Predator Obliterates Insurgents [anger management]

Categorized | World Wonders

Tags : CNN, hologram, insurgent, iraq, Predator

Predator Obliterates Insurgents [anger management]

Posted on Fri 07th Nov 11:19 pm by Ms. Missive

(+1)

What I wish I could do to one more newscaster who mentions that stupid fucking CNN “hologram” from election night:

Popularity: 5% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Related Posts You May Enjoy!

14 Comments For This Post

An_Arab Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Hi PM,

Im new to your site having just stumbled on your blog. I wanted to ask you regarding this video you have posted - how do you know those killed were actual terrorists or Iraqi insurgents fighting an occupying force in their country (USA) as would be a natural of any other occupied country?

Ms. Missive Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Thanks for taking the time to comment, An_Arab.

There’s really no question that those killed in the video are insurgents as they were clearly seen activating an IED. The teams that are operating the un-maned Predators are highly skilled in their ability to determine them as such.

But I think what you’re REALLY asking is if their deaths are honorable or not? As you wrote, “…insurgents fighting an occupying force in their country (USA) as would be a natural of any other occupied country”. I think the issue you’re addressing here is if their placement of an IED was justifiable since, as you say, they are fighting for the freedom of their country?

Well, let me make my position clear…. they deserved to die as the terrorists they are.

America has long stopped “occupying” Iraq and, trust me, we’re more than happy to get our asses out of there. We’re just waiting for the Iraqi’s to step up and run their country properly instead of running around trying to blow each other up.

An_Arab Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Dear Ms Missive,

I get the impression you are using their actions of planting an IED as a metric measuring whether or not they are terrorists or insurgents.

But then again, whats so special about an insurgent planting an IED against American forces which are occupying their country? What weapon should insurgents use instead against foreign forces occupying their country in your opinion?

Your placement of this video gave me enough of a hint that you viewed their deaths as honorable, but what I am asking is why? Clearly you think they are terrorists, again, how do you know? If you are going to tell me the pilots know, then how do they know? Did they interview them?

And if they were not terrorists, and simply insurgents fighting against an occupying force, then would you still think their deaths are justified? Again, why? By what measure? Since when do countries’ populace resisting a foreign military occupation of their country become a crime?

Skitz M. Jones Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

There’s a saying- One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”. And I believe that THAT is exactly what we’re discussing here. It’s the semantics of politics.

An_Arab is arguing whether the (I’ll stick with common vernacular here) terrorists are justified in their actions against U.S. and coalition forces. With the U.S. stationed in Iraq, it can be argued that we’re bringing the terrorists to us, obviously it’s easier to fight us in a country right next door, than to try to fly across the ocean to fight us on our home turf. But that’s one part of it- by and large the insurgents that we’re fighting now are not local. They’re imported. We’re fighting against people from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and more- all within the borders of Iraq. It must also be remembered that, for the time being, we are in the country with the approval and working in conjunction with the Iraqi government. Now, it’s also true that right now the U.S. government and the Iraqi government are working on coming to terms on what the U.S. military’s role will be after the end of this year, but as long as the U.S. is working with the government, democratically elected I’ll remind you, then one can argue that the U.S. is not an “occupying force” but a source of assistance to Iraq’s government and police/military forces.

If we were simply holding place in Iraq, and running it with disregard to the government, then one could argue that we are an invading force, but at present date, that is not the case.

How were they determined then, to be terrorists? As Ms. Missive said, they were in the midst of planting an IED. Now the question was asked what weapon they should use instead? Truth told I’d prefer no weapon be used by either side, but in terms of terrorist vs say, an opposing force or army, the use of a completely non-descriminant weapon like an IED is truely a terrorist act. IEDs, VBIEDs, Suicide Bombings… by and large these weapons kill as many, if not more, innocent civilians as they do military forces. IEDs are not even opporated by the person who set them, but instead are initiated by whoever happens to be unfortunate enough to stumble upon them. When someone is seen setting up such a weapon, one that could easily kill anyone, including other insurgents who might not know that it was placed there, then that person is an enemy combatant engaged in an act hostile to the country itself, as well as anyone who dwells within it’s borders. So were their deaths “justified” as you asked? I’d have to say yes.

Would they argue that point if they could? Allow me this- no one fights a war believing that they are the “bad guys”.

That’s loosely my stance on this whole thread, sadly there are nuances in this entire conflict that can barely be covered in simple threads on news blogs and responses, but hopefully I’ve covered enough of this one to make my point.

An_Arab Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Skitz_M_Jones,

A appreciate your reply, and I can see the logic in your explanation, but this raises more questions than answers, and I also think your conclusion is thus not accurate regarding the justification for their deaths.

You say that the US is currently working with the Iraqi Government, and hence have their permission to be in the country. Let us assume I agree to that. Then what of the American deaths by insurgents during the time before the existence of the Iraqi Government? (During the period of the Coalition Provisional Authority). Were those Americans who were then occupying the country rightly killed by insurgents? By your logic, I would have to say the deaths of the 2000 or so Americans during the occupation were 100% justified.

But back to the Iraqi Government - this government is not a true representation of the will of the Iraqi people, because if it were, there would not be so much animosity towards it by the populace. This clearly shows a disconnect between the people and its ‘government’, with the government going so far as to ask a foreign occupier to protect it against its own people of all things. This isn’t the sign of a national government. Its the sign of an alien entity metaphorically speaking. This makes the government argument moot. If Iraq was truly a sovereign country with a representative government and it asked the US to start packing in 24 hours, we both know what the US answer to that would be.

Furthermore, what bearing does the fact that little/few/some/most of those fighters are foreign in origin? What bearing does this have on the argument? If the US was occupied and foreigners wanted to come over and help you fight the occupation, how would that go against the argument against fighting an invader in a foreigners land?

And lastly, we do not know that details of the IED plantation - the US military tells us VBIEDS and IEDs are extremely complicated, with them being activated by radio, infra-red, wire, even pigeons. Insurgents will usually wait for an occupation US vehicle to drive by before they blow up the IED thereby blowing up the occupier. In this way civilians are not targeted.

And even if they were, whats it the US’s business? If the US wants to do humanitarian work, why dont they invade Africa instead?

P.S. You also made a point about how with IEDs and such devices, someone planting them engages in hostile actions against anyone and everyone in the country’s borders. But the US military also engages in such practices, with the violation of rights of Iraqi families to privacy, the massive Iraqi civilian casualties due to its bombings, and/or infantry operations. You might argue that they do not target civilians, but then so could the insurgents planting the IEDs.

An_Arab Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Skitz_M_Jones,

“by and large these weapons kill as many, if not more, innocent civilians as they do military forces.”

One last thing regarding this line as well - the US vaporized 150,000 or so civilians including women, children and babies over the course of 5 minutes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One might say the US had no other choice and wanted to end the war. I would speculate that the insurgents would also give you the same answer.

Thus again, what distinguishes the two of you? And why isnt this video showing the murder of people fighting an occupation force? Should this video have been taken during 2003-2004 before an Iraqi government, would their killing have THEN been murder?

Skitz M. Jones Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

And again we return to the point of semantics and points of view. Could people in Iraq view us as an occupying force and want us to leave? Yes, it is true that some hold this point of view, and I won’t deny it. If it wasn’t true- they wouldn’t be trying to kill us. Could people in Iraq view us as a liberating force and be happy with the fact that we removed Saddam from power and helped to install a new government? Yes, this is also true, and I know it to be so having worked with local Iraqis during my time overseas, and working with some transplanted Iraqis in my current security job here in the United States.
It’s the same in Afghanistan, some there are happy we’re there, some are not and just want us gone.
The road to hell is paved with noble intentions as the old saying goes.

And trust me, as an American, when we hit discussions about how valid governments are… don’t forget that our current (but soon to be departing) President quite possibly never should’ve been sworn in the first time, and many still didn’t vote for him the second time and so felt that the government was not a representation of the will of the people… That said, we weren’t taking to the streets trying to kill anyone who worked with the government. Even though I didn’t approve of the Bush administration, that was who was in office, and I’d rather try to change things politically and diplomatically than through violence. So the arguement about simply not recognizing the government as a representative of the people ceases to be valid. If you don’t like the government, work to change it.

I really don’t know what else can be said about this topic other than looking at the arguements of “winners writing history books” and statements of the like, which takes me back to my original opening statement of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

An_Arab Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 1:19 am

Skitz,

Let me just say, I do agree with your assessment of “One mans’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” as far as views are concerned. However, I for one also subscribe to a worldview of objective truth of sorts, meaning what I am trying to arrive at here is an objective truth as to who/what is justified given our common stand points in basic morality.

Going back to the government-is-valid question, your analogy with the US election is extremely stretched: For one thing, the choice between Bush and Kerry for example, was never as great as Maliki and say Sadr. In the American case, one president wants to raise taxes, one wants to lower, one wants to pull out slowly with a timetable, one doesnt, etc. Those are minimal discriminants in light of the vast ocean of differences between Maliki who thinks its ok to house foreign occupation troops who are immune to Iraqi law and Sadr who doesnt wants to have anything to do with them.

Your analogy is more like having an American party favouring a British Garrison stationed and advised by in all 13 colonies, VS another American party who wants total and unconditional independence. How many of your own fellow Americans would literally be up in arms if the current party in power decided to take away every Americans’ guns no questions asked? Tell me such a government would not be targeted by a sizable chunk of the populace for violent overthrow. And that’s not even concerning a foreign occupation.

So while the party differences are small, you can disagree in a non-violent way as with modern day US elections, but when party differences have to do with fundamentals and questioning the right of foreign forces kicking in your doors at night, those aren’t small party differences, those are differences concerning the very soul of a nation, what sovereignty means to it. Nations spill blood over this, including yours. This is why your government point is invalid. Because those aren’t small party differences - those differences in parties of Iraq are more akin to your minute-men VS British apologists back in the late 1700’s.

But even if I conceded to you the dubious-government-gave-us-permission point, you have not really addressed the other points, namely, are the 2000 or so American deaths from 2003-first-vote at the hands of Iraqi insurgents valid and justified?

Skitz M. Jones Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am

No spilled blood is valid. All spilled blood should be avoided. I personally am a pacifist and aim towards roads other than violence always being the answer. This isn’t always the case, but it’s what I am for. Asking me whether deaths are valid and justified is an answer I simply can’t give, ever under any circumnstances.
When the American military removed Saddam from power, there was no one else in his place, and with no clear form of government, the U.S. with coalition troops and UN approval (in this part, not in going in in the first place) struck out to help rebuild the country and bring it to a place where an election could take place. Now, the goal was there to try to fix what damage we had done, help the Iraqi people choose their own government, and then once the country had stabilized, withdraw our troops. Of course with continued violence, withdrawl will not happen.
Until the government was elected into place in Iraq, someone had to be there to quell violence, and the U.S. took on that roll. Now, one could argue that we never should’ve been there in the first place easily. But once the damage was done, had we simply turned our backs on the country and let every group fight into bloody chaos without at least trying to help the country along, it would’ve been irresponcible. Now, that’s not to say we did our best job possible in that goal. We pretty much went into Iraq only with the aim to remove Saddam, but little planning or understanding beyond that. Our aims were noble, it was our follow through that needed work. But in the end the result was the same, an elected government put in place and steadily taking on a bigger and bigger role in the governing of it’s own country, and the steady withdrawl of American forces.

If the terrorists/insurgents/what-have-you truely want the Americans to leave, engaging in more violence is going to have the opposite effect, and surely they know this, it’s been our major point from there very beginning- no more violence = we can leave. So one could actually say that if the goal is having us leave, they’re working against their own purposes.

Now, granted, I stretched a little in the differences in government officials arguement, and I admit that, however, given that the differences are so great between the parties in Iraq, would you then propose that Iraq be seperated into different states based on their political loyalties?

And as for Maliki not wanting the U.S. troops to fall under Iraqi law, actually, that’s one of the major hold ups in passing the new resolution that will allow U.S. troops to continue functioning beyond Dec 31st of this year. The current Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to be subject to Iraqi law, the U.S. of course wants it’s troops under it’s own law. So that arguement fails, the U.S. may not want it, but the Iraqi government, led by Maliki, does.

In terms of basic morality, no one should be killing anyone. The arguement you want is for basic universal truth, and that’s as basic and universal as I can get. No one should be killing anyone. The insurgents are killing Americans because they’re there. Americans are killing insurgents to prevent them from killing Americans. Americans would leave if insurgents stopped killing people and the violence ended. In the cycle of violence, I have to say the biggest problem, and therefore currently the most at fault, are the insurgents. If they stop killing, then the whole cycle stops.

We can argue the past, but the past really doesn’t exist anymore to be dealt with, it’s over and done and cannot be changed, like a book we’ve read we can come away with it’s knowledge, but can do nothing to affect it. All we can deal in is the present, and in the present we have the cycle of violence I just mentioned.

I am most curious to know your thoughts on seperate states within Iraq based on government allegiance. But this debate over the justification of violence, I simply cannot do. It goes against everything that I believe in.

An_Arab Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 2:38 am

Dear Mr Skitz,

First off apologies for the delay, I have been working a lot these days.

Back to the discussion, I asked you if the American troops being fired on by Iraqis while you were occupying them was justified, before there was an Iraqi government. To wit:

“Asking me whether deaths are valid and justified is an answer I simply can’t give, ever under any circumstances.”

Why cant you give this answer? You had previously very clearly stated that “yes” those insurgents/terrorists deaths were justified. Are you retracting your earlier statement? I can respect a stance such as that but you have to admit it is confusing in light of what you had earlier stated. Furthermore, the fact that you have posted an entire video showing the humans being blown to bits doesnt help your argument either. Please clarify - can you take a stance or not?

(CORRECTION: As you had already pointed out, it is true that Maliki does not want US forces to have immunity of Iraqi Law, and I caught this mistake only after I had posted. However, my point was to highlight the massive ocean of differences between him and Sadr, and it does seem that ultimately this point was properly received.)

You then go on to describe the state of affairs in Iraq after the invasion, before the Iraqi government, and the US Army’s intentions, etc etc. But those are non-sequitors - If an Army conquers your nation for the sole purposes of enslaving the populace, do the locals have a right to violently resist thereby justifying your deaths? What if your sole stated purpose was to plant tulips? What if your purpose wasnt stated? I forward that in either case, in any of those cases, violent resistance to an occupation force it 100% legitimate regardless of what reasons the occupier gives. Any nation reserves this right - and this is the essence of sovereignty.

When I first asked you if Iraqis had a right to kill Americans since they are an occupier, you said no because the Americans got permission
from the Iraqi government to be there. When I asked you what about the gap when there was no government, you say no because the Americans have noble intentions. It seems to me that no matter what scenario I will provide to you, Iraqis never have a right to raise a finger against you Americans, and you have somehow rationalized away every possible scenario as to why that would be the case.

You mentioned that American forces would leave once violence towards them stops - let us assume that this is a valid and logical thought - if so, then why didnt the Americans leave from between the time you didnt find WMDs, to when the violence and sectarian strife begun? What were you doing then? If violence towards you was the metric for you to leave Iraq, you would have been gone as soon as WMDs were confirmed to exist only in your leadership’s wild imagination, and violence hadn’t started against the US yet.

This is why I reject this argument, it does not seem empirically sound.

In essence:

1) Between the time your nation threatened Iraq based on unsubstantiated evidence of terror-links and WMDs, which later proved to be false, would Iraqis have been justified in striking Americans? I would suspect no to be your answer.

2) After your government launched an attack on Iraq, removed Baa’th, killed thousands of Iraqis in the military based on those unsubstantiated claims, would Iraqis have been justified in killing Americans? I suspect your answer to this would be no.

3) Between the time from when WMDs were not found, to when violence did begin, would Iraqis have been justified in striking Americans who had now become an occupation force? I suspect your answer would be no.

4) Between the time when the US became an occupation force to when the government came about, would Iraqis have been justified in striking at the occupation troops? I suspect your answer would be no.

5) Today, with the Iraqi government being so corrupt even by your own military’s’ admission, and with them selling out Iraqi sovereignty by allowing occupation forces to run amok kicking doors of family homes down in the middle of the night unobstructed, the violation of Iraqis right to privacy and due process by mass arrests at the US’s hands, and the willy-nilly killing of civilians by private contractors and military, do the Iraqis have a right to strike at the Americans should their own government fail to protect their rights? I suspect your answer to this would be no.

If I am mistaken here in my prediction of your answers, please let me know.

But as it stands as per what I am reading off you, Iraqis have no right to fight you, because you claim your intentions were noble even though you came under false pretenses, no WMDs were ever found, there was ample time between violence against you to start for you to leave and yet there you were, there was and continues to be needless killing against the Iraqi populace at your hands and contractors you have sanctioned with no end in sight, the Iraqi government ceases to protect the rights of Iraqi people thereby nullifying the basis for its own existence, you are in Iraq for (probably) as of yet unknown geo-political purposes, you have the audacity to actually demand immunity from Iraqi law for your soldiers, and at the end of the day, you are still an occupation force, yet at no point in this entire state of affairs over the past 6 years do Iraqis even have a right to look at you funny, and anyone who dares do so is a terrorist ala Bin Laden.

Also, you wrote another post later, about terrorists who did in fact blow up an Iraqi marketplace killing 23 or so people, and coupled it with this discussion. But we are not talking about Iraqis killing other Iraqis due to their own ethnic strife. We are talking about the right of Iraqis to kill members of an occupation power.

You have terrorist groups that blow up Iraqis, as well as Americans. How do you thus come to the conclusion that another terrorist group that blows up Americans also blows up Iraqis, or sees it as justified?

Furthermore, if you were so concerned for the welfare of Iraqi civilian or otherwise, why are you not mourning the Iraqis who fought you in the regular Army when you invaded? What did the 5000 or so ever do to you? What about the civilians killed at the hands of the GIs we sporadically hear about, yet never seem to hear about justice towards them?

Again, I cannot see why killing Americans in Iraq is not justified, given all the above by your logic. I do not see why it would not be ok to post videos of IEDs obliterating US infantry into a million bloody chunks just as you have a video showing Iraqis being blown up, by your own logic.

Now, to answer your question for me:

“Now, granted, I stretched a little in the differences in government officials arguement, and I admit that, however, given that the differences are so great between the parties in Iraq, would you then propose that Iraq be seperated into different states based on their political loyalties?”

I am glad you see the truth here. As you can see, a government that ceases to be able to protect your rights not so much by inability but more so by unwillingness ceases to become your government.

Even in your question itself, I detect a hint of imperialism - you ask what I “propose” be done with Iraq, as if we hover over it with a crayon and an executive right to do to it what we will. Do you propose the European powers have separated the US from the Confederacy in 1860 to prevent bloodshed? What about separating whites from blacks to prevent bloodshed?

What I support is what the Iraqi people support. This means if they decide to split, so be it. If not, so be it. I would favor one Iraq, but what I favor has more to do with familiarity and ease than anything more substantial, meaning what I favor is irrelevant. I would say one Iraq would be stronger against foreign aggressors like the US, but with the US being so strong militarily, I dont think thats even relevant.

I am also a student of naturalism, in the sense that I believe societies will learn on their own time, at their own pace, and that one cannot simply shove leassons-learnt down their throats, even if its done nicely, and with the best of intentions.

What reaction would truly enlightened Martians having invaded your country and burnt your cities have on you? What if they were trying to rebuild our country in their own enlightened image? Would you accept? Honestly?

You state that you see most of the blame being on the insurgency. To me that is like blaming a fire for burning. You dont blame the white blood cells for causing an inflammation. You blame the knife in the back for causing the initial infection. Dont reverse your cause and effect.

Anyway, excusing the tangentials, again I return to the justification of killing US soldiers on foreign soil. Tell me, if the US crossed into Jordan tomorrow on the flimsiest of evidence to occupy it in the name of fighting terrorism, would Jordanians be justified in killing you? What if you crossed into Kuwait? Dubai? What about Eygpt? Pakistan? Greece? Sudan? India? Would shooting at you Americans ever be justified?

Thank you for your time.

Ms. Missive Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 7:18 am

I just wanted to jump in here really quick to say that it was me (Ms. Missive) who said the insurgent deaths were justified, not Skitz M. Jones. Skitz has been consistent in his answers. (And as have I, for that matter even though they’re two different opinions on the argument)

Anyway, Skitz will be with you shortly to respond, I’m sure.

An_Arab Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Ms Missive,

I would contest that, as it appears you are mistaken: On November 9th, 4:30pm, “Skitz M Jones” stated: So were their deaths “justified” as you asked? I’d have to say yes., at the end of paragraph 3.

Ms. Missive Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I stand corrected.

Skitz M. Jones Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Ok, amendment to my statements about justification.

During the initial invasion, I understand why the Iraqis would’ve fought against us. Once the invasion was over until a government was elected the U.S. was acting as a peace keeping entity with the approval of the UN (again, AFTER the invasion, I’m not saying we had their backing during the invasion, we all know we didn’t), in association with other coalition forces. So on a global stage we had permission to be there. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but that’s the way it was. Now, corrupt though the government may be (and honestly, what government isn’t in some respects or others?) it was elected by the people, which brings us to the point now where we’re working with the government.

Should we have left right after the invasion when no WMDs were found? With no governing body in place, the sectarian violence that could’ve taken place would have been devistating and morally we felt obligated to do what we could to keep that from happening. I’m not saying we succeeded, but that was the intention. I know you don’t seem to think intentions count for much, but had we left and the country fell into even greater unchecked violence…

Anyway, I abhor violence, and think the taking of a life should always be avoided. Sometimes however action must be taken to prevent the destruction of more lives. Morally I say that killing any person, regardless of the reason, is wrong. However, logically if killing one can prevent the death of numerous others… then I understand why that takes place, and could be considered justified.

You ask why we didn’t leave the moment the invasion was over, before the sectarian violence began, as if there was an extended period of time where absolutely nothing was happening, but this wasn’t the case.

If you want to debate whether we were even justified in going into Iraq in the first place, I will easily say that no, we really weren’t, at least not in the way that we did. However, once we were there, we were committed to seeing things through to a conclusion that involved relative stability and the ability of a newly elected government to govern it’s own country before we could leave. Does that make us an occupying force? Sure, I suppose it does. But unlike the usual impression of an occupying force, the U.S. was never seeking to take over the country and keep it, to make a colony of it, to make slaves of it’s citizens, or anything of that nature. We occupied in order to keep other forces out until the country stabilized.

As I said earlier, many insurgents aren’t even Iraqis, but are imported from other countries. So in effect we have a handful of countries all fighting within the border of a country that doesn’t belong to any of them. It’s a horrible situation, there’s no doubt about it.

Now you say you want whatever the Iraqi people want for their country, so do you discount the masses of people who want us there, and support us in our support of their country? There are those that want us there and approve of the methods we’re employed to get the outcome we’ve reached now. There are those who never wanted us there, were happy under Saddam’s rule, and would’ve been happy with letting the violence play out however it would’ve without our presence there. I don’t assume all the civilians want/wanted us there. I know for a fact that’s not the case. But having worked with the Iraqis myself during my time there, I know some of them did. You sound as though the entire citizenship of the country is out for our blood.

I honestly don’t know what else to say about the entire debate, or the situation over there.

How do I change my avatar?

Go to gravatar.com

and upload your preferred avatar.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

Today in Baghdad | Patriot Missive Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

[...] been an ongoing discussion here between myself and reader “An_Arab” about how justified the insurgents are or or not in [...]

Categorized | World Wonders

Predator Obliterates Insurgents [anger management]

Posted on Fri 07th Nov 11:19 pm by Ms. Missive

Related Posts You May Enjoy!

Stay up to date

Talking about....

Sites We Recommend

To The Left

To The Right

We Read PM