First, I want to salute Mr. Mark Kraft, his courage and his honesty for bringing this story.
I read every available religion book to show me the path where can I find justice, history books to see when does all started, Philosophy books to discover how to achieve it and I failed to find the answer.
This why I joined the International committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), my goal was to find the answer to this question.
Through this journey, I learned many things (not the answer) and this is one of them:
There are no nationalities, countries and groups. There are no bad Americans, good Americans, bad Iraqis and good Iraqis.
There are bad people, good people, liars, honest ….etc, for me every human being is transparent I don’t look at their faces or their origins, I just look through them to their souls and their aura.
“I am just trying to find the answer”.
They [the pictures] indicate that a group of U.S. soldiers planted weapons — the same weapon, in fact — in front of killed, wounded, and captured Iraqi kids. I cannot authenticate whether Mr. Hersh is correct and that the teens in question were innocent or not, but clearly, something significant is amiss. At the very least, it indicates how uncertain the situation is over there. Our soldiers literally do not know who the enemy is, and apparently are willing to manipulate the evidence in order to justify their actions.
The pictures were taken with a digital camera in Buhriz, Iraq on Oct. 22nd, 2004, and their file names are numbered, apparently from the digital camera in question. They show the basics for you: no weapons in the first photos, then weapons inserted into the pictures later.
It appears to me that these teenagers are not insurgents, in that they showed no signs of having either weapons or wearing khafiyas, or headscarves, which are typically used as a kind of uniform by insurgents, as displayed in the Associated Press photos below. To me, the whole situation is indicative of the terrible uncertainty of the conflict, where everyone is a potential insurgent, and where that fear and uncertainty leads to a situation where U.S. soldiers try to manipulate the reality of the situation.
It’s also worth noting that medical treatment was apparently not offered until shown in the later pictures, leading me to wonder whether the assistance, in itself, was part of the “staged” element of these photos.
Read the rest and see the images here
(Thank you Nadia)
So it’s obviously not just the US Army, although they are clearly the worst. No doubt if the USA wasn’t so backward in supply troops for UN peace keeping mission they would be up to their normal tricks of debauchery, extortion, child abuse, paedophilia, theft and murder in the Congo as well.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/hl868.cfm
LOLOL…Nice try George.
You attempt to twist even the smallest statements to back your phobias. Clearly the WORST?? By what measure? Your own evaluation?Try Thorzine. It might help you.
There was a spam attack on the comments this morning, spam attack on blogs is normal but what was not normal on this attack is: attacked one entry only with 250 spams all of them referring to a porn sites, I think it was a human attack not bots attack.
I managed to delete them all
LadyBird,
I believe in freedom of speech, and sad to say, that means all speech. It even includes speech that I disagree with. Spam attacks by anyone against anyone are always wrong. This is your site and as such it is your property. Your site = your views whether I agree ofr not.
There’s one obvious point that occurred to me that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread. If one assumes that the boys in the photos were innocent kids, and that the soldiers were “framing” them, then why were 3 of them taken alive? Living prisoners can contradict the soldiers’ stories. Dead combatants couldn’t. If the soldiers were trying a cover-up, on would think they would have killed the wounded, instead of treating them. That single point convinces me that the boys were, indeed, shooting at the soldiers.
Well… alot of people talk about war and no-one is really there except the soldiers. Reporters and journalist they don’t have the job of protecting freedom they are all just out for a buck and the years annual prize. Unless you are there I think it’s kinda hard to say they (the platoon) did wrong. IT IS WAR you know… it’s not like a robbery.. As the 1LT said “chaotic”. When somebody is trying to kill you I assume it would be VERY chaotic. I wasn’t in the army for long and some might know what ROKA stands for (try to guess without looking it up :-) ) but standing in landmine fields knowing that an enemy sniper has his scope on my head, knowing that the slightest wrong gestures would get me shot doesn’t feel very good(I was on the GOP). The stress is amazing and under stress no matter how clear the rules you don’t always follow them, you try but will come short in one area or another.
I, not through fellowship or out of pity think the 1LT did well. He brought his men back alive one thing many of us will never ever get the chance to do or feel. The fighting there is very erradict, the enemy combatant is not always an adult male and well it was and still is very desperate on both sides(so they coould’ve enlisted the kids propaganda money threats…)Take American civil war/ww1/ww2/korean war and etc wars… there will always be enemy combatants under the adult age (21) it’s just sad but it will always happen! I think the real question is could the war be unjust? YES, Iraq didn’t have anything the DOD was looking for and saying it had thats just bullshit… Anti-americanism? Well the goodl ol’ US of A is out of hand in attacking Iraq which itself violates nuemrous UN laws, various treaties and pacts. Just because you can hit somebody doesn’t mean you should
The US Army is not the only army to have committed atrocious acts during war… take various african countries, latin american countries and middle eastern countries some have committed worse but in the name of peace love and good ol’ american pie it should be punished more severely in the case that it did happen within the US army.
Micheal maybe right, you never know. By calling him names isn’t going to clear anything up. Truth takes time and patience I hope we all have both. The bloggers here (most) seem quite intelligent and we may or may not change the views of those around us but if we do I hope it is in a more neutral way.
In all honesty the pictures leave some question which since we were never there will never be answered… I just hope that good ol’ oil lovin’ Bush isn’t sacrificing the lives of honorable men and women in the name of buisness. Rangers, truely a group to be honored. As they say “Rangers lead the way!” May they lead the US of A to peace and prosperity for the WORLD not just the REDNECK community. And another thing; stop running over our people with tanks.. that’s not very nice… I hope those bastards rot in hell, dumb incest loving donkey ass raping hamster cock sucking fellatio enjoying shit eating redneck trailer trash fuckers. Look it up… 2 girls run over by tank… I am not for america I am for the people who have the courage to stand up for everyone who does not, bad management (aka BUSH) thats all.
sorry to rant… and please dont send spam mail or I will wiggle my fingers in you a@@hole till you start liking it.
Pingback: How to Identify Misinformation - US Department of State
Pingback: Search results for Ali Atwa - Copernic Agent
Pingback: Het redactiestatuut van Alt-F4 - Alt-F4.org
I SERVED IN IRAQ WITH THE 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION AS A COMBAT MEDIC. MY QUESTION IS HOW COME NO WILL REPORT THE GOOD WE HAVE DONE AND ARE CONTINUEING TO DO. WE HAVE PROTESTORS AND NEWS REPORTERS CONSTANTLY SLAMMING US SOLDIERS. THE MAJORITY OF THE IRAQI CITIZENS APPERICIATE WHAT WE HAVE DONE. FOR WHAT EVER REASON WE WENT TO WAR AT LEAST WE GAVE A COUNTRY A FIGHTING CHANCE TO MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES, NOT TO MENTION TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH OUT THE FEAR OF THEY’RE LEADER KILLING THEM. I WAS WOUND TWICE IN COMBAT OVER THERE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I WOULD GLADLY DO IT AGAIN IF ASKED, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE DONE A MORAL AND JUST THING. FOR ALL THE CRITICS THAT ONLY BASE THEY’RE OPION ON WHAT THEY READ IN THE NEWS OR SEE ON TV. STOP, ASK A SOLDIER OR BETTER YET GET UP OFF YOUR SCARED, LAZY ASS AND BUY A PLANE TICKET AND GO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
SSG F. WILSON
Fred you contravened International Law by even being there, as for the Iraqis appreciating you being there, I suppose they might have said that to your face as an alternative to being murdered, but it’s a fantasy I’m afraid.
Iraq has been ruined because of fools like you and you claim you’ve given the a chance of making something for themselves. Tell me, were you wounded in the head perchance?
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area….Source Site: The United Nations
Don’t let these people get to you “SSG.Wilson”
Everyone has a side, these people just happen to support Abu Zarqawi and what he’s doing to Iraq, that’s all.
They also do not understand how to read…Example:
authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660
Apart from the obvious fact that US Resolution refered ONLY to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the removal of Iraq forces from there. Fred is a war criminal and as far as I’m concerned is the same as a German soldier in 1939 claiming that the Poles wanted to be invaded by the Germans.
RESOLUTION 660
2 August 1990
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990
The Security Council, Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
Again SSG. Wilson.…They can’t read very well…Example:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
and there are more.…many more.
They pick and choose what fits their agenda only…
And another issue they don’t understand is that when someone breaks a ceasefire agreement, that agreement is null and void. Saddam Hussien broke these agreements faster than the UN could spit out resolutions. It’s simple intelligence really.
Jeff(rey) I know that you are not too smart, but there was no UN Resolution that authorised an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. If your memory goes back that far, you will recall that Powell went to the UN with a pack of lies, which he’s already admitted, in an attempt to get that Resolution. He failed of course, therefore the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
And another issue they don’t understand is that when someone breaks a ceasefire agreement, that agreement is null and void. Saddam Hussien broke these agreements faster than the UN could spit out resolutions. It’s simple intelligence really.
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
that is from 1441 dumbass.
goddamn you guys a bunch a fucking idiots.
Jeff(rey) there was nothing in Resolution 1441 that authorised force. Why in your simple mind do you think Powell went back to the UN to try and get one?
Simple politics.
It was becoming increasingly clear that the countries who had signed the unanimous ultimatum to Saddam, and who had allowed him to violate the cease fire agreement since 1991, were not willing to enforce their own ultimatum.
Exactly.
Doesn’t take much intelligence to figure that one out, besides France and Russia were so busy sellng arms to and making money from Saddam, they didn’t want that to end.
Again…simple intelligence.
oh..
what part of that do you not understand? is it the use all necessary means part that fucks you up?
It was becoming increasingly clear that the countries who had signed the unanimous ultimatum to Saddam, and who had allowed him to violate the cease fire agreement since 1991, were not willing to enforce their own ultimatum.
There was nothing to enforce, the UN Weapon Inspectors were quietly doing there job when they were moved out for the oil invasion. No WMD were found because there wasn’t any.
Doesn’t take much intelligence to figure that one out, besides France and Russia were so busy sellng arms to and making money from Saddam, they didn’t want that to end.
If it doesn’t take much intelligence Jeff to figure that one out perhaps it is left best to you. :) . The USA was also of course selling arms to Saddam and Iraq and just about everyone else in the area.
Learn how to read michael…
Saddam Hussien broke that agreement almost everyday by firing SAM’s at jets flying in the no fly zones.
What part of that do you not understand.
NO–Fly zone was not authorized by the UN.
Read this
Saddam killed Iraqis with a permission from the US .
Here
Never said anything about the UN and the no fly zones, the ceasefire agreement had nothing to do with the UN.
You can’t have it both ways Ladybird. You can’t complain about the US not occupying Iraq in the 90’s and then turn around and complain about the US being there now.
Which is it? Should we have removed Saddam in the 90’s and occupied your former country then or now?
Don’t use what the US didn’t the first time around as ammo to fuel your hate for the US now. Of course I’ve always believed we should have finished the job in 1991, but just think if we had…You wouldn’t have this nice cozy little outlet to push your hate for the US.
Your making as the US and Iraq are two neighboring countries, What are your airplanes doing above the Iraqi sky???
I am talking about the US credibility.
and by the way…The UN does not run the world. Last time I checked no one was addressing Kofi as “Emperor Annan”.
And one more thing, Just think what Saddam and his sons would have done to Iraqi’s if those No-Fly Zones never existed…
Ponder that one for a while.
No, The would be Kuwait. Remember them? That’s what started all this. That little invasion by Saddam in 1990. You know, that little country that Saddam refers to it’s people as “Kuwaiti Dogs”
Contrary to your imagination, the USA doesn’t make Internationally Law, that comes from the UN on the agreement of their members, including of course the USA.
The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorised the no-fly zones to be established. U.S. officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organisation’s rules and regulations belongs to the organisation itself, not to each and every individual member of the organisation.
Saddam was given an ultimatum to comply immediately, unconditionally, and completely. Any failure on his part to accomplish all of these things put him in violation of the ultimatum. During the final inspections, Saddam tried to refuse to allow the interviewing of scientists without government controllers, and tried to refuse to allow them to leave country with their families for interviews. End of story. He targets US/UK planes. End of story. He was found in breach for rockets. End of story.
Saddam was forfeit. Everyone will milk the failure to find WMDs for a long time. That’s swell. But Saddam violated the ultimatum and it was incumbant upon the UNSC to enforce. Many balked. Some didn’t.
During the final inspections, Saddam tried to refuse to allow the interviewing of scientists without government controllers, and tried to refuse to allow them to leave country with their families for interviews. End of story. He targets US/UK planes. End of story. He was found in breach for rockets. End of story.
None of the above is the slightest bit of truth. But it’s not the end of story, in fact far from it. The USA has many crimes on its hands and will eventually be called to book. The Germans showed the same kind of arrogance in 1939 as the Americans do now, they too believed they could not be brought into answer their crimes.
Ladybird can you delete #384, it’s obviously been put on by an American wanting to censor the truth and tie up the page.
If any of the ‘above’ can be proven as true will you acknowledge it?
The fact remains Charles that the UN weapons Inspectors acknowledged Iraq’ cooperation as “excellent” or words to that affect before they were advised to leave due to the pending illegal invasion. The “no flight zones” were illegal in any case and were used as a softening up of Iraqi defences before the illegal invasion, the Iraqis actually had every right to shoot at these planes. As for the rockets, they were reputed to have travelled a few kilometres further than authorised, big deal.
Extracts from chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix’s statement to the UN Security Council on progress in the search for banned weapons in Iraq.
Now let’s remember folks, Saddam was given a final opportunity to comply immediately, completely, and unconditionally. We must consider his resume over the 90’s.
Any conditions he set, delays he created, or even ommissions in reporting, were to be considered materal breach as per 1441.
Any one of those examples by itself proves Saddam did not comply immediately, completely, and unconditionally.
Ladybird, is this the “Intellect” that you speak of…?
Michael what part of “ceasefire agreement” do you not understand? Is it the “Ceasefire” word that confuses you?
Here are hard facts for you:
Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions.
Saddam violated his Ceasefire agreements.
Again, live by the rules that you agreed to, or all bets are off. Period.
End of story.
You guys pride yourselves with love for the UN, but say nothing about “their” laws, as you say, being enforced. You could actually swing the agrument to, The United States is doing nothing more than enforcing the laws put forth by the UN.
According to the UN and “their” law, it was a big deal. Everytime you try and make an agrument you bring up international law…now you’re saying it’s ok to bend the rules when it comes to the laws that the UN put forth?
Which is it Michael? Obey the law or bend it to your liking?
The point being that we now know Saddam didn’t have any WMD and was therefore unable to destoy them. Listed below are the final comments made by the weapons inspectors. If it’s simply a question of ignoring UN Resoultions, then of course Israel has ignored more than any other country in the world, why were they not invaded?
From your own link;
Co-operation might be said to relate to both substance and process.
“It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access…
“Iraq has on the whole co-operated rather well so far with Unmovic in this field.
“The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and, with one exception, it has been prompt.
“We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul.
“Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.…
Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
Blair’s defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector
by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice
The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305–01.htm
Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General’s legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.
Saddam had over a decade to prove it. His deliberate attempts to sabotage the inspection process, his lies, and determination to not reveal his programs wasthe cause ofthe Iraqi suffering. Not to mention the war that started it all.
It might be concluded that his single largest error was to violate the cease fire terms by apparently disposing of much of his WMD material without the required UN inspectors on hand.
In any case, the inspections exercise after 1441 was not some formula that gave Saddam one point for being good, and –1 point for being bad, with a total at the end to decide if he was good or bad.
1441 was very clear. Any conditions that he tried to impose, and delays that he caused, any inconsistencies in his reporting — and even ommissions, were all considered material breach meaning he had exhausted his final opportunity (i.e. no more opportunities). Any one item was enough to make him forfeit. As Blix pointed out, what was required of Saddam was the desire to comply, and the will to comply. South Africa had both. Disarming os not hard. Verification of disarmament is not hard. Saddam deliberately made it hard for over a decade. The conclusion is obvious — he did not want to disarm.
Actual Transcript
Meaning Saddam lied about having destroyed them in 1991.
Meaning that Saddam lied about bioweapons. The only reason he was caught at all is because a defecter betrayed him. UNSCOM than located and destroyed the materials ‘that never existed’ 5 years after they should have been disclosed and destroyed.
Saddam used every trick he could to sow uncertainty and this came back to haunt him.
This was not a man to be trusted. He was given plenty of opportunity to prove his intentions one way or the other, and unfortunately for him, he chose non-compliance.
Cherry pick and parse all day long. Saddam was a son of a bitch (nothing personal against his mom), and chose his fate.
Well then I guess 1 million Rwandans were legally chopped to bits with machetes.
The UN had authority (as global arbiter) to decide what to do. They decided to do nothing. I guess that means its ok. Must be legal.
Speaking of Rwanda and genocide…
Everytime this planet experiences some sort of genocide, there is always an European involved.
Click Here!
Jeff,
Let’s not make light of one million civilian deaths. I don’t think Belgium is to blame — although it may have some citizens involved. Their are really crappy people all over the world.
My point about Rwanda was simply that the UN is incapable of taking decisive action, even when it has every right to. Even when it is morally obligated to. The lesson learned — and Clinton admitted that Rwanda was his most tragic foreign policy failure — is that you cannot rely on the UN to do the right thing. Look at Bosnia. This stuff just gets repeated over and over again. Dictators slaughter and oppress, and they have full voting rights as UN members, and are voted to chair human rights commissions.
The UN is now a joke — and every tin pot dictator knows it. So do innocent oppressed people in their last pathetic moments before being slaughtered. Maybe that will change some day.
But until then, you better hope that your fate does not depend on the UN coming to help you.
Wasn’t trying to make light, just trying to show an example of the hyprocricy that we call Europe.
Yep, just ask Iran. But hey, that’s a European problem, we need not worry. ;-)
Don’t worry, I’ll never expect help from the UN, nor do I want it. I’m fully able to take care of myself.
And speaking of the little devils…(both the UN and Iran)
Iran warns of ‘consequences’ if referred to U.N. Security Council
No need to fear everyone, Europe will save us all!
Pingback: TFP -> Officer fires letter against website over photos
Pingback: diary 27
Too bad that we can’t yet(!) trade the lives of you know-it-all pseudo geeks who don’t have a clue about war or most other things, for the lost lives of our HEROIC American warriors. The islamo-fascists have been waging a war for over 40 years against the plush life that allows you morons to exist on this earth. Get a CLUE, if the islamofascists win, then you and everything about you gets brutally killed and flushed down the sewer, and no they won’t stop to debate it with you and you will soil your pants and as your last thought is when you realize you screwed yourselves.
Pingback: Eyeballing the Buhriz Body Count
Pingback: Officer in Charge Eyeballs the Buhriz Body Count