of their religon, gender and age.

America used uranium shells in both wars, starved Iraqi's through sanctions, supported Saddam in the 80's, and killed Iraqi's outright in bombing campaigns over the last decade.

Arguing that one side is better than the other is rather futile unless you are a neo con or terrorist lover like Hash.

I agree that all of the above have a hand in ruining the lives of Iraqi children. I still say that no uranium shells would've been used, no sanctions would've been applied, and no bombing campaigns would've happened if Saddam had simply been cooperative or had not invaded Kuwait.

However, I am not a neocon nor a terrorist lover. And, I do find it interesting that you link the choices together. I would classify myself as an independent in the realm of American politics.

America did use uranium shells. However, there is as much risk to our own soldiers as that of Iraqis. Our soldiers are breathing the particles from munitions that had uranium so I wouldn't say that just the Iraqis are living with the effects. So if we are guilty of negatively impacting the lives of the Iraqi children, we are equally as guilty affecting the lives and futures of Americans serving in our military and any future children they may have.

No side is better than the other per se, especially if you study history. There is no side without fault, not guilty of wrong doing, or perfect.

My responses were simply to counter those very one sided statements made by some here against the United States. I have no problem with someone being critical of the U.S. We are not perfect. But to act as the U.S. is the only one to blame for everything and to result to childish insults and namecalling to our leaders is simply wrong and serves no useful purpose either in my humble opinion.

 

[minaz]

Who's called you a neocon / terrorist lover?

 

[YamahaR1]

Who's called you a neocon / terrorist lover?

In this thread and one other, Genius has brought the term "neocon" while responding to a post of mine. Genius didn't call me that directly but it resonated with me since that term was used in two response posts. I just wanted to clarify that if Genius was in anyway referring that I was a neocon....I am not. And, not that I think being a neocon is a bad thing necessarily.

 

[minaz]

lol no worries he was referring to the other idiots on the forum (not saying that I know you're an idiot )

 

[YamahaR1]

lol no worries he was referring to the other idiots on the forum (not saying that I know you're an idiot )

Gotcha....although I'm not sure that I would call anyone an "idiot". And, I wouldn't classify neocons as idiots either. Although I'm sure you meant this in a joking manner.

I may not agree with others differences of opinion but I respect their thoughts just the same.

 

[Genius]

I agree that all of the above have a hand in ruining the lives of Iraqi children. I still say that no uranium shells would've been used, no sanctions would've been applied, and no bombing campaigns would've happened if Saddam had simply been cooperative or had not invaded Kuwait.

However, I am not a neocon nor a terrorist lover. And, I do find it interesting that you link the choices together. I would classify myself as an independent in the realm of American politics.

America did use uranium shells. However, there is as much risk to our own soldiers as that of Iraqis. Our soldiers are breathing the particles from munitions that had uranium so I wouldn't say that just the Iraqis are living with the effects. So if we are guilty of negatively impacting the lives of the Iraqi children, we are equally as guilty affecting the lives and futures of Americans serving in our military and any future children they may have.

No side is better than the other per se, especially if you study history. There is no side without fault, not guilty of wrong doing, or perfect.

My responses were simply to counter those very one sided statements made by some here against the United States. I have no problem with someone being critical of the U.S. We are not perfect. But to act as the U.S. is the only one to blame for everything and to result to childish insults and namecalling to our leaders is simply wrong and serves no useful purpose either in my humble opinion.

I wasn't accusing you of being a neo con, i was just using them as an example.

 

[Mr. Baldy]

Alt 8:30]
which pillar?

aslaam alykum,

i was commenting on imad udeen, i.e the name.

wa alykum aslaam

 

[Preacher]

Please read some thought provoking articles:

The reality of this barbaric bombing

When The Cops Are The Crooks

Regards
Preacher

 

[Mr. Baldy]

aslaam alkyum,

who are the idiots, the muslims working for khilafah, or the 'muslims' sitting at home content with the world?

who are the necons and terrorist, the muslims working for islam, or the 'muslims' supporting the regimes that opress and repress our brothers and sisters?

think about your reply beore you say something stupid, like "uhhhhhhhhhhh, tony blair for caliph"

wa alkyum aslaam

 

[Genius]

aslaam alkyum,

who are the idiots, the muslims working for khilafah, or the 'muslims' sitting at home content with the world?

Muslim's working for the khilafah are generally idiots, except for the non terrorist Ikhwani's they are usually clever.

think about your reply beore you say something stupid, like "uhhhhhhhhhhh, tony blair for caliph"

wa alkyum aslaam

Thanks for stopping me from saying something stupid, you deserve another star.

 

[Muezzin]

I think Zarqawi, Saddam and Bush are all guilty in ruining the lives of Iraqi children, this is the most balanced view one can hold.

Saddam spent his time ordering his thugs to put bullets in the skulls of kurdish and shia children.

Zarqawi indiscriminately attacks Iraqi's regardless of their religon, gender and age.

America used uranium shells in both wars, starved Iraqi's through sanctions, supported Saddam in the 80's, and killed Iraqi's outright in bombing campaigns over the last decade.

Arguing that one side is better than the other is rather futile...

Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, I would have left out the part about Hash.

 

[Staffy]

No side is better than the other per se, especially if you study history. There is no side without fault, not guilty of wrong doing, or perfect.

We can't just say they are all guilty.....
You see go to yahoo Images and look up "Gulf War Syndrome"...(Have you done that before?)

Now you'll find the Iraqi infant mortality rate after the gulf war went from one of the lowest........to the highest due to the Uraniam fall out that was left in the air.......This didn't stop......and now that the american government have learnt their lesson (so it would seem)....They choose to blately ignore what they have learnt and use Uraniam tiped wepons AGAIN........Sure the soldiers have to deal with it because they where their in iraq with the iraqi's..........But the Iraqi's actualy have to live their as it is their country.........The american soliders to not have to see the aftermath in their own country........the iraqis have to deal with it....with limited medicines due to the UN'S restrictions the easily treatable cases often end in death........You can't say both sides suffer equaly......for that wouldent be fair......I hope what i've written has changed you mind about your statment.........may peace be upon you and your family...........Staffy :brother:

 

[Muezzin]

I think what Yamaha was trying to say is that 'nobody's perfect'. Throughout history bad things have happened to innocent people. Unfortunately, others, while perhaps trying to make things better, only worsen them. It's a tragedy of human life that we just have to deal with as long as there are violent or immoral people in this world.

 

[kadafi]

The United States 'atrocities" pale in comparison to other acts by current and former governments.

The US atrocities include taking pictures of naked Iraqis and making them do sexually suggestive stuff. Terrible, for sure. But I wouldn't go so far to call it an "atrocity" to the level implied here.

Abu Ghraib is no Auschwitz. Camp Delta is no Treblinka.

The US liberated Iraq and is working to rebuild the infastructure. The US has, for the first time, allowed Iraqis and Afghans the freedom to chose their own future.

Show me an atrocity committed under policy of the US government, not isolated events of a couple soldiers getting carried away with themselves.

Show me mass graves filled with hundreds of murdered Iraqi children who died, not as unfortunate victims of a war, but because of their race or religious background.

Perhaps I should clarify the meaning of atrocity to you. An act of atrocity is not necessarily a crime that is committed and is related to one's religious or racial background, rather - they are crimes that are barbaric and immoral and are ussualy inflicted by an armed force on civilians and prisoners. It has nothing to do with policies.

Allow me to list all the atrocities commited by the US aggressors.

1. We have the Haifa Street Helicopter Massacre. The US attempted to cover it up but got caught lying when a tape and eyewitnesses accounts told a different story.
2. The US massive attack (riots incited by the US) who killed more than 1300 Iraqis, most of them were innocent women and children.
3. They continuation of the attacks in Fallujah. Accordin' to New York Times, 30 people were killed, mostly innocents and the only survivor was an 10-month-old infant. This prompted the Iraqi scholars to denounce these attacks as [terrorist acts]. They pointed out that the victims where [women and children -- most of them less than 10 years old].
4. Or what about the city of Naja where 1000 Iraqis (mostly innocent civilians) where killed and the people of Kufa who were killed for marching for peace.
5. They also attacked Sadr city leaving 40 Iraqis and 202 people dead. The New York Times reported that most of the victims were ordinary people.


On Sept. 24, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that "operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry."

Because we liberated the Iraqis. I didn't see any other Muslim nations stepping up to the plate and delivering the Iraqi Muslims from his evil. Americans put their lives on the line to liberate the Iraqis.

The Arabs didn't come until Saddam was gone, and even then all they did was murder more innocent Iraqis. It's hypocrisy.

Iraq liberated? Two years of occupation and is Iraq liberated?

A UN human rights expert warned on Thursday, April 7, 2005, that malnutrition rates among young Iraqi children had almost doubled since the US-led invasion of Iraq. “The situation of the right to food in Iraq is of serious concern,” the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said in a report to the UN human rights commission. Citing previous studies reported last year, Ziegler added, “Acute malnutrition amongst Iraqi children under the age of five has almost doubled from four percent to 7.7 percent.”

Or what about the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed?

Guardian Unlimited writes:
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

Or what about the raids, arresting about 10,600 according to US counts. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians are being held in makeshift jails run by US troops—many without being charged or even questioned. And in these prisons are children whose parents have no way of locating them.

Or what about the humiliating attacks on the Mosques?

The US occupation forces began attacking mosques from the first months of the occupation with an attack on Al-Hassan Mosque in Fallujah on Monday night, June 6, 2003, that killed 8 Iraqis. On Saturday, September 25, 2004, up to 100 Iraqi national guards backed by US armor raided Ibn Taymiyah, a Sunni mosque in Baghdad, claiming they were searching for weapons. Furniture and copies of the Qur’an were thrown around during the raid. The mosque’s imam, Sheikh Mahdi Al-Sumaidiy, and 30 others were jailed. Similar attacks have happened in other mosques around Iraq

What about the destruction of Human Heritage?

The US-led war on Iraq has resulted in the looting and destruction of thousands of priceless historical and archeological relics from civilizations that date as far back as 6,000 years. Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist of Boston University, described the loss of such irreplaceable exhibits as “a wide-scale catastrophe.” In a country that contains from 10,000 to 100,000 ancient sites, any bombing must have resulted in damage. Following the war, looters ransacked and set fire to Iraq’s National Library. They also raided and burned Iraq’s main Islamic Library, which contained Qur’ans from the very early Islamic period.

What about the attacks on wedding parties?
In May 2004, a US air strike hit a wedding party near Qaim, a town on the border with Syria, killing around 40 civilians. On October 8, 2004, at least 12 people were killed and 17 others wounded, including the bride, in a US air strike on a house shortly after a wedding party on the city of Fallujah, some 50 km west of Baghdad. Women and children were also among the wounded.

What about the atrocities of killing unarmed wounded Iraqi prisoners?

Footage aired by several US television networks, November 16, 2004, showed a US marine shooting dead an unarmed, wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah. The Iraqi was one of five wounded left in the mosque after US marines had fought their way in. The shot man shown in the footage “did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way,” an NBC network correspondent said.

If Iraq was "liberated", how come they already enforced a crackdown on freedom of expression by shutting down Al-Hawza newspaper?

I think we have a different definition of the term liberation. Additionaly, please refrain from stereotyping the Mujahideens. The Mujahideens "are not all arabs", rather they were Muslims coming from at least 21 countries including many African countries. But the real issue with me is not the condition of Iraq, rather your vehemently opposition and obvious in-denial that the US Soldiers did not commit atrocities. That leaves me question your input on the political affairs. Are you defending the US soldiers because you share the same national identity?

This has already been discussed. Saddam was allowed to sell oil to buy food and medicine, but he, of course, cheated his own people so he could continue to live fat.

Sanctions never would have been in place had Saddam Hussein never invaded Kuwait (where he also murdered hundreds or Kuwaiti Muslims).

Not quite bro,

The post is still here http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=47209&postcount=45 and I still haven't received a reply.

Yes.

Yes wouldn't simply do. I am man of proof, either you provide concrete evidence that they display anti-americanism or I will disregard your words as a failed attempt to discredit a credible source.

It is because there is no objective reporting. It's rank in its bias. The crimes that need to be reported in Iraq is the crime being committed by "Mujahideen" against innocent people in Iraq.

Despite the fact that I do not agree with the actions that some of the Iraqi Muslims are committing, I still think it's a poor excuse to label a credible source as biased considering the fact that they have reported in the past both sides of the Palestinian conflict and the current conflict of Iraq. But nevertheless, I want you to provide evidence.

I will disregard your last sentence since that was a direct insult to me. Rather, I advice you would not hurl such accusations at me, if you want to keep the discussion flowing. Jazaka'Allaahu Khairun in advance

Remember, my objection lies in the fact that you will not affirm the atrocities committed by the US aggressors. Nothing holds me back from condemning un-islamic actions committed by the Mujahideens but in your case, you will not acknowledge these heinous acts because your strong support in nationalism has clouded your judgmenent.

 

[imaad_udeen]

Allow me to list all the atrocities commited by the US aggressors.

1. We have the Haifa Street Helicopter Massacre. The US attempted to cover it up but got caught lying when a tape and eyewitnesses accounts told a different story.

There are two sides to every story yet you chose to believe the story which makes the Americans out to be bloodthirst butchers.

The helo did fire on the vehicle, that is standard operating proceedure.

The helo also reported receiving small arms fire from the crowd which it then attacked.

This is a war zone and, unfortunantly, it only takes one guy with a rifle to ruin the fun for everyone else.

2. The US massive attack (riots incited by the US) who killed more than 1300 Iraqis, most of them were innocent women and children.

What are you talking about? Details, please. Date, location, etc.

3. They continuation of the attacks in Fallujah. Accordin' to New York Times, 30 people were killed, mostly innocents and the only survivor was an 10-month-old infant. This prompted the Iraqi scholars to denounce these attacks as [terrorist acts]. They pointed out that the victims where [women and children -- most of them less than 10 years old].

Fallujah was a insurgent/terrorist haven and needed to be dealt with.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say 30 people were killed and one baby survived. Survivied what? An attack on a building?

Again, if the insurgents use a building to attack American soldiers from, what would you expect them to do? Not shoot back?

4. Or what about the city of Naja where 1000 Iraqis (mostly innocent civilians) where killed

You must be refering to the smack down that al_sadr's militias received last year?

The group that the Americans were fighting were radical Shia who had impossed their own strict version of Muslim law, forcing men to grow beards, arresting people with no authority to do so and torturing or executing those who would not step into line.

They had to be dealt with. I am not sure how many of 1,000 killed were fighters and how many were civilians. We also dont know who killed them all.

Obviously the militia was shooting, too, so isnt it possible that some of the innocents killed were killed by them?

and the people of Kufa who were killed for marching for peace.

It was Iraqi NG who fired on the crowd and according to their report, they received fire from someone in the crowd.

5. They also attacked Sadr city leaving 40 Iraqis and 202 people dead. The New York Times reported that most of the victims were ordinary people.

40 Iraqis and 202 people dead? Where were the other dead people from?

When did this happen?

Iraq liberated? Two years of occupation and is Iraq liberated?

You must have missed the elections that took place. Iraq has freely chosen its own government and that government has requested the continued assistance of coalition forces to fight the insurgency.

It stopped being an occupation the moment the Iraqis were given power from L. Paul Bremer.

A UN human rights expert warned on Thursday, April 7, 2005, that malnutrition rates among young Iraqi children had almost doubled since the US-led invasion of Iraq. “The situation of the right to food in Iraq is of serious concern,” the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said in a report to the UN human rights commission. Citing previous studies reported last year, Ziegler added, “Acute malnutrition amongst Iraqi children under the age of five has almost doubled from four percent to 7.7 percent.”

The UN never seems to mention the money and effort the US is pouring into Iraq.

But anyways, fixing things would be a lot easier if the Sunni's would stop this tirade and accept the inevitable. Their reign is over, it was a total disaster and it is time for the majority to finally rule in Iraq.

They need to get with the program or they will be playing catchup tot he Shi'a and the Kurds.

Or what about the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed?

Guardian Unlimited writes:
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

Let me get this straight, is this 100,000 people dead by combat or 100,000 dead from all reasons?

And most, over 50,000 people, have been killed by US airstrikes.

Please document this one.

The highest reliable figure I have seen is 20-25,000 killed in combat related deaths by ALL SIDES.

Or what about the raids, arresting about 10,600 according to US counts. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians are being held in makeshift jails run by US troops—many without being charged or even questioned. And in these prisons are children whose parents have no way of locating them.

Guerilla warfare hurts the population. The advantage of fighting as a guerilla is that you can blend in easily and it makes the conventional forces you are fighting have too look much harder.

This is why so many young Sunni men are being picked up, it is almost impossible to tell who is who until they are sorted and questioned. Better safe than sorry in this case.

Or what about the humiliating attacks on the Mosques?

The US occupation forces began attacking mosques from the first months of the occupation with an attack on Al-Hassan Mosque in Fallujah on Monday night, June 6, 2003, that killed 8 Iraqis.

um, yea, and the insurgents don't use mosques as bases?

Right. It is well known that the unsurgents snipe at the Americans from mosques because they know the propaganda effect it will have if the US fires back.

On Saturday, September 25, 2004, up to 100 Iraqi national guards backed by US armor raided Ibn Taymiyah, a Sunni mosque in Baghdad, claiming they were searching for weapons. Furniture and copies of the Qur’an were thrown around during the raid. The mosque’s imam, Sheikh Mahdi Al-Sumaidiy, and 30 others were jailed. Similar attacks have happened in other mosques around Iraq

You call this an atrocity?

I refer you to what I said above. The Sunni insurgents regularly use mosques as rally pointsm, bases and staging areas for attacks.

I would expect them to be searched.

Concerning the detentions, I have no idea but would assume they had a reason to detain those who were detained.

What about the destruction of Human Heritage?

The US-led war on Iraq has resulted in the looting and destruction of thousands of priceless historical and archeological relics from civilizations that date as far back as 6,000 years. Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist of Boston University, described the loss of such irreplaceable exhibits as “a wide-scale catastrophe.” In a country that contains from 10,000 to 100,000 ancient sites, any bombing must have resulted in damage. Following the war, looters ransacked and set fire to Iraq’s National Library. They also raided and burned Iraq’s main Islamic Library, which contained Qur’ans from the very early Islamic period.

The Americans didn't do this, the Iraqi's did this themselves.

But if the Americans would have acted to defend these things some would have been calling that an atrocity.

Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

What about the attacks on wedding parties?
In May 2004, a US air strike hit a wedding party near Qaim, a town on the border with Syria, killing around 40 civilians. On October 8, 2004, at least 12 people were killed and 17 others wounded, including the bride, in a US air strike on a house shortly after a wedding party on the city of Fallujah, some 50 km west of Baghdad. Women and children were also among the wounded.

So I suppose your theory is that US pilots fly around looking for weddings to "crash?" Come on, look at it objectively and realize there is another side of the story.

I would wager it was a tragic accident and not a premeditated slaughter. A very tragic event but not an atrocity.

What about the atrocities of killing unarmed wounded Iraqi prisoners?

Footage aired by several US television networks, November 16, 2004, showed a US marine shooting dead an unarmed, wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Fallujah. The Iraqi was one of five wounded left in the mosque after US marines had fought their way in. The shot man shown in the footage “did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way,” an NBC network correspondent said.

What was not reported was that a Marine from the same unit had been killed the day before when a supposedly wounded insurgent pulled a gun and shot the Marine.

As I said, there are usually two sides to every story.

If Iraq was "liberated", how come they already enforced a crackdown on freedom of expression by shutting down Al-Hawza newspaper?

This was before the handover.

Why should the coalition allow al-Sadrs paper to print while he was launching a rebellion? Propaganda is, indeed, a weapon of its own.

I think we have a different definition of the term liberation. Additionaly, please refrain from stereotyping the Mujahideens.

Could I ask you to not stereotype Americans as well? One of my oldest and best friends is serving in Tikrit right now and he is not there to kill Iraqis. He is there to help Iraqis.

The Mujahideens "are not all arabs", rather they were Muslims coming from at least 21 countries including many African countries.

the vast majority of them are Arabs.

But the real issue with me is not the condition of Iraq, rather your vehemently opposition and obvious in-denial that the US Soldiers did not commit atrocities.

Did I say that American soldiers "did not commit atrocities?"

I don't remember ever saying that. Certainly it has happened, but when it does it is usually a few Americans doing it, such as the Abu Ghraib incident and the murder of a prisoner here or there.

It is not US policy to murder Iraqis. The vast majority of US soldiers are not blood thirsty killers just looking to murder Iraqis. That is not how we do things.

I know 5 men in Iraq and all them are good men and none of them have the capacity to cold bloodedly murder anyone, much less women and children.

That leaves me question your input on the political affairs. Are you defending the US soldiers because you share the same national identity?

I am defending the US soldiers because I know Americans, I was born an American and raised with Americans. I grew up in a military family and shared the same values these men have for the vast majority of my life.

I will not stand idly by and watch people defame the whole for the acts of the very few.

Yes wouldn't simply do. I am man of proof, either you provide concrete evidence that they display anti-americanism or I will disregard your words as a failed attempt to discredit a credible source.

Article found on Islamonline.net which has the title "Trigger-Happy US Soldiers Butcher Iraqis"

That's not biased?

http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/08/article_03.shtml

On HRW I find many articles condeming the US in Iraq but NONE condemning the vicious insurgency.

Remember, my objection lies in the fact that you will not affirm the atrocities committed by the US aggressors. Nothing holds me back from condemning un-islamic actions committed by the Mujahideens but in your case, you will not acknowledge these heinous acts because your strong support in nationalism has clouded your judgmenent.

Of course, it must be nationalism which makes me think this way.

Certainly it can't be that I'm right, can it?

It appears we have a rank misunderstanding somewhere. you seem to think that my opinion is the US does all good. Which is not the case.

I think that you are blowing these atrocities far out of proportion and totally brushing over the terrorism committed by Muslims on Muslims.