Leaving Kuwait.

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"

[SIZE=-1]by Joyce Chediac[/SIZE]
OP/ED pieces are junk, as are your ridiculous posts.

This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait.
Nice spin.

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait.
They had been ignoring resolution 660 since Aug 1990.

Give it a rest.

At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660.
So what? There was no agreement between Iraq and the coalition.

And guess what, that's what matters.

The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat.
I've already PROVEN they weren't out of combat.

I know how you love to ignore facts and reality. But it's just making your posts look silly.

The point of contention involves the Bush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law.
No it isn't. As my last post on this topic showed clearly.

But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions.
BS.

Please explain to these people why Schwarzkopf deserves your praise.
Because he was a great General.

The point is that on February 22, 1991 Iraq agreed to a Soviet-proposed cease-fire agreement.
So what?

Iraq was at war with the coalition, that's who they should have brokered an agreement with.

While the US rejected the proposal...
As they are allowed. I'm glad you admit that your posts have been filled with lies.

You know what's funny?

You keep saying they had an agreement, when they didn't. And here you just acknowledged they did.

Your post are filled with so much dishonesty you can't even post lies consistently.

they also said that retreating Iraqi forces would not be attacked.
If they surrendered.

They didn't.

How many tanks and fighting vehicles do you see in the de-corpsified images?
From your beloved wikiality...


Besides the fact that the commonly believed in North America scenario defies common sense.
What defies commonsense are your posts that use wikiality like it was the end all, until it disproves the idiocy contained in your posts.

I doubt Iraqi soldiers would leave fortified positions in the middle of a city to cross open desert if they believed they would be attacked.
I don't doubt it.

They were ordered out by Baghdad.

Something tells me following orders in the Iraqi army is something that you just do. The consequences being rather severe.

But I'm also pretty sure the Kuwaiti hostages offered them some false security.

An agreement to avoid house to house fighting made sense to both sides.
Perhaps, but we'll never know, because it never happened. As you already admitted.

Believe what you like about Schwarzkopf.
I'll believe the facts.

But IMO, the evidence supports claims that he was responsible for a lot of senseless death and his word meant nothing.
No it doesn't.

The inconsistent lies and complete dishonesty contained in your posts has been thoroughly debunked.

That's why you've now turned to "No heavy weapons" and you admitted there was cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq.

I see buses, troop transports and cars in the above images.
You see what you want to see.

Where are the tanks and other fighting vehicles?
There are hundreds of photos available on line. Including journalist testimony.

From your beloved wikiality...

The road bottle-neck near the Mutla Ridge police station was reduced to a long uninterrupted line of more than 300 stuck and abandoned vehicles sometimes called the Mile of Death. The wreckage found on the highway consisted of at least 28 tanks and other armored vehicles with many more commandeered civilian cars and buses filled with stolen Kuwaiti property.

(I suspect they were abandoned as per the Soviet proposed ceasefire agreement.)
Only after they were strafed on highway 80.

My understanding is that the US took no prisoners and showed no mercy.
It's been well established your understanding is biased and jaded at best, dishonest and ignorant at worst.

Would you like examples?

As per the agreement, the US said they would not attack retreating Iraqis if they abandoned their tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons..
As I have proven, they did not abandon their military equipment, until after they were attacked on the highway.

Many of the commandeered civilian vehicles were filled with stolen Kuwaiti property and Kuwaiti hostages.

You are aware that taking hostages requires...

1, The use of threat, read belligerent, also defined as combative, hence still in combat.
2, The means to execute that threat, read still armed.
3, A war crime.

IN all the images I've seen, I never saw any heavy weapons.
Oh so now you want to narrow it to "heavy weapons". Interesting.

I wondered how long it would take to see posts filled with moving goal posts.

Schwarzkopf had to have given the order to slaughter disarmed retreating soldiers.... war crime.
No he didn't, stop posting ignorant lies.

The evidence supports the conclusion that the US never intended to keep their word.
The US never came to an agreement, you already admitted you were lying.

Iraq and the Russians did. That's great, but bares no weight on the Coalition operations.

Schwarzkopf must have gave the order to show no mercy and take no prisoners.... war crime.
Oh, so now it's back to your usual conjecture.

Well I guess that's better than you saying he actually gave the order.

I see no tanks, artillery pieces, armored personnel carriers...
Again, you see what you want to see.

or anything which indicates the thousands of dead were anything other than disarmed (of heavy weapons) retreating soldiers...
LOL, there's that caveat again.

Even small arms means armed.

You've failed again.
 
Last edited:

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,514
9,726
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
A Thread starts with a quote from another Thread....& carries on with a multi-multi
-multi-multi-multi-(taking a breath)-multi-multi-etc....quote post...

Where is this one going?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
A Thread starts with a quote from another Thread....& carries on with a multi-multi
-multi-multi-multi-(taking a breath)-multi-multi-etc....quote post...

Where is this one going?
It's going to continue to disprove the dishonesty contained in EAO's posts.

A mod asked that EAO stop dishonestly bashing the deceased in a memorial thread.

The dishonest posts that had been left there by EAO needed to be addressed with some honesty and facts.

Hence here we are.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,514
9,726
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Oh....spill over. OK. Was curious as this isn't how most Threads start.

So this Thread, is in protest to the actions in another Thread. I didn't put
two & two together so early (time difference between Ontario & Sask),
but I have been looking into this (sort of) going back to late June & early
July of 2009 (I kid you not) in sorting out the 'exactly the same thing' thing.

Yeah...closed the STEEL CAGE in mid-June of 2009 due to rampant stupidity
with it spilling out all over the Forum (& dealing with the 'Doc' visits & SJP &
Vanisle & so on and so forth), and then Farrah Fawcett & Micheal Jackson
passed away on the same day a few days later....and so on and so forth.

Good times....but that's over three years ago when that butt-hurt (no pun
intended, though I did read some good Farah Fawcett/Micheal Jackson
jokes earlier this morning) happened, and the fallout surrounding that
goat rodeo. Is this really going back 3&1/2 years or is it something else
new & different? ....& no, I haven't seen the "Storm'n Norman" Thread
since sometime yesterday but I'll go look at it next if I don't get distracted
by something else first.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Oh....spill over. OK. Was curious as this isn't how most Threads start.

So this Thread, is in protest to the actions in another Thread. I didn't put
two & two together so early (time difference between Ontario & Sask),
but I have been looking into this (sort of) going back to late June & early
July of 2009 (I kid you not) in sorting out the 'exactly the same thing' thing.

Yeah...closed the STEEL CAGE in mid-June of 2009 due to rampant stupidity
with it spilling out all over the Forum (& dealing with the 'Doc' visits & SJP &
Vanisle & so on and so forth), and then Farrah Fawcett & Micheal Jackson
passed away on the same day a few days later....and so on and so forth.

Good times....but that's over three years ago when that butt-hurt (no pun
intended, though I did read some good Farah Fawcett/Micheal Jackson
jokes earlier this morning) happened, and the fallout surrounding that
goat rodeo. Is this really going back 3&1/2 years or is it something else
new & different? ....& no, I haven't seen the "Storm'n Norman" Thread
since sometime yesterday but I'll go look at it next if I don't get distracted
by something else first.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I've done nothing but attack the dishonest posts. Not the poster except for where the poster injected himself into the discussion.

A few members and a Mod felt the originating thread was not the place for EAO to continue posting the dishonest and disparaging commentary. So I kindly removed it from the thread in question and started another to continue proving the dishonesty contained in EAO's posts wrong.

It's actually just a public service.
 
Last edited:

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,514
9,726
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Took me a while to find that other Thread, as it seemed to have died (OK, pun intended
this time) & fallen off the front page with Shadowshiv posting the following:

eao, here's a hint. Quit posting in this thread. You've already stated your "opinion" in more than one post.

And this is an "official" request.

That was 7-8hrs back, and that is the last post in that Thread as of this point. EAO quit
posting in that Thread as of that point, as did everyone else it seems. I still haven't read
through that Thread (happy to have just found it as of this point), but I'm assuming that
Shadowshiv has dealt with this, as his ink (as of this point) is the last post in that Thread.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I still haven't read through that Thread (happy to have just found it as of this point), but I'm assuming that Shadowshiv has dealt with this, as his ink (as of this point) is the last post in that Thread.
He dealt with the use of a memorial thread as a pulpit to bash the deceased.

I merely wish to continue to counter the dishonesty contained in EAO's posts.

Why is this such a big deal?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,514
9,726
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Tomato...tomoto...potato...pototo...public service...Shadowshiv dealt with it.
To me, it's not a big deal. It's the interwebs, and it's only as serious as one
wants it to be.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,191
1,216
113
60
Alberta
Hey I'm starting a new thread about this one called:
Really ****ing long threads that take a long time to read when I should be surfing porn.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Tomato...tomoto...potato...pototo...public service...Shadowshiv dealt with it.
Dealt with what? Posting dishonest, ignorant and disparaging posts in a memorial thread?

Ya, he did.

But the dishonesty and ignorant posts are still there for discussion.

Is that not what we're here for?

To me, it's not a big deal. It's the interwebs, and it's only as serious as one wants it to be.


I'm not following you.

You seem to be making this out to be something other than what it is. An off shoot, taken politely and kindly from another thread where a Mod asked for it to end THERE.


Anyways, back on topic...

The Fitzwater quote, that isn't even a quote, but a molested paraphrasing of a selectively read document, is actually found here.

The United States and its coalition partners reiterate that their forces will not attack retreating Iraqi forces and, further, will exercise restraint so long as withdrawal proceeds in accordance with the above guidelines and there are no attacks on other countries.

Any breach of these terms will bring an instant and sharp response from coalition forces in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 678.

Iraq did not meet the requirements set forth in the dispatch, as set out by UN resolution.

Thus invalidating the dishonest use of Fitzwater's molested quotation.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Hey I'm starting a new thread about this one called:
Really ****ing long threads that take a long time to read when I should be surfing porn.
Gee, I missed this. Thanks mark.

I'll have to remember this sentiment the next time you post a nice long OP that take a long time to read.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Gee, I missed this. Thanks mark.

I'll have to remember this sentiment the next time you post a nice long OP that take a long time to read.

He said threads, not posts. I just assumed he was talking about the other thread.

Meh, either way, there is porn on the table so we can't take that lightly! ;)
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
BEar: I think you are wasting your time. Everyone except EAO's followers know that he is a Jew hating terrorist supporter and I doubt you will change his fellow time travelers view. Probably the best thing is we all put him on ignore.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
BEar: I think you are wasting your time. Everyone except EAO's followers know that he is a Jew hating terrorist supporter and I doubt you will change his fellow time travelers view. Probably the best thing is we all put him on ignore.
I'm not worried about EAO.

I just like poking huge holes in the lies, BS, propaganda, and ignorance he posts.

If not for the fun, for the sake of putting some balance out there for the unsuspecting and unknowing.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I'm not worried about EAO.

I just like poking huge holes in the lies, BS, propaganda, and ignorance he posts.

If not for the fun, for the sake of putting some balance out there for the unsuspecting and unknowing.

I can accept that. But only since I am not paying you by the hour to do it.LOL
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,514
9,726
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Hate to interrupt but just curious. When you call someone dishonest &/or a lier in every
post mentioning them, when does the line cross between public service and trolling here?

'Every' might be a bid harsh in my wording, but 'almost every' to be fair. Can you see where
your public service would be perceived as trolling? ...& yes, I've seen the 'Cannibal Troll'
thing it has no bearing (again, pun intended) or special status to the question I ask.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Hate to interrupt but just curious. When you call someone dishonest &/or a lier in every
post mentioning them, when does the line cross between public service and trolling here?
Correction, his posts are filled with lies and propaganda.

Attacking his posts, as per the sites rules.

'Every' might be a bid harsh in my wording, but 'almost every' to be fair. Can you see where
your public service would be perceived as trolling?
Only to an ideologue, hypocrite or rather babyish type member.

...& yes, I've seen the 'Cannibal Troll' thing it has no bearing (again, pun intended) or special status to the question I ask.
Only some of us are honest.

Again, I fail to see why this thread has your attention.

This site is filled with threads and posts of material posted by the likes of EAO, that contain nothing but conjecture, lies, propaganda and blind insults and blatant trolling.

Yet this thread, one that follows the sites rules far better than EAO's, has your attention.

Here's rule #1...

1. Not to post any material that you know, or in our judgement ought to know, is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of personal privacy, or in violation of Canadian law; ...

EAO breaks that rule almost daily.

Maybe if that rule was upheld, threads like this wouldn't exist.
 
Last edited: