[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3351915.stm

The US official running Iraq appears to have contradicted Tony Blair's claim Saddam Hussein had laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction.

The prime minister said in a Christmas message to UK troops that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed "massive evidence" of clandestine labs.

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority said it was not true.

Paul Bremer said it sounded like a "red herring" made up by someone to upset the rebuilding effort.

But Mr Bremer seems to have been unaware that the quotes had come from Mr Blair when they were put to him in an interview on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.

"I don't know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said," he said.

"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that.

"It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."

However when it was pointed out the remarks had come from the leader of the US's closest ally, Mr Bremer seemed to pull back from his original remarks.

"There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public," he said

It appears that the goal posts are now moving so fast that even the players on the pitch are having a hard time keeping up.

[lil'babykitten]

......or should that be ? to think that we have a bunch of total ****wits running our countries?

[AKcrab]

Should be this one:

[MathewM]

It's hard to make sense out of article that is written in sound bites. It's like those movie ads where they quote the critic with ellipses:
"most spectacular....this year" The critic could of filled the blank with "trainwreck" but with a little creative spin done by the marketers (here by the liberally biased BBC) you have something totally different.

Both Bremer and Blair have their hands full right now and are doing their best to make the best out of the situation. There is bound to be some confusion over semantics.

I believe that they are the good guys in this war on terrorism and will trust their leadership skills in doing the right thing.

[christ]

Originally posted by MathewM:
I believe that they are the good guys in this war on terrorism and will trust their leadership skills in doing the right thing.

Are there fairies at the bottom of your garden?

And I'll bet that Santa came to yu this year as well, didn't he.

[Ayelbourne]

This might be an appropriate place to re-ask a question I posed in an earlier thread...

To wit: if US intelligence was so good before the war - that they could claim certain knowledge of not only the existence of proscribed weapons, but also the location! - then why, now that the US military is actually there and running the country, is the intelligence suddenly so lacking?

Can someone enlighten me as to why this might be?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Can someone enlighten me as to why this might be?

Because the government consists of a bunch of liars?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Because the government consists of a bunch of liars?

Well, yes.. there is that...

[MacGorilla]

Does anyone actually know whats going in Iraq?

[christ]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Does anyone actually know whats going in Iraq?

It doesn't matter, because so many Americans:

"believe that [the Allied leaders] are the good guys in this war on terrorism and will trust their leadership skills in doing the right thing"

(to quote a guy from above)

If you just elect someone, and then 'trust them to do the right thing', then it doesn't matter whether they know what is going on, they will get it right by magic.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
To wit: if US intelligence was so good before the war - that they could claim certain knowledge of not only the existence of proscribed weapons, but also the location! - then why, now that the US military is actually there and running the country, is the intelligence suddenly so lacking?

the intellegence we had was probably some of the best out there with lots of credible evidence and some questionable evidence. too bad it wasn't the best intellegence the administration chose to use.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Does anyone actually know whats going in Iraq?

Watch and read the news from all sources.
Outside of getting a plane ticket to Baghdad it's the easiest way.

Interesting that even after the capture of a known criminal such as Sadaam Hussein so many people on this board still side with him.

I can see how we disagree on this issue.

[adamk]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Interesting that even after the capture of a known criminal such as Sadaam Hussein so many people on this board still side with him.

if you want to meet those people, you would need that plane ticket that you were talking about.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by adamk:


if you want to meet those people, you would need that plane ticket that you were talking about.

A ticket to the Sunni Triangle? No thanks.

Fine, those who sympathize with the plight of Islamic extremists.

Does that make you feel better?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MathewM:
A ticket to the Sunni Triangle? No thanks.

Fine, those who sympathize with the plight of Islamic extremists.

Does that make you feel better?

Islamic extremists? - in Iraq? That's new. Must be one of those benefits of the invasion/occupation that we keep hearing about.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Islamic extremists? - in Iraq? That's new. Must be one of those benefits of the invasion/occupation that we keep hearing about.

Suicide bombers. Yes they exist.

Interesting how Arafat seems to be shipping them out. Notice how there hasn't been any attacks recently in Israel?

Also interesting how easily they 'slipped' into Iraq and are being aided by left over regements of Hussein's army.

Very interesting.

But of course Sadaam was an honorable human being. He would of never had ties to such a group.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Notice how there hasn't been any attacks recently in Israel?

Really?

[MathewM]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Really?

Thanks for pointing that out.

However it does not change my stance on the situation.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Suicide bombers. Yes they exist.

Interesting how Arafat seems to be shipping them out. Notice how there hasn't been any attacks recently in Israel?

Also interesting how easily they 'slipped' into Iraq and are being aided by left over regements of Hussein's army.

Very interesting.

But of course Sadaam was an honorable human being. He would of never had ties to such a group.

When did suicide bombers automatically become 'Islamic extremists'?

When did the Palestinian cause become 'Islamic extremism'?

When did Palestinians start shipping themselves all the way to Iraq to blow themselves up?

[MathewM]

Originally posted by eklipse:
When did suicide bombers automatically become 'Islamic extremists'?

When did the Palestinian cause become 'Islamic extremism'?

When did Palestinians start shipping themselves all the way to Iraq to blow themselves up?

Time to pull your head out of the spider hole.

Yes there are suicidal bombing Islamic Extremists.

And yes I believe that it takes an extremist to blow ones self up. Regardless of religious affiliation.

Do I sympathize with those people? No.
Do I blame Israel and the United States for these people's actions? No.
Do I think the world would be a better place without them? Yes.

Besides crazy anti-abortion activists and the kamikazes of WWII please point out what other current groups are willing to blow themselves up besides Islamic extremists?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to play PC with you.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Besides crazy anti-abortion activists and the kamikazes of WWII please point out what other current groups are willing to blow themselves up besides Islamic extremists?

When did repelling invaders/occupiers from one's homeland become 'Islamic extremism'?

Please point out what other current groups are living under occupation.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Interesting that even after the capture of a known criminal such as Sadaam Hussein so many people on this board still side with him.

I can see how we disagree on this issue.

Whoa, there, Tex - who said anything about siding with Hussein? I am not aware of anyone on this forum who "sides" with him or his regime. Asking a question about the quality of US intelligence information in occupied Iraq does not equate support for Hussein, nor do I see any other comment in this thread that would indicate such a stance on someone's part.

Do you have a response - theory, conjecture, anything - to my question? That's what I'd be interested in...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
When did repelling invaders/occupiers from one's homeland become 'Islamic extremism'?

My understanding is that the main victims of the bombers in Iraq have been other Iraqis (mostly civilian), as well as international aid workers, and foreign diplomats. That sounds pretty extreme to me. Certainly not something that a legitimate resistance does.

I don't know whether it is religiously-motivated, or simply motivated by a desire to reenstate the murderous Ba'athist regime. But either way, such tactics are completely unjustifiable under any circumstances. Let's not turn what are clearly a bunch of heartless murderers into heros here.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...I don't know whether it is religiously-motivated, or simply motivated by a desire to reenstate the murderous Ba'athist regime...

My guess is probably neither. It is probably a desire to be rid of the occupying force. Said occupiers are too hard a target themselves, so the 'soft target' is 'sympathisers'.

... either way, such tactics are completely unjustifiable under any circumstances...

Not if they work they aren't. And who is to say that it won't work - terrorism in the name of 'freedom fighting' from an invader has worked before, and there are signs that Dubya will get bored of Iraq if the human cost rises too high.

... Let's not turn what are clearly a bunch of heartless murderers into hero(e)s here.

Fighting for ones freedom from an invader is not 'heartless murder'. If the boot were on the other foot, it would be heroism (Think Patrick Swayze in 'Red Dawn').

Not that I think that suicide bombers are heroes, but I think that a bit of perspective is in order here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Fighting for ones freedom from an invader is not 'heartless murder'. If the boot were on the other foot, it would be heroism (Think Patrick Swayze in 'Red Dawn').

A. That was a movie.

B. No, blowing up civilians, international Red Cross workers, UN diplomats, other foreign diplomats, and just anyone who happens to get in the way, could never be heroism.

We aren't talking about the end here, but the means. The means that they have chosen is beyond the pale. It violates all the standards of the civilized world. They are intentionally targetting non-combatants and those whose only role is to try to mitigate the suffering of innocents. This is aside from the fact that they are also targetting their countrymen.

I suspect also that their ends would be beyond the pale too. I doubt very much that their goal is a peaceful, democratic, prosperous, human rights respecting regime. At best, it would probably be a return to the kind of despotic regime that existed under Saddam, which was hardly freedom for the average Iraqi however good it was for Saddam and his cronies. But let's be naive and credulous for a second. Suppose these people have in mind establishing Switzerland-on-the-Tigris? Their tactics so far are still vile and indefensible.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A. That was a movie.

Good spot, Simey - Christmas hasn't slowed you down now, has it!

B. No, blowing up civilians, international Red Cross workers, UN diplomats, other foreign diplomats, and just anyone who happens to get in the way, could never be heroism...

Granted. But it just might achieve the desired effect. (and therefore may end up being rewritten as heroism after the event)

We aren't talking about the end here, but the means. The means that they have chosen is beyond the pale. It violates all the standards of the civilized world...

As does invading without good reason, as does Guantanamo Bay.

... They are intentionally targetting non-combatants and those whose only role is to try to mitigate the suffering of innocents. This is aside from the fact that they are also targetting their countrymen...

Addressed aboove - they may be targetting 'soft targets', but if this works, they would consider it justified. Don't forget that it is not me,or other reasonable onlookers, that these people are trying to convince - it is an invading army. If Dubya finally decides that the human (and financial) cost of trying to salvage these ingrates is too much he may leave them to rot (withdraw). This would be mission accomplished for the 'freedom fighters'.

I suspect also that their end would be beyond the pale too. I doubt very much that their goal is a peaceful, democratic, prosperous, human rights respecting regime. At best, it would probably be a return to the kind of despotic regime that existed under Saddam...

Why is it that you Americans (even part-Americans) consider that a western style democracy is the only acceptable form of government? Mayhap these folks prefer a despot? Why should we get to choose their form of government? And who is to say what mess may be left when the US withdraws anyway?

It could even be worse.

Which is why invading without an exit strategy was a Bad Idea.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My understanding is that the main victims of the bombers in Iraq have been other Iraqis (mostly civilian), as well as international aid workers, and foreign diplomats. That sounds pretty extreme to me. Certainly not something that a legitimate resistance does.

Well, my understanding is that most of the attacks, bombings or otherwise, have been targeted squarely at coalition targets - yes, Iraqis have been killed in the process - many of which are likely considered 'collaborators' by the attackers. There were a couple of incidents a while ago that seemed to target international agencies and Iraqi civilian installations - I believe they were attributed to 'international terrorist organizations' - such as al-Qaeda. This would be the only conceivable link to 'Islamic extremism' - and, as I said earlier, the Iraqis would have America to thank for the presence of these organizations in their country, seeing as though they weren't running around bombing places indiscriminately before the Americans showed up to take charge.

I don't know whether it is religiously-motivated, or simply motivated by a desire to reenstate the murderous Ba'athist regime. But either way, such tactics are completely unjustifiable under any circumstances. Let's not turn what are clearly a bunch of heartless murderers into heros here.

What christ said.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Addressed aboove - they may be targetting 'soft targets', but if this works, they would consider it justified.

That's the standard? What the people conducting the bombing campaign think is justified? That's a little flexible, don't you think?

I'm quite sure they think it is justified. Nobody sets out to commit evil. That only happens in the movies. No doubt Saddam thought he was the good guy. No doubt Pol Pot thought history would vindicate him too. But that doesn't answer the question, does it?

I'm going to ignore your comments about Gitmo and exit strategies and the like, as well as your odd idea that Arabs apparently aren't suited to democracy. We can leave such debates for later. Or better yet, not rehash them again. Let me just ask this: do you think it is OK to blow up UN diplomats, Red Cross aid workers, and other innocent civilians? I'm just asking for your opinion, not some speculation about what others might write in the history books.

[christ]

Simey - let's draw breath here.

I do not condone terrorism. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I do not think that the tactics of the Iraqi fighters are right, nor do I consider that they are fair.

I find myself on 'their side' here because I am sick and fed up of the 'Might is Right' attitude that the US Administration and its sycophantic supporters continue to promulgate.

When you invade a country, you must expect resistance.

When you occupy a country, you must expect 'freedom fighters'.

When you accept that several thousand Iraqis are a reasonable price to pay for the 'liberation' of their brethren, you are making a choice which is not yours to make.

When they fight back, they are repressed using the same techniques that occupiers throughout the ages have used - the US forces continue to attack the houses of 'suspected insurgents', and the houses of the families of 'suspected insurgents' even though both of these tactics are contrary to convention.

It is hard for the 'resistance' to hit US troops, as they are well-armed, and professional soldiers. It is easy (and effective) to hit civilian 'sympathisers' (particularly when these are ex-Ba'ath party members). It is easy to hit aid workers. And what is more, hitting these 'soft' targets guarantees news coverage, and guarantees the increase of 'anti-occupation' feeling. Thus it can be said to work.

If it is working, even though it is naughty, who are we to tell them to stop? We who are party to the damned invasion and occupation in the first place.

But if 'Switzerland-on-the-Tigris' results, both sides will claim that it was their doing, and both will then claim that their means were justified. (And who would contradict them?)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:


What christ said.

Are you justifying their tactics?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by eklipse:
There were a couple of incidents a while ago that seemed to target international agencies and Iraqi civilian installations - I believe they were attributed to 'international terrorist organizations' - such as al-Qaeda.

Yes, I recall the same thing. As I remember the official line, we have gone from "outside agitators" and "foreign/international terrorists" sneaking in through those oh-so-porous borders to Iraqi "insurgents" and now to "rebels".

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm going to ignore your ... odd idea that Arabs apparently aren't suited to democracy.

That is not my idea. That seems to be a strange (but typically Simey) reading of what I said.

You seem to think that democracy is the only acceptable form of government. That is your right to choose for yourself, but it is not your right to choose for others. I think that Arabs are eminently well-suited for democracy, but I acknowledge that it is not my choice to make for them. Nor is it yours.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you justifying their tactics?

It doesn't really matter whether I justify them or not (I don't) - they obviously feel justified in what they are doing and as long as they do, they will keep on doing it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes, I recall the same thing. As I remember the official line, we have gone from "outside agitators" and "foreign/international terrorists" sneaking in through those oh-so-porous borders to Iraqi "insurgents" and now to "rebels".

I have no idea who it is. All I know is that it is absolutely indefensible. Only now I find out that there are those in the West who will defend it. Amazing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
It doesn't really matter whether I justify them or not (I don't) - they obviously feel justified in what they are doing and as long as they do, they will keep on doing it.

It won't hurt to condemn it, though will it? Call it an affirmation of the standards of civilization.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A. That was a movie.

B. No, blowing up civilians, international Red Cross workers, UN diplomats, other foreign diplomats, and just anyone who happens to get in the way, could never be heroism.

Have not Red Cross workers, weddings and a Chinese Embassy "gotten in the way" of US military goals?

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It won't hurt to condemn it, though will it? Call it an affirmation of the standards of civilization.

I condemn it.

I understand it, but I also condemn it.

I also condemn the Allied force for invading a sovereign country. Do you?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by christ:
Why should we get to choose their form of government?

Can forcing democracy on someone be considered democratic?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Watch and read the news from all sources.
Outside of getting a plane ticket to Baghdad it's the easiest way.

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3348159.stm]Really?[/img]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
B. No, blowing up civilians...could never be heroism.

We aren't talking about the end here, but the means. The means that they have chosen is beyond the pale. It violates all the standards of the civilized world.

I seem to recall having heard just that before.

From Lerkfish, theolein, eklipse, myself...

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It won't hurt to condemn it, though will it? Call it an affirmation of the standards of civilization.

Does the condemnation really need to be heard? I would have thought it would go without saying. If such standards need re-affirming, they're not really standards, are they?

That said, I have condemned (and still do condemn) terrorism in it's various forms. I have likewise condemned the various misguided efforts to prevent terrorism.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by christ:

I find myself on 'their side' here because I am sick and fed up of the 'Might is Right' attitude that the US Administration and its sycophantic supporters continue to promulgate.

You've just shown your true colors.

Rather sad that you would side with terrorists because you don't like America.

Eklipse are you ready to testify as well?
Lil kitten your next.

Let's testify why we don't like Amerika!

[christ]

Originally posted by MathewM:
You've just shown your true colors.

Rather sad that you would side with terrorists because you don't like America...

Your reading comprehension befits one that still believes in the tooth fairy.

I said " I am sick and fed up of the 'Might is Right' attitude that the US Administration and its sycophantic supporters continue to promulgate".


I did not say "I don't like America".

I said 'their side' in inverted commas, as I am, obviously from the rest of the quoted post, not siding with terrorists.

You, sir, do America a disservice, but you are an example of the 'sycophantic supporters' that I was aiming at above.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MathewM:
You've just shown your true colors.

Rather sad that you would side with terrorists because you don't like America.

Eklipse are you ready to testify as well?
Lil kitten your next.

Let's testify why we don't like Amerika!

You're amazing, Matt, and you never fail to disappoint.

It's not just news sites that you apparently cannot read. YOU (and your administration) are using the "with-us-or-against-us" mentality to paint *everybody* into the terrorist-sympathizer corner who doesn't fully agree with and support your murderous masters.

I've seen you and your comrades do it dozens of times here, and it's very effective.

It turns anyone with a conscience into an unpatriotic traitor.

What I find amazing that just about everybody here has made their standpoint clear about a twenty times over the past year or two, and you STILL manage to expose your ignorance and denseness, repeatedly.

You're a funny guy, Matt, and you're doing a really great job at discrediting your administration's stance and tactics.

-s*

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're amazing, Matt, and you never fail to disappoint.You're a funny guy, Matt, and you're doing a really great job at discrediting your administration's stance and tactics.

-s*

Thank you very much.

I'm not discrediting anyone besides terrorist sympathizers like yourself.

It doesn't matter what any of us say. Simey speaks very eloquently yet many of you discredit his stance with the same tactics you accuse me of.

I'm just having fun baiting you guys because your hatred has so easily made you a target. Much like the terrorists that you care so dearly about.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by christ:
I find myself on 'their side' here because I am sick and fed up of the 'Might is Right' attitude that the US Administration and its sycophantic supporters continue to promulgate.

So you're on the terrorists side because you don't like Bush.

Fair enough.

I figure if I keep quoting you enough you'll actually comprehend your own post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Have not Red Cross workers, weddings and a Chinese Embassy "gotten in the way" of US military goals?

The difference is that nobody in the US is going to condone killing civilians deliberately as the point of the attack. Your examples were all accidental. The blowing up of the UN compound, the Red Cross, and the Jordanian Embassy (to take just three attacks on neutral non-combatnats) were each completely deliberate. In these bombings, civilians didn't get in the way of military goals, the civilians were the goal. Can you really not see the difference?

[christ]

Originally posted by MathewM:
So you're on the terrorists side because you don't like Bush.

Fair enough.

I figure if I keep quoting you enough you'll actually comprehend your own post.

Wrong again.

I said (for the continually hard of hearing):

"I do not condone terrorism. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I do not think that the tactics of the Iraqi fighters are right, nor do I consider that they are fair."

I also said "I find myself on 'their side' here..."

Where the 'their' in question is the resistance in an occupied country. Not 'terrorists'. At least not by any accepted definition of the word.

A hint - if yu want to twist the words so that they say what you want, quote them one at a time, and select the order that you want to use. It is no longer a quotation, and it now reflects your views instead of mine, but it would make you feel a lot happier.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Does the condemnation really need to be heard? I would have thought it would go without saying. If such standards need re-affirming, they're not really standards, are they?

On the contrary, basic standards should be reaffirmed, especially when there are people who are deliberately violating them as the bombers are in Iraq. If you don't there is a danger that your silence will be taken as approval.

I'm glad to see that you do condemn their murderous tactics. I'm a little surprised it took so long and is so grudging. It isn't even as though I asked for condemnation of the killing of US soldiers. I'm only asking for condemnation of the deliberate killing of non-combatants. I would have thought that all reasonable people could agree on that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Wrong again.

I said (for the continually hard of hearing):

"I do not condone terrorism. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I do not think that the tactics of the Iraqi fighters are right, nor do I consider that they are fair."

I also said "I find myself on 'their side' here..."

Where the 'their' in question is the resistance in an occupied country. Not 'terrorists'. At least not by any accepted definition of the word.

So, to be clear. You condemn terrorists, but the people deliberately murdering international aid workers, UN diplomats, and other civilians in Iraq are not by your definition terrorists. Therefore you don't condemn them.

Do I have that right?