...killing innocent civilians... :ohmy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1284744/posts
This'll get even less play than Oil-for-Food.
Printable View
...killing innocent civilians... :ohmy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1284744/posts
This'll get even less play than Oil-for-Food.
http://radioci.embaci.com/englishdownload/
vids and pics
Thanks, Sam- ;)
If it is found to be an illegal action then they should be brought to justice, ALL nations should be accountable for their actions.
hmm. that's not very nice. if the frenchies indeed did that.
also: first time i've gone to freerepublic.com in a lil while, since they revoked my posting priveleges. s'kinda relaxin', to kick back for a minute and read them freepers cryin' about all of that crap that freepers usually cry about, like how foreigners are bad and foreigners are mean to america. like watching astronomy documentaries and such, looking at FR.com sort of helps to keep things in perspective?
but anyway, yes: mon dieu! sacre bleu freedom fries!
Abidjan?
What part of France is that?
Those damn French empire builders are at it again.
Does the Ivory Coast have WMD?
Apparently America doesn't apply to that statement, after-all they're the "law":rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Too funny..Scroff posted there. They immediately deleted it and banned him. ROFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
in no way am i trying to justify this, but its really not funny to laugh at the french for one stuff up when you see what the government and soldiers you support are doing in the middle-east.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"i love you, you love me" :no:
At least the French are signatories to the International Court so the Ivorians can pursue them through the courts if wrong doing occurred.
However, I think it is unlikely they will get far with their claim for replacement aircraft. :blink:
Did anyone notice that this post is 2 weeks old, and the original article is 3 weeks old? The original article is not even totally accurate.
The French crippled the Ivorian air force after a bombing raid killed 9 French soldiers in their barracks. In other words they were deliberately targetted. Accusations from the Ivorian government after they themselves precipitated these actions are more than a little suspect.
France does not deny that it's troops have killed Ivorian soldiers and civilians, although it does dispute the numbers and claims that those killed were rioters and looters targetting Westerners.
Look carefully at the second video in Samurai's link. You will see the Ivorian troops encouraging the civilian population, although for the most part these scenes are carefully avoided.
In the third video, there is some shooting and obvious panic in the crowd yet we can't see who is firing. Later we see the French troops are firing at something but it is obviously not the crowd, the crowd clearly has no fear of them, yet there are gunshot injuries. It seems more likely that these injuries were caused by whoever the French troops were firing at.
Again, in the fourth video there is panic and confusion in the crowd and by the person making the video when shooting is taking place, but again the shooters are conveniently absent from view, yet when the French troops move out, obviously heavily armed, no-one seems concerned by their presence.
We need to look at video's like these objectively and not just accept what the video maker want's us to believe; they too have an agenda.
I like the third line on J2's link, "skip to comments".
In other words, don't do anything like actually read the article or get any background, the headline obviously says it all so go straight into condemn mode. :lol:
I havent really kept upto date with this, however it all started with the French being bombed and shooting down the planes that were bombing them...
I know that theres been plenty of trouble since then, most westerners have been evacuated.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If it is found to be an illegal action then they should be brought to justice, ALL nations should be accountable for their actions.
Which part of my opinion was unclear?Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
lynx-Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
I posted this as (just as with Oil-for-Food) it garnered no apparent interest here, and I wondered why (I'm being facetious here; I know why).
It is a couple of weeks old, granted, but I saw nothing about it in older pages.
My point is that many who, as you say, "skip to comments" when discussing Abu Ghraib will parse this story into a state of innocuousness, before they would attach similar shame to another nation or it's armed forces.
As I think I've said before, it's usually the WHO that concerns people, much moreso than the WHAT.
vid-
Thanks for "getting" it. ;)
This was fairly well covered on TV at the time. UK troops were involved in getting UK citizens out of the country. There were a lot of claims at the time mainly by the Government side who were understandably irked at losing their airforce. However, it is not clear why they bombed the French peacekeepers in the first place.
Yes, even our media covered it, however minimally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I was piqued, though, that no one brought it up on the board.
to be fair, i posted at 7am in the eveningQuote:
Did anyone notice that this post is 2 weeks old, and the original article is 3 weeks old? The original article is not even totally accurate.
i dont think its so much the who and the what. its the fact that the iraq war was an unjust war and most people are against it. so everytime americans get caught torturing or killing iraqi's or using illegal weapons it's another excuse for us to say i told you so.
you don't think any other country would get away with an illegal invasion using illegal weapons and defying human rights laws without people complaining, do you?
Of course I do, Dave.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave
The only intervening action would be determined by a chance appearance on the radar-screen of an entity with a "rooting interest" in subsequent events.
As an exemplar, you might re-visit the USSR's excursion into Afghanistan a while back.
We fecklessly tried to intervene (Bin Laden's genesis) but the Russians weren't deterred to any great extent by exterior forces.
Why not?
It was Afghanistan, that's why not.
My, how things have changed, huh?
J2
I think if it had been clearer that something untoward happened then I am sure that it would have got more of a mention. The incident was ugly but extremely short (couple of hours) and it is still not clear how many were shot or who shot them. The Ivorian civil war was pretty nasty and no doubt would be again should the peacekeepers leave.
Whilst I appreciate that the US may come in for some unfair criticism from time to time ( :) ) I think this particular incident is not going to be the one that alleviates that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Yes I did
:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Would that be when OBL was the US' friend and they supplied him with money and weapons?
J2
I would disagree that Bin Laden's efforts against the Russians were ineffective. The use of Bin Laden might have been feckless but he did the job. The Russians were heavily divided about going in, in the first place and were heartily sick of the place by the time they left.
Interestingly, Afghanistan gets little play on TV even today. I believe little headway has been made in terms of rebuilding and the Afghans, as ever, have returned to tending poppies.
A great deal more poppies than they managed to under the Taliban...
In order, then:
Biggles-
I was referring to the alleged body-count, and also to the fact it was the French who over-stepped.
Both counts it seemed to me merited mention.
I should have been clearer on this, I think.
Rat-
I am sorry to have overlooked your mention.
Mea maxima culpa. :)
DanB-
Yes, exactly.
BTW-you have been a party to enough of these discussions to have tired of reminding us that we (the U.S.) are responsible for OBL's current status, haven't you?
Surely you would grant that I am aware?
This particular tuppence has become a bit tarnished from over-use.
Biggles (again!)- :D
I agree; but didn't wish to paint Bin Laden as a "puppet" or "tool" of the U.S., as he most certainly was not.
I don't believe we were too concerned about the specific methodology of his harassment of the Soviets.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist :P
The world is going to hell in a handcart though, I don't think it really matters who does what anymore, the fact is it needs to stop happening before any of the problems can be sorted out
Large parts are going to Hell, 'tis true...Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
I am well aware you don't see the routing on many of our actions, but I can state that, though many have been consequentially somewhat less-than-ideal (to say the least) they are undertaken with a steadily improving eye toward making the blue marble a better place.
I believe this, and not blindly, either.
I've said it before, but if you could see it from here...
Can i just throw something unrelated in here - I have been thinking the last few days about what would happen if we did as the insurgents wanted in Iraq and we all just packed our shit up and left them to it?
I know its something that won't happen but if we called their bluff and did it, do you reckon they would be satisified?
Dan
Those that have their own agenda would be delighted. Iraq is a rich country, the pickings for those in charge are enormous.
Those who are politically motivated may also be pleased although some seem to like the fact that they have the Coalition to attack.
The poor Iraqi on the street may possibly(probabaly) wish that they all went away.
Would they sort their country out themselves and get on or would they just fight amongst themselves though?
I know there is a lot more at stake than meets the eye, arab countries don't want Iraq turning into a democracy as it goes against their beliefs etc so they are sending their own fighters, so if we left and it was down to them to sort out Iraq would it become a better place? Or would they use it to bite our bum at a later date?
Not a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
No one knows how many disparate interests are currently united against us, but each would be at cross-purposes with the rest if we absented ourselves.
The result would not be civil war; indeed, something far above and beyond that.
Hostilities would spill in every direction... :(
They would undoubtedly fight amongst themselves. Iraq has never been a particularly peaceful place. Usually peace has been imposed by a strong man taking charge. Whether they will warm to a democratically elected government or not remains to be seen. If the three main regions vote solely forregional parties then it should be ... err.. interesting.