U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by james_bond_3rd, May 31, 2006.

  1. U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday.

    Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.


    Pro-lifers out there, how do you defend a policy that leads to such tragedies?
  2. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    This was an unfortunate event. There were other cases of people getting shot because they didn’t know they had to stop.

    But of course, AP treats this story as a “trend” of military “madness,” with respect to the Haditha incident, which is absurd.

    Even this AP story says Haditha is a hotbed for insurgents. You know why it is a hotbed for insurgents? Because the CIVILIANS in Haditha are aiding and abetting the enemy. Well, well, well. This sounds familiar. Every time an Iraqi city becomes a hotbed for insurgents, “innocent” civilians are killed. Hmm. I wonder why?

    The enemy knows how to jerk-off our useful idiots in the media: shoot at the Marines and lure them in so in the end women and children are killed. Probably even the women think they are martyrs for being in harms way with their children.

    And all you clowns in the related threads rushing to judgment to hang the Marines involved in the Haditha incident may as well form your lynch mobs and round up WWII veterans responsible for carpet bombing German and Japanese civilians as well.
  3. Now that you bring up the subject, Curtis LeMay, the general responsible for ordering the firebombing of Tokyo, once said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

    No Japanese was ever brought to justice for Nanjing massacre. That doesn't mean that it was ok to murder 300,000 people in the city, when the defeated Chinese troops were hiding among the civilian population and definitelyposed a threat to the occupying Japanese imperial army. By the way, the Chinese troops were using "terrorist" tactics almost identical to what the Iraqi insurgents are doing today. Go ahead and try to justify that that gave the Japanese the excuse to murder 300,000 people, many of whom were surely soldiers in hiding.
  4. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    Every side can make a moral case about their very existence. But the winner always deserves the moral high ground in the end, even after committing the worst atrocities as a means to win. Many people have trouble with this reality, as they despise the winners and glorify the losers and invent false ideologies that promise a global equality, which never happens.

    It’s difficult to give the Japanese the excuse to rape and murder 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians at Nanjing. The Japanese would have killed a lot more had the U.S. backed out of WWII. It’s also difficult to give the Pol Pot the moral authority to murder a million Cambodians because we left Vietnam. It would also be difficult to find an excuse for all the Iraqis that will be slaughtered if we cut and run again.
  5. Let me see if I understand...

    The winner of a war deserves the moral high ground?

    So if Nazi Germany had won, they would have the moral high ground?

    Just trying to understand what you mean....

  6. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    Yes, they would have the moral high ground... I’m glad they lost, as you are glad they lost.
  7. I don't get you Sam. How would the Nazis "deserve" the moral high ground if they had won?

    Of course they would claim it, but how would they "deserve" it?
  8. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    some maniac gunned down 3 people and injured 4 more in a park a few miles away from me this past weekend...... alledgedly, an "undocumented worker"... Wisconsin, of all places

  9. It's strange that you don't see the parallels here.

    Japanese occupation of China during WWII
    Chinese insurgency using land mines, ambushes, assassination and intimidation of (Chinese) collaborators and their families, and at times suicide missions - probably more Chinese were killed in these attacks than Japanese
    Japanese atrocities against Chinese population in trying to put down the insurgency

    Which army is facing the same situation today? And if you cannot justify Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, how can you justify them today?
  10. By your reasoning, anyone who is in power, which is the situation following a war for the winner, has the moral high ground.

    Therefore, Saddam had the moral high ground upon taking power, Mao had the moral high ground over their people when he took over, so did Castro, so did Stalin, so did Hitler, etc.

    The North Vietnamese had the moral high ground, Bin Laden had the moral high ground.....

    For that matter, if there is a bar fight, and the winner of the fight kills his opponent...he had the moral high ground?

    #10     Jun 2, 2006