&%@#!*%!!! Baby Ali Slaughtered With Other "Militants" in Iraq!

[leftchick]

I so hate this endless Killing for OIL!! :cry:



The body of Ali Hamed, who was killed in a raid in Baghdad by U.S. troops, is prepared to be washed for burial in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq on Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007. U.S. ground forces and attack helicopters killed an estimated 49 militants during a raid on Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite enclave to capture a militia chief who lead a kidnapping ring, the military said. Iraqi officials said at least 13 people were killed, including women and children. The military said ground forces were unaware of any civilians killed in the Sadr City strike, and the vast difference in reported death tolls could not immediately be reconciled. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)



The body of Wisam Khalil, 35, who was killed in a raid in Baghdad by U.S. troops, is washed for burial in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq on Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007. U.S. ground forces and attack helicopters killed an estimated 49 militants during a raid on Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite enclave to capture a militia chief who lead a kidnapping ring, the military said. Iraqi officials said at least 13 people were killed, including women and children. The military said ground forces were unaware of any civilians killed in the Sadr City strike, and the vast difference in reported death tolls could not immediately be reconciled. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)



<snip>

Iraqi police and hospital officials, who often overstate casualties, reported only 15 deaths including three children. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said all the dead were civilians.

Al-Dabbagh said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, had met with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to protest the action. He was speaking on CNN.

Associated Press photos showed the bodies of two toddlers, one with a gouged face, swaddled in blankets on a morgue floor. Their shirts were pulled up, exposing their abdomens, and a diaper showed above the waistband of one boy's shorts. Relatives said the children were killed when helicopter gunfire hit their house as they slept.

One local resident said some of the casualties were people sleeping on roofs to seek relief from the heat and lack of electricity. The Iraqi officials said 52 were wounded in the raid on the sprawling district.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Robbien]

1. The military brass is probably saying

those Iraqi families probably put their children directly under where the bombs would be dropped so the families could get the death awards from the US. A good way to make easy money.

God I really hate this! And there is no end in sight.

[leftchick]

4. no end in sight espcially if a particular hawk takes office in 08

expect the bush/cheney's forever war to continue forever. :(

[midnight]

2. Shooting small babies as they sleep . This is

never acceptable........And no the surge is not working. Bring them home.

[malaise]

3. Good fugging grief

When will Bush be arrested?

[earth mom]

70. I was thinking the exact same thing. How does Pelosi & the rest of em that won't Impeach *

sleep at night?! :wtf:

I've been having trouble sleeping myself the past few weeks...what with worrying about Topoff 4 or whatever the hell * has in store for us all so that he can become the dictator he's so set on becoming.

Where in the hell is the humanity?! When will Congress follow the Constitution they swore an OATH to and stop this madness & madman?!

[Strelnikov_]

5. "the lives of civilians are of no consequence"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3036321#3036610

[Pavulon]

10. See dresden or tokyo my cross linking friend(graphic)

for what was being discussed in THAT THREAD. You want to cross link my posts at least try to use a little context...

Obviously killing civilians is not effective CI warfare. Show of force is not either.

Read David Galula.

"the lives of civilians are of no consequence" takes place in an open war. 30,000 in dresden, 600,000 in europe from aerial bombing.

Not the policy being pursued in iraq. However wrong and misguided our policy we are not targeting them for mass death.

[Strelnikov_]

12. "Not the policy being pursued in iraq" Oh, really n/t

[Pavulon]

18. Where is your SS avatar?

What do you think the policy is in Iraq? Please elaborate!

[Strelnikov_]

19. Did you just call me a Nazi? n/t

[Pavulon]

20. No your avitar changed..

From a nazi soldier to something else. Just asking, maybe you got tired of it?

Calling you a nazi would be petty and is against the rules.

[Strelnikov_]

22. It has been changed back. So, what have I ever posted justifies being called a Nazi?

Or are you saying because I used a W-Trooper avatar as a statement on the brown-shirt like behavior of those on the right (witness the SCHIP debate) that I am a member of the SS?

Maybe the members of this board should review my post history, your post history, and make their own call on where you, and I, lie on the political spectrum.

[Pavulon]

23. Never called you anything.

To be clear, I asked about your avatar. My post history is very clear. My profile sums my politics up quite well.

But the liberty you take with what was said is very entertaining...

[Pavulon]

25. Oh yeah, care to answer ANY of the questions

asked or just dance??<<now see your post down stream>> never called you a nazi, read first then post..

[Strelnikov_]

24. The Iraq policy is brutal suppression of the people to permit

turning over their reserves to the oil company cronies of the administration and Republican Party.

This is simply one act in the so called 'War On Terror', which is mostly about oil, and little about terror.

- By maintaining a constant state of tension, high petroleum prices can be explained away as a temporary spike due to politics. This way, the publics attention can kept from the accelerating supply problems worldwide, thus preventing them from starting to make other arrangements for a post-carbon world (they can't have the addicts kicking too soon).

- Whoever controls the remaining (cheap) petroleum reserves stands to make a fortune in the years immediately following the peak of production. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate it would take twenty years to mitigate the loss of petroleum production following peak. During this period of transition, the 'addicts' will have no choice but to pay, and pay, and pay.

- Nearly 70% of the worlds remaining petroleum and 40% of natural gas reserves are located in the Middle East. If we throw in the Caspian Region, which is predominately Muslim, we probably approach 80%/60% of remaining reserves in predominately Muslim regions.

- The demonization of Muslims to raise ‘fear of the other’ to a high state is needed to desensitize the public to the wars of aggression and carnage required to seize and/or maintain hegemony over these resources.

The peaking of worldwide conventional (high EROEI) petroleum is real, and will probably occur within the next few years. During the initial 10 yrs.+ following peak oil, petroleum will still be readily available. But with demand chronically outstripping supply, prices will go through the roof, and the profits for those selling the oil will be massive.


So, you asked what I think the Iraq policy is, there you have it.

On edit: Removed gratuitous inflammatory statement.

[Pavulon]

26. read it, nothing on saturation bombing of civilians

My point the guys (and women) on the ground are not killing everyone wholesale. That was the CONTEXT in question initially.

Some of that is on par, oil is a massive factor here. All the peak oil scenario is not sustained but is of interest.

However one large point, none of that is happening. No oil has been successfully brought to market from Iraq, no new reserves tapped. The market is now tighter.

Only large negative effects on economic growth, world wide, result in the rise in cost of petroleum.

Like I said the policy was a non starter from the beginning.

Never said you were a nazi..But you response to a question about your avatar was entertaining.

[Strelnikov_]

29. "none of that is happening"

You asked me what I thought the policy was in Iraq. No, it has not worked, because it is a bankrupt policy, both morally and strategically.

Peak oil is a fact. The price of oil will rise. The Oligarchs are positioning themselves for profit.


From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world often greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow..

- Cheney At London Institute of Petroleum, 1999

[Pavulon]

30. Hubbert's theory

is interesting, but a theory..Yet to be proven.

[Strelnikov_]

36. Was validated when he correctly predicted US peak in 1973

It is a simplistic model, but the overall concept is sound.

Worldwide production, even in the face of record prices, peaked in 2005 and has been flat since.

With a stable Iraq and Nigeria we could wring out a few more Mbbl/dy, sure, simply pushes the peak back a few more years.

Edit: corrected typo

[Strelnikov_]

14. You made the statement, Sir. Now you defend it. n/t

[Pavulon]

16. Pretty easy to defend fact. In 1945 we killed 250,000 people, in a few days

by destroying a major city with conventional weapons. That was the intent of the tokyo bombings. To kill the city and its ability to support war.

If the intent was to kill people without any form of targeting the resources are available to do that, 70 years later.

The Iraq policy is horribly wrong, from start to finish. But we are not using b52s and sustained artillery to reduce cities.

Do you see a policy of saturation bombing in place in Iraq?

[leftchick]

15. what do you consider "mass death"?

The US is responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq to date. Is that "mass death"? Or under your definition they have to die all at the same time? Please elaborate for us.

[Pavulon]

17. Check your number

seems high, like an order of magnitude high. 82,000 from a reputable source. That is 82,000 to many.

Obviously if the intent was to kill civilians killing more than 50 at a time is possible, and has been done in previous wars.

Not saying that we should be there, we should leave, now. However the US has not implemented a policy of intentional targeting of civilians.

[leftchick]

33. over 1 million is a conservative estimate

by reputable sources......

The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html


but if you want to underestimate US atrocities and genocide go right the fuck ahead.

[Pavulon]

42. And if you want to overstate it

it just undercuts the validity of the real number.

At BEST there is no reliable source, at worst the statisticl sampling used by some is unvalid.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

[leftchick]

48. Why has The Lancet's methodology been accepted in every conflict

except Iraq? Iraq body count relies on media reported deaths. Check your numbers. :eyes:

[leftchick]

50. "it is robust"

only the chimp and right wingers do not find it "credible"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

<snip>

President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report."

But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

<snip>

In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."

Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.

[leftchick]

63. Hey Pav

why no response to these FACTS on the Genocide in Iraq?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Sound like something Ahmadinejad would say.

Iraqbody count just tallies up the numbers reported by the media, they don't do any counting themselves. It's a clear, obvious undercount by its very nature.

[Bluerthanblue]

38. what is the difference between callous disregard and intentional

targeting????

This kind of shit reminds me of the people who play 'enemy combatent' and put Gitmo on a near-by island games in search of legitimacy.

We can parse it anyway you like Pavulon- it is still murder.

Pre-meditated murder.

[Pavulon]

44. tens of millions of deaths

see ww2 saturation bombing policy. 30,000 to 200,000 people a day were killed in some of those raids.

Until it a political response is made by congress you can call it war. That is what it is.

War funded by the government of this country.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. how do you view the meager death toll of 9/11 then?

it was only 3000 people- less than the total 'offical' military deaths in *'s foolish- hateful war on Iraq-

Numbers only matter to people who only see digits when they count the casualties, not the faces and bodies of human beings who are JUST LIKE US!- and whose lives matter regardless of how many die in any given time span, or military excercise.

You can twist yourself into a complete knot trying to justify this atrocity-

and maybe you'll convince yourself-

but you won't change the FACT that we are committing atrocities in the name of "freedom" "america" and "democracy" in a country we have nearly completely destroyed.

This is not just war funded by the government- the government hasn't got squat- unless you and i pay our taxes- it is YOU and ME that are funding this blood-bath.

And we need to find a way to stop this monsterous death machine.

[Pavulon]

52. You missed my point

It is simply that the US is not targeting civilians.

The rest of what you said is on the mark. Other they your psychoanalysis..

[Bluerthanblue]

53. yes we are-

they may not be the SOLE target, but we clearly know they are in our circle of destruction- and we bomb them anyway.

Pre-meditated murder.

[Pavulon]

54. No. Again

we are fighting in a WAR sanctioned by the government. Executed by the executive branch funded by the legislature. That takes murder off the table in all but a very few situations.

If we were targeting them directly the number of civilians killed would be much much higher.

The only realistic way to address the problem is to stop the war. Labeling conduct of war murder is neither effective or accurate.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. I'll stand with

this intelligent man on this one friend~

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

~Albert Einstein

Ali's family doesn't have their child any longer because she was murdered/killed/destroyed/____________

put any word you like there. The action still brings the same result.


And don't lie to yourself- this war is being funded by YOU and I and our children and grandchildren.

not by some ephemeral "legislature"-

[Usrename]

62. Bullshit - what a pathetic argument!

We are NOT AT WAR with anybody!

Who told you that?

Iraqis are not our ENEMY, they are our ALLY!

We have NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS with Iraq!

Where did you come up with this BULLSHIT!?

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

We are OCCUPIERS in this clusterfuck and we have LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES to PROTECT the civilians in territory that we are occupying.

By a clue! Read a book or something! Arrrghhh!

[Bluerthanblue]

35. regardless of whether we're targeting them, we're hitting them with

unacceptable and hideous frequency.

What was done in the past is no measure for us to use today.

There is NO excuse for this- none whatsoever.

We are terrorists when we allow this to happen and continue.

We need to stop this NOW!

[Strelnikov_]

11. ..

[lpbk2713]

6. There ought to be tighter restraints on push-button warfare.

I'm not saying that is how this specific incident happened but I am saying it is possible for someone at CentCom HQ in Tampa to push a button and indiscriminately kill several civilians of all age groups as if in a video game. If it was on a more personal level maybe there wouldn't be so many unnecessary collateral casualties.

[alarimer]

32. It is the act of a coward to push a button and kill lots of people

They should have to be shown pictures of the babies they slaughtered.

[me b zola]

59. I'll never forget the gasp from the audience

...followed by stunned silence when at the WH correspondence dinner Colbert said the line about the generals standing at a wall of computers sending men off to fight.

Here's the link. Begin at the 6:10 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOYZF3It848

[Robbien]

7. Did you see the BBC headline on this story? "US raid kills Iraqi 'criminals' "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7054968.stm

"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specialising in kidnapping operations," it said.

Iraqi sources said women and children were among those killed, but the US said it was not aware of this.

Since when does being a toddler or sleeping on the a roof to escape the heat enable the Brits label these Iraqis criminals?

[leftchick]

13. as far as I can tell

they were all innocent civilians. The BBC is getting as bad as our M$M! :grr:

[NNN0LHI]

60. They made a hard right turn after the invasion and never came back

BBC is pretty much worthless these days.

Don

[rcsl1998]

8. "Iraqi police and hospital officials, who often overstate casualties..."

Is this a news report or a press release from our 'military officials' who stated '49 criminals were killed in three seperate engagements...unaware of any innocent civilian casualties'

[Strelnikov_]

9. Is there a difference any more? n/t

[dailykoff]

21. Killing for profit would be more accurate.

Controlling Iraq's oil reserve is part of the picture, but war itself is highly profitable, and not just financially. When the Social Security trust fund goes down the shitter to pay for the great war on terror you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Disturbed]

27. When these attacks are planned the planners know damn well

that innocent men, women & children will be kiiled &/or maimed. They do it anyway.

[provis99]

28. sad, but civilians are a legitimate military target

under international law. If it intimidates the insurgents, then killing civilians is legitimate. This was established during World War II, when we carpet-bombed civilian targets to intimidate the enemy military.

[alarimer]

34. It is fucking EVIL to do that

Fucking pieces of shit. It was wrong then and it is wrong now; I don't give a shit what kind of precedent was established when. We are no better (in fact we are worse because we should no better) than the Germans, in that case, or the insurgents, in this case. I have no respect for the military that insists on KILLING BABIES! None, whatsoever. I spit on them.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. well, there is justification for the flights into the twin towers, pentagon, AND

the white house, under 'established' rules.

There were military/legitimate targets in all three places.

Would that make it acceptable?

Is this acceptable in the world YOU want to live in?????

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. What if they are all brown-skinned Muslims and the initiation of war was unlawful,...

,...under international law.

Then, what?

[alarimer]

31. We are nothing but war criminals

All of us, because we are all complicit in this for allowing it to go on in our names and not stopping it. Of course the ones who did the actually killing are the real war criminals. Nothing but war criminals on the ground in Iraq. Fuck the military. And their commanders who ordered and the Commander in Thief who started this miserable thing. But we should all feel guilty.

[Disturbed]

39. I don't feel guilty. I opposed the Illegal Invasion of Iraq.

I didn't vote for anyone that voted for the IWR. The Busholini Regime & most of Congress
does not represent what I stand for.

[Bluerthanblue]

51. do you pay your taxes?

i do-

and the money i pay helps fund the fucked up killing machinery.

i wish i could deny my guilt- my association with this land of my birth, the land of generations of my people- a nation which has gone terribly awry.

but i can't seem to wash my hands of their blood- or not be tormented by the fact that i cannot do anything to effectively stop it.

We're passengers on a runaway train-

:shrug:

peace~

[mwb970]

65. Exactly how could we have stopped it?

I knew there were no WMD, no 9/11 link, no al Qaeda connection. What should I have done?

[Xenotime]

41. These war crimes will not go unpunished..

Hopefully, we can bring people to justice in 2008

[Disturbed]

43. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fire bombing of Dresden, Tokyo &

other cities were directly aimed at civilians. No one was held accountable.

[Pavulon]

46. It is a sad reality

the congress continues to fund the war it authorized. There is no way to hold anyone accountable criminally for an authorized military action.

The only way to stop the war is to remove the authorization that allows it to continue..

[Solly Mack]

45. Why, America...why?

To what end?

[Totally Committed]

47. Disgusting. Immoral. Shameful.

Over a million and counting.

America's soul is dying along with them.

TC

[fortyfeetunder]

55. This is too disgusting

the worst part about all this are seeing the children affected by this.

[ginnyinWI]

56. I vote for "fighting them over here" so we don't have to fight them over there.

If any of the 2-5% of them who are actual terrorists feel like making the trip, I'm sure we could deal with them here in no time. Let the Iraqis have their country back--and a chance to rebuild.

[mwb970]

66. Wow dang, that's a good one!

I haven't heard anyone put it that way before! (I'm also mad I never thought of it myself.)

[ginnyinWI]

75. yep---the fact is, terrorism can't operate in a country which

is whole--that is, one which has a law enforcement system and intelligence operations. They only can infest a failed state. And that is why they have had only limited success in most countries. For 9/11 I blame the incompetence of the government that was in power at the time. They had plenty of warnings, but failed to act.

[BreweryYardRat]

57. Yet another argument for completely overhauling our military's focus.

It's been bigger and better weapons for some time now, even after Russia collapsed. The problem is that in fighting terrorism -- bigger and better bombs usually just cause tragedies like this. Which provoke people who might otherwise be peaceable to take up arms because a friend or relative has been killed.

Ground-level raids by Special Forces are a better idea. Weed out the bad seeds from the military -- the people likely to murder civilians -- so the Haditha massacre isn't repeated. Promote development of better body armor.

Airstrikes should be reserved for cases when the targets are thoroughly separate from the civilian population.

[Arugula Latte]

61. Sanctity of life applies ----> unless you're not a white fetus

:cry:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

64. Calling Colonel John Chivington!

Your war is here.

What did Chivington say about the Sand Creek Massacre and killing Native American children? "Kill them all. Nits make lice."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[leftchick]

68. isn't that the truth?

:cry:



The following is from "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:
"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.

So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization."

According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.

Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition beside her. Quite a number of mothers were slain; still clinging to their babies. Such was the scene that cold gray morning at Sand Creek, November 29, 1864.

http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/chivington.html

[Bonobo]

67. Kick. Let's all look and look and look some more. We killed them, we own 'em!

[glowing]

69. Compasionate Christians!!!! (sarcasm inserted heavily here)

[LWolf]

71. If that were an American child,

would people still be voting for warmongers and war enablers?

:cry:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

72. Not sure, actually

But I do know that if that was an American child and we wanted healthcare for him, the Greedy Old Perverts would swift-boat him for wanting his wounds treated.

That much I know.

[IronLionZion]

73. I wish someone would explain how this is fighting for our freedom.

Freepers can never answer this question.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

76. Kick for H.O.R.N. Listeners

So they can see what I'm talking about.

One of the inherent limitations in radio.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

77. Re-kick N/T