Suicide Bomber kills 4 Crusaders in Iraq

by jeff Sun Mar 30, 2003 15:31

It seems all the Americans are whinging about the Iraqi defence and killing of their troops, but a few Brits I know have a blase attitude- "We are against the war. We feel sorry for squaddies, but this is what they signed up for, and, besides, we are used to N. Ireland, and, finally, we're BNrits, not Yanks, who wet themselves with joy over shit like ice cream, or, if they smash something, turn it into a big drama soap opera story. We only do that if say, Princess Diana or a likeable royal dies." That was what one lad summed up to me.

by Des Sun Mar 30, 2003 00:46

I don’t think Daithi that the actions of the Iraqi people in defending their country against a foreign invasion should be described as vile. Certainly, I derive no pleasure from the death of any human being but using your logic would mean that the actions of the Vietnamese people in their fight to drive the U.S. Imperialists out of their country was wrong, that the actions of the French Resistance or the Soviet Partisans in resisting the German Fascists was wrong or to use your description vile. Taking such a position is to put it mildly absurd.
Incidentally, I don’t know James McKenna but it was Dubya who introduced the term “crusade” post 9/11, a term, which I am sure you are aware carries rather negative connotations in the Middle East. What I consider to be truly “disgusting” is that a million Iraqi people have lost their lives in a little over a decade and our “government” continues (in our name) to make their modest contribution to adding to that obscene total.

by James McKenna Sat Mar 29, 2003 21:24

I can't resist another CRUSADER link

The above catchphrase was coined by the CRUSADERS who went to the mid east to kill the "infidels" in the middle ages. They faced Coptic Christians who were also heratics because they believed Rome had made a racket and a Sun-God-King cult out of a prophet, for the express purpose of reinstituting the Hierarchy.

The CRUSADERS were a bit unable to tell the dark skinned Christians from the dark skinned Muslim so they decided to , "kill 'e all and let God sort them out".

As both massacre bombs to fall on Baghdad fell on poor Shi'ite areas we can only assume the same motto holds sway with the modern CRUSADERS. They came to liberate the Shia , just as the original CRUSADERS came to liberate pilgrims and Christians but find like the original of the species, for operational purposes, massacre is indiscriminate.

by fight back Sat Mar 29, 2003 19:25

There are one million Iraqi catholics and about 3000 Iraqi jews, in Baghdad, these Iraqis will be slaughtered alongside their muslim neighbours. Coalition forces do not have the time to distinguish between Iraqis. If coalition forces are killing their own coalition soldiers in friendly fire, they're not going to be able to distinguish between enemy Iraqi civillians. This is why coalition forces have faced such fierce opposition, as Iraqis muslim, catholic and jews under fire, unite to fight the brutality and violence of coalition forces. fair play to Iraqis for fighting back. They've got some guts.

by Steve Sat Mar 29, 2003 19:25

If the Iraqis do enough of this, the casualties of coalition forces will rise into the thousands. This is not what they bargained for though I don't know if it will stop them.
I think the Yanks and the British made the traditional military mistake of refighting the last war. In particular, they thought the Iraqis would fold as easily as they did in 1991.
In theory the Americans and British leaderships are very confident, but it is interesting how much they have to insulate their public from the horrors of war, a rather difficult task in a world of 24-hour news.

by James McKenna Sat Mar 29, 2003 17:31

Once again you project your negative emotionalism onto me. No Thanks, you keep that!

This story is factual and accurate an is not an emotion or opinion of mine. Na-na-ne-na-na!

Whether one refers to these men as illegal invaders, murderers, illegal combatants or crusaders is really irrelevant. And anyway it was George Bush who first referred to this as a CRUSADE.

I would also like to remind you pro-war types that the last Crusader to be driven out of that region was the so called King Guy of Jerusalem who was lured by Saladin into the desert where he could not supply his troops. Sound familiar? Grounds for referring to these men as CRUSADERS?When they were tired and weary of the heat and thirst and constant harassment on all sides, Saladin moved in and finished them off.

Don't be so paranoid about bringing the site into disrepute by using the word CRUSADER. Are there any other words you would like me not to use? Maybe I could have a list, it might give me a better idea of your agenda.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/29/sprj.irq.car.bomb/index.html

I wouldn't want to boast about the death of anyone as you incorrectly claim, I leave that to the US !

http://islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/26/article05.shtml

by wasichu Sat Mar 29, 2003 17:06

well, to my middle eastern friends the "crusader" description is immediatly logical.

Sometimes westerns just don't get it.

And if you want to see folks jump for joy at murder, take a stroll through the USA. Any slight sign of "victory" is greeted with headlines that resemble the braying of hyenas.

And to be anti-war you are going have to be anti-us/uk or the wars are going to go on and on and on.

I think you are way to hard on each other given the circumstances.

by Are you? Sat Mar 29, 2003 15:03

anti war or just anti us/uk?

by Daithi Sat Mar 29, 2003 14:51

Still jumping with joy for murder? Suicide bombs are disgusting, perhaps not as bad as cluster bombs, aerial attacks, and so on, but still pretty vile.

by paul cummins Sat Mar 29, 2003 14:39

you could have so easily written this story
straight

every "crusader" jibe jsut diminishes thsi site

you can believe they are crusaders but you don't write that in an indepedent media site you just put more ppl off then you'lll inform