Iraqi Militants Plant Bomb in Kim Sun-il’s Corpse

[seruriermarshal]

Iraqi Militants Plant Bomb in Kim Sun-il’s Corpse

JUNE 23, 2004 21:14


When the body of Kim Sun-il was found 35 km west of Baghdad toward Falluja at 5:20 p.m. (10:22 p.m. Korean time) on June 22, it was discovered that a ****y trap had been installed in his body.

On a street between Baghdad and Falluja, American forces located a body assumed to be that of an Asian, which an officer from Korean Embassy to Iraq and Kim Chun-ho, president of Gana General Trading Co., identified.


“It looks like the body was thrown from a vehicle, and the body was beheaded,” said Mark Kimmitt, coalition deputy operations chief and spokesman of American forces in Iraq.


“A ****y trap was placed in Kim’s body,” reported CNN, quoting Pentagon sources. A ****y trap is an explosive device, which is designed to blow up on contact. It appears that Iraqi insurgents were hoping to kill coalition forces or rescuers recovering Kim’s body. Outrage at the brutality of a terrorist organization that abducted Kim exploded after people learned that Kim’s body had been ****y-trapped.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From (http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2004062485178)

F**k those Iraq sh*t !

:fork:

[Kilgor]

the dead cant even rest in peace.

Yet when these "monsters" are caught and if even the slightest bit misteated the whole world screams abouts it.

They deserve to be shot in the street like vermin :(

[SeanAshi]

They deserve to be shot in the street like vermin Give them a tea spoon of rat poison and let them think about what they have done.

[Bombtrack]

disgusting

[Midav]

Very.

[East]

these people are appalling, i hope the governments of korea and the united states are doing whatever they can to find these bastards.

[scm77]

Yet when these "monsters" are caught and if even the slightest bit misteated the whole world screams abouts it.


The one last week in Saudi Arabia was "Innocent American, brutally beheaded. Why hasn't the Bush administration put more pressure on the Saudis to crack down on terrorists. Because of oil." This one they just said "Korean hostage was killed in Iraq. Yadda Yadda. The majority of the time they didn't even mention how burtally he was killed (atleast on CNN).

But they can go on for hours about the prisoner abuse "scandal".

Politcs is why. The more people hear about how ruthless and brutal these terrorists are, the more they are gonna want bush in office, because he can deal with them better then Kerry. SO they either don't mention the brutality, or they blame Bush (see my comment about the beheading in S.A. above).

[usa320]

Im expecting a major saudi crackdown in a month or so... For them not to crack down would put them in severe danger.

[seruriermarshal]

these people are appalling, i hope the governments of korea and the united states are doing whatever they can to find these bastards.

Now I believe first answer they in Fallujah :


Fallujah a haven for Islamic radicals

Much of the city is under control of mujahideen loyal to Zarqawi, who enforce tough versions of syariah

BAGHDAD - The killing of a South Korean translator by Islamic militants reportedly loyal to Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has brought the flashpoint central Iraqi city of Fallujah back into the spotlight.

The beheaded body of 33-year-old Kim Sun Il was discovered on a highway between Baghdad and the dusty agricultural hub of 300,000, now ostensibly under the control of the Fallujah Brigade, a United States-backed all-Iraqi military unit.

But witnesses from Fallujah say much of the city is under the control of mujahideen loyal to Zarqawi who have turned it into a haven for Islamic radicals, some of them reportedly from abroad.

Inside the city, they have imposed occasionally bizarre versions of the Islamic law.

On Saturday and again on Wednesday, US forces launched 'precision' air strikes against alleged Zarqawi network safe houses in Fallujah.

'We have strong indications that Zarqawi has been operating out of Fallujah and in a number of other places,' US Army Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt told reporters following the Saturday attack, which killed at least 20 people.

'Significant number of persons associated with the Zarqawi network were inside the house,' he added.

US military officials suspect that both Mr Kim and American hostage Nicholas Berg, whose grisly execution was aired last month, were held by Zarqawi loyalists in the Sunni city before their deaths.

Mr Adnan Abdi, a Baghdad businessman who frequently visits Fallujah, said the mujahideen, some of them foreign fighters from Yemen, Syria and even Pakistan, have set up checkpoints all over the city.

They grill passersby about their identities and destinations and search vehicles.

In the days leading up to the recent air strikes, US troops have reportedly surrounded Fallujah and shopkeepers have begun shuttering their stores. Whole neighbourhoods have emptied in anticipation of a possible huge American assault on the city.

Journalists are forbidden from entering Fallujah. Clerics who once used to grant permission to journalists now urge Western and even Iraqi journalists to stay away.

But the mujahideen, who run the city, have cracked down on social vices as well as fought the Americans. They flog those caught drinking and have banned the use of celebratory gunfire at weddings, say Fallujah residents and visitors.

They deal harshly with criminals and those allegedly collaborating with American forces.

Special mujahideen courts have been set up to dispense quick justice, said Mr Saad Najam Abdullah, a Fallujah resident who visits Baghdad to drink alcohol without fear of being arrested.

He added, 'The mujahideen are applying Islamic laws very precisely against the criminals.'

The residents tolerate the mujahideen, even allowing their own sons to join them, because of their rage against the American forces, he said.

During the months leading up to an uprising in April, US forces raided houses and made mass arrests in the city, which was a fiercely independent and conservative stronghold even under Saddam Hussein's rule.

[SeanAshi]

The one last week in Saudi Arabia was "Innocent American, brutally beheaded. Why hasn't the Bush administration put more pressure on the Saudis to crack down on terrorists. The Saudis might revolt against the royals

[Pooga]

It's time for the reimplimentation of the ROK Tiger Brigade. Put 'em in Iraq and let 'em go nuts. Beat foos up quick-like.

[seruriermarshal]

It's time for the reimplimentation of the ROK Tiger Brigade. Put 'em in Iraq and let 'em go nuts. Beat foos up quick-like.

Yes , I remember Tiger Brigade ......

[chucky555]

Why is it when Americans rough up a few inmates in a prison the world gets pissed off? But when a foreign person gets videotaped losing their head, no one cares?

[Brozozo]

Why is it when Americans rough up a few inmates in a prison the world gets pissed off? But when a foreign person gets videotaped losing their head, no one cares?

You think the Americans have it bad? The CF had to disband an entire regiment because one Somali died under its watch. :| :roll:

[Ratamacue]

Why is it when Americans rough up a few inmates in a prison the world gets pissed off? But when a foreign person gets videotaped losing their head, no one cares?
First of all, there's quite a bit of outrage when these foreigners get their heads cut off by terrorists. However, there's one distinct difference in the reaction. That sort if behavior is to be expected from terrorists who routinely murder civilians indiscriminantly. The US, however, is attempting to be the beacon of light for Iraq and Afghanistan. When reports come out that prisoners are being tortured, people ask "is this what you call freedom and liberty?"

With that said, I by all means support "coercion" of those that are proven to be terrorists and target civilians. However, people who are militants solely fighting against the Coalition presence in Iraq/Afghanistan/the Middle East should be treated as prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention.

[seruriermarshal]

Why is it when Americans rough up a few inmates in a prison the world gets pissed off? But when a foreign person gets videotaped losing their head, no one cares?

You think the Americans have it bad? The CF had to disband an entire regiment because one Somali died under its watch. :| :roll:

You think the Americans have it bad? The CF had to disband an entire regiment because one Somali died under its watch.

But I don't know why media help terrorist organization ?

:| :roll:

[seruriermarshal]

Why is it when Americans rough up a few inmates in a prison the world gets pissed off? But when a foreign person gets videotaped losing their head, no one cares?
First of all, there's quite a bit of outrage when these foreigners get their heads cut off by terrorists. However, there's one distinct difference in the reaction. That sort if behavior is to be expected from terrorists who routinely murder civilians indiscriminantly. The US, however, is attempting to be the beacon of light for Iraq and Afghanistan. When reports come out that prisoners are being tortured, people ask "is this what you call freedom and liberty?"

With that said, I by all means support "coercion" of those that are proven to be terrorists and target civilians. However, people who are militants solely fighting against the Coalition presence in Iraq/Afghanistan/the Middle East should be treated as prisoners of war according to the Geneva Convention.

Why we use Geneva Convention ? Terrorist aren't soldiers .

:roll:

[Ratamacue]

Don't reply to my posts if you don't read them first or don't understand them, serurier.

[b.scheller]

the problem with iraq is...that if all the coalition forces pull out. to save countless lives, not only will they be ****e to media attacks, but also they will leave a new government unsupported; which will lead to the take over of the dictatorial regime of islamist militants, which will welcome the al-qaeda terrorists. on the other hand, if they stay; they are giving more fuel for the fire. the nationals have something to fight about, more innocent soldiers and civilians will die in the process...its a tough call...

[seruriermarshal]

Don't reply to my posts if you don't read them first or don't understand them, serurier.

The Geneva Convention does not take the terrorist the prisoner of war.

:roll:

[Ratamacue]

Don't reply to my posts if you don't read them first or don't understand them, serurier.

The Geneva Convention does not take the terrorist the prisoner of war.

:roll:

http://www.3rd-infantry-division.net/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_wallbash.gif

[seruriermarshal]

Don't reply to my posts if you don't read them first or don't understand them, serurier.

The Geneva Convention does not take the terrorist the prisoner of war.

:roll:

http://www.3rd-infantry-division.net/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_wallbash.gif

Seems like you agree me .

:lol:

[Ratamacue]

I give up. Can someone read my original post and explain it to him so my head doesn't explode out of frustration trying to do so?

[Stl. boy]

Marines need to go back into fallujah, kick some butt and take names. Might have a rough go of it, but its what they do best.

[ronin2172]

I give up. Can someone read my original post and explain it to him so my head doesn't explode out of frustration trying to do so?
sorry rata i'm no sado masochist! rofl

[Caribou Kid]

Ratamacue, your first point is very valid; don't behaive in a manner like the oppressor you have recently ousted, and you won't be compared to said oppressor. Acting in a similar manner to your enemies will not endear you to the local populace, no matter how chest-thumpingly patriotic your cause is. Start making human-skin lampshades, and stockpiling zyclon-B, for example, and you better expect to get called that word that rhymes with Yahtzee, no? Despotic actions are STILL despotic actions, no matter if they are done by the "good" guys or "bad" guys. Period. :|

Seruriermarshal, you are saying prettty much what Ratamacue said, but in a different way.

There is a very obvious distinction between a soldier in the uniform of their nation (ie. REPUBLICAN GUARD), and a terrorist in a suicide boat/van/airplane/chest rig (ie MUJAHADEEN, JIHADIS, AL SADR LOYALISTS, etc).

Both have Rules of Engagement before they can be engaged, but only the SOLDIER has all the rights and expectations of treatment signatories to the Geneva Convention can expect will be accorded to them. Fools planting roadside IED's or taking opportunistic shots with RPG's will not be handled in a similar professional, martial manner.

Terrorist organizations do not subscribe or adhere to the same standards as Ministries and Departments of Defence for soveriegn Nation states, dude. What complicates things is when self proclaimed "militias" spring up and declare themselves as "representatives of the people." (Usually done while they casually sweep you with the muzzle of their rusty AK-47.) It happened in Mogadishu and Bosnia, it's happening now in Sierra Leone and Fallujah, and sadly it will keep on happening for many years to come.

Simple as that. p-)

[seruriermarshal]

Ratamacue, your first point is very valid; don't behaive in a manner like the oppressor you have recently ousted, and you won't be compared to said oppressor. Acting in a similar manner to your enemies will not endear you to the local populace, no matter how chest-thumpingly patriotic your cause is. Start making human-skin lampshades, and stockpiling zyclon-B, for example, and you better expect to get called that word that rhymes with Yahtzee, no? Despotic actions are STILL despotic actions, no matter if they are done by the "good" guys or "bad" guys. Period. :|

Seruriermarshal, you are saying prettty much what Ratamacue said, but in a different way.

There is a very obvious distinction between a soldier in the uniform of their nation (ie. REPUBLICAN GUARD), and a terrorist in a suicide boat/van/airplane/chest rig (ie MUJAHADEEN, JIHADIS, AL SADR LOYALISTS, etc).

Both have Rules of Engagement before they can be engaged, but only the SOLDIER has all the rights and expectations of treatment signatories to the Geneva Convention can expect will be accorded to them. Fools planting roadside IED's or taking opportunistic shots with RPG's will not be handled in a similar professional, martial manner.

Terrorist organizations do not subscribe or adhere to the same standards as Ministries and Departments of Defence for soveriegn Nation states, dude. What complicates things is when self proclaimed "militias" spring up and declare themselves as "representatives of the people." (Usually done while they casually sweep you with the muzzle of their rusty AK-47.) It happened in Mogadishu and Bosnia, it's happening now in Sierra Leone and Fallujah, and sadly it will keep on happening for many years to come.

Simple as that. p-)

Thank you , that's my meaning : Both have Rules of Engagement before they can be engaged, but only the SOLDIER has all the rights and expectations of treatment signatories to the Geneva Convention can expect will be accorded to them.

[Mark Sman]

...its a tough call...

Only from the sidelines.

[OB Kenobi]

I give up. Can someone read my original post and explain it to him so my head doesn't explode out of frustration trying to do so?

What Ratamacue is trying to say is that torturing prisoners leaves a very bad impression and does not "win hearts and minds."

You can also thank Abu Ghraib for the UN not renewing immunity for US peacekeeping troops. Yeah, good luck trying to take the US to court, but all this adds up in other ways, such as beheadings of contractors and ill treatment of US troops.

You might look at Al Qaeda as a bunch of mindless barbarians, but they are as sophisticated as any modern political organization. They know how to pull the strings of their constituents and things like Abu Ghraib play right into their hands.

[BlackRain]

The United Nations did not withhold immunity for US peacekeepers because of Abu Ghraib or for any other reason.

The USA voluntarily withdrew its request for the immunity. The USA made the decision and not the United Nations as implied.


23 June 2004 – The United States announced today that it would not proceed with a Security Council resolution that would have extended, for a third consecutive year, the immunity of some United Nations peacekeepers from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11129&Cr=international&Cr1=court

[Secret Squirrel]

I give up. Can someone read my original post and explain it to him so my head doesn't explode out of frustration trying to do so?

Its best just to ignore seruriermarshal like just about everyone else. He rarely makes sense and just posts uneducated statements that have nothing to do with the discussion.

[Secret Squirrel]

The United Nations did not withhold immunity for US peacekeepers because of Abu Ghraib or for any other reason.

The USA voluntarily withdrew its request for the immunity. The USA made the decision and not the United Nations as implied.


23 June 2004 – The United States announced today that it would not proceed with a Security Council resolution that would have extended, for a third consecutive year, the immunity of some United Nations peacekeepers from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11129&Cr=international&Cr1=court

But you have to admit it was a political play. And Bush knew he wouldnt have enough votes this time around to get it passed anyway. So, essentially, the UN denied the U.S from gaining immunity again because Bush would have lost the vote.

[BlackRain]

It is a two edged sword my friend.


The U.S. move raised concern that Washington might carry out its threat to shut down or stop participating in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that every request would be examined "both in terms of voting for a peacekeeping mission" and providing Americans to participate. A key factor will be "what the risk might be of prosecution by a court to which we're not party," he said.

...

James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, who announced the U.S. decision, would not comment on future U.S. actions. He said officials would "take into account" the lack of a resolution "when determining contributions to U.N. authorised or established operations."



Without American peacekeepers and the money the US gives to the UN for peacekeeping missions, the US haters gained a Polemic Victory.

[Secret Squirrel]

It is a two edged sword my friend.


The U.S. move raised concern that Washington might carry out its threat to shut down or stop participating in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that every request would be examined "both in terms of voting for a peacekeeping mission" and providing Americans to participate. A key factor will be "what the risk might be of prosecution by a court to which we're not party," he said.

...

James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, who announced the U.S. decision, would not comment on future U.S. actions. He said officials would "take into account" the lack of a resolution "when determining contributions to U.N. authorised or established operations."



Without American peacekeepers and the money the US gives to the UN for peacekeeping missions, the US haters gained a Polemic Victory.

You mean pyrrhic victory? And I wont argue with your other points. Should be interesting to see how the politics play out in the long run.

[BlackRain]

Bush Administration Budget Request for FY04
-U.S. Contributions to UN Peacekeeping

The UN peacekeeping budget is funded by member-states under a formula adopted by the UN. The five permanent members of the Security Council (Great Britain, France, China, Russia and the U.S.) pay a premium on top of their assessment, a recognition of their role in approving and carrying out the operations and their ability to single-handedly veto any mission.

Under the Helms-Biden legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in November 1999, the United States' share of UN peacekeeping costs had to be reduced. In December 2000, a new scale of assessments was adopted by the UN for the regular and peacekeeping budgets, and the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget was reduced from almost 31 percent to approximately 27 percent.

For FY04, the Bush Administration has asked Congress to appropriate $550 million for UN peacekeeping missions. The FY04 request will fund the following current UN peacekeeping missions.

UN PEACEKEEPING MISSION ACTUAL U.S. COST

(FY 2002) = $824,967,000

ESTIMATED COSTS (FY 2003) = $725,981,000

REQUESTED U.S. COST (FY 2004) = $550,200,000

[seruriermarshal]

I give up. Can someone read my original post and explain it to him so my head doesn't explode out of frustration trying to do so?

Its best just to ignore seruriermarshal like just about everyone else. He rarely makes sense and just posts uneducated statements that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Like your lie ?

rofl

[Pooga]

Squirrel, maybe he's not a native speaker! Gee whizz!