Thread: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’

Originally Posted by confed

You mean if it were just like in Iraq? The terrorists firing morters, RPGs and MGs into crowds of school children? I could see the military being called out for that, otherwise it's a police action.

What will u call of this

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...0900010002.htm

30 injured in J&K terror attack

At least 30 tourists, mostly from West Bengal, were injured as terrorists carried out two grenade attacks in quick succession targeting tourist buses on Wednesday.

According to TV reports two people have been killed in the incident.

Terrorists hurled a grenade on a bus at Badyari Chowk in Dal Gate area around 1740 hours, official sources said.

Minutes later, they hurled another grenade at a second bus at Chinar Bagh in the same area, the sources said.

They said the injured were rushed to SMHS hospital where the condition of one of the injured was stated to be critical.

No terrorist outfit claimed responsibility for the attack.

Wednesday's incident came five days after terrorists had attacked a tourist bus on May 26 killing four persons from Gujarat

.

Had some of these tourists being "WHITE" westerners, there would have been so much furore, but they were indians, so nothing much.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021223/j&k.htm#1

Militants kill three children
Police station attacked, seven ultras killed
Tribune News Service And Agencies

Jammu, December 22
Three kids, in the age group of four to eight years, were killed when a group of militants opened indiscriminate firing on the family members of Munshi Khan in the Surankot area last night.

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

What will u call of this

What do I call it? Terrorism. I couldn't care less what color, religion, nationality, sex, or sexual preference a person is either.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Nice of Murtha to convict them without an investigation, charges, or a trial.

At least they're not in a place like Guantanamo and just being talked about in an article.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

At least they're not in a place like Guantanamo and just being talked about in an article.

If they did it, hopefully they'll go to a place far worse than Gitmo...

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

At least they're not in a place like Guantanamo and just being talked about in an article.

They get convicted they'll go to a place MUCH worse than Guantanomo Cuba, i ASSURE you.

Originally Posted by Hari_Om

...Perhaps the difference is that one is an occupation Army the other is not, so one can afford to be blasé about civilian deaths. To be entirely specific the Indian Army does nor operate as an Army of occupation.

Let's see, there are what 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir? Local curfews, restricted travel....But that's not an occupation.

140,000 US troops in Iraq are there under UN mandate, at the request of the elected government of Iraq, working very hard to turn over security to Iraqis so that we can bring our troops home. But that's an occupation.

Where is your UN mandate for Kashmir?

Originally Posted by Hari_Om

People who throw stones should not live in glass houses.

No doubt.

Originally Posted by highsea

Let's see, there are what 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir? Local curfews, restricted travel....But that's not an occupation.

Its the technicalities, coz Maharaja Hair singh signed the accession in favor of India, so its not an occupation. More over J&K is an Indian state and Kashmiris are constituitionally Indian citizens. Indian army is there to protect its citizens, so it cannot be termed as occupation.

140,000 US troops in Iraq are there under UN mandate, at the request of the elected government of Iraq, working very hard to turn over security to Iraqis so that we can bring our troops home. But that's an occupation.

Ive wondered about it too. I mean American forces are there to help out Iraq, they helped in conducting elections and form a government, but they still are called as occupation forces, not just in Aljazeera media but also in BBC. There is no UN mandate which asks US forces to be stationed in Iraq, per se.

Where is your UN mandate for Kashmir?
No doubt.

Actually there is a UN resolution, passed in the 50's which asks India to maintain its forces untill a pleblicite is conducted. The same non binding resolution also asks Pakistan to withdraw its forces and prohibits altering the demographics. Much water has flown thro it, so its not worthwhile to even discuss those UN resolutions anymore.

I agree to the point that terrorists ought to be neutralized, but the double standards followed by the State dept irks me the most.

Its fine to use airstrikes/artillery attacks in Iraq but if we do a major operation in India, then State dept would croon over it in its annual review.

I hope this will not be flame fest, but the same thing with Pakistan. Everytime there is a major operation, they will drum up against India in almost every international forums, while they used air and mortar strikes in Wana. Hypocrits! I guess thats how the world is, we will keep moving on.

Originally Posted by Jay

There is no UN mandate which asks US forces to be stationed in Iraq, per se.

It was the same mandate that stated the new Iraqi government was soverign, and that Coalition forces were there under it's authority.

There was no mandate, it was merely a statement. After all the US Defence forces have gone thro in Iraq, the pain and sufferings they had to bear to uphold Iraqi sovreignity, the UN statement carefully omitted anything related to US.
So, why do we even care about UN mandate?

Security Council congratulates Iraq on 20 May Inauguration of Government,

Condemns Terrorist acts aimed at provoking intercommunal tensions

Presidential Statement Urges Peaceful Participation in Political

Process, Expresses Hope That Key Ministers Will Be Appointed As Soon As Possible

While congratulating the people of Iraq on the 20 May inauguration of their constitutionally elected Government, the Security Council this evening also wholly condemned acts of terrorism in the country, including recent horrific attacks on civilians and religious sites callously aimed at provoking intercommunal tensions.

In a statement read out by its President for the month, Basile Ikouebe ( Congo), the Council urged all Iraqis to participate in the political process peacefully and demanded that those who continued to use violence lay down their arms. Encouraged by the diverse representation in the new Government, the Council expressed the hope that the key ministers of defence, interior and national security affairs would be appointed as soon as possible.

Encouraging the new Government to work tirelessly to promote national reconciliation through dialogue and inclusion and to reject sectarianism, the Council underlined the high expectations in the new Government to deliver improvements in security and stability, in human rights and the rule of law, in the provision of essential services, and in economic progress and prosperity, and urged the Government to work effectively and energetically towards that goal.

In a series of related provisions, the Council strongly urged all States and relevant international organizations to enhance their help to Iraq’s sovereign Government at the current crucial time, noting the particular role of Iraq’s neighbours and calling on them to examine how they could reinforce their contribution, and looking forward to the continued efforts of the League of Arab States.

The Council reaffirmed its support for a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq, as a responsible member of the international community, in which there was stability, prosperity and full respect for human rights and the rule of law. It also reaffirmed Iraq’s independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.

The meeting began at 7 p.m. and ended at 7:05 p.m.

The full text of S/PRST/2006/24 reads as follows:

“The Security Council welcomes the inauguration on 20 May of Iraq’s constitutionally elected Government and congratulates the people of Iraq on this milestone in their country’s political transition.

“The Council is particularly encouraged by the fact that the Government is representative of Iraq’s many diverse communities and expresses its hope that the Ministers of Defence, Interior and National Security Affairs will be appointed as soon as possible. The Security Council encourages the new Government to work tirelessly to promote national reconciliation through dialogue and inclusion and to build an atmosphere in which sectarianism is rejected. The Security Council, at the same time, urges all Iraqis to participate in the political process peacefully, demanding that those who continue to use violence lay down their arms. The Council wholly condemns acts of terrorism in Iraq, including recent horrific attacks on civilians and religious sites aimed callously at provoking intercommunal tensions.

“The Security Council underlines the high expectations in the new Government to deliver improvements in security and stability, in human rights and the rule of law, in the provision of essential services, and in economic progress and prosperity. The Council urges the Government to work effectively and energetically to this end. The Council also strongly urges all States and relevant international organizations to continue and enhance their help to Iraq’s sovereign Government at this crucial time. The Council notes the particular role of Iraq’s neighbours and calls on them to conform to relevant Security Council resolutions and to examine how they can reinforce their contribution. In this context, the Council also looks forward to the continued efforts of the League of Arab States, including the forthcoming conference in Baghdad, in support of the political process the Council has endorsed.

“The Security Council reaffirms its support for a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq, as a responsible member of the international community, in which there is stability, prosperity and full respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Security Council also reaffirms the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8727.doc.htm

Originally Posted by Jay

the UN statement carefully omitted anything related to US.

Let me rephrase my statement as it was likely not clear: It was the same mandate that stated the new Iraqi government was soverign, and that Coalition forces were there under (the new Iraqi government's) authority.

Better?

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

At least they're not in a place like Guantanamo and just being talked about in an article.

They are in pretrial confinement in a brig run by military police.

Originally Posted by Hari_Om

I am OK with people who do not throw stones.

Hari Om,

So if Stalin didn't publish a report on human right abuses, you'd be fine with the fact that he killed millions of people? A sort of practice what you preach moral relativism? I don't think that this is really what you are saying, but that's what it means when put to paper and then taken to its logical ends.

This is in the same weak category of argument that I see some Americans make when they say that "we'll, Abu Ghraib was bad, but it's not as bad as what those terrorists do, so it's okay." Both are junk arguments.

The fact is that the United States sets standards for human rights and we call people to the carpet to account for those human rights violations. If you actually read the varying reports, some of the classifications are based on what a government does to stop these violations. So, what is the US doing to prevent its own violations? You can look at the record and find hundreds of inquiries and investigations, you can find hundreds of soldiers and persons convicted and sentenced to punishments in accordance with what the evidence could support in a trial by jury consistent with the American civilian court system.

To expect that any nation could field a military that is void of any violations of any international convention or moral code is unreasonable and impossible. I'm sure that you could rattle off plenty of incidents that are less than savory that have been committed under the auspices of your government.

I'm not trying to turn this into a India vs. US thread, but just want to make sure that as we debate the actions of individuals, that we analyse proper the role of the state in those actions. Maybe the investigation will turn up something pervasive in the Haditha incident, but so far, what we have is a staff sergeant who allowed his unit to get out of control (in contrast to the My Lai incident in Vietnam, where the culpability ran up to the general officer level in terms of the attitude that allowed a festering moral peversion against Vietnamese to turn into a massacre).

Originally Posted by shek

Abu Ghraib was bad, but it's not as bad as what those terrorists do, so it's okay

Yeah, gotta stop before "so it's ok"...

My favorite is this assclown.

Ted Rall

What gets me is that people read and believe this utter crap.