U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

US intervention has been anything but humanitarian. Check out this site if you believe otherwise: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm. "Where gender was recorded, 2,192 of those killed were male and 630 were female. At least 618 of the dead whose ages are known were less than 18 years old, and 64 were babies no more than two years old."

[Happy Monkey]

Inserting poverty-related deaths isn't going to help Bush in the statistics, up to now. As with war-related deaths, we can hope that changes in the future, though.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

UT: stick to the facts. Is George Jr lying about Iraq? Yes or no?

If you are truly interested in facts, and not just conjecture, the only correct answer is I don't know. But you have spent post after post claiming lie, lie, lie when you could not possibly know. Emotional? Yes in spades.

It's interesting that you first ask about lies and then demand an admission of mistakes. If the President lied wouldn't you demand an admission of lies? IF the President admits mistakes, do the lies change form? Or do you get to make it up as you go along?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you are truly interested in facts, and not just conjecture, the only correct answer is I don't know. But you have spent post after post claiming lie, lie, lie when you could not possibly know. Emotional? Yes in spades.

So those Weapons of Mass Destruction may still exist? So Saddam conspired to destroy the World Trade Center and Pentagon? So Saddam was a threat to the United States? So widespread looting did not occur in Iraq. So Saddam had programs of biological and nuclear weaspons? So Iraq is getting better - becoming a stable democratic nation?

George Jr claims these to be true. Even worse, George Jr had insider information that said his own statements were lies.

George Jr lied about the alumumin tubes. Facts from responsible sources said otherwise. But still many believed a lying president. How can those facts be emotional? Emotional is to deny these facts - to say "I don't know". Of course you know he was lying. Denial will not change the fact that George Jr overtly lied.

This is not an honest president. If he was honest, then we would immediately know who outted a CIA agent as revenge to her husband also telling the truth - exposing another George Jr lie. Saying that George Jr lies repeatedly is fact. Stating it repeatedly is necessary because too many here even believed lies about alunumin tubes. Too many would even forgive this president for unilaterally and illegally attacking another sovereign nation.

We once reelected another lying president. We ended up with a Constitutional crisis so major that many - including members of the Supreme Court - considered a coup d'etat as possible. Thirty years later, we may just make that same mistake again. Lying presidents - people who tell outright lies to create war - are extremely dangerous. Far more dangerous than even a medicore president such as Gerald Ford.

Curious. Confronted by fact after fact that George Jr lied - instead you says "I don't know". Some are so emotionally attached to a president that their eyes refuse to see. This president lies. This president is that dangerous to the world. He lies overtly to promote what his ideologues tell him to do. A president who does not even make his own decisons. A president who is told how to think also routinely lies.

Curious that you still deny this president lied to invade Iraq. At least you have changed. You are now saying "I don't know". I assume that is a major concession.

Months ago, George Jr had a National Security study that said all three options for Iraq are bad. Maybe he did not read that memo also. And yet just yesterday, he gave another speech about how things are getting better in Iraq. That speech is a lie. We know this from the president's own study. He lied again - just as Nixon lied. Such presidents are that dangerous to this nation.

[jaguar]

If the Kurds go independent, then Turkey may just invade. Turkey that much does not want any independent Kurdish region. The politics in this region are that complex.

Not while they're trying to get into the EU they won't.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

If the Kurds go independent, then Turkey may just invade. Turkey that much does not want any independent Kurdish region. The politics in this region are that complex.

Originally Posted by jaguar

Not while they're trying to get into the EU they won't.

Just more examples of how complex the region is. This is a region that the vulcans will reform? They actually believe democracy can be imposed? IOW pre-emption is really just another form of colonialism. How much more dangerous could this president be? Iran is next for reform. God won't save us. Only the ballot can.

Firing missiles into crowds of civilians happens when the entire reason for being there is wrong - just like in Vietnam. If they are Iraqi civilians, then they must be the enemy? We had to burn the village to save it? Somebody please save us from becoming a colonial power in a region we don't even understand. The disaster is called pre-emption - advocated by the George Jr neocons. Some even want colonialism by voting for George Jr.

[bluesdave]

The Turks are just so paranoid about the Kurds in Iraq, that they might just go ahead and invade, and worry about their EU status later.

[flippant]

Law stands mute amidst arms- Cicero

[wolf]

I've not really participated in this discussion, but I do have a question ...

If the whole thing is about FILM of helicopters doing a certain thing, why are there only text articles describing something that may have happened in the way described, or may not?

[lookout123]

because the film is only a snippet of people standing on and milling around the bradley then the missile hit. no film that i've found on the net so far gives anything more than a few seconds before the missile strike.

[Clodfobble]

That was the weird thing to me--the video I saw showed a group of people around the machinery, then they all scattered (but nothing happened,) then the video cut to an Arab reporter, but the background didn't even make it clear that it was in the same area as the previous shot. Then the camera is cut with static a bit and the reporter falls down, and that's the end of it. No helicopters, visible missiles, or bloody crowds in the video I saw.

[lookout123]

the clips i've seen have the reporter in them, the cameraman sweeps the street where you see the people and the bradley, the reporter points everyone blows up while the image is lost then it picks back up and you see the helicopter.

i have no doubt that US helicopters fired on a group of people around a still smoldering bradley. beyond that - i nor anyone else here knows what really happened.