The Pulitzer Prize has been "Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities."
5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.
Included in the 5 photos are 1 photo taken by Bilal Hussein [more background on Bilal Hussein here and here] of terrorist forces firing at the U.S. in Fallujah. Another photo identified as taken by a 'stringer' shows terrorists murdering an Iraqi election worker. Both of these photos are by individuals who saw Geneva Convention crimes and did nothing to stop them. Both photos indicate also that the individuals who took them had prior knowledge to the crimes being committed.
Of the remaining 15 photos, 2 show prisoners receiving harsh treatment by U.S. forces [here and here]. One more shows a dead child identified as being killed by the U.S. Another photo, taken by Khalid Mohammed, shows the residents of Fallujah rejoicing as they hang the charred bodies of dead American civilians on a bridge. The famous photo that caused Kos to cry 'screw them.' The family of an alleged Abu Ghraib victim is also shown mourning. Displaced children from the Fallujah conflict are also shown, the exact story Giuliana Sgrena was working on when she was taken hostage.
To their credit, at least three photos show the victims of terrorism. See, fair and balanced.
No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule.
The Jawa Report must therefore decline it's Pulitzer Prize. I might consider taking the $10,000 reward as soon as the Pulitzer committee stops hating America.
Thanks to Avenue for the tip.
1
Kinetics attracts attention and media accordingly. Should a photo incite viewers to have a negative opinion of the United States, the fault is the scene captured, not of the reporter taking the image.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 04, 2005 06:45 PM (fufbw)
2
But selection is 90% of presentation. Of the thousands of photos which could have been shown, most of the ones chosen show the U.S. in a negative light.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 04, 2005 07:11 PM (JQjhA)
3
They gave it to ARAFAT dont forget and they gave it to JINMMY CARTER and although carter was no terrorists he has associated with tyrants like CASTRO
Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2005 09:06 PM (pN5ZK)
4
Is someone confusing Pulitzer with something else?
Posted by: gryrooster at April 04, 2005 10:08 PM (CBNGy)
5
Pulitzer....Nobel...what's the difference?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 04, 2005 10:27 PM (JQjhA)
6
The PP committee certainly lives up to my expectations in that regard. But, do take a closer look at the award for Investigate Journalism and the story associated with it. It is one of the most under-reported scandals of the year. You'll see why everyone else including the Oregonian ignored it... and they sat on it for two decades. I've linked it at my blog.
Posted by: Mr.Atos at April 04, 2005 11:10 PM (9K3Yw)
7
Doc S.
You gotta learn you can't let a bunch of facts get in the way of a good gig, man.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 04, 2005 11:22 PM (3DOby)
8
Did I miss something or were there no other pictures taken in the world lasy year nut in iraq? How could that be?
Posted by: Red at April 04, 2005 11:49 PM (gU2pl)
9
I think perhaps this may be a blessing in disguise.
For whatever reason Pulitzer has clearly demonstrated through the majority of these pictures why we have an obligation to be in IRAQ taking care of business.
Posted by: Mr E.M.T. at April 05, 2005 12:03 AM (tUmDH)
10
Upon closer inspection of the Pulitzer photos, the haunting image of young Mohammad Saleem in the roughly hewn wooden coffin hits me like a powerful kick in the chest. Mohammed was killed when American forces brutally machine-gunned him and four other members of his family dead in the street. I encourage Jawa readers to take a few minutes to view this photo of his lifeless 18 month-old body and consider the look on his face. The violence of this hideous, bloody war gives nothing - it takes and keeps taking.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 05, 2005 12:45 AM (fufbw)
11
Collin Baber - please take a few minutes to consider why we are in iraq. The photo has the ability to stir pro-terrorist views - such as yours.
The "bloody war" you refer to - we removed a man who killed 2 million of his own people. That is bloody. We are installing the seed of freedom in the worst place of all - and the sound is being heard all over the world.
It was also "bloody" to fight Hitler - but thank God we did. Or we would all be saying "Gott seit dank".
Posted by: GreatDane at April 05, 2005 03:37 AM (6GN8H)
12
I have a breakdown of the AP's Pulitzer-winning photos by content
here.
My findings:
• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
(4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 1
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
(6, 15, 20)
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
(7, 12, 14)
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
(16, 17)
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
(1, 19)
Equally telling is what the photos don't show:
• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0
Posted by: GaijinBiker at April 05, 2005 03:56 AM (zydfd)
13
Who gives a crap what that photo stirs up. Terrorists don't need an excuse to murder innocents. They don't care about iraqis dying. They kill iraqis every freaking day. You really think that picture stirs up terrorist sympathizers? It might have before their dad got blown up signing up for the iraqi national guard.
So instead of worrying about what the picture is going to do, why don't you try acknowledging that it freaking happened. Why don't you acknowledge that innocents are dying everyday. Everyone loves to remind us that 3000 innocents died on 9-11. Why is it that everytime a photo reminding us that over 18,000+ innocents have died in Iraq turns up you dismiss it as "terrorist propoganda."
Put aside your paranoid propoganda fears and pray for the poor child and the rest of the people in iraq who have to put up with that shit. The worst thing you can do is PRETEND like that little child didn't die at all.
Now go ahead and call me a traitor. I would rather be a traitor and mourn the losses of this war (ON BOTH SIDES) than be a heartless ignorant who pretends its not happening at all.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 04:12 AM (jcSwY)
14
Dear GreatDane,
Please be assured, this dissenter of the Bushian Cult wants peace, order and good government in Iraq. I pray every day for Zarqawi's capture.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 05, 2005 07:37 AM (fufbw)
15
"Bushian Cult"
Greyrooster: Shall we toast our leader with a Jonestown martini?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 08:37 AM (x+5JB)
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 08:48 AM (/+dAV)
17
I reluctantly agree with Jim. If innocents have to die, the least we owe them is to acknowledge their deaths. I always look at pictures of the innocent dead. It anguishes me, but it's the price I pay for supporting this mission.
Posted by: Carlos at April 05, 2005 09:02 AM (paKD6)
18
"More Empty Rhetoric for Veterans",
By Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5451
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 09:08 AM (/+dAV)
19
"The Jawa Report must therefore decline it's Pulitzer Prize. I might consider taking the $10,000 reward as soon as the Pulitzer committee stops hating America."
Hey, that aprostophe shouldn't be in there. Maybe you should learn how to use punctuation correctly before criticizing Pulitzer Prizes awarded for journalism.
Ta!
Posted by: Terrence at April 05, 2005 09:09 AM (SEFvy)
20
Check out these pictures of crispy Fallujan's. It's from the new version of napalm - white phosphorous.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
WARNING--EXTREMELY GRAPHIC
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 09:41 AM (/+dAV)
21
Greg: How do we know that these poor souls are not some of Saddam's victims?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 09:48 AM (x+5JB)
22
Rusty, Dale Dribble says phone home.
Hank
Posted by: Hank Hill at April 05, 2005 10:02 AM (kcvS3)
23
Hey Terrence,
Learn how to spell apostrophe.
Posted by: meg at April 05, 2005 10:14 AM (6mUkl)
24
Greg: How do we know that these poor souls are not some of Saddam's victims?
Posted by Young Bourbon Professional at April 5, 2005 09:48 AM
YBP, I know in your heart you don't really believe that.
Did you check out those horrific pictures? The people look like leather with bones and teeth coming through.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 10:37 AM (/+dAV)
25
Greg: I was truly asking in earnest. I did look at the pictures. truly horrible and sad that this happened to ANYONE.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 10:49 AM (x+5JB)
26
White phosphorous is not new. It's been around for decades. Every military in the world has WP munitions. And it is not a replacement for napalm. Before the criticism of the military, it might help to know a little something about the subject.
Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 10:56 AM (SHPL6)
Posted by: actus at April 05, 2005 11:14 AM (CqheE)
28
White Phosphorous is as loathsome as any napthal/petroleum mix. Water accelerates the chemical reaction as do cellular fluids, hence the melting of flesh.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 11:24 AM (/+dAV)
29
Bottom line.
WP is a chemical weapon of mass destruction.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)
30
I see the hate America first cult is out in numbers today. Yes, war is terrible, to say otherwise is to lie. But consider that for the Iraqi's, the alternative was just as terrible, and that the dealing of death occuring now will eventually stop. Under Saddam, there was no such hope.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 11:42 AM (jPCiN)
31
If your definition of 'chemical weapons' is any weapon made from chemicals then practically all modern weapons are chemical weapons. WP munitions are normally used for illumination or as incindiaries. They don't have a very large dispersal range, thus cannot qualify as a weapon of mass destruction (as opposed to some type of gas).
Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 11:47 AM (SHPL6)
32
I notice they snubbed Susan Lucci again this year. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HOW MANY LIMBS DOES MAX CLELAND HAVE TO LOSE FOR SUSAN LUCCI TO GET A STINKING PULITZER PRIZE?
Posted by: Liberal Larry at April 05, 2005 11:47 AM (7ldvV)
33
Anyone: How does WP "work"? is it fired? A gas? Assuming the people in the photos were victims, how did they die?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 12:08 PM (x+5JB)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 05, 2005 12:08 PM (JQjhA)
35
It's nice to see that the libbys here can take a pic and read EVERYTHING INTO IT!
"Hey!! There is a pic of a dead baby!!! Let's blame it on the American troops!!"
"But....where is your evidence that American troops did that?"
"SHUT UP DO NOT QUESTION MY LOGIC I AM RIGHT!!!"
The libby m00nbats do not understand war
and thank GOD they lost the last election
Posted by: bunnymud at April 05, 2005 12:10 PM (iEtZ1)
36
As if after Rathegate anyone needs more proof that the MSM hates America. Well here it is!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 05, 2005 12:17 PM (Wcsda)
37
To greg, jim, and collin Baber; where was all your anguish over the innocent dead during Saddam's heyday? Where were you when Saddam gassed the Kurds and murdered Shia'? Where was your outrage and anguish over Rwanda? Where is your anguish and rage over Darfur, over the Congo? Gee, I guess its 'cool'as long as 'people of color' kill their own. Your 'feelings' are cheap, convienient, and pathetic.
On a practical matter, this is a war where the enemy use suicidal fanatics to drive explosive filled vehicles of various types into US or Iraqi troops and civilians. When a vehicle ignores posted signs, barriers, yelling, hand waving, and warning shots and keeps getting closer then we shoot the vehicle. The bad guys rarely wear anything indentifiable as a uniform. And they will carry the wife and kids along during battle hoping that gets them past or close to US forces. US troops are never happy about these accidental shootings. For that matter, accidental shootings of one's own troops or friendly civilians has a long, sad history in war and also police work.
The caption I have seen accompanying the photo of the dead child gives no indication of the circumstances of the shooting. Was it during the open warfare in Sadr City last year? Was it a checkpoint mishap? As usual the press is very bad at giving any context to events in Iraq, other than that of an anti-US troops or of an 'anti-US in general' nature. I saw it my first tour in Iraq and it continues into my second.
KJB43
Posted by: KJB43 at April 05, 2005 12:23 PM (l+guQ)
38
White Phosphorous munitions are usually artillery rounds packed with WP. I'm not sure of the exact chemical properties, but I do know that it is highly pyroforic, that is it burns intensely. It kills by burning, however, it isn't normally used to kill as it would be very inaccurate. I've fired these types of rounds from a variety of artillery pieces (105mm, 155mm) using timed fuses so that the round explodes and ignites high overhead to illuminate an area. Of couse, pieces of burning WP eventually fall to the ground and if you are unfortunate to have it fall on you, you are in danger of being severly burned, perhaps fatally.
The idea that these types of rounds would be used as anti-personnel weapons is not realistic. Since artillery batteries have much more destructive rounds at their disposal, it wouldn't make sense to use WP in that manner. The artillery batteries would be miles away, and if the 'evil' US forces wanted to destroy a village full of 'innocent' Iraqis, I'm sure we'd use high explosives to much greater effect. Of course, if we wanted to give anti-US media outlets a reason to bewail the visciouness of our evil weapons, then perhaps WP would do in a pinch.
Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 12:36 PM (SHPL6)
39
KJB43-
Uh, are we discussing Saddam's evil regime? Are we discussing Rwanda, Darfur or the Congo? NO. Very silly of you to question my anguish by demanding to know my feelings on other massacres occuring in the world. Should I list everything that is fucked up in the world next time in order to justify my feelings about Iraq? That would be a very long post.
The matter in discussion here is that MANY PEOPLE choose to ignore the fact that innocent iraqis are dying everyday (due to both insurgents and US collateral or mistargeted damage). When photos documenting this unfortunate loss of life turn up, they dismiss them as "terrorist propoganda." I feel that instead of worrying about politics, people should acknowledge the ugliness of war and mourn the loss of innocent life instead of denouncing the photos.
As for those who love to bring up Saddam's evil regime as if it excuses the fact that thousands of Iraqis have died throughout this war, I will say this: Yes Saddam was a monster. Yes he killed his own people. Yes he needed to be overthrown. However, I feel that there were other options. I feel that in this day and age, there is ALWAYS a better option other than WAR. Why not snipe the fucker? Why not instigate a coup or encourage a revolution. I think any option other than invasion would have resulted in less casualties than we have right now. If you can prove that Saddam killed 18,000+ Iraqis (and 3000 US soldiers) every year then perhaps I will change my views on this war. Otherwise, I will believe that there was a better way.
You see KJB43, I didnt want to come out and object to the War outright...I was just making a case for the AP photos in question. You see I dont think there is a point to complain about this War because now that it has started there is no other option but to see it through. Obviously the worst thing that can happen now is for us to leave this situation in its current state. But you bringing up all those other examples of inhumanity simply proves my point. Why make matters worse by adding to the loss of life? With that said, I think it is YOU that is CHEAP and PATHETIC.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:17 PM (RMdxJ)
40
Water accelerates the chemical reaction as do cellular fluids, hence the melting of flesh.
Silly liberal, willy pete doesn't melt flesh, it freaking incinerates it! Do you know how you can tell you got a handful of WP? You don't have a hand anymore!
But you know what might make them dead folks look the way the do? Fire. Good old fashioned fire.
Poor, deluded liberal. So sad. When the vast majority of decent Iraqis agree with us and are glad we put Saddam in a cell, guess who that leaves for you to be friends with? First hint: You can't visit Saddam.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:23 PM (sh7lC)
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:26 PM (/+dAV)
42
However, I feel that there were other options. I feel that in this day and age, there is ALWAYS a better option other than WAR. Why not snipe the fucker? Why not instigate a coup or encourage a revolution.
Are you serious? Snipe him? You think nobody ever tried that? And for what, to put Uday/Qusay in power? Rumor has it that that coup was about to be put into play when we showed up. That would have been an improvement, huh? Revolution? They've tried that too. Ever hear of Halabja? How about the Shia uprising after GW I? Any idea how that worked out?
You know what we didn't try? We didn't ask nicely for Saddam to please stop slaughtering people, pillaging their wealth and just leave them alone and be nice to everyone.
I'm sure he would have done that, because a nice guy like Saddam understands that there is ALWAYS a better option than WAR.
I'll bet the Kuwatis understand that too, huh?
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:31 PM (sh7lC)
43
Melts or incinerates. BFD. It's still a barbaric weapon.
I wonder how many innocents stayed behind in Falujjah. I read a report that men between the ages of 16 and 60 were turned back and not allowed to evacuate.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:33 PM (/+dAV)
44
Pablo, I wish I could visit Saddam so I could shoot him myself. And you are right, many Iraqis agree with the US AFTER the invasion. Then again they are alive to experience its rewards in god knows how long it takes for the madness to end. Unfortunately we cant ask the 18000+ that are dead how they feel.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:34 PM (RMdxJ)
45
Regarding Halabja where 5000 innocent Iraqiis were slaughtered. Halabja iis on the Iranian border and in 1988 when the incident occured Iraq was our ally and the Iraqiis were lobbing chemical weapons at the Iranians with our approval. In 1988, we the righteous Americans said the Hallaba massacre was the work of the Iranians as thhe Iraqis have allways claimed. Saddam was our boy so don't go getting too sanctimoniuos Pablo.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:41 PM (/+dAV)
46
Greg, the point is that it's generally not used as an anti-personnel weapon. It's used largely for illumination, creating smokescreens and burning stationary objects such as weapons caches.
What ways of killing the enemy do you approve of, silly liberal? Why don't you go back to uruknet and ask your jihadi friends how they'd like to be killed? Inquiring minds....
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:44 PM (sh7lC)
47
Pablo you love to bring up the vast amount of influence and power that Saddam's regime enjoyed in its "good days" but the Iraq of 2 years ago was a very different place. Uday was a crippled bastard who unfortunatly survived an assasination attempt by who many believe was his own brother. The Saddam family was too busy trying to kill each other so I don't see how hard it is for us to help the process. We all know there were no WMD and after decades of sanctions imposed on the country, Saddam was in no shape to attack another Kuwait or gas entire provinces. All he could do was publically execute his citizens every now and then in an attempt to scare them into submission. So stop trying to pretend like Saddam was about to take over the world. More Iraqis were dying from starvation due to imposed sanctions than what Saddam was doing. There HAD to be a better way.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:46 PM (RMdxJ)
48
greg, Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils as far as we were concerned. Iraq was a Soviet client state, which is why they flew Mig's and not F series fighters. Saddam was Russia's boy. I'm beginning to think you're too stupid to have this discussion with, as you plainly have no ideaa what you're talking about. Sometimes things actually happen in the world that aren't our doing. I know it's tough for you to believe that, but it's true.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:49 PM (sh7lC)
49
There you go Pablo! Once you run out of shit to say just call us "silly liberals" and say that we are friends with the jihadists. You have lost the plot ENTIRELY. There is no point in arguing with you.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 01:50 PM (RMdxJ)
50
Jim, those would be those horrible sanctions that were killing untold thousands of poor Iraqis, while Saddam, Kofi, Kojo, Fwance, Germany, Russia, et al made a mockery of the OIF program and lined their pockets with the cash intended to feed people and buy medicine, right?
Uday was still hearty enough to be raping and killing, and those folks have been coming to power by killing each other for a long time.
We all know there were no WMD
So what was in all those trucks that crossed into Syria while we advanced toward Baghdad? If you know what wasn't in them, surely you know what was.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:54 PM (sh7lC)
51
"Greg, the point is that it's generally not used as an anti-personnel weapon. " Pablo
Well, it was in Fallujah you "silly" blood lusting fascist.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 01:55 PM (/+dAV)
52
Jim baby, I called greg a silly liberal because it's glaringly obvious that he's a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. You seem to have at least a tenuous grasp of some facts which greg clearly does not. Of course, if you're feeling silly, I won't argue the point.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:57 PM (sh7lC)
53
See what I mean, Jim?
greg finds some idiotic thing like "WP is a WMD!" and just can't let go of it, regardless of the facts. You're not that stupid, are you?
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 01:59 PM (sh7lC)
54
"So what was in all those trucks that crossed into Syria while we advanced toward Baghdad?" Pablo
Now you're making stuff up. Face it, when Bush said they had WMD it was a lie so scared Mommies would send their babies to war. The first casualty of war is the truth and your truth is in a body bag. Silly!
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:03 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:06 PM (/+dAV)
56
In 1991 we said the Iraqis were stealing incubators from Kuwaiti neonatal hospitals and dumping the babies on the cold floor to die.
In WWII we said the BUCK--TOOTHED Japs were bayonetting Phillipino babies and that Philipino mothers were jumping off cliffs with baby in hand to avoid dying at the end of a bayonnet.
These are "silly" lies used to provoke themmasses into a war pitched hysteria and make everybody "silly".
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:13 PM (/+dAV)
57
greg, if i thought you could read and comprehend it, I'd send you over
here and refer you to the Kay report, and let you explain what it was that went to Syria...
But, since I know you've got the IQ of a goldfish, I won't bother. You really should be back at uruknet sucking up the slop you're fed.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:23 PM (sh7lC)
58
Give it up Pablo. If you met a liberal that would admit he didn't have all the facts, or was quick to source his 'facts' then he wouldn't be a liberal.
Remember, it is far worse for us to have killed 18,000 or so Iraqi's than it was for Saddam to have killed hundreds of thousands, to have rape rooms, to have spent the money designated for the starving children on palaces and bribes, to have actually used WMD both on Iran and the Kurds, to have started multiple wars against his neighbors, and to have financed and harbored terrorism in the region. Why? Well, you see Bush 'lied', the US once allowed slavery......
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:24 PM (jPCiN)
59
Pablo, I am not going to sit here and pretend like I know everything. But I know how to refute arguements from people based on the things that I DO know. I am not speaking for greg or Colin or anyone else here. I have also never referred to anyone here as a "silly republican." I am just presenting my views and personally would rather have an intelligent discussion rather than be dismissed as a "silly liberal," "traitor" or "terrorist."
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:24 PM (RMdxJ)
60
Jim, as I've mentioned, I was referring and will continue to refer to the moron in the room as such. The remark was not directed at you, and I don't intend to explain that for a third time.
It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is remarkably unintelligent, such as our friend greg. If you've got an argument, by all means present it. At this point, greg ought not bother.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:31 PM (sh7lC)
61
Pablo,
What went to Syria? I want to hear this BS about how the Syyrians have WMD and we should attack them next. The lie worked once. You fascists should stick with it. Who should we get next?
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 02:33 PM (/+dAV)
62
Defense Guy- I would post a retort but I would be repeating everything I said to Pablo. The things you speak of occured more than 2 decades ago. Perhaps we should have invaded Iraq then but we were too busy giving them money and guns so they could fight Iran. The Iraq of two years ago was a different place. Yes Suddam was still using torture and public execution to scare his people but thats all he had. At least people were not getting blown up trying to get to work. The time was ripe for a revolution. Saddam's regime was crippled. Get that through your head. Or prove to me that Suddam was killing 18000+ iraqis in 2003. You do that and I will not post again on this blog.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:34 PM (RMdxJ)
63
Jim,
A revolution would well have led to those very people who are blowing people up being in power today, rather than allowing the people to choose. Your idea that the only problem in Iraq as recently as 2 years ago was that Saddam was torturing and killing people is quite telling. Will you now make some lame ass retort about Abu Gahrib or the bombing of innocents as a wat to make them 'equal'?
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:38 PM (jPCiN)
64
greg, it was the bushitler neoconcabals stock of wmd to plant. Once we got Saddam we didn't need them in iraq anymore so Cheney had Halliburton have Uday (who has been on the CIA payroll for decades) load 'em up and move 'em out.
Quick, go tell all your friends.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:39 PM (sh7lC)
65
Jim
Prove to me that Saddams regime was crippled, put up or shut up.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:39 PM (jPCiN)
66
Since I'm new here I don't know all the various personalities who frequent this site. However, it's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks weapons have qualities other than lethality. It is the use to which these weapons are put that determines what and who is barbaric. If the US specifically targeted those children and specifically chose WP to cause as much agony as possible and used it in a systematic, widespread, campaign to wreak as much havoc on the civilian population, then I would agree that such actions were barbarism. But of course, that is hardly the fact of the matter.
Posted by: nobody important at April 05, 2005 02:40 PM (SHPL6)
67
Jim, I'm going to suggest that living under Saddam 2 years ago was far worse than living under him 20 years ago, unless you were part of the cannon fodder he threw at Iran back then. 2 years ago, he was desperate and the country was quite broken. That is not a good combination.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 02:44 PM (sh7lC)
68
OK, A fairly good source for numbers is here:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus
Of course the demand to prove what Saddam might have done with the extra 9 months in 2003 is hard to accommodate.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 02:50 PM (jPCiN)
69
The groups who are blowing people up today are:
1. Remains of baathist party who supported Suddam.
2. Terrorists from all over the middle east and beyond who have been manipulated by radical "muslims" who promote a twisted version of Islam. They are in Iraq for the sole purpose of fighting against the US, causing mayhem and getting attention for their sick cause.
IF a revolution did indeed take place, I doubt the people who were tired of Suddam's regime would allow a successor from the baathist party or some terrorist. Who knows how it would have ended up. I am not going to assume that suddently everything would have been fine and they would elect a new leader. Perhaps the country would have been hurled into Civil war. But at least the current situation would have been avoided. A situation where iraqis who are trying to sign up for the national guard or a position in office are immediately assasinated by terrorists who use the excuse that "they are helping the US" as a justification for murder. If the US was not involved, then the terrorists would have no excuse. They would simply be killing iraqis and they would face the same opposition as suddam's regime. I doubt they would even be involved as much as they are now.
Put up or shut up? I will when you practice what you preach.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 02:54 PM (RMdxJ)
70
"In WWII we said the BUCK--TOOTHED Japs were bayonetting Phillipino babies"
This isn't quite accurate. It was "buck-toothed NIPS"
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 02:54 PM (x+5JB)
71
Again, the "twisted version of Islam" that involves killing infidels IS true Islam. Hasn't everyone seen the quotes agaion and again?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 03:01 PM (x+5JB)
72
I stand corrected. Buck-tooth NIPS it was.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:02 PM (/+dAV)
73
I agree with part of Nobody's post. Arguing over the lethality of a weapon is pointless. A nuke'll kill you just like gas, or bullets, or a wire-guided ATGM, or a pencil fromt he putt-putt golf course that gets jabbed in your eye.
But really, the whole "bushitler" tagline is frankly getting old, it'd be nice if those who use it would go out of their way and thought up some new attempts to insult/amuse.
Posted by: Amanda B. Recondwith at April 05, 2005 03:03 PM (RtQcj)
74
Bourbon, please lets not go down that road. If ALL Muslims think that killing infidels is true Islam then more than half the population of the WORLD would be after us right now. They are not. Those who think they are, I feel sorry for them.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 03:05 PM (RMdxJ)
75
nobody important, there are a number of uses for weapons that needn't be lethal, such as using them to destroy infrastructure (think bridges, roads, airfields, train tracks) or weapons dumps, etc. Even napalm wasn't used for it's lethality, but to clear vegetative cover so as to deny the enemy a hiding place. Of course, that doesn't make you any less dead if you get nailed with it, but that wasn't the intended use. Some weapons most definitely have qualities other than lethality. That is a fact.
As for WP we have weapons far more effective than that for killing people. You'd get a much higher kill rate with high explosive and shrapnel. WP is often used for illumination and cover purposes. Trying to kill people with is would be like trying to stab someone with a spoon while leaving your knife in your pocket. It's possible, but why would you bother? It wouldn't make any sense.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 03:05 PM (sh7lC)
76
Jim,
These people could give a darn about the Iraqis and democracy. Basically there just out to avenge 9-11. Afghanistan wasn't enough for these bloood lusters. Now it's Iraq.And when they're done killing brown people in Iraq they'll find some brown muslims somewhere else to kill/"liberate".75% of Americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and about an equal amount think that we found WMD in Iraq. You can''t reason with these IGNORant people.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:09 PM (/+dAV)
77
Jim, the same people that are killing Iraqis now would still have been in the mix looking for power. All they want is to replace Saddam, not to democratize. They're anti-democracy, and the people of Iraq are standing up to them in the interest of self-determination.
Posted by: Pablo at April 05, 2005 03:11 PM (sh7lC)
78
Greg, yes some just want to avenge 9-11. Others genuinely care about Iraq and feel this was the best way to help. If I assume one way instead of the other, then I would be no better than those who call us "traitors" for stating our opinion. I am not going to try to stop reasoning with ignorant people. That would be like ignoring the fact that the poor child in the AP photo (and 18000 others) died because of this War. However, I am going to have to stop reasoning for the time being because its time for me to get some lunch. Take care everyone.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 03:16 PM (RMdxJ)
79
And YBP,
as a Catholic you should know bettter than to speak such evil about an entire religion. JPII knew better and tried to teach us so. He may be dead but you can still learn from him.
Some of our religious leaders have made some outrageous quotes too. But I don't blame all Christians I just assume a "christian" who didn't know what he was saying let his mouth flap a little.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 03:17 PM (/+dAV)
80
Jim: True, if all Muslims were "good" Muslims, then they would be after all non-Muslims. But most Muslims don't take the Koran to heart and are content to "get along"--thank God.
Greg: I'm not speaking "evil" about a religion, I'm speaking the truth. Islam as a false religion by several Popes. The idea that "all roads lead to heaven" has been labeled as indifferentism and latitudinarianism by a past pope--heresies. JPII "dialogued" with leaders of other religions, but this does not mean that the Church condones these religions as pleasing to God. many of the faithful were confused by some of these actions. And the confusion continues. The ambiguous writings of Vatican II again rear their ugly heads.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 03:34 PM (x+5JB)
81
YBP,
Many more popes were even harsher on "the Jesus killers", but JPII reached out for a reconciliation with Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians, inter alia. JPII is being mourned in Muslim countries. I'm sure the next pope will continue on this path.
Posted by: greg at April 05, 2005 04:00 PM (/+dAV)
82
Greg: Yes, Christians have wrongly accused the Jews as killing Christ, but we know this is silly. Christ (the man) was Himself a Jew. The sins of mankind were responsible, not a people. And we should reach out to others of different beliefs to tell the Good News--Christ's own mandate ("Go out and teach all nations," etc.). Pax!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at April 05, 2005 04:06 PM (x+5JB)
83
A confession from a photographer working for the terrorists in Iraq was videotaped by the Iraqi police. The video is on memritv.org, a link to the transcript is below.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=625
There was another accusation by an Egyptian who escaped the terrorists who were holding him captive in Fallujah. He told reporters that a stringer used by Al Jazeera filmed him prior to his expected execution.
It is odd Pulitzer left that off the list of honorable reporting from Iraq. Cooperating with terrorists to film hostage videos seems to be on par with the level of journalistic integrity that the Pulitzer committee recognizes of late.
Posted by: Cog at April 05, 2005 04:35 PM (UxviT)
84
I showed you mine Jim, and you have yet to show me yours. Show me where you get your facts that the regime was crippled.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 05, 2005 04:42 PM (jPCiN)
85
A point for all the arguers: it does help to know what one is talking about and to present it carefully with an eye to prevent misrepresentation. To wit: WP is used mainly to illuminate rather than to kill. High explosive amunition rounds are more effective at killing than WP rounds. There were no chemical, biological, or nuclear devices used in Fallujah. Kuwaitis stated that Iraqis were dumping neonates out of their incubators. No precise numbers on coalition-caused civilian deaths in Iraq since the coalition invasion are known, and the estimates that have been made by certain newspapers and medical journals are fatally flawed since they count terrorist deaths as civilian deaths and terrorist-caused deaths as coalition-caused. There are no Pulitzer Prize-award-winning photographs documenting Saddam's rule of terror because Iraq was a fascist state. There are such awards for photographs documenting the recent Iraq war because the coalition forces are not fascists. War is a terrible business. Although there were reports of truck convoys headed into Syria before the Iraq war in 2003, not much has surfaced to corroborate those reports. Components of Saddam Husseins illicit WMD program have turned up outside of Iraq since its fall.
There. Hope that helps.
MakeMineRed
Posted by: MakeMineRed at April 05, 2005 04:49 PM (0bFUM)
86
Half the population of the world is Muslim. Ignorance at its best.
Pablo you are wasteing your time. As I mentioned before. A snake is a snake and a traitor is a traitor. It's more productive to hang them than listen to them.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 05, 2005 05:50 PM (CBNGy)
87
Thanks for the kind words and the link, Dr. Shackleford.
I thought you were already on the Riding Sun blogroll, but much to my dismay, it appears you are not. Rest assured that this situation will be remedied shortly.
Posted by: GaijinBiker at April 05, 2005 05:58 PM (moROy)
88
Half the world is not Muslim. There are @ 1 billion Muslims in the world. By comparison, China and India each have @ 1 billion people and @ 1 billion people in the world self-identify as Catholics.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 05, 2005 05:59 PM (JQjhA)
89
Perhaps I exagerated a bit on the percentage of the world population. In either case, I am pretty sure the number is about 1.3 billion and growing every year. My point remains the same.
Its rather ironic that the most ignorant asshole on this blog is the one that points this out.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 06:11 PM (RMdxJ)
90
not only that...but he used his magic word again: traitor. Brilliant.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 06:19 PM (RMdxJ)
91
Nice of you to share those insightful observations Beth! Rusty, so much for left wing and right wing bloggers holding a debate eh? I really like Beth's mentallity.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2005 10:30 PM (jcSwY)
92
Still no word from Jim on how Saddam's regime was crippled, how shocking.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 06, 2005 08:44 AM (jPCiN)
93
First, all of you wingnuts:
We went to war over WMDs. We can't give a Pulitzer for a picture of nothing.
Second, newspapers are
NOT PR agencies of the United States goverment (unless your name is the NY Times and your reporter is Judith Miller).
If you don't like it, watch the mind control of Faux News.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly at April 06, 2005 02:15 PM (cvVq7)
94
OK moonbat - show me where the only reason we went to war was over WMD. I will grant you that it was one of the reasons given, but it was not the only one. So, once again I will ask a moonbat for proof of his claims.
Posted by: Defense Guy at April 06, 2005 03:46 PM (jPCiN)
95
Moonbats don't prove. They just claim.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 06, 2005 06:40 PM (CBNGy)
96
Dear Greyrooster,
We're still waiting for you to verify the Fallujah quote claim.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 06, 2005 09:50 PM (FV4oJ)
97
No, newspapers aren't communications organs of the US Govt. They're the propaganda tools of the vague cloud of gas oozing out of New York City, Hollywood, and most of the Ivy League Universities. Same damned instruction on race, sex, and culture in general.
Check out www.fredoneverything.net and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by: JG22 at April 07, 2005 02:03 AM (1mRPJ)
98
Just thought I'd post to tell you that you're a bloody idiot. If you don't like pictures of people who've had their limbs blown off, then don't support stupid, pointless wars that you can not win.
Posted by: badnewswade at April 09, 2005 01:09 PM (kpZhP)
99
Just what we need a pulizer prize to a terrorists but lets not forget the nobel peace prize going to arafat and jimmy carter
Posted by: sandpiper at August 12, 2005 08:44 AM (MNa1O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
