Iraqi cleric slams war coverage

[seventhson]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/12F048D0-893A-4DC4-AF97-4A779F160FFF.htm


Iraqi cleric slams war coverage
By Ahmed Janabi

Monday 23 August 2004, 19:58 Makka Time, 16:58 GMT


Al-Sumaidaai: Media does not tell the truth about US losses in Iraq




The secretary general of al-Irshad and al-Fatwa Association in Iraq has accused world media of colluding with US-led occupation forces in imposing a media blackout on Iraqi resistance operations.


Shaikh Mahdi al-Sumaidaai accused the media of deliberately distorting the "honourable" image of Iraqi resistance and persisting with the information and figures provided by the US authorities.

"I call on world media to stop twisting the news and portraying Iraqi resistance actions as the mere killing of Iraqi citizens," he told Aljazeera.net.

"If media provide one hour of honest coverage to what the Iraqi resistance are doing on a daily basis, I bet you the mothers and sisters of US soldiers in Iraq will pour into the streets of America screaming at Bush to pull the troops from Iraq," he said.

He accused the US and its "traitor agents" of planning attacks against Iraqis and their religious sites, saying Iraqi resistance fighters attack only foreign military in the country.



MORE

[lebkuchen]

1. I thought stateside news was much more interested in Michael Jackson

than events in Iraq or the "sitting-duck" situation our troops find themselves, or the Iraqi people, for that matter.

[alcuno]

2. Guess they wouldn't like FAUX making up the term "al Sadr terrorists."

Along with the US, even Iraq's own puppet government has refused to call them terrorists and has said specifically that they are NOT terrorists. But on FAUX it's "al Sadr terrorists" did this or "al Sadr terrorists" did that.

[Radius]

3. Define resistance fighters

People in the field shooting at American soldiers are different than people blowing up car bombs in the street, killing women and children. All the reporters on the ground including al-jiz and al arabia have reported fighters firing heavy mortars into civilian areas.
I don't know of a site that maintains iraqi on iraqi kills, but the number is in the hundreds, if not thousands. The "insurgents" have shown little regard for civilians by using these bomb tactics rather than small infantry tactics.

[DUreader]

4. How do you know who is behind the attacks, sounds just like the PNAC plan

I'd guess the PNAC plan for dominance thru chaos and instability is

more likely behind most of the attacks

[Dancing_Dave]

129. Right on!

And it's a damn good thing people around the world are finally learning to see through such deadly propaganda scams!

[seventhson]

5. Yeah - But I think the car bombers are PROBABLY BFEE/Rumsfeld

and their off the shelf Hallinurton/Carlyle spooks


Still the US has killed probably 50 times as many Iraqi civilians so your point is irrational and meaninglessd

[Radius]

7. The same

Bombs have killed Americans and Iraqis in the same incidents. They are directed at interim government leaders and us "collaborators". They usually just end up killing random people on the street. Attacks on police stations usually kill police as well as random people. I can link to incidents but I'm sure you have seen them. The bus incident killed 20 random people on a bus just going along, someone was a little slow on the detonator.

If they use infantry, guys with guns, they could avoid killing random people. This would expose them to being shot, blowing up a planted explosive with a cell phone or RF detonator is safe.

Tighten your tin foil if you think rumsfeld is bombing the officials we installed and our own soldiers.

Didn't say we haven't killed civilians, but it would be nice to know how many the insurgents have killed.


My point counters the original "bad press" complaint of the article and lists logical arguments. Care to rebut them?

[NNN0LHI]

8. Can you please provide a link for the "slow on the detonator bus incident"

If my recollection is correct the bus you speak of was full of Iraqis who were collaborating with the occupiers. If you can provide something different I would much appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Don

[Radius]

11. Non Combatants

Target was a police station. These people were overhead.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/28/iraq.main/

Among those killed were 21 passengers on a bus driving by. At least 56 others were wounded.

21 random people to attack iraqi police.

Attacker may have been part of non iraqi extremist groups..
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/iraq_7-28.html

Like I said, you put your self at risk if you attemt to fight the americans or iraqi police with concentrated small infantry tactics (gunfire, grenades, rpg), it is safe to detonate a bomb. Just kills more random people.

Hence the bad press.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Umm, the 20 random people on a bus just going along you spoke of...

...is not mentioned in any of the links you have provided? Concerning the bus bombing in Baquba cited in your links the bus was the bomb. Here, look.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/28/iraq.main/

Perhaps you are confused?

Don

[Radius]

15. Missed it

From link..


Among those killed were 21 passengers on a bus driving by. At least 56 others were wounded.

[Zhade]

93. Yeah, "confused". I suspect another explanation.

One I can't say, of course.

[Dhalgren]

14. It's much safer to drop bombs from the air

and to use c-130 gunships from high altitude which is what the US does. It also kills innocent people "randomly". The US does this in order not to have to risk the lives of US soldiers using "small arms". What is your point? None of this obviates the fact that we are conducting a slaughter in Iraq for profit, period. I suppose that a person can be in favor of this "war" and make some sort of twisted rationale for it. But to denigrate people who are fighting and dying for their homes and families is completely distasteful and beneath contempt. It is one thing to "support the troops" in some "America is always right" jingoistic frenzy, but to call into question people that our own troops call brave and gutsy is beyond the pale.

[Radius]

18. Narrow Argument

The scope is slipping.

My point is that you can not have your cake and eat it too.

The cleric complained about bad press. However they are using tactics that kill random civilians.

The above is my main point, anything else has been tacked on and is not related to the article's position.

The us does not us AC-130 gunships in areas with civilians because it is ineffective. Provide a link for an intentional killing in an urban area with ac-130 fire and I will be impressed. If you set off 200 lbs of c4 on the street to target police, the other people you kill are intentionally dead. They know they are using indiscriminate methods of killing.

I made no mention of right or wrong or our tactics. I denigrated no one. Just facts. We operate infantry operations in Baghdad. We have not bombed Baghdad in a long time. We use men on the ground with rifles and infantry weapons(directed fire) in bag ad. They are using methods that are easier to pull off, safer. If every man in Iraq picked up a gun and fought the US there would be a different outcome. That is not happening.

The Democratic Ticket is in favor of this war, expanding it, and involving more nations to participate in it. You may think I'm nuts but thats the truth, that is the mainstream of the Democratic party.

[Dhalgren]

21. You know, I believe you are right about the

Democratic party being just as rabid a pack of war mongers as the republicans. That is why so many people are finding it so hard to support your party (plug in "Democratic" or "Republican" here). I have tried very hard to simply ignore that fact that your party, and party members like you, are so wrong-headed in regards the security of our nation. I have tried to look at other issues, like church/state, supreme court nominations, freedom of choice, education, the economy, etc. and just blot out the imperialism and "first world racism" that is so on display in the democratic party. But, if we continue down this road that we are on, globally, all those other issues will be moot, because we won't be here any more. I won't try and agrue with you and your myopic view of "us against them" - we're always good, they're always bad - there's no point to it. But if you were trying to undermine support for Kerry amongst progressives, you could not do better than you are right now. Thanks for the wake up.

[Radius]

24. Democrat

My Grandfather was a union d and fought in ww2, my father was a d anf fought in vietnam. I am a d and choose different path.

My sympathy is with the american soldier following orders. I feel for the Iraqi civillians. I do not sympathize with the insurgents, just cant bring my self to do it. We are comitted, the sooner they quit or are killed the sooned the remainder of the Iraqis who just want normalcy can get that. The sooner we leave there the better.

Saddam agreed to UN rules and broke them, Clinton bombed Iraq, clinton complained about WMD non compliance. The method used to get rid of him was sloppy at best.

The social issues are important. And when this Iraq mess is over people will have to deal with the everpresent social problems here at home.

I have no intent on undermining anyone. I consider myself enviromentally and socially progressive, and I have met some interesting people here. I just wanted to focus on this clerics arguement.

Thanks for treating me with respect, I enjoy hearing others points of view and try to learn from them.

[truth2power]

54. Radius...a problem with your logic.

You said:

"We are comitted, the sooner they quit or are killed the sooned the remainder of the Iraqis who just want normalcy can get that. The sooner we leave there the better."

Those two events are mutually exclusive, IMO. If they (Iraqis) "quit or are killed" we will NEVER leave. At this point we have every intention of NEVER leaving.

So they have to keep on fighting and, hopefully, drive the US out of Iraq. The sooner the better for all concerned.

[Radius]

102. Not All

Iraqis have taken up arms. Some have taken up arms on our side, most just want a democratically elected goverment and for us to leave.

Me too. We can not leave until the country is stable and a government is elected and power is put in the hands of some form of iraqi goverment.

Sorry I was unclear.

[jayfish]

27. Requested Links.

I've also included some video of the US using other stand-off weapons on human targets.

MEDIA:

AC-130
F/A-16
AH-64


ARTICLES

Al-Sadr helps free journalist (if you Google this one you can read without registration)

<SNIP>
Beginning in the morning, U.S. forces pounded a parking garage just west of the Imam Ali shrine with attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships and artillery. In a two-hour assault, a group of U.S. tanks and armored vehicles approached the garage from the huge cemetery north of Najaf's old city and fired on it from close range, marking the nearest point that U.S. soldiers have come to the shrine.
</SNIP>

Najaf shrine hit by shrapnel

<SNIP>
Overnight, a US AC-130 gunship blasted rebel positions after a weekend of fruitless talks between Sadr’s aides and religious authorities to hand over the keys of the shrine to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most respected Shia cleric.
</SNIP>

U.S. warplanes attack Najaf, Sadr City (Bagdhad)

<SNIP>
Najaf - U.S. military aircraft have started bombing sorties targeting al-Mahdi Army positions in the embattled city of Najaf and the Sadr City district in Baghdad. A witness told Aljazeera that there were intense explosions in Sadr City late on Monday night. The impoverished slum area is known for its strong ties to Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Further south, al-Mahdi Army positions around the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf came under repeated attacks by AC-130 warplanes.
</SNIP>


Where is all of the US Infantry you speak of?

EDITED FOR TYPOS

[Ms. Clio]

31. Interesting, no response to your links

Some people think that propaganda = facts.

[jayfish]

33. I Think I Know What The Eventual Response(s) Will Be.

Response To AC-130 video: That is not an urban area.
Response To F/A-16 video: Looks like a bunch of terrorists going off to kill Americans.
Response To AH-64 video: He had an RPG.

Of course all of these videos have been argued about, ad-infinitum, right here on DU.

Jay

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

29. Sadr City is part of Baghdad, and it's been bombed just recently

And your mythical Iraqi knows better than to face helicopter gunships, tanks, and predator drones with just a gun.

[Vladimir]

44. Yes well so what exactly?

let me figure this out, you invade their country, kill thousands of their civilians directly in the process, and then expect them to fight back using Queensbury rules? ROTFL. Why is it always one rule for the white American hero, and another for the evil Muslim negro?

[ursacorwin]

9. it would be nice to know, but

the iraqis don't have the resources or the time frankly to do more than they are doing now- resist. they're up against an incredibly powerful military that is in some respects chomping at the idea of crushing these people. the iraqis are holding their own, and that's impressive.

war is hell. people die, nonsolidiers and children. it's a mess, and if you talk to enough soldiers you realize that war is often barely contained chaos. the fact that the iraqis have and will kill some of their own only reflects the reality found in any war. but i promise you- iraqis kill far fewer civilians than we do, and if you look closely at who gets carbombed and which civilian targets get attacked, you'll see that it's often a very complicated matter to determine who "did it." it's not just the tin-foil explainations (although that's more often than you may think) but also internal matters that are hard for us to perceive from this distance and without access to arab language reports.

the iraqi people were in a pressure cooker for many years under saddam. some of them still have old scores to settle, some of them are returned from abroad and looking to reestablish themselves in iraq. some of them take money/orders from outside entities, including our government.

and the original point of the article is right: the western media sucks in its coverage. if we saw how miserable things are for ordinary iraqis and our soliders on a daily basis on the news, this war would be over yesterday.

[Radius]

13. Iraqis?

Just which Iraqis are fighting is a good question.

Obviously not all of them, some are on our side.

Some are not on our side, some are not even iraqis. It takes no more resources to equip men with a rifle and grenades than to equip him with c4 and a remote detonator. Firing 80mm (or greater) mortars randomly has no millitary value and kills civillians.

The difference is that an infantry squad can pick its targets and kill them with aimed fire. Explosives are indescriminate, hence 26 dead people on a bus.

My point was narrow, you cant complain about bad press and then use tactics that kill random people. The rest of the arguements are out of the scope I addressed.

However anyone putting up ratios of civillian kills is speculating and has no basis in fact. I have not found any resource that breaks out how many civillians we kill vs how many "insurgents" kill

[xchrom]

16. how many innocents were killed in our own civil war?

we opened up this can of worms -- and we will have to live w/ the consequenses.
we have created all the groundwork for murder, mayhem, and unabated brutality all over iraq -- how arrogant of you to whine that the ''evil iraqis'' are killing each other -- isn't that what we intended -- because it sure as hell looks fuckin intentional now.
it's your tin foil that needs tightening, bub.

[Dhalgren]

17. The Us kills random people

yet complain about the press all the time. We drop bombs and use helicopters to wipe out wedding parties and then complain that no "good" news is being reported. Some Americans are just pissed because the insurgents are giving the US military such a hard time. Well, what did you expect? "Kisses?" "Flowers?" "Dancing in the streets?" Kool-aide anyone?

[Radius]

19. Intent?

Do you believe the US intentionally kills civillians? What is the gain achieved in killing civillians?

To the point:
Do you thing the cleric has a valid point, doesn't like bad press he gets for his tactics?

[xchrom]

20. hello? are you there? YES!

of course we intentionally kill innocent people -- you cannot physically impose your will on an unwilling population without doing so!
and make no fucking mistake -- the iraqis are unfuckingwilling.
that's what this war is all about -- delivering murder, mayhem and chaos -- because the idiot in the white house thought he knew better than everybody else.
this situation as it exists now will go on for years -- and that is the fault of the u.s.

[Radius]

22. I respectfully disagree

I have watched thousands of hours of raw feed from news services. Stuff that never makes the news. I have never seen an American, British, or other kill a civillian on purpose. I've seen people shot running checkpoints gaping head wounds and a child no older than 10 bleed to death, I've seen the people who shot them cry and throw up. It defies logic to kill civillians.

We do not bomb random peoples houses, carpet bomb cities with b-52's, we take prisoners, we do not shoot women, children, or anyone else randomly. We do not use car bombs to kill millitants. We use directed fire. 20mm cannon fire from a helicopter is directed. Bullet is about the size of an airplane shot bottle.

What ever happens in november this will still be an issue, undercutting all american troops based on bad acts of some will do no one any good.

John Kerry will have to continue the war, the people fighting us will still be the enemy, do you thing he is going to pull everyone out. He has stated he will not.

The sooner we leave there in an organized fashion with some form of stable government in place the better. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

[Dhalgren]

23. This sounds like what

the Nixon robot said to Kerry back in '72 on the "Dick Cavett Show" - "undercutting all american troops based on bad acts of some will do no one any good." Keep up the good work...

[Radius]

28. Solution?

What is an appropriate resolution to the problem?

Supporting people killing our troops is off the table for me. Sorry.

I saw that clip too.

But what I said is logical. Taking steps that endanger out troops (budget cuts, political involvement in the operations of war) are not the answer. That is not being proposed by either ticket.

I am serious about a better solution. Any ideas?

[saigon68]

36. What's this?

[Darranar]

40. "Taking steps that endanger our troops"...

includes keeping them in hostile territory in order to impose a colonial puppet government upon a people who have no wish to be ruled by a foreign power.

The answer is withdrawal now. Not four years from now, now. Not this instant - that's impossible - but as quickly as physically possible.

[Ms. Clio]

30. That is just totally incorrect--some U.S. soldiers have already admitted

to shooting civilians on purpose, for no reason. Why would you make such an outrageously false statement?

"The people fighting us will still be the enemy."

Yeah. When you blow the hell out of a country, the people who live there generally become your enemy.

[Radius]

35. Link

Some soldiers were tried and imprisoned for the same in ww2 and the civil war.

Do you have a link where a soldier admitted he commited murder on his on or under orders?

Intentionally killing civillians is not the policy of the US armed forces.

Do you think that it is?

[jayfish]

37. More Links For You (Updated x2)

Ex-U.S. Marine: I Killed Civilians in Iraq

<SNIP>
Jimmy Massey, a 12-year Marine Corps veteran from Waynesville, NC, was fed up with America's fight for democracy in Iraq. He was tired of watching his boys "light up" cars full of innocent civilians with their 50 cal's and M-16's. He couldn't forget how his paranoid, sleep-deprived soldiers opened fire on a group of unarmed protestors while he walked the lines making sure they had enough food and water. More than enough Iraqi babies had died in his arms after suffering wounds from American machine gun fire.
</SNIP>

Iraq: The Wedding Party Massacre

<SNIP>
One of the few people to live through the night was Haleema Shihab, the sister-in-law of the groom. She described to reporters from her hospital bed how she was sleeping in bed with her husband and children in the Rakat family villa when the bombs started to fall.

“We went out of the house and American soldiers started to shoot at us,” she said. “They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one.”

Picking up her youngest child in her arms, with two of her sons running at her side, she was hit by shrapnel from a shell that landed nearby fracturing her legs.

Her two boys were dead on the ground beside her and as she lay next to them she was wounded again when another round hit her in the arm. One of her children had been decapitated.

“I fell into the mud and an American soldier came and kicked me,” she said. “I pretended to be dead so he wouldn’t kill me. My youngest child was alive next to me.”
</SNIP>


The Neocon War on Peace and Freedom, Part 2

<SNIP>
In their book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, David Frum and Richard Perle’s attitude towards civilian casualties shines through in their brief discussion of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq from 1990 to 2003. During the first Gulf War, the United States intentionally destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure. A 1995 analysis in a U.S. Air Force magazine approvingly noted that as a result of U.S. bombing and the subsequent shutdown of water-purification and sewage-treatment plants, “epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.”
</SNIP>

Pentagon admits to 37 prisoner deaths

<SNIP>
The causes of death for captives range from being forced off a bridge by a US soldier, multiple gunshot wounds with complications, blunt force injuries, asphyxia and strangulation.
</SNIP>

<SNIP>
Among cases involving Iraqi and Afghani detainees, only one US soldier is known to have been disciplined. In that murder case, in September 2003, a soldier shot dead an Iraqi prisoner who was throwing rocks at him.
</SNIP>


American Marine "Ashamed" of Iraq Experience (More From Massey)

<SNIP>
Massey cited instructions of commanders disregarding lives of Iraq civilians as one of many reasons still driving him nuts. "Throw candies in the school courtyard, and open fire on children rushing to snatch them. Crush them," he recalled officers as saying during drills. The U.S. Marine said the message came always mixed to the ordinary Iraqis. He asserted that they would distributed foodstuffs and do other humanitarian activities for only three hours while spend the rest of the day fighting the Iraqis. "Once, we swept into one town and set up a checkpoint there. Next day we began our humanitarian mission." "Of course, they refused to take food from the same hands that had earlier killed their mothers or brothers." With self-tormenting memories, Massey turned down an offer to do paper works in the Marine Corps and insisted to resign though this lost him his pension. Massey can not even find solace in current news spreading out in media outlets on Iraq.
</SNIP>


Jay

[Radius]

46. Link

Got a news source.

Infoshop is not news. Sorry.

Al jiz, al arabia are accepted news sources. Some obviously biased website with no names or verfication is not news.

That is why I asked for links.

Wedding, accident. No intent to kill civillians. Mistake groundfire for hostile action.

Infoshop accuses murder under orders, fails on fact check.

With all due respect please cross refrence to a major newswire anywhere in the world.

[jayfish]

48. Whatever.

I saw that answer a mile away. Who are you to judge the credibility of a any news source? You asked for a link and you received one.

Jay

[Radius]

69. I got a link

that says martians come to earth to bang college girls.

This is a news site, if you post something in a news forum, back it up with a reasonable link.

You expect that link to pass as fact. Would you take a link like that from me at face value?

[Ms. Clio]

71. HELLOOOOOOOOO links for you below!

Suddenly cat got your tongue when it comes to FACTS, not propaganda?

[jayfish]

147. You Are Correct About Infoshop.

I should have read further into the page. I stand by the rest of the stories.

Jay

[Vladimir]

51. Mai Lai anyone? n/t

[Ms. Clio]

58. You know, I could search all my archives

And I have a feeling it just wouldn't matter.

Do you think the U.S. armed forces are made up of something other than human beings?

Do you study history? I do.

[Ms. Clio]

61. When you bomb a city, you are intentionally killing civilians

All your sophistry and deliberate refusal to acknowledge facts--like the fact that Sadr City, a part of Baghdad had been bombed just recently, despite your assertion that it hadn't been bombed in a long time--doesn't change reality.

And they won't change history.

(grammar edit)

[0007]

47. I suggest you view the "Convoy Of Death"

These are atrocities committed by Americans in Afghanistan. I hope you got the balls to check it out Radius!!

“Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death” Broadcast for the First Time Ever in the US: Eyewitnesses Testify that US Troops Were Complicit in the Massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban Prisoners During the Afghan War

The film has been broadcast on national television in countries all over the world and has been screened by the European parliament. Human rights lawyers are calling for investigation into whether U.S. forces are guilty of war crimes. But no U.S. media outlet has broadcast the film.

Today, on Democracy Now!, the U.S. broadcast premiere of a documentary film called “Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death.”

The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.

The film has sent shockwaves around the world. It has been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia. It has been screened by the European parliament. It has outraged human rights groups and international human rights lawyers. They are calling for investigation into whether U.S. Special Forces are guilty of war crimes.

But most Americans have never heard of the film. That’s because not one corporate media outlet in the U.S. will touch it. It has never before been broadcast in this country.

Today, Democracy Now! brings you the premiere broadcast of “Afghan Massacre” in the United States.

“Afghan Massacre” is produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran. Doran is has worked at the highest levels of television film production for more than two decades. His films have been broadcast on virtually every major channel throughout the world. On average, each of his films are seen in around 35 countries. Before establishing his independent television company, Jamie Doran spent over seven years at BBC Television.

The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who was beaten almost to death when he tried to obtain video evidence of US Special Forces’ complicity in the massacre. Two of the witnesses who testified in the film are now dead.

* “Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death” - produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 [phone].

[Darranar]

39. There is the intimidation aspect...

"See what happens when you resist imperial occupation? You die, and so do the people of your nation".

[Vladimir]

43. When you go to war

you do so intending to kill civilians, for it is inevitable that in the course of a war you will do so.

[Darranar]

42. What is "our" side?

When the US bombs population centers from the air - and they do - they are killing indiscriminantly. Bombs cannot tell the difference between "insurgents" and innocents, and those on those missions can't, either. While the US would like us to believe that all those killed are "insurgents", it simply isn't true.

What particular tactics do the "insurgents" use that you think directly kills so many civilians? Principally, the Iraqi nationalists are targeting US soldiers. That is not true of a variety of foreign terrorist groups that have found shelter in Iraq, and it is they who are the launchers of the car bombings.

[Ms. Clio]

59. Yes

I was under the impression the car and truck bombs were the work of (or being blamed on) that all-purpose bogeyman, al-Zarqawi.

Now suddenly everything is blamed on "Sadr terrorists."

[Sterling]

125. I don't see many on our side. In fact the ones that are on "our side"

Often end up taking the weapons training and intel we gave them and using it for the rebels.

Even the in the "crack" unit CNN featured that is suposed to be the most loyal to the new governement the interviewer was told by a soldier he would not fight against other Iraqi's. Does that encourage you? Do you really think we have substantial public support?

[0007]

10. No ticky no laundry. Need link!

[Darranar]

38. Um, Iraqi nationalists and foreign "Islamists" are different people...

this person is clearly talking about Iraqi nationalists.

It is the foreign "Islamists" who are believed to be responsible for the car bombings.

[Vladimir]

41. Iraqi on Iraqi? Is that the same as black on black?

Any Iraqi fighting the occupying forces or domestic collaborators is a freedom fighter IMO.

[Geo55]

123. # 5 from Websters

5. often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators.

What say you Mr. President?
I'm glad you asked....that's a real important question.....ya see , ya got resistance , which resists , an' ya have these terra ists who use resistance ta resist see?

[Ms. Clio]

127. Hehhehheh. Let me finish! Let me finish! n/t

[Magleetis]

6. I guess we

will never know the known knowns. We don't even know the unknown knowns anymore.

[tlcandie]

25. The fact is....

If the US had never invaded Iraq these deaths would not have occured. The fact is if the US media would report the TRUTH along with all pictures (torture, caskets arriving, those hospitalized, etc.) and interviews, facts about deaths, facts about Najaf and all that is disgusting about war instead of just the 'propaganda' photos and news then this person is very right on...

The mothers and daughters of the US would be out in the streets DEMANDING that we pull out of Iraq immediately!

The US media and the Iraq media (controlled by the US) is doing nothing but providing propaganda to lull people into a false sense of 'doing good and succeeding' period!

I can't remember which thread or where it is atm, but I can't get out of my mind the soldier who stated (verbatim),
"They finally disconnected, broke the tv, or whatever because it was so wrong that ever time the US news came on all the soldiers could do were to throw things towards the tv in disgust at the lies."

This is piped 24/7 into the troops via FOX. A majority of Americans are piped this same propganda.

Yes, this man has the right to decry foul when propaganda is used to hide the truth of a situation period.

[Dhalgren]

26. Thank you.

For putting the issue so plainly and well.

[Radius]

32. Al Jizeera and Al arabia

News are not sources of American propaganda.

News sources from NPR to the CSM as well as reuters and the arab media outlets are reporting that insurgents are using tactics that kill unarmed iraqis. Bombs and mortar fire are indiscriminate forms of killing.

He can not have his cake and eat it too. He can clean his image by switching to direct fire tactics and stop using bomb attacks that kill noncombatants. Five guys with rifles grenades and rpg's can cause just as much damage and not kill people they do not aim weapons at. They are certainly up against a superior force, but if they can plant a bomb they can use squad based attacks on soft police targets. 20 guys standing in line can be killed by 5 men with ak-47's, hand grenades and rpg's. It does not take 200lbs of c4 on a city street to do that. Of course the bomb has a psychological effect.

Above is direct rebuttal to the clerics position. (cited sources)
The scope of this article does ot go beyond that.

I've seen the footage, uncensored. It doesn't change the fact that we are committed. Neither ticket is willing to pull out of Iraq. No amount of gore will change that. Showing live combat and dead Americans may have the reverse effect, create a siege mentality. Showing a Palestinian father and his son being shot to death had zero effect on either side fighting in Israel.
A large part of the footage coming out of Iraq is boring. People driving around, Iraqis going about their business. Soldiers buying stuff, Iraqi police smoking and sitting around. The whole place is not a hornets nest. 25 million people have not revolted. Make a friend who works in TV and ask them to copy their live feeds from Iraq to tape for you.

[tlcandie]

34. And you can not have your cake and eat it too.

As I said.. enjoy your stay! :+

[Zhade]

95. ...however short it may be.

NT!

[0007]

49. Here's a good site for 'ya to check out that is from an Irish Journalist

that has world wide preeminence. Jamie Doran.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/23/1637201

[babylon_system]

50. English General Cornwallis decried American patriots' guerilla tactics

Boohoo. Why can't the enemy fight fair, i.e. on terms where we are superior?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radius]

56. Wrong again

Thanks for keeping it short.

Indescriminate killing by the US ot the "insurgents" is wrong. My point is that the guy cant use tactics that kill civillians and then complain the arab press is biased when they report it.

I never said the tactics don't work, or that we dont kill civillians unintentionally. I did make a point on intent. To date no one has linked a reliable source that shows americans intentionally kill civillians under orders.

BTW 20 million people died in ww2, the majority were civillians, a tragic waste of life.

[Ms. Clio]

57. Here's a link--make sure you read it all

http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=6831

Helen Williams from Gwent has been in Iraq for the past month. She reports here from Fallujah where she is helping to deliver humanitarian aid.

Falluja. 12 April 2004. On Friday night Lee and Ghareeb called to see us asking if any of us wanted to go to Fallujah to try to take aid in and get people out. They told us how they had been back and fro the past three days, how so many people were dying there and about human rights abuses being perpetrated by the soldiers.

(snip)

The hospital we went to was more of a clinic - Five beds in a row and a room at the back for the doctors. We unloaded the aid and Maky, the hospital manager who spoke English, told us of recent events there. He said how Fallujah badly needed more aid - they were running short of all sorts of medicine and hospital/surgical equipment - indeed the city was completely out of any pain relief or anaestetic.

He also told us about the American soldiers shooting at ambulances and he showed us their last ambulance shot at this morning - it had bullet holes in the front and back windows and on the roof, but it was still being used, there was no choice. And he told us about the horrific casualty numbers and the terrible injuries being sustained by people there.

Antother aid worker there repeated the same. We went into the hosptial. Suddenly a young boy was brought in. He had been shot in the head by an American sniper while his family had tried to leave their house waving a white flag. His parents were grief stricken, his father covered in his son's blood.

They told us to film their dying son, I hated to, but I took his photo and I have emailed it to Kevin so you can see what the Americans are doing in Fallujah. At the same time, a middle aged woman was brought in - she had been shot in the abdomen and chest - we could hear her lungs filled with blood as she tried to breath - she later died too - I have also sent her photo. She had come into the sight of a sniper and he had indiscrimainatley shot her - a woman in her chadoor, not a fighter, no gun in hand.

[Ms. Clio]

62. Stories, some with links, some without

Feel free to cast doubt on your own credibility by charging me with concocting them.



FT.com Financial Times
Eyewitness: "The marines shot anything they considered a threat"
By Paul Eedle in Baghdad
Published: April 10 2003 23:26 | Last Updated: April 10 2003 23:26

Continuing attacks on US forces in Baghdad by Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes produced a deadly response on Thursday, as nervous soldiers of the US 5th Marines opened fire repeatedly, hitting unarmed men, women and children.

Three times in three hours I saw troops who had seized one of Saddam Hussein's small palaces open fire, killing five people and wounding five - among them a six-year-old girl who was shot in the head.

(snip)

The marines shot anything that they considered remotely a threat. An old blue Volkswagen came up an alley opposite the palace gate. A marine on top of the stone-clad arch of the gate opened fire and the car crashed into a wall.

We heard screaming from the alley. None of the US troops moved. If it had not been for Mohammed Fatnan, an Iraqi translator with the UK's Channel 4 News, the Americans would not have treated the casualties. Mr Fatnan crossed the road outside the palace under the guns of two marine armoured fighting vehicles and came back carrying a young girl, Zahra Abdel-Samii', bleeding from the head.

In the alley, a man who had run on to his balcony upon hearing gunfire had been shot dead. Men wailing "There is no God but God" were hauling him into the back seat of a car in a blanket.


Witnesses Say U.S. Troops Shoot Dead Iraqi Man
May 9
— BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A 56-year-old Iraqi man was shot dead on Friday by U.S. troops after a U.S. army patrol shoved his car onto the pavement, Iraqi witnesses said.

It was unclear why the soldiers opened fire. A U.S. soldier at the scene declined comment.

A Reuters photographer, who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, saw the body of a man slumped in the driving seat with a fatal wound to the head.

Khaled Taleb Mehdi, a mechanic who said he witnessed the shooting, said the victim was Khaled Lahoumi Ahmed. He identified the man from his identification card.

U.S. military vehicles pushed the car onto the pavement before troops approached the car and opened fire, Mehdi said.

'They shot him without any reason. Why did they shoot him? He didn't do anything. What did he do? We don't know,' Mehdi said.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030509_75.html


Bloodshed and bullets fuel rising hatred of Americans

Ed Vulliamy visits the street in Fallujah where US troops opened fire on the innocent

Sunday May 4, 2003
The Observer

A crowd gathered outside the al-Ani's house last week, demanding that the Americans leave the school over the road so that children can return. The military opened fire, killing 13 and wounding some 35; they claimed they were shot at first.

But even if shots were aimed at them, the response was not only into the crowd; they pummelled the street, house by house, with a mighty volley and shot at occupants as they appeared in doorways.

Each of the brothers came out in turn to try and help their families and were each targeted and shot. Walid was killed and the two others wounded, along with their mother, Mufina, and her daughter-in-law, Eptisan al-Ani. In a few minutes, said Eptisan's husband, Muthana, now in the hospital bed opposite his brother, 'our family is destroyed'.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,949043,00.html

NOTICE THAT THIS HAPPENED IN FALLUJAH A YEAR AND A HALF AGO



Christian Science Monitor
April 04, 2003 edition
PETER DEJONG/AP

Contrary to policy, US forces occupy schools and church

Experts say the move, which began four days ago in a northern Iraqi town, may violate international law.

(snip)

This reporter witnessed the Humvees stopping outside a girls' school - currently closed because of the war - heaving their backpacks over a cement fence into the playground. On the roof of a Christian church next door, US troops were setting up communications equipment.

The entrance to a nearby boys' school had been reinforced with sandbags and armed Kurdish militiamen, pesh merga, were on guard outside. A boys' school was also seen being occupied by US forces, and local residents say three schools - all closed - now house US troops.

(snip)

Alfred Rubin, a professor of international law at Tuft's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, says the US actions may violate The Hague Convention, which compels combatants to take "...all necessary steps to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, charitable purposes, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected."

"It's a pretty stupid thing to do," says Mr. Rubin. "It does make the thing a target for enemy guerrillas and enemy operations."

[Ms. Clio]

63. My goodness, you've gone quiet all the sudden

Can't complain about my links, can you?

[babylon_system]

65. Only our enemies are evil. That's what makes us good guys.

Yeah, right.

[Ms. Clio]

66. Just like the Native Americans

I have the feeling some people who post here would have no trouble with the idea that the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi.

[babylon_system]

67. Chauvinism is a unique mental illness

Only American lives have value to these "patriots" who argue whether the laws of war were followed, whether the tens of thousands of killed and injured were killed and injured "legally".

As if Americans have any right to be in Iraq, let alone killing people in Iraq, at all.
As if the whole war isn't an atrocity from beginning to end.
As if our glorious warriors should never be blamed for following orders.
As if it wasn't planned long before 9/11 and they stole the 2000 election.....

[Ms. Clio]

70. Damn straight, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

I look forward to reading your posts.

[Radius]

73. nope

I have other things to do.

I read your links, that stuff sucks. But you do not have a link that states American, British, Polish, etc soldiers are under orders to kill civillins. Stupid does not form intent.

Thank you for posting them. I had not seen some of these before..

[Ms. Clio]

74. You know, you keep changing the language

Now you say, "under orders."

Before it was, they don't shoot "indiscriminately" or "intentionally."

[babylon_system]

79. Slippery logic, tendentious arguments, biased interpretations

I'm glad I never went to law school.

[Radius]

136. Still say

US does not use indescriminate force against civillians as a rule. It is illegal. It is not part of the plan. If it happens it is wrong.

You cant condemn the allied army for the soldiers in ww2 who comitted crimes, including murder and rape.

[Ms. Clio]

141. You can still say it, but it's not convincing

I could post many many similar incidents of wanton attacks on civilians--at what point, after how many dead and maimed, does it become clear that it actually was part of the plan?

I don't know how prevalent that kind of murder and rape by allied forces was during WW2. But I study American history, and I have yet to read of an American Abu Ghraib in Germany or Japan.

[Zhade]

96. The Observer sucks? Yeah, we know just what you are now.

Go read today's NewsMax or the Moonie Times, or you'll fall behind!

[babylon_system]

64. Here's a story about a US serviceman killing POWs under orders

For those who still labor under the "Why do they hate us?" delusion that America can do no wrong.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/11/145205

Three weeks later on June 22nd, Jeffrey Lucey took his own life. He was 23 years old. His father, Kevin came home to find his son had hung himself with a hose in the cellar of their house. The dog tags of two Iraqi prisoners he said he was forced to shoot unarmed, lay on his bed.

[Radius]

139. Nice unbiased source..

This is a news based forum. Link to a real news wire. There are plenty of outlets for verified news. If this was verifiable the wires would LOVE it.
Not LBN source and not verified news. Any national wire service, hell North Korea state media is more reliable than this...

indymedia, rense, come on.

cross ref to an accountable source please.

[Ms. Clio]

152. Democracy Now is a respectable and respected source

In no way comparable to indymedia or rense.

[babylon_system]

68. More testimonials of US war crimes for your records

Tell me when to stop......

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2127

"We shot a man with his hands up," he said, "We even shot women and children."

Massey was one of three Iraq War veterans to speak yesterday at a forum sponsored by the Veterans Education Project and the American Friends Service Committee.

[Ms. Clio]

72. He doesn't like our links, babylon_system

Why do you think that is?

[Radius]

75. Because I'm back from getting a beer after work

Your links are fine. Thanks. I'm looking for the link that says CENTOM authorizes us millitary to kill civillians. Original orders or instructions.

I did not say civillians are not killed, I said we do not kill them as policy. Obviously civillians will die in war.

This is something to come to terms with, they will be dying on november 3 under a democratic president. How do we address the problem then? We can't just up and fucking leave. No viable candidate has suggested that.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me a freeper, troll, warmongering, blood worshipping demon, etc.

[DrWeird]

80. Hey, nobody said you were a freeper.

We're just saying people like you are responsible for things like this:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

120. At least I don't support the war.

I don't support shit like above.

I know that much about you.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

81. We will either up and leave, or we will be thrown out

That's what it will come down to in the end.

And just stop it about links saying CENTCOM authorizes any of thus. As if there are any such links. You keep moving the goal post, and I'm tired of playing.

And I didn't accuse you of being anything.

[babylon_system]

82. We will claim a great victory

When we are eventually thrown out.

Mission Accomplished, Really this Time!

[drdtroit]

154. "Just because I disagree with you does not make me a freeper ..."

... troll, warmongering, blood worshipping demon, etc."

Then why is it you have such a hardon for American military might and would basically obtain nirvana by having the insurgents line up and be slaughtered.

Put the video games down son.

[babylon_system]

77. Dinner served at the Pentagon cafeteria? n/t

[Ms. Clio]

86. snarf!

[Radius]

106. Yeah

I'm actually posting from Langley virginia. I'm here to spy on you and spread propaganda. cointelpro has been refunded..

And alcoa stock jumps a point.

[babylon_system]

124. You better get back to work then

Before your boss finds out that you've been outed.

[Radius]

131. Im a cia sub contractor

I got a no bid contract to steal the election by posting on this message board. I'm my own boss, ha!

Just don't tell anyone ok, they might come kill me..

[babylon_system]

132. Diebold will put you out of business

They just cut out all the middlemen, including Jeb. Hope your skills are transferable.

[Radius]

140. jesus

Joke..I am not a federal agent or impersonating one..I'm sure the pay sucks..

But I'm using a paper ballot.

How someone can fuckup code for something as simple as counting votes..

Read they used an access back end, that says it all..

[babylon_system]

145. Iraqis will appreciate our assistance with vote tabulation

Saddam used to win 99% of the vote and Mubarak in Egypt still wins election after election that way. \\ Now when Allawi rigs the election with 89% of the vote, it will look like US style democracy has arrived.

Paper ballots didn't help in Florida last time anyway. I'm sure the system will be more smoothly rigged this time around so that no one notices and there won't be that awkward need to go to the Supreme Court to select the president this time, assuming that the election isn't cancelled when Tom Ridge declares a red alert.

[drdtroit]

153. Do you seriously think that any of these "reporters"

are actually out in the "hood" filming? They are filming in the "free filming" zones. You are very young grasshopper.

[PATRICK]

60. This has the emotional feel

of truth in that the way it is phrased is not propaganda from the "other side" but a rending knowledge of the children fighting, the innocent victims, the commitment of the Resistance to liberation, not subverting OUR "freedom" dedicated new state.

In the past you could always tell propaganda and cover. This is neither.
And if this is commonly spreading in Iraq, simply crushing one pocket or another will never work.

Our media is soaked in blood, lies and blind cowardice.

[Radius]

76. This is sourced from Arab media(NT)

[babylon_system]

78. I only trust Israeli media / intelligence sources myself

Because they are our allies and share our common values.
/sarcasm

[Ms. Clio]

83. Al-Jazeera is a respected news organization, made up of former BBC

journalists.

And what do you have against "Arab media?" Do you think it's all one monolithic block, "Arab media?" Is that like the world conspiracy of Jewish bankers, "Arab media?"

[babylon_system]

85. al-Jazeera is the enemy, didn't you hear?

That's why the US bombed their offices in Afghanistan and Iraq, killing their journalists in the process (another war crime).

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/582
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653887.stm

[Ms. Clio]

87. And the er, "Iraqi government" shut them down, didn't they?

Truth is a dangerous thing to tyrants.

[babylon_system]

88. One man's democracy is another man's tyranny

Welcome to the New World Order.

[Ms. Clio]

89. Thanks just the same, but can I have the Old World Order back?

The one where the U.S. could at least pretend to be the good guy, with some moral authority, and people still got paid overtime?

[xchrom]

84. your view of america is warped and sick

the war was started for a known lie.
making ALL the deaths murder in mass numbers.
we have historically, and iraq is now a part of this, brutalized millions of people around the globe by physical means.
we used praganda to ramp up american emotion before the war and got abu ghraib -- and you of course will claim an isolated incident. why? because it's america -- that is plain insane.
you need to get a grip on reality -- but i doubt you will.
you can say it isn't murder all you want -- it will never make it so.

[Radius]

90. All I replied with is that it was Arab Media

Go ahead and draw all the conclusions you want..
Yeah the war was started with bad information.

What are we going to do to fix the problem? This problem will exist after the election and no matter who wins it will still need to be addressed. We can not walk away now. That is my point.

[Ms. Clio]

91. Yes, we can walk away. It's just that simple.

Put the gun back in the holster, turn, and walk away.

Problem solved.

Or do you think that after someone breaks into your house, trashes all your belongings, steals all your money, rapes your wife and kills your kid, the perp should stay and help clean up the mess?

[babylon_system]

97. The US military should immediately withdraw from the Mideast

US government should pay reparations through international relief organizations as compensation for crimes against Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, this will never happen as long as the industrialized world is dependent on Mieast oil and as long as the Arab/Israeli conflict remains unresolved.

Those are the over-arching factors that have kept and will continue to keep the US bogged down in Mideast military conflicts regardless of which political party is in power.

[Ms. Clio]

103. Of course, the U.S. is not going to withdraw in any sane or respectable

fasion. They aren't building 14 bases to turn them over to any real, legitimate Iraqi government.

It's all geostrategic, of course, with one of the main purposes being to control the oil, and deny it to rivals, such as China.

[babylon_system]

117. The Iraqi resistance will eventually succeed in ousting the occupation

Just like the Vietnamese defeated the French and American occupation of their country. It's only a matter of time and bloodshed. It is inevitable. The sooner we leave, the better it will be for everyone. The longer the occupation, the more destructive it will be for Iraqis, Americans and the whole region.

[Ms. Clio]

121. I tend to think so, too

But when I was running over the history of imperial projects in my head, I had to conclude, sadly, that sometimes the occupiers don't leave, at least not for hundreds of years.

England invaded Ireland something like 500 years ago--the same for Spain's invasion of what is now Mexico.

Unforunately,sometimes colonialism works for the colonizers.

I don't think it will in this case, but I can't completely rule it out.

[babylon_system]

122. Times have changed. The Era of Colonialism is over

Israel is the last bastion of neo-colonialism. And that occupation is partly responsible for driving the US into occupying Iraq. When either of these occupations collapses, the other will quickly follow.

[Ms. Clio]

128. And World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars, too

And maybe "classic" colonialism is just morphing into something else?

Ah, but don't mind me, I'm just a contrarian--and I do hope you are right.

[Geo55]

133. "but I can't completely rule it out."

Ahhh...but I do....we will never abandon the OIL bases....(the REAL motive behind this human tragedy.)

[Ms. Clio]

138. Not willingly abandon, no, I think you are probably right

But maybe get thrown the hell out, although that could take years.

[Geo55]

148. I believe when things get real tight in global energy supply (OIL)

we will drop the colorful and inspiring "liberation" , "bringing freedom & democracy" facade and just barricade & patrol the OIL infrastucture.....economic survival will trump all in the near future.

[xchrom]

92. you have suggested far more than ''we can't walk away''

what's with all the intent crap?
yes this is a problem we{bush} have created.
but there is no solution we can get to as long as it's done with our troops.
iraq is destined for civil strife whether we stay or go -- and go we must.
WE are responsible for doing our best to fix thousands of broken lives we have created there -- but make no mistake -- it's been nothing but murder.
and it wasn't just bad information -- it was bush's malicious manipulation of facts that has killed so many people.

[Radius]

94. No one is walking away,

Kerry suggests bringing in nato and increasing troop numbers. Speeding up elections there. We have to execute some type of plan.

If we just leave the place will decend into bedlam and complete choas.

The CIA and MI6 published information regarding intelligence failures. I dont think the evil had of bush touches MI6..

[Zhade]

98. Bravo! Keep reminding us of Kerry's support for the war!

Maybe that way you can drive a few people to Nader...as I'm sure you'd love.

Go back where you came from. We know what you are. Or, if you're not that, you're really, REALLY misinformed. The kind of misinformed that enables more Iraqis and soldiers to get killed.

Must be a warm feeling, eh?

[babylon_system]

100. Unfortunately, he is right on this point

There is little substantive difference between Kerry and Bush on the US occupation of Iraq, much to the disgust of the anti-war community, the greens, Dean and Nader supporters.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/kerr-j17.shtml
Kerry’s statements are only the most glaring demonstration of a remarkable and instructive political fact. Although the majority of the American people now regard the US invasion of Iraq as a mistake, and well over 40 percent believe that US troops should be withdrawn immediately, the official two-party system has conspired to produce a presidential election campaign in which there is no outlet for antiwar public opinion.

[Ms. Clio]

105. I know--it's horrifying, really

I can only hope that after he is elected some of that anti-war pressure in the ranks will force him to change those policies.

(It's a mighty slim hope, however)

[Zhade]

109. Yes, he is, but only on that point.

The rest sounds like cleverly-disguised propaganda.

[babylon_system]

110. There are pro-military, pro-war Democrats

Some of them think that the USA should conquer the Mideast to defend Israel. Lieberman, for instance.

[Zhade]

114. Ahhhh - Vichy Democrats.

Supports of a policy initiated by a traitor. Enablers, in other words.

Gee, I think I hate that kind of betrayal even more than Freepers. At least Freepers are honest about their willingness to betray America's ideals.

[Radius]

112. Are

you suggesting my posting to this forum will have an effect on events in Iraq. That is insane.

I'm posting public information. This is not designed to be more than a simple arguement. If this forum is not accepting of a moderate position then please kill my account.

My point is that Iraq will not go away, turning a blind eye and not addressing a real exit strategy with real goals is a mistake. I hold the opinion that american soldiers do not as a whole commit wanton murder of noncombatants. My opinion. I'm sure plenty of you dis agree. That doesn't mean I'm here to mess with you or your beliefs.

Anyone that would vote for Nader is an idiot (sorry if i offend) you might as well write in Michael Jackson.

Please lower your guns, I'm not attacking you or your position. The links people posted are informative, some of it I have never seen. And I read and see a ton of news. I really appreciate the links people posted.

[Zhade]

119. The forum is fine with moderate positions. Many here are moderates.

You seem to be accepting propaganda instead of reality. That's the problem, not your alleged moderate status.

However, if you truly are learning, then you will come to understand why your responses are viewed with skepticism, because you will start to see the truth. I'll grant that you may be trying to learn, and so I will retract my suspicion of you for now.

Here's hoping you're willing to see through the corporate media lies and propaganda. If you are, kudos. We'll see, eh?

[babylon_system]

99. "the place will decend into bedlam and complete choas."

Nothing that the US military can't solve with AC-130 gunships, Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks killing off any nationalistic Iraqis who oppose the US imposition of law and order. Right?

[Ms. Clio]

101. I don't have a crystal ball, and I don't think you do, either

I don't know what will happen if the U.S. pulls out--probably some sort of civil war. But it's clear that staying will only bring more bedlam and even more complete chaos. And I think there's a real touch of racism and ethnocentrism in the notion that the Iraqis can't figure out what to do with their own country without the dubious assistance of the nation that destroyed it in the first place.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about the CIA and MI6 at all?

[Radius]

107. Britain

went to war as well. MI6, their CIA acted on similar information our cia passed on to the intelligence committee and the pres.

MI6 described its failure in intelligence gathering, namely relying on to few human sources, in a report to Parliament. I'm sure the BBC has it available.

[babylon_system]

111. I'm sure that the UK would not have attacked Iraq unilaterally

The UK follows the USA's lead in imperial adventures. The sun has set on their empire but they can still pick up a few crumbs from their former colony, the world's latest imperial power.

[Ms. Clio]

115. What does that have to do with leaving Iraq, though?

And in fact (and I have links to the news stories from before the war, although it would take me a little while to find them) the CIA had information that Saddam probably did not have WMDs capable of threatening the U.S. It was the Office of Special Plans that cooked the intelligence, not any real intelligence "failure."

It has also been a scandal in Britian that Blair and his boys likewise "massaged" and distorted intelligence.

[Dhalgren]

113. Don't worry,

he didn't understand it either.

[Radius]

116. MI6

Gathers intelligence. Their intelligence stated Iraq presented an immediate threat to Great Britian, the qoute "45 minute WMD response times" was used. This created a stir after it turned out to be false. This was a counter to a response that Bush engineered the intelligence community (CIA). Even if he did, he did not control MI6.

[Dhalgren]

126. So, are you suggesting that Britain would have invaded

Iraq without US force? Or are you saying that MI6 is above colluding with an allied power for geopolitical gain (no matter how misguided)?

[Radius]

135. None of the above

Suggesting MI6 drew similar but different conclusion than the CIA. They did not blame the cia in their review. Given the chance they would probably be happy to say the americans gave us bad intel. They got their own independent bad intel.

The probability of one person exerting control over a foreign intelligence service is remote. Collusion requires communication, and intelligence agencies watch each other, supposedly..

[Ms. Clio]

137. You are missing the point--there was no "bad intell"

There was perfectly good intelligence that was misused by those who profited from that misuse.

There was intelligence that was ignored, and there was more intelligence that was distorted by the Office of Special Plans (do you even know what that is?) and by Tony Blair's British equivalent.

These are facts.

[Radius]

142. That is not

the conclustion presented to the parliment. MI6 would have loved to blame the cia. They got burned, they passed faulty info directly to the prime minister. I know what the osp is. We will never know what was passed along for a long time. It all falls under classified umbrella.

Facts can be documented, if you don't mind, link.

However I doubt you will find anything concrete because all relevant information is classified. Here enters probability. What is the probability that MI6 and CIA, DIA, NSA and others all collaborated to produce information that skewed the decision making process in congress?

Signing off, dishes dont wash themselves. I am looking forward to your reply and keep an open mind.

[Ms. Clio]

150. I'm finding this a curiously frustrating conversation

I never said all those agencies collaborated to produce information that skewed anything.

I'm saying that the information they did produce was deliberately skewed by Rumsfeld's OSP and Tony Blair's team.

There were reports in both American and British newspapers before the war that the CIA was being pressured to produce the intelligence that the White House wanted to hear. There were reports about the use of that intelligence by the OSP. I have the links or stories, but don't have time to look for them tonight.

Perhaps tomorrow.

[babylon_system]

143. The occupation of Iraq was planned long ago

Long before 9/11, long before the 2000 election, the PNAC cabal was drawing up the neo-con ideological platform for a unilateral US invasion and occupation. 9/11 served as a convenient pretext. The so-called "intelligence" information about Iraq's WMDs, used to convince the US public and the world that an unprovoked attack on Iraq was justified, was an out and out sham from the very start. Anyone who claims that the Iraq war was prompted by "bad intelligence" is either a fool or a neo-conman.

The intelligence was not "bad". No one was fired or reprimanded for mistakenly sending US forces into an unnecessary war that has so far killed untold tens of thousands and will perpetuate a cycle of violence that will kill many more. The intelligence was "good" because it served its intended purpose of providing a pretext for war for those who wanted war but could not gain popular consent based on their real motives.

[Ms. Clio]

149. Indeed, I even have a link

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President




By Neil Mackay



A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.



I also remember reading before the war that the CIA was being pressured to come up with the "good" intelligence. And that the intell they did provide was being reshaped and distorted by Rumsfeld's OSP.

[Dhalgren]

144. You must be joking. Either that or you are being

intentionally obtuse. Two different "intelligence" organization who are linked through historical aliences and through current organizations both get the intel wrong - and not only wrong, but identically wrong on the same subject, with the same conclusions? But there was no collusion? "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

"The probability of one person exerting control over a foreign intelligence service is remote." Really? Upon what do you base that little truism? And who said anything about "one person"?

There's gulible and then there is stupid and then there is intent to obfuscate - we can only surmise the truth, here.

[Amazin]

155. Man's inhumanity to man

The souls that have killed will weep.Some will be comforted by their victims.

[seventhson]

134. Al Jazeera's a legit news service and has way more credibility than CNN

or any of the other corporate news whores.

Go see "The Control Room" and tell me whose lying: Al Jazeera OR cnn.

I WOULD TRUST JAZEERA BEFORE I'D TRUST THE NYTIMES THESE DAYS

[standardClass]

108. Why can't we believe everything al-Irshad and al-Fatwa Association says

I don't know? Shouldn't we just trust al-Irshad and al-Fatwa Association to give us a complete and unbiased report on the state of affairs in Iraq? Are they not the only source we need?

[Ms. Clio]

118. The source is al-Jazeera

And they are a respected news organization.

How about Fox News? Are they the only source you need?

[Gloria]

146. More on the resistance from The Jordan TImes, just posted in

the World Media Watch.....

1//The Jordan Times, Jordan Wednesday, August 25, 2004

http://www.jordantimes.com/wed/news/news7.htm



‘RESISTANCE ORGANISING, RESTRAINS ZARGAWI’



AMMAN (AFP) — The resistance to US and foreign troops in Iraq is becoming unified and now controls 70 per cent of attacks, one of its leaders told AFP, adding that extremist Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi had been given an ultimatum for violating its ideology.



“There is one leadership comprising Iraqis and other Arab nationals which heads 70 per cent of the operations being carried out in Iraq against the Americans and those who cooperate with them,” said the source, who had close ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden up until three years ago.



The Iraq-based source, who declined to be identified and met an AFP correspondent in an Arab country outside Iraq, said “Zarqawi was given an ultimatum by the leadership of the resistance.

“They threatened to quash him by force” after he repeatedly violated Islamic ideology, and “the leadership of the resistance banned Zarqawi from publishing communiques and from violating ,” he said.



He claimed that the beheading of US hostage Nicholas Berg attributed to Zarqawi in May had not been welcomed by the resistance leadership.



(SNIP)



“Our religion does not tolerate killing for the sake of killing. There must be proof of involvement” in pro-US activity, he said.



Killing Iraqi policemen or national guards “is legitimate because they are servile agents in the pay of the Americans and responsible for the death of hundreds of Iraqis,” he said.


MORE

[Ms. Clio]

151. two words: "Arab media"

/sarcasm

That's very interesting, though. Almost sounds like the resistance has hired a PR firm to clean up their image, get their viewpoint out there.

[Disturbed]

156. "Civilian deaths"

The Iraqi insurgency could be more careful and try harder not to kill non-combatants. Just how they could do this is out of my expertise, not knowing a lot about weapons and actual combat. Sometimes this may be impossible but an effort could be made, at least.

Of course there is no "official" policy to kill non-combatants. When missles or bombs are dropped on houses in residential areas to kill suspected "terrorists" or "insurgents" that may be in those houses the intent is not to kill or maim non-combatants, however it is fairly obvious that non-combatants will probably be killed or maimed in doing these things. This is called colateral damage but in reality it is killing or maiming civilians and it is done on a frequent basis. Some people say that the opposition shouldn't be fighting from those loacations so it's their fault if civilians get killed. Where else should the resistance be fighting from?

News coverage from the US reporters could be a whole lot better.

[Ms. Clio]

157. There are so many players in this horrific mess

And, as someone suggested earlier in the thread, it's not even beyond the realm of possibility that some of the bombs (like the one that killed the UN guy)are the work of the U.S. The one thing that is clear is that innocent people are dying who would still be alive if the U.S. had never invaded their country in the first place.

You are so right about the "official" policy--it's cynical and sickening beyond belief. If they didn't want to kill civilians, they wouldn't bomb houses.

The idea that the Iraqi rebels should all just grab a gun and form up a line and march out to be slaughtered by tank and gunship is just ludicrous--does no one remember that the British also complained about the "cowardly" Americans who fought like "savage" Indians by hiding behind trees, etc.?