PDA

View Full Version : The first of many ??



Qtec
06-15-2003, 08:16 AM
Quote Algemeen Dagblad ,[ Dutch newapaper , rough translation..Q ]

The 71 year old Iraqi Bedouin , Sarhan, is taking the American Army to court claiming $200 million in compensation for the death of 17 family members and 200 sheep. The deaths occurred when their tents were attacked by American forces firing rockets. Only Sarhan and his half brother surrvived the bombardment.Sarhan,s case is the first to be handled by the Iraqi courts , under Coalition administration.



Has he got a chance ?
Does he have a case ?
Does he have a point ?



Q

eg8r
06-15-2003, 09:30 AM
No
No
Maybe a point but it will not help him. It is funny how quickly some American ideals have made it so far away. Sue for an absolutely huge amount no matter what happened. I was wondering where the rest of the story is? I wonder if they were shooting back?

eg8r

Vapros
06-15-2003, 09:42 AM
I suppose he has a point, and he may even have a case, but he has no chance at all. He might get a decision in an Iraqi court, but he'll never get any money.

If they start paying off the victims of war, maybe nobody could affort any more wars, and there's no chance of that.

On the other hand, I never figured the dying smokers had a chance against the tobacco companies. . . . .

Qtec
06-15-2003, 11:02 AM
Expain the second No.

As far as i know ,it was the trigger happy Yanks that mistook the sheep for WMD.

He is a Bedouin . They live in the desert . How much are 17 people worth . How much is a child worth . Are other people worth less than Americans?
As far as i know he didnt ask to be invaded or saved .

Q

highsea
06-15-2003, 12:51 PM
What, was his and his brother's tent a half a mile away from everything else? This sounds fishy. Not a single out of 200 sheep survived, and 17 family members? I doubt it.

If they were fired on by our troops, they were probably shooting first. Do you think they will admit that? We were getting ambushed from all sides over there, and still are. Our guys will defend themselves, and you can be sure they are equipped to do the job.

Yes, this is probably one of many lawsuits that will be attempted, but they will go nowhere. The valid cases, where there was fault or negligence on our part, we will address, and compensate as best as we can. We are the only country in the world that would even do that.

We are in a war, and it's going to be a long haul. The Arab world had a chance to police themselves, and they failed. Instead, they exported their problems to other countries.

Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, to name but a few, these countries must face the truth of their situation. They have a system in place that breeds hatred of Western Countries, including your's Q. The only way another 9/11 can be prevented is to reform this system and end the brainwashing of their youth in the name of Islam.

The giant mess that is the mid east is not the U.S's doing. Israel was created by the League of Nations after WW2, and ratified later by the U.N. Possibly the biggest mistake of the 20th century, but it's done, it and can't be undone. The only thing left to do is to try to get everybody over there to live together and stop killing each other. I admit I am not optimistic that this can be acheived.

If we wanted Iraq's oil, we would have taken it in 91. That's not what we are over there for. We are there to take out a government that was a major sponsor of International terrorism, and attempt to put a democracy in it's place. I hope the rest of the arab world takes note of this, and begins the process of putting thier own houses in order.

-Casey

eg8r
06-15-2003, 12:58 PM
I really do not have to explain the second no. I am not going to trial. Are you ignorant enough to believe that they might not have provoked what happened if it actually did happen.

Sorry, there are some casualties in war, and I really hate to hear when it happens. However you offer nothing as far as information from the other side of what happened. Get more info.

eg8r

Qtec
06-15-2003, 01:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What, was his and his brother's tent a half a mile away from everything else? This sounds fishy. Not a single out of 200 sheep survived, and 17 family members? I doubt it <hr /></blockquote>

17 people were killed and 200 sheep .Bombardment was the word used to describe it



[ QUOTE ]
We are in a war, and it's going to be a long haul. The Arab world had a chance to police themselves, and they failed. Instead, they exported their problems to other countries <hr /></blockquote>

What war ? On terrorism ?
There has never been any proof the Saddam was involved in terrorism .You are thinking about Afganistan and Osama .


[ QUOTE ]
If they were fired on by our troops, they were probably shooting first. Do you think they will admit that? We were getting ambushed from all sides over there, and still are. Our guys will defend themselves, and you can be sure they are equipped to do the job <hr /></blockquote>

That would be a clever thing to do .Attack with women and children and sheep , out in the DESERT with NO cover . Just because you are from another country doesnt mean that you STUPID.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is probably one of many lawsuits that will be attempted, but they will go nowhere. The valid cases, where there was fault or negligence on our part, we will address, and compensate as best as we can. We are the only country in the world that would even do that.
<hr /></blockquote>

Most people dont have running water but there is time to handle lawsuits ? Could there be a reason for this ?


[ QUOTE ]
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, to name but a few, these countries must face the truth of their situation. They have a system in place that breeds hatred of Western Countries, including your's Q. The only way another 9/11 can be prevented is to reform this system and end the brainwashing of their youth in the name of Islam.
<hr /></blockquote>


Yes 2 of these countries are worried . Saudi Arabia needs an army to prtect itself from its people. That army is trained by an American company . [ Carlyle group- eg8r, another coincidence]. At this momment there are 4 Britians in jail for a bombing . They are all white and innocent. The Saudi,s dont want to admit they have a problem . The other is Eygpt.

[ QUOTE ]
If we wanted Iraq's oil, we would have taken it in 91. <hr /></blockquote>

Ever ask yourself this. In 91 when the people of BASRA revolted against Saddam , why did the Americans stand by and watch when Saddam,s troops slaughtered them ?

[ QUOTE ]
We are there to take out a government that was a major sponsor of International terrorism, and attempt to put a democracy in it's place. I hope the rest of the arab world takes note of this, and begins the process of putting thier own houses in order.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is just the beggining I,m afraid .


Next stop ,the Fillippines


There is so much more .

Check out mickey,s post on the WMD thread


Q

highsea
06-15-2003, 08:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> 17 people were killed and 200 sheep .Bombardment was the word used to describe it <hr /></blockquote>
Bombardment may very well have been what it was. Everybody and his brother carries an AK or RPG over there, and they use them to shoot at our troops. You still haven't convinced me that our guys were not fired upon.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> What war ? On terrorism ?
There has never been any proof the Saddam was involved in terrorism .You are thinking about Afganistan and Osama. <hr /></blockquote>
Yes terrorism. Q, I don't know why you say this. Saddam definitely did sponsor and protect terrorists. There were training facilities for Hamas in Iraq in which commercial airliners were used in training highjacking techniques. He supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, to name but a few. We in the US have not forgotten Beirut. He also paid rewards to Palestinian families whose sons and daughters were exploited as suicide bombers. Just because he has not been proven to have Al Qaeda ties does not mean he did not sponsor terrorism. It remains to be seen what links to Al Qaeda existed in Iraq. I expect there were some that are as yet undiscovered. But it is certain that he had connections to mid-east terrorist groups.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
That would be a clever thing to do. Attack with women and children and sheep , out in the DESERT with NO cover . Just because you are from another country doesnt mean that you STUPID.
<hr /></blockquote>
Not women and sheep, Q, AK's and RPG's. They may have been hiding behind women and children and sheep, though. Saddam and his forces used the civilian population as shields on a regular basis. Tanks and arms depots in schools, hospitals, mosques, etc. Fedayeen forces have on more than one occasion used civilian rallies as cover to fire on our forces.

Just because you are from another country doesn't mean that you are STUPID, true. But if you are firing on US troops out in the desert with only women and sheep for cover, I wouldn't call you SMART!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Most people dont have running water but there is time to handle lawsuits ? Could there be a reason for this ? <hr /></blockquote>
I don't really know what you are driving at here, sorry. If you could be a little more clear, I will try to answer the question.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Yes 2 of these countries are worried . Saudi Arabia needs an army to prtect itself from its people. That army is trained by an American company . [ Carlyle group- eg8r, another coincidence]. At this momment there are 4 Britians in jail for a bombing . They are all white and innocent. The Saudi,s dont want to admit they have a problem . The other is Eygpt.
<hr /></blockquote>
I think more than 2 are worried, but that is beside the point. The US relationship with Saudi Arabia goes back many years. Yes, it's true we trained and equipped their army, to ensure a stable supply of oil. It is probably true that the Saud Royal Family would not be in power today without that army. This only emphasizes the need for political and social reforms in that part of the world.

I am aware of the 4 Britons jailed in Saudi Arabia, but I'm not sure how you can lay the responsibility for that on the US. I do know that the US is applying political pressure on the Saudi Gov't to get them released...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Ever ask yourself this. In 91 when the people of BASRA revolted against Saddam , why did the Americans stand by and watch when Saddam,s troops slaughtered them ?
<hr /></blockquote>
We were not in Basra, we were in Kuwait. It's true that we encouraged an uprising by the Iraqi citizens, and maybe we could've done more to support it. But the fact remains, it was Saddam who slaughtered them, not the US.

There was a great deal of political pressure in the US (mainly from the left) to get the hell out of there as quick as possible. Unfortunately, Bush SR. bowed to that pressure. Our military people were prepared to march to Baghdad, but were held back. There is no way that the coalition would have held together had we gone into Iraq and deposed Saddam.

Saddam was an incredibly brutal dictator. It wasn't just the people in Basra that suffered under his rule. At the time, our policy was to free Kuwait, and prevent Saddam from taking Saudi Arabia, which he would have done had we not stepped in. Now, that was a war for oil. Saddam wanted it all, Iraq's, Kuwait's, and the Saudi oil fields. He would really have had a stranglehold on the world economy if that were permitted to happen.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
This is just the beggining I,m afraid .
Next stop ,the Fillippines
There is so much more .
Check out mickey,s post on the WMD thread
Q <hr /></blockquote>
I agree, it's just the beginning. But try to understand. We are in the Philipines at the request of that government to assist them in combating a Muslim terrorist group with Al Qaeda connections. There is Indonesia, with the bombings in Bali, problems still in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, and dozens of other places.

But that is what this war is. We have to take the battle to them, we can't sit back and wait for them to bring it to us. They made a big mistake when they attacked NYC and DC. They awoke a slumbering bear. Would you call that SMART?

Cheers, Q. I respect your right to your opinion, but it seems that you are spending a lot of time bashing the US. Come and visit us. I think you would come to realize that we are not any happier about this war than you are.
-CM

Qtec
06-15-2003, 10:05 PM
Highsea, i am not against America, its the present admin. that worries me. Believe it or not , i have nothing against American citizens. Even eg8r ./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

When i was young i joined the chess club at school. Dont get me wrong, I,m no Bobby F, but i remember what the teacher said on the first day,
"to play chess, you have to be able to see the board through your opponents eyes."
It seems to me that the US has lost that ability. If you see how many responses i get if i post on subjects like these , it seems like everybody wants to look the other way . You guys are the only ones that can stop this madness. All i am saying is this , put yourself in the other guy shoes and you get a different picture .
Whatever the justifications for the invasion of Iraq , its not the reasons given by GW. These are excusses not reasons.
One example U.S and Saddam.
Scince 1945 the US has backed up dictators all over the world . Rather a homicidal dictator than a communist. After the Iranian revolution , Saddam , being the kind of guy he is, though he could take advantage of the situation and wanted to invade . He was given backing by the US who also provided intelligence .[ sat photos etc].He was also sold arms etc. Better Saddam than the Iranians thought America . Millions died in the war between Iran and Iraq. Millions .
How do you think Saddam felt when it came out that the US was supplying weapons to his enemy . Irangate . Well done Ronnie. Whatever way you look at it it was a stab in the back! On a personal level if somebody did this to you, would you trust that person again.?

When there was a power stuggle between the PLO and Hamas , Israel was helping Hamas !

The reason that the US did not contiue in 91 is because there WAS an uprising. If the whole of Iraq had rebelled against Saddam and ousted him , there would be no reason for the US to stay there. This is not a war of Liberation , its about Occupation.

I would love to come to America , you guys are lucky to have such a wonderful country. Most of the people on the board are genuine , others maybe not . If i did come tho, I,ll bet they would be lining up to kick my a.s! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I,ll take them all on ....only on a pool table tho. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I really think that there has been a huge propaganga offensive on the people by the admi.[ GW ]and that the truth will come out.

You cant justify huge defence spending if you havent got an enemy . The defence industry NEEDS an enemy.

More on this another time . Just seen on the news that a US convoy has been ambushed .

Beirout..remember the Sharon incident when he let the Falangists into the PLO camp ???

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
06-16-2003, 06:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
....At the time, our policy was to free Kuwait, and prevent Saddam from taking Saudi Arabia, which he would have done had we not stepped in. Now, that was a war for oil. Saddam wanted it all, Iraq's, Kuwait's, and the Saudi oil fields. He would really have had a stranglehold on the world economy if that were permitted to happen....
<hr /></blockquote>

The people who scream "No war for oil" seem to forget this. Everybody knew Saddam's next stop was Saudi Arabia. If he had controlled those oil fields he could have caused worldwide recession or even depression at his whim simply by turning off the spigot. The thought of having that power surely fired him up and made him even more crazy.

And ironically...after we help the Afghanis defeat the Russians, and we pull the Saudis' chestnuts out of the fire, Osama is pissed because we have troops on Saudi soil so our payback is 9/11. And Qtec wonders why we're pissed off /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
06-16-2003, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And ironically...after we help the Afghanis defeat the Russians, and we pull the Saudis' chestnuts out of the fire, Osama is pissed because we have troops on Saudi soil so our payback is 9/11. And Qtec wonders why we're pissed off
<hr /></blockquote>

Which Afghani,s do you mean . Its a fact that America was arming the TALIBAN to fight the Russians.!!

Do you think that you are the ONLY country to ever have been bombed .Why do you think that America knew that Saddam had chemical weapons / BECAUSE they sold them to to him !
Half of the top Iraqi officials are under arrest . You would think that under the circumstances that they would be willing to do a deal .They havent because these weapons are either destroyed [ they werent supposed to have them in the first place] or they are outside the country .I would make a deal , wouldnt you?
When you talk about the Saudi,s, you are talking about the royal family and not the people of Saudi Arabia.
[ for eg8r , the Saudi,s are one of the BIGGEST investors in the Carlyle group, the same group to which BUSH snr is a member and later GW will join ].

Try and be objective Wally, try and look through someone else,s eyes.


Q

eg8r
06-16-2003, 11:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Which Afghani,s do you mean . Its a fact that America was arming the TALIBAN to fight the Russians.!!
<hr /></blockquote> I believe it is an undisputed fact. Are you trying raise questions about something everyone already knows and agrees?

[ QUOTE ]
[ for eg8r , the Saudi,s are one of the BIGGEST investors in the Carlyle group, the same group to which BUSH snr is a member and later GW will join ].
<hr /></blockquote> Everytime you post this, I can hear Goofy in the background reading it to me. You are a piece of work. Whether they are or not, the Saudis needed help to keep Saddam from moving forth (if Saddam made it past Kuwait and continued), so we stepped in.

[ QUOTE ]
Try and be objective Wally, try and look through someone else,s eyes. <hr /></blockquote> Qtec, practice what you preach. It is your blinders that keep you from seeing that removing Saddam from Kuwait and preventing him from moving into Saudi Arabia might benefit some companies here, however it will benefit the world as a whole much more.

Practice what you preach.

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that you are the ONLY country to ever have been bombed .Why do you think that America knew that Saddam had chemical weapons / BECAUSE they sold them to to him !
Half of the top Iraqi officials are under arrest . You would think that under the circumstances that they would be willing to do a deal .They havent because these weapons are either destroyed [ they werent supposed to have them in the first place] or they are outside the country .I would make a deal , wouldnt you?
When you talk about the Saudi,s, you are talking about the royal family and not the people of Saudi Arabia <hr /></blockquote>


Everytime i show you a connection to the Carlye Group you dismiss it out of hand . How many times have i showed there involvement with the Govt.At least 10, probably more .
Why is nobody making a deal .?
Iraq- Kuwait was 12 years ago .


Q

eg8r
06-16-2003, 12:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Everytime i show you a connection to the Carlye Group you dismiss it out of hand . <font color="blue"> Have you read any of the reasons? They do nothing for the topic at least as far as I can tell. The last time you brought them up, you made it sound like we should like the only reason we decided to help the Kuwaitis and Saudi Arabia was becasue of the Carlyle group. You never mention the problems that would arise if Saddam was left alone to do what he wanted. </font color>

How many times have i showed there involvement with the Govt.At least 10, probably more . <font color="blue"> At least. </font color>

Why is nobody making a deal .? <font color="blue"> What deal? The Iraqi officials in jail? Did they capture Saddam or his 2 kids yet? I wonder how quick you are to talk when you know if you go against those 3 you will be taken care of when you are freed. </font color>

Iraq- Kuwait was 12 years ago . <font color="blue"> Please don't go there. You were the first to bring up past events. Now you don't like it? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I am still waiting for the list. Are you compiling it? What is taking you so much time, since you were so adamant as to the quantity that I have not answered. I am still waiting. How many more times will you use that as a defense before you decide to actually post them?

eg8r

highsea
06-16-2003, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Which Afghani,s do you mean . Its a fact that America was arming the TALIBAN to fight the Russians.!!
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, the Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. They were exported from Pakistan to fill a power vacuum.

Osama went to Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets and fought with the Mujahadeen. While he wasn't much af a warrior, he was very popular because he brought a lot of money with him and supplied a lot of weapons to the fighters. He was not one of them, he was an Arab who had found a cause that he could use to gain influence and reputation among the Muslim world.

The CIA provided training and weapons to the Mujahadeen because we did not want to allow the USSR to expand their influence into Afghanistan. We have come under a lot of critism for not staying involved in Afghanistan at that time also. The accusation goes like this: By withdrawing when we did, we allowed the Taliban to move in and take over. Of course had we stayed and tried to put a democracy in place, it probably would have started a war with the USSR.

While the US did not approve of the Taliban, we would have stayed uninvolved had they not been supporting Al Qaeda. After 9/11 we gave them ample opportunity to distance themselves, but they chose not to. The consequences were made very clear to them what would happen if they did not turn over Osama.

Just wanted to point that out, Q. Now go to your respective corners and come out fighting!

-CM

Qtec
06-18-2003, 05:57 PM
Why is nobody making a deal .? What deal? The Iraqi officials in jail? Did they capture Saddam or his 2 kids yet? I wonder how quick you are to talk when you know if you go against those 3 you will be taken care of when you are freed.

Lets just try one question at a time , shall we?

The Iraqis [ Saddam ] have WMD .America cant find them. They are desperate to find anything. Knowing this , it would be easy to get oneself out of jail by providing the info that America so desperately needs.[ wants].
What hasnt this happened.??
Could it just be possible that there arent any.??
If this is so , what is the justification for invasion/ Or do you think that one is not neccessary ?

Q

eg8r
06-19-2003, 12:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets just try one question at a time , shall we? <font color="blue"> OK. </font color>

The Iraqis [ Saddam ] have WMD . They are desperate to find anything. Knowing this , it would be easy to get oneself out of jail by providing the info that America so desperately needs.[ wants].
<font color="blue"> 1. </font color> What hasnt this happened.??
<font color="blue"> 2. </font color> Could it just be possible that there arent any.??
<font color="blue"> 3. </font color> If this is so , what is the justification for invasion/ <font color="blue"> 4. </font color> Or do you think that one is not neccessary ? <hr /></blockquote> It appears you have trouble comprehending your own posts. Practice what you preach.

eg8r

Qtec
06-20-2003, 05:25 AM
Why is nobody making a deal ?
Q

eg8r
06-20-2003, 09:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr> Why is nobody making a deal ?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r's response from an earlier post:</font><hr> I wonder how quick you are to talk when you know if you go against those 3 you will be taken care of when you are freed.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I guess you need it spelled out for you.
Maybe, just maybe they are not talking because of their loyalty to Saddam. Also, if they do talk and are freed, and Saddam is never captured, then those men will fear their lives for ever. Now that wasn't so tough was it.

eg8r