Iraq Troops Find 'Hostage Slaughterhouses

[Adex_Xeda]

Surely a significant event, yet I'm uncertain what it marks.

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq - Iraqi troops have found "hostage slaughterhouses" in Fallujah where foreign captives were held and killed, the commander of Iraqi forces in the city said Wednesday.

Troops found CDs and records of people taken captive in houses in the northern part of Fallujah, Maj. Gen. Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassem Mohan told reporters.

"We have found hostage slaughterhouses in Fallujah that were used by these people and the black clothing that they used to wear to identify themselves, hundreds of CDs and whole records with names of hostages," the general said at a military camp near Fallujah.

He was unsure if the hostage records included the names of any of the at least nine foreigners still in the hands of kidnappers — most notably, British aid worker Margaret Hassan, French journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot and an unidentified American worker for a Saudi company.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... hostages_2

[Raistin]

Dude were in control of Abu Ghraib, we already know what he army has already done. Didnt know about the beheadings tho, but they deserved it anyways.

[Adex_Xeda]

When you spend a lot of time chasing an elusive foe, it makes one pause when you find a place were there is evidence of his presence and morbid reminders of his acts.

[Lohrno]

Dude were in control of Abu Ghraib, we already know what he army has already done. Didnt know about the beheadings tho, but they deserved it anyways.

That's a pretty sick perspective. Remember, the army is just a tool. The tortures at Abu Ghraib were also pretty sick. The people who 'deserved it anyways' were mostly the contractors. They weren't even combatants... If you were talking about those issuing the orders to the army, then maybe.

At least direct your hate at the right people.

-=Lohrno

[Kelshara]

It is a chilling reminder of what is going on over there. However, I have to laugh when I hear some people use this as an argument FOR the war when it was the war that started this.

[Nick]

A massive point continually overlooked by the retards

[Akaran_D]

Because Uday, Qusay, and Saddam's torture chambers weren't reason enough for the war.

At least you can say that they've had a bit of practice in what they're (iraqi insurgents) working with...

[Lohrno]

Because Uday, Qusay, and Saddam's torture chambers weren't reason enough for the war.

No they were not. You'll notice our policy is inconsistent, and if we were to try to solve the worlds problems we would bankrupt soon. We are not invading Ethiopia because the warlords take the food we donate destined for there. We do not invade China because of all the human rights abuses that go on there. We do not invade Columbia because they cannot handle their druglord problem. Why is Iraq's problems any more of our business than other places? It's foolish to try to solve all the problems of other nations through military force.

-=Lohrno

[Akaran_D]

Advantage vs disadvantage.
You're right, we can't remove all of them. But we can take out the ones that will indirectly benifit us and 'save' their oppressed population at the same time, which, when properly conducted, works out to a win win.

So far, this isn't.

[Lohrno]

Advantage vs disadvantage.
You're right, we can't remove all of them. But we can take out the ones that will indirectly benifit us and 'save' their oppressed population at the same time, which, when properly conducted, works out to a win win.

So far, this isn't.

The benefits must very much outweigh the costs in human lives and financially. 90% of the time this would not be the case.

-=Lohrno

[Lynks]

Finally, the war in Iraq is justified. Thank you God.

[Zaelath]

Finally, the war in Iraq is justified. Thank you God.

Securing the second largest proved oil reserve in the world was vital. If that justifies it or not depends on how much you like your economic stability...

[Kelshara]

Because Uday, Qusay, and Saddam's torture chambers weren't reason enough for the war.

At least you can say that they've had a bit of practice in what they're (iraqi insurgents) working with...

What they did was peanuts compared to other parts of the world.

[Akaran_D]

"If you can't afford to help them all, help the ones you can afford."

[Seebs]

I won't believe the slaughter houses until I see the bacon.

I'll take ham, but It'll take two helpings to convince me.

[Lohrno]

"If you can't afford to help them all, help the ones you can afford."

"If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change."

-Michael Jackson

[Adex_Xeda]

Kel, you kinda inserted your own agenda into my words.

I didn't claim this as some form of a war justification.

[Thess]

Kind of a shame we didn't invade quicker to find the slaughterhouse and stop some of the beheadings. I can't speak for anyone else, but a few of those plea video tapes to Tony Blair brought tears to my eyes.

[Hesten]

Because Uday, Qusay, and Saddam's torture chambers weren't reason enough for the war.

At least you can say that they've had a bit of practice in what they're (iraqi insurgents) working with...

No, the war was started due to Iraqs WMDs and link to terrorists. If you guys wanna go for whichever country that like to torture people, try all those USA funded south america countries.

[*~*stragi*~*]

Ham is nasty.

[Chidoro]

PORK

[Cartalas]

Because Uday, Qusay, and Saddam's torture chambers weren't reason enough for the war.

At least you can say that they've had a bit of practice in what they're (iraqi insurgents) working with...

What they did was peanuts compared to other parts of the world.

Ok thats how you justify it?

[Voronwë]

you guys need to understand these slaughterhouses were the Insurgent operations - which were a *response* to the invasion. so it isnt relevant in that regard. but i think we can move on from whether or not it was "right" to invade at this point.

That being said, a BBC news crew was there, and I think some video will be out today of it domestically. Apparently, our Marines just missed the Insurgents, because some of the glasses still had ice in them. Not sure if that is in the video, and it may not be true, but thats what i heard.

[Lohrno]

Ok thats how you justify it?

The real question is with all the other crap going on in the world, how can you justify this invasion? It isn't stopping terrorism (it's actually increasing it), there weren't any huge fucking mountains of WMDs like Bush said, and their humanitarian crimes were no greater than some other places in the world. Why Iraq then? For all the money we spent in

Iraq we could have done many things like Bolster the economy, eliminate homelessness and hunger in our own country, funded a mission to Mars, made a much needed improvement to our transportation system, made our internal security almost flawless without infringing on people's constitutional rights, funded research into alternate fuels so we don't have to rely on oil, found Osama Bin Laden, etc. There are so many other more pressing issues that matter to us than Iraq.

How do you justify invading Iraq when we have so much work to do? With the number of insurgents appearing, it's clear that not all of them are jumping and screaming in the streets shouting "USA! USA! USA!" Do you think they like an occupying force on an extended stay there? Our troops kill innocents just about on a daily basis due to carelessness / underfunding. Our troops also failed to protect Iraq's 1000+ year old historical artifacts, which may never be seen by historians again thanks to looters. Also, due to an order given to troops that found a conventional weapons cache, this cache was not guarded, and the real terrorists now have tons (literally) of weapons to attack our troops with.

So basically:

They had no WMDs and thus not a threat to us.
There is no evidence they were funding Al Qaeda.
They don't really want us there.
It's draining money for programs we need.
There is not a huge benefit to us for prosecuting this war.
We are creating our own humanitarian crimes by being careless.
We let real terrorists have weapons due to the aforementioned carelessness.

I'm sorry I don't understand how anyone can support this war anymore. I don't think "They were committing crimes against humanity" stacks up against all of these since many other countries also do. It is also not our job to install "Dieboldemocracy" in all the countries of the world by force.

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

Wow, there's some serious slaughterhouse sympathizing going on here. The beheaders of peace workers are just misunderstood.

[Lohrno]

Wow, there's some serious slaughterhouse sympathizing going on here. The beheaders of peace workers are just misunderstood.

Who the fuck said that? (Besides Raistin maybe?) Nothing excuses the beheadings. But you should realize they wouldn't have happened if we weren't there. So the peace workers died to these people (actually I'm not sure if they are human) for no good reason since they shouldn't be there in the first place. It's not the peace worker's fault, it's the terrorists that do that, and the Bush admin's fault for conducting a half-assed war.

-=Lohrno

[Cartalas]

"It isn't stopping terrorism (it's actually increasing it),"????????



WOW!!! you are gullable. Not one attack on American Soil since the war.

[Lohrno]

"It isn't stopping terrorism (it's actually increasing it),"????????



WOW!!! you are gullable. Not one attack on American Soil since the war.

And not one (from foreign terrorists) in the 10 years before 2001. In fact, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, not one attack from any foreign power has been carried out on US soil in the past 100. Ok, Actually upon reflection I take that back, there was the first attack on the WTC which did happen before Bush's term. So roll that back to like what was that? 1997? The attacks on the WTC were carefully orchestrated, and took years to plan and execute.

However there are several now on our troops and interests in Iraq. Not only that but Al Qaeda now has great opportunities for recruiting. The people beheading the peace workers are...what? Insurgents?
(Or if you have a tin foil head) Israelis?

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

And not one (from foreign terrorists) in the 10 years before 2001. In fact, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, not one attack from any foreign power has been carried out on US soil in the past 100.

-=Lohrno

The majority would like to keep it that way. Hence, Bush remains our president.

[Raistin]

I was being sarastic since Adex and his followers of god didnt have a uprise about what the military were doing to the civi's and the so called PoWs they have captured and wisked away to Cuba.,


No Im not cheering on the beheaddings and such. I was a supporter to the war in Iraq when Bush asked for our support. But after the dust of lies settled, Im aginist the war.

[Lohrno]

The majority would like to keep it that way. Hence, Bush remains our president.

True, but the majority also thinks that Iraq had links to Al Qaeda. Thus I have to conclude that the majority is not watching the news closely enough to make an informed decision as to what is really going on. I'd also like to note that it's a slim majority. This slim majority does not realize that we are increasing our chances of getting attacked again soon with our actions.


-=Lohrno

[Cartalas]

"It isn't stopping terrorism (it's actually increasing it),"????????



WOW!!! you are gullable. Not one attack on American Soil since the war.

And not one (from foreign terrorists) in the 10 years before 2001. In fact, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, not one attack from any foreign power has been carried out on US soil in the past 100. Ok, Actually upon reflection I take that back, there was the first attack on the WTC which did happen before Bush's term. So roll that back to like what was that? 1997? The attacks on the WTC were carefully orchestrated, and took years to plan and execute.

However there are several now on our troops and interests in Iraq. Not only that but Al Qaeda now has great opportunities for recruiting. The people beheading the peace workers are...what? Insurgents?
(Or if you have a tin foil head) Israelis?

-=Lohrno

In 1983, a fundamentalist suicide bomber blew up the US embassy on the sea front in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 16 Americans.


The following year, East Beirut was the target for another US embassy bombing. An explosive-packed station wagon detonated in front of the embassy, killing 11 people.

Seven people were injured - including five Americans - in an explosion in 1995 near a US-run military training centre in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.

A year later, a huge explosion killed 19, and injured many others at a military complex housing US troops at Khobar in the east of the country.

U.S.S Cole
a lone Palestinian gunman who killed a tourist at the Empire State Building

[Lohrno]

Ok lets look at these:

In 1983, a fundamentalist suicide bomber blew up the US embassy on the sea front in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 16 Americans.

That's an embassy. While technically it is American soil, it's not really. An embassy is a patch of ground in the middle of another country that they say "this is American soil." Sorry I am not buying that as the kind of attack on American soil like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

The following year, East Beirut was the target for another US embassy bombing. An explosive-packed station wagon detonated in front of the embassy, killing 11 people.

See above.

etc. etc. more embassy/US Interest abroad bombings.

U.S.S Cole
a lone Palestinian gunman who killed a tourist at the Empire State Building

WTF? The USS Cole blast occurred near Yemen. Terrorism is intended to kill ordinary people. I'd consider that an insurgent attack even though it probably was Al Qaeda.

The paletinian gunman was more like a wacko political murderer than a Terrorist. Someone who had beef with the government. More like McVeigh, except way less planned. I'll give you half points for that though.

While I wouldn't consider Osama Bin Laden as a very credible source of information, he did say that they have many people in our country already that have their orders. That doesn't sound that far fetched though since that was the way the attacks on the WTC happened, so it's entirely possible. It could be just a thing he said to cause terror. (Fancy that, a terrorist causing terror...)

When these 'Insurgents' who are beheading people get driven out, and into hiding by our troops, what do you think they're going to do next? Just a reminder, these insurgents are there because of us...If we were not there, most of them (not the Ba'athists obviously) would be fighting the Iraqi government.

-=Lohrno

[Aruman]

....and the Bush admin's fault for conducting a half-assed war.
-=Lohrno

If you have the qualifications to call it a half-assed war, you must know a better way to conduct it.

Let's hear some of these brilliant ideas or tactics you have versus what is being done now.

[Lohrno]

If you have the qualifications to call it a half-assed war, you must know a better way to conduct it.

Let's hear some of these brilliant ideas or tactics you have versus what is being done now.

Oh good, the "oh okay mr. Smartypants, you have a better idea?" argument. First of all I am not a tactician, but the failings here are so obvious that even I can see them.

#1 When you invade a COUNTRY, especially one the size of Iraq, you send more than 100k troops. There was a general who reccommended that the US has to send 500k to do it right. You should also have adequate supplies. The lack of the new bullet proof vests, and the recent refusal of some officers to take a refueling mission because their equipment was not adequate to complete the job is evidence of an accute lack of supplies.

#2 Don't let explosives/weapons fall into the hands of people who would use them against you. This failing was probably due to #1.

#3 Make sure you are sending well trained troops to the battlezone, and not reserve officers. See Abu Ghraib.

#4 Try to get international cooperation whenever possible. Bush has quite well alienated most of the major european players. This will help with #1 as well as help with relations with the rest of the world.

#5 When you take over a region of the country, make sure it is stabilized. IE: Have enough people to ensure peace, and that looting will not occur. Again, see #1.

#6 Have a good fucking reason for going to war in the first place. Unless there is a good reason there is no point in wasting resources and lives.

-=Lohrno

[Aruman]

Oh good, the "oh okay mr. Smartypants, you have a better idea?" argument. First of all I am not a tactician, but the failings here are so obvious that even I can see them.

Sorry, but no matter what light you put it in, if you don't have the qualifications to call it a half-assed war, then what good is your opinion?

There are going to be failings in ANY war.

#1 When you invade a COUNTRY, especially one the size of Iraq, you send more than 100k troops. There was a general who reccommended that the US has to send 500k to do it right. You should also have adequate supplies. The lack of the new bullet proof vests, and the recent refusal of some officers to take a refueling mission because their equipment was not adequate to complete the job is evidence of an accute lack of supplies.

The military always wants to send more than needed, that comes as a surprise?. What about the other generals who gave different recommendations on numbers? How convenient that you left that out.

Bullet proof vest? No conventional infantry unit has them, so what makes you think that everyone should have them?

Oh, and just to make you aware of the fact: The standards for vehicle readiness in peacetime and wartime are not the same. The equipment readiness is a direct responsibility of the unit. If they didn't maintain their vehicles to peacetime readiness levels, it's their fault. On that note... I hope they get what's coming to them.

#2 Don't let explosives/weapons fall into the hands of people who would use them against you. This failing was probably due to #1.

A better question is: Why didn't the UN inspectors try have the explosives removed instead of just sealing the bunkers. However, I can agree with you on that, but that was the fault of the military, not President Bush.

#3 Make sure you are sending well trained troops to the battlezone, and not reserve officers. See Abu Ghraib.

In other words abolish the Reserves and National Guard? Training one weekend a month doesn't do anything to maintain skills, it's just a refresher. Being well trained means it's a part of everyday life. Eliminate the Reserves, or make all Reserve Units Active Duty.

#4 Try to get international cooperation whenever possible. Bush has quite well alienated most of the major european players. This will help with #1 as well as help with relations with the rest of the world.

You can't say President Bush didn't try to get cooperation from other countries. The countries that raised a stink has a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.

#5 When you take over a region of the country, make sure it is stabilized. IE: Have enough people to ensure peace, and that looting will not occur. Again, see #1.

Which way is better to ensure peace in an area? Have a squad of infantry on every corner, or have a minimal force in the area to take care of real trouble? I'm not there and neither are you, so in effect this is just your opinion.
My opinion: I think a hands off approach is better, except when conditions indicate otherwise.

#6 Have a good fucking reason for going to war in the first place. Unless there is a good reason there is no point in wasting resources and lives.

[Lohrno]

The military always wants to send more than needed, that comes as a surprise?. What about the other generals who gave different recommendations on numbers? How convenient that you left that out.

Bush made the ultimate decision as far as that goes, and even I see that that was a bad decision. Most of the problems faced that I have discussed relate back to this: They have not sent enough supplies to do the job without a big mess. Bush had the final word on it, so it's his fault.

Which way is better to ensure peace in an area? Have a squad of infantry on every corner, or have a minimal force in the area to take care of real trouble? I'm not there and neither are you, so in effect this is just your opinion.
My opinion: I think a hands off approach is better, except when conditions indicate otherwise.

It doesn't matter what OUR opinions are, the fact is that they do not have enough people there to maintain peace in many of the places they take over. I don't care how this is accomplished, but it's obviously someone's oversight. Since they don't have enough people to fight and maintain peace, we go back to #1. They didn't send enough people.

-=Lohrno

[Kelshara]

Kel, you kinda inserted your own agenda into my words.

I didn't claim this as some form of a war justification.

Didn't mean you, but quite a few other retards. Even though I disagree with you a lot, you actually seem to use your brain at times.

Ok thats how you justify it?

I don't have to justify anything, I'm not the idiots invading sovereign countries on a whim.

WOW!!! you are gullable. Not one attack on American Soil since the war.

Nope but plenty of Iraqi civilians killed.. you know, those you are so desperate in helping and bitch at us for not caring for? Yeah those. Guess you forgot them eh?

[Sylvos]

It is a chilling reminder of what is going on over there. However, I have to laugh when I hear some people use this as an argument FOR the war when it was the war that started this.

Hey I have news for you Kelshara, what started the war was 2 planes colliding intentionally with the world trade center and killing American citizens on American soil. Regardless of what you "think" the US should have done, we removed a man from power that was "evil". The war might not have been the best solutoin to what happened but its the course we took. Now keep in mind all the soliders that die daily as you bad mouth their efforts in service to our country. I realize you are not an American citizen but I will not be a jackass like others who think that Non-Americans opinions do not matter. You may not think Bush is a good president, but he IS the president.
You also have to think about the fact that since we have invaded and essentialy conquered Iraq, it's one less nation to worry about in the Middle East. For now. If you want to bitch about things over there, how about going back 40 years to when we first tried to "Fix" things and fucked them up even more than we have today.
Oh, and hostages are taken all the time. It is an act of not only terroism but defiance to another person/organization/power. It is horrible when it happens in every instance, but I don't remember a Iraq or Taliban hostages taken and killed when we had 4 plane loads of people killed in one day wiithout a war being fought.

[Lohrno]

Hey I have news for you Kelshara, what started the war was 2 planes colliding intentionally with the world trade center and killing American citizens on American soil. Regardless of what you "think" the US should have done, we removed a man from power that was "evil". The war might not have been the best solutoin to what happened but its the course we took.

That's what we're trying to say. It wasn't any kind of solution as it wasn't relevant at all. We should have been stronger in Afghanistan.

-=Lohrno

[Seebs]

SOme of the graffitti on the walls was in arabic and was just translated today:
"Jimmy Dean was here."

Horrifying.

[Kelshara]

Hey I have news for you Kelshara, what started the war was 2 planes colliding intentionally with the world trade center and killing American citizens on American soil.

Well this pretty much makes your entire post laughable heh. Once again using the 9/11 excuse for Iraq. They have nothing to do with eachother except for giving Bush a piss-poor excuse to invade. And idiots like you gobble it up like a fat kid eating pancakes. Not to mention that the trouble between the US (or western world if you want) and the Middle East hardly started with 9/11. If you believe that you truly need to go back to your history classes.

The rest of your post is pretty much incoherent babble so I'll ignore that.

[Lohrno]

If you give the 9/11 excuse you must back it up at least with some articles with credible evidence on this connection.

Otherwise you are just spewing tripe (syn: bullshit, nonsense, lies).

As of now I have yet to hear a reasonable excuse for the war in Iraq. It's been 2 years. 'Securing the world's oil supplies' is about the best reason I've heard. It's strategically a good move, but is bad from a diplomatic, ethical, and environmental standpoint.

-=Lohrno