Guantanamo Detainee Shows scars from torture on tape...

[thegodfather]

(CNN) -- A 16-year-old Canadian prisoner weeps and buries his face in his hands in an interrogation video that provides the first public look at such an interview at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Khadr is shown in an image from a video taken during an interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2 of 2 The video was released Tuesday by attorneys for Omar Khadr, now 21, whom Canadian intelligence agents questioned in 2003 and 2004 at Guantanamo.

The video segment released Tuesday is from 2003.

Khadr was 15 in 2002 when he was taken into U.S. custody in Afghanistan and accused of killing an American soldier. He was one of about eight juveniles at the prison, although most of them have been released.

In the video, Khadr is seen removing his orange prison shirt to show wounds he says he received during torture. Watch a glimpse of the interrogation »

While crying, he says, "I requested medical for a long time" but didn't get it. "I lost my eyes, I lost my feet, everything."

But the interrogator responds, "No, you still have your eyes. Your feet are still at the end of your legs.

"Look, I want to take a few minutes, let you get yourself together ... relax a bit, have a bite to eat.

"I understand this is stressful but by using this strategy to talk to us, it's not going to be any more helpful. We've got a limited amount of time."

Omar Khadr
• Canadian citizen


• Captured in Afghanistan in 2002 at age 15


• Accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier
Khadr then says, "You don't care about me."

His interrogator responds, "I do care about you, but I want to talk to the honest Omar that I was talking to yesterday."

"I will be honest," Khadr responds.

Before a break, a woman asks Khadr to put his shirt back on, and someone turns on a fan. Khadr, seen through a one-way mirror, sobs uncontrollably while alone.

At a news conference Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman said Khadr has not been mistreated.

"Our policy is to treat detainees humanely, and Khadr has been treated humanely," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon.

Don't Miss
High court: Detainees entitled to court challenge
Court sides with Muslim detainee
Asked about allegations that Khadr was sleep-deprived to weaken him before the Canadian interrogation, Gordon said: "We don't respond to every allegation. He was treated humanely."

Gordon also was asked about defense lawyers' efforts to get Khadr moved out of Guantanamo and returned to Canada.

"We believe Khadr should be held accountable for his actions. His trial date has been set for October," the officer said. "The charges are grave."

Khadr, whose family allegedly has ties to al Qaeda, has been accused of lobbing a grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher James Speer following a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

In April 2007, Khadr was formally charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying, according to his charge sheets.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last year concluded the U.S. military could not limit what information the courts hear when foreign detainees are challenging their imprisonment and ordered that documents related to Khadr's case be released.

Canadian federal Justice Richard Mosely ordered that tapes of Khadr's interrogation be provided to his attorneys for his defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ...ml#cnnSTCVideo

[thegodfather]

I'd like everyones input on this. Here is my take.

First, he is a juvenile. If he's found guilty and sentenced to death, it will be the first time in history a juvenile has been sentenced to death for war crimes.

Second, the military court is attempting to try him for MURDER. However, The US Soldiers were engaged in a WAR with Afghanistan, and Khadr was engaged in a fight with the US soldiers, therefore making the charge of murder completely illegitmate. The soldier and Khadr at that point, were both combatants.

Of course what the military is trying to alledge, is that the US was not in an officially declared "war" with Afghanistan therefore making the charge of murder a legitimate one, and not protecting Khadr from prosecution under the laws of war. However, at the same time they are attempting to try Khadr for "war crimes."

It's quite a convoluded and absurd situation. Essentially, the US military court is "making up the rules as it goes," in order to fit it's agenda. Nevermind that the child was held for 6 years without the writ of Habeas Corpus.

[wantmoremass]

i agree with you godfather that it's convoluted and messy. tough call imo - i'm on the fence. things about this that piss me off or at least get me thinking:

- him, and allegedly his father and other family members became/are born canadian citizens and take part in a religious war against their country's ally. Omar's brother Abdullah Khadr faces extradition from Canada to the United States on charges of gun-running and conspiracy to murder Americans abroad. i have no issues with a canadian standing trial in the u.s. for such an act if indeed it was terrorist in nature. i personally believe too many people are using a canadian passport as a shield from prosecution because our country is so pc that it allows it.

- the fact that he's a juvy doesn't mean he didn't make the conscious decision to fight and cause resultant death...if he's guilty, he should be treated as such. if not, set free.

i read that he faced life in prison - not sure if death penalty is on the table. does the military court render death sentences?

[spywizard]

(CNN) -- A 16-year-old Canadian prisoner weeps and buries his face in his hands in an interrogation video that provides the first public look at such an interview at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Khadr is shown in an image from a video taken during an interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2 of 2 The video was released Tuesday by attorneys for Omar Khadr, now 21, whom Canadian intelligence agents questioned in 2003 and 2004 at Guantanamo.

The video segment released Tuesday is from 2003.

Khadr was 15 in 2002 when he was taken into U.S. custody in Afghanistan and accused of killing an American soldier. He was one of about eight juveniles at the prison, although most of them have been released.

In the video, Khadr is seen removing his orange prison shirt to show wounds he says he received during torture. Watch a glimpse of the interrogation »

While crying, he says, "I requested medical for a long time" but didn't get it. "I lost my eyes, I lost my feet, everything."

But the interrogator responds, "No, you still have your eyes. Your feet are still at the end of your legs.

"Look, I want to take a few minutes, let you get yourself together ... relax a bit, have a bite to eat.

"I understand this is stressful but by using this strategy to talk to us, it's not going to be any more helpful. We've got a limited amount of time."

Omar Khadr
• Canadian citizen


• Captured in Afghanistan in 2002 at age 15


• Accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier
Khadr then says, "You don't care about me."

His interrogator responds, "I do care about you, but I want to talk to the honest Omar that I was talking to yesterday."

"I will be honest," Khadr responds.

Before a break, a woman asks Khadr to put his shirt back on, and someone turns on a fan. Khadr, seen through a one-way mirror, sobs uncontrollably while alone.

At a news conference Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman said Khadr has not been mistreated.

"Our policy is to treat detainees humanely, and Khadr has been treated humanely," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon.

Don't Miss
High court: Detainees entitled to court challenge
Court sides with Muslim detainee
Asked about allegations that Khadr was sleep-deprived to weaken him before the Canadian interrogation, Gordon said: "We don't respond to every allegation. He was treated humanely."

Gordon also was asked about defense lawyers' efforts to get Khadr moved out of Guantanamo and returned to Canada.

"We believe Khadr should be held accountable for his actions. His trial date has been set for October," the officer said. "The charges are grave."

Khadr, whose family allegedly has ties to al Qaeda, has been accused of lobbing a grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher James Speer following a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

In April 2007, Khadr was formally charged with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying, according to his charge sheets.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last year concluded the U.S. military could not limit what information the courts hear when foreign detainees are challenging their imprisonment and ordered that documents related to Khadr's case be released.

Canadian federal Justice Richard Mosely ordered that tapes of Khadr's interrogation be provided to his attorneys for his defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ...ml#cnnSTCVideo

wow at 16, i guess that's better than being ass raped by guys 3 times his age and size..

wait.. no... that's a natural coarse for young men of his culture, so that wouldn't be an issue for him..

I say just turn him loose in a room with the deceased soldiers family for 10 minutes, then he's free to leave.. if he can..

hows that..

[thegodfather]

wow at 16, i guess that's better than being ass raped by guys 3 times his age and size..

wait.. no... that's a natural coarse for young men of his culture, so that wouldn't be an issue for him..

I say just turn him loose in a room with the deceased soldiers family for 10 minutes, then he's free to leave.. if he can..

hows that..

Why? He's a PRISONER OF WAR! Would we want other countries we are at war with to treat our POWs in the same manner and allow the family members of people WE'VE KILLED (1,000,000 in Iraq) to be let loose on our soldiers? They were two combatants fighting one another in war, and under international law he cannot be tried for murder because that is the entire point of war.

Oh no, I almost forgot for a second that it's ok when we kill 1 million people in the name of Democracy, but when people kill us defending their country that we just invaded, thats murder. Riiiiiiiiight...

[Panzerfaust]

LMAO @ at even capturing him if in fact he did kill a US soldier. He should have been interrogated and then executed.

[g0dsend]

Why? He's a PRISONER OF WAR! Would we want other countries we are at war with to treat our POWs in the same manner and allow the family members of people WE'VE KILLED (1,000,000 in Iraq) to be let loose on our soldiers? They were two combatants fighting one another in war, and under international law he cannot be tried for murder because that is the entire point of war.

Oh no, I almost forgot for a second that it's ok when we kill 1 million people in the name of Democracy, but when people kill us defending their country that we just invaded, thats murder. Riiiiiiiiight...

I think you forgot to add that when they capture one of our soldiers, they treat them with respect and kindness. Surf and turf, lobter and steak

American prisioners were BEHEADED on LIVE TELEVISION, and on YOUTUBE, dragged through the streets and burned. Hell, just thinking about this if I was a guard I would beat the living **** out of that prisioner everyday for doing shit like that, that guy getting interviewed got off easy since I wasnt his guard.

[inheritmylife]

LMAO @ at even capturing him if in fact he did kill a US soldier. He should have been interrogated and then executed.

You think that killing a prisoner would have been the right thing to do?

[MuscleScience]

We are Americans and we should be above torture and executions. That is what has separated us from our enemies and is one of the foundations of who we are. Even if our enemy does not abide by the Geneva Convention and tortures and kills our Troops at the end of the day videos like this give the enemy leverage to say to the rest of the world that we preach human rights but do not practice it. After all are we not trying to win the hearts and minds of moderate muslims the world over?

However I do take this video for what its worth as to say that the video may or may not be portrayed as accurately as it could be.

I do see the value of what the video is as far as a conversation piece because we as citizens have a duty to know what our elected officials are doing with the power we have adorned them.

[j4ever41]

Would have much rather watched a documentary video about his death on the battle field as far as him sobbing that bothers me not. What does everyone hear in your opinion beleives is torture and what are legitimate interrogation techniques?

[Ernst]

America should be above torture. Did you see any torture there? Me neither.

[Panzerfaust]

You think that killing a prisoner would have been the right thing to do?

Do you think killing an American soldier was the right thing to do?

[Flagg]

How old was he when he killed that soldier? Younger than 14, 15? I guess when he did that, he ceased being a child and became something else all together.

[thegodfather]

How old was he when he killed that soldier? Younger than 14, 15? I guess when he did that, he ceased being a child and became something else all together.

What about the 1 million dead Iraqi civilians? How many of our soldiers are in jail for their murders? It's a WAR, its legitimate for both sides to try and kill each other....The hypocrisy in your statement is troubling...

[abstrack]

Why? He's a PRISONER OF WAR! Would we want other countries we are at war with to treat our POWs in the same manner and allow the family members of people WE'VE KILLED (1,000,000 in Iraq) to be let loose on our soldiers? They were two combatants fighting one another in war, and under international law he cannot be tried for murder because that is the entire point of war.

Oh no, I almost forgot for a second that it's ok when we kill 1 million people in the name of Democracy, but when people kill us defending their country that we just invaded, thats murder. Riiiiiiiiight...

They already do believe it or not. It's war and this is what comes along with it. Vietnamese did it to American soldiers in the Vietnam war, Russians did it to the Germans, Germans did it to the Jews, Japanese did it to us, We did it to them......

Believe it or not it is called war for a reason and not everybody plays by the rule book. It's a whole different ball game when you boots are stuck in the mud, and your walking in shit every day.

There is no one saying it is o.k. to kill 1 million people, but our elected officials put us in the war, and we either support it or not, but no matter if you support it or not or agree with the killing of innocent or guilty people, it is what it is.

[Odpierdol_sie!]

Way i see it here is, everyone is frustrating the actual facts and blending them with their own opinions.

Firstly its not a war.

Secondly the kid took the conscious decision to throw a grenade at troops who are primarily there to restore order and keep the peace.

His actions were in the eyes of the law out of malice and hatred which resulted in the death of a US soldier.
Way i see it its murder. If I was his captor I would have been exercising a "take no prisoners policy".

[abstrack]

Way i see it here is, everyone is frustrating the actual facts and blending them with their own opinions.

Firstly its not a war.

Secondly the kid took the conscious decision to throw a grenade at troops who are primarily there to restore order and keep the peace.

His actions were in the eyes of the law out of malice and hatred which resulted in the death of a US soldier.
Way i see it its murder. If I was his captor I would have been exercising a "take no prisoners policy".

Firstly it is a war. Lets make it clear what the legal definition of war is.


WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

[Flagg]

What about the 1 million dead Iraqi civilians? How many of our soldiers are in jail for their murders? It's a WAR, its legitimate for both sides to try and kill each other....The hypocrisy in your statement is troubling...

What hyprocisy? Show me where my statement was hypocritical. The moment he threw that grenade he stopped being a child and became a tool, a weapon. Several people have stated that the U.S. should be above torture and executions, I agree, but the fact remains he allegedly threw a grenade at a US sergeant, killing him. What should his punishment be, incarceration I say. Are you pissed because there's a chance he could be executed, or are you pissed because he's 15 years old?

[g0dsend]

What hyprocisy? Show me where my statement was hypocritical. The moment he threw that grenade he stopped being a child and became a tool, a weapon. Several people have stated that the U.S. should be above torture and executions, I agree, but the fact remains he allegedly threw a grenade at a US sergeant, killing him. What should his punishment be, incarceration I say. Are you pissed because there's a chance he could be executed, or are you pissed because he's 15 years old?

I fully agree with this, couldn't have said it any better. Just because of his age doesn't mean he should get special treatment for his actions.

[thegodfather]

What hyprocisy? Show me where my statement was hypocritical. The moment he threw that grenade he stopped being a child and became a tool, a weapon. Several people have stated that the U.S. should be above torture and executions, I agree, but the fact remains he allegedly threw a grenade at a US sergeant, killing him. What should his punishment be, incarceration I say. Are you pissed because there's a chance he could be executed, or are you pissed because he's 15 years old?

No, my point is that the Sgt and the kid were both COMBATANTS engaged in warfare. The point of which is to try and kill one another. They are attempting to ignore this and try the kid for murder. They are changing rules and making them up as they go. That is what I have a problem with.

[abstrack]

I believe in war the rules do change for both sides of the line. All that matters in war or any game is who the winner is and how you get there.

10-20 years from now, nobody is going to care how the war was won. All that is going to matter is who came out on top and how it was ended.

[Flagg]

No, my point is that the Sgt and the kid were both COMBATANTS engaged in warfare. The point of which is to try and kill one another. They are attempting to ignore this and try the kid for murder. They are changing rules and making them up as they go. That is what I have a problem with.

So tell me, what is the difference between the kid being executed for war crimes (which lets face facts, throwing a grenade at a soldier is not a war crime perse) and taking a bullet in the head on the field? Don't get me wrong, I hate war as much as you, but you said it yourself, he's a COMBATANT. But all of a sudden, now he's a POW he's a kid again? War is Hell, and the so called "rules of engagement" are usually the first things to go out the window.

[Odpierdol_sie!]

Firstly it is a war. Lets make it clear what the legal definition of war is.


WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

Firstly your understanding of the deffiniton of war is exemplary... you must be a wizz at international law either that or plagiarism.

Ok i know there is sarcasm intended there... please ignore it.

So tell me, on your definition this is a war? (im not being sarcastic)

[abstrack]

Firstly your understanding of the deffiniton of war is exemplary... you must be a wizz at international law either that or plagiarism.

Ok i know there is sarcasm intended there... please ignore it.

So tell me, on your definition this is a war? (im not being sarcastic)

Is this better for you? I didn't know I was being graded by my teacher. I migh jusa no be edjumacated like everybody elsa sir. Yes my understanding of the definition of war exemplary to the T. Most people with simple to complex logic could understand war this way.


It is a war wether you like to look through a glass or behind a curtain.


"WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralyzing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."



-
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

[Odpierdol_sie!]

Is this better for you? I didn't know I was being graded by my teacher. I migh jusa no be edjumacated like everybody elsa sir. Yes my understanding of the definition of war exemplary to the T. Most people with simple to complex logic could understand war this way.


It is a war wether you like to look through a glass or behind a curtain.


"WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralyzing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."



-
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

Ok fair enough, Im not gonna buy in to your sarcasm and can see that you know how to use search engines to find answers.

If it is a "war" as you so clearly believe, who is this war between and for what reason is this war going on?

[goose]

Ok fair enough, Im not gonna buy in to your sarcasm and can see that you know how to use search engines to find answers.

If it is a "war" as you so clearly believe, who is this war between and for what reason is this war going on?

The American media has infected this dude.Its tough being on that side of the pond,just ask Noam Chomsky this.

[Act of God]

What about the 1 million dead Iraqi civilians? How many of our soldiers are in jail for their murders? It's a WAR, its legitimate for both sides to try and kill each other....The hypocrisy in your statement is troubling...

How about the soliders found not guilty as to Haditha? Gee, that one didn't seem to make the headlines as much as the original accusations.

If you want to cite 1,000,000 dead you should probably note that most of that number came from fellow Arabs, not American soldiers.

[Odpierdol_sie!]

The American media has infected this dude.Its tough being on that side of the pond,just ask Noam Chomsky this.

Where is the sense in your statement? How is the America media going to infect me?

You guys are all jumping on the band wagon saying this is a war... The definition that was given proves that its not.

The fact of this story is..... troops were in an area and came under fire or were provoked in to returning fire. They would not have acted in an offensive manner for no reason.
The troops were in an area that is not classed as a war zone... yes there are battles and small scale "wars" going on there but it does not class it as a war because the people who are doing the fighting against US troops etc are members of illegal groups of insurgents.

If it was a war it would have been sanctioned by more than one country other than the US and would have an identified enemy sanctioned to lead the offensive by the government or the sovereign of that state that the US has declared war against.....

I think you will have a hard time to "google" me a page that says US goes to war on Afghanistan or US goes to war on the middle east.... it will be more like, "Bush backs war against terror" which is a totally different concept altogether.


This kid when threw the grenade took responsibility of his own actions.
He is not protected by the Geneva convention because he is not a member of a recognized military establishment (hence being an insurgent).
Since he is a civilian he has no special rights under the Geneva convention.

The laws that he should be treated by are the Human rights act....... since Sharia law has its own version of the human rights act, the rights act such as the US or the EU can be thrown out of the window.

For his actions under sharia law he can be trailed as an adult. The penalty for this act under sharia law is the death penalty.
An adult under Sharia Law is classed as "one who can reproduce"... putting him well in to adult hood (ruling out any special treatment as a child).

Sharia law states also, for a child to act as an adult in committing serious crimes they must be considered an adult and treated accordingly. i,e if a 9 year old girl was messing about with a married man and was arrested for adultery then she could be stoned to death.... if a 9 year old boy raped a woman then they may be castrated, in both cases the child would be tried as an adult.


Shave his head tie him to a tree, tar n feather him then let the crows peck out his eyes as he starves to death.... id say that will be a fitting end to this scum!

[inheritmylife]

Do you think killing an American soldier was the right thing to do?

Maybe in his situation it was, I don't know because the original post doesn't give details.

Regardless, a prisoner is a captive. They are completely helpless.

Only a ****in coward would kill a prisoner.

[thegodfather]

Do you think killing an American soldier was the right thing to do?

Come on dude...Lets pretend for a moment that the Iraqi Army had rolled in downtown Austin or Houston...and they thought a suspected "insurgent" lived next door to you, so they call in a bomber, and a few of your loved ones happen to be killed. Would you brush it off and say no big deal, thats the price to pay for being "liberated" and having the Iraqi army restore "order" to my land?

You probably wouldn't, you would probably try to kill some of those soldiers in retaliation for their mistake.