[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by Troll:
I think there's a chunk of logic missing from your argument. I made two points earlier on. 1 that this action is illegal under international law. I took it as a given that people see inherent value in having international law, for the same reason that people see inherent value in having local laws; because anarchy in any social interaction serves no one. 2 that even if the US does consider that it is okay for it to break international law to serve its own interests, this particular kind of action cannot possibly serve its interests. Not only do attacks like this have necessary and undesirable financial and social consequences in the US, but the US needs to turn Iraq into a puppet, or at least have a modicum of control over Iraq. If Iraq becomes ungovernable, the US's interests have not been served. If the population supports a liberation movement that eventually frees Iraq of its occupiers, the US will not have achieved its interests because the US will again be enemy number 1.

So, you can ignore the legal argument if you like. It's a reality that states are required to comply (as American businesses are about to find out iro retaliatory trade barriers by Europe) but even without that, this action shows that the US has lost the plot and is losing the war. So much for Mission Accomplished.

In my opinion there is huge difference in passing/agreeing on an international law by nations and actually enacting it! I would love to hear about one example in history where "international law" was enough of a deterrent in forbidding a dictator or even a retarded ruling government from carrying out its destructive policy within home or outside. In any case to effect a change of heart with in a short period is not going to happen through passing laws and not being able to prosecute. Within a reasonabe time-frame, I think it is more effective if nations decide upon themselves (due to self interest or not) to park an aircraft carrier at the doorstep of a country and then try diplomacy.
If even that doesnt work then the surgeon has to start planning the surgical strikes and then invade to effect change. It is nasty but it is a way through which you can effect change. oh..and profitting from war is entirely different story that you have no idea about as well!

[Mohammed Atef]

you apostatic fools are getting your panties in a ruffle over such small items. That city is a war zone, full of people that are out to hurt Americans AND any Iraqi that wants a free, democratic Iraq. The insurgent terrorist butt-pluggers want the good ol' days of Saddam and Uday, torturing, raping, and murdering women, children, and innocents.

sometimes a harsh response is the only thing people understand. If my dog tried to bite me and I didn't cut his ass for it, he would never learn that you don't mess with the Alpha Male. Perhaps it's the same way in Tikrit.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
sometimes a harsh response is the only thing people understand. If my dog tried to bite me and I didn't cut his ass for it, he would never learn that you don't mess with the Alpha Male. Perhaps it's the same way in Tikrit.

If your dog misbehaved and you then beat your girlfriend to show him who was boss, would that stop the dog from biting you, or might your girlfriend just team up with the dog?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
you apostatic fools are getting your panties in a ruffle over such small items. That city is a war zone, full of people that are out to hurt Americans AND any Iraqi that wants a free, democratic Iraq. The insurgent terrorist butt-pluggers want the good ol' days of Saddam and Uday, torturing, raping, and murdering women, children, and innocents.

If you honestly believe that any large group of people within Iraq (or anywhere else) want anything other than freedom or that they yearn for the torture, rape and murder of women and children, then you are more naive than I ever previously gave you credit for.

sometimes a harsh response is the only thing people understand. If my dog tried to bite me and I didn't cut his ass for it, he would never learn that you don't mess with the Alpha Male. Perhaps it's the same way in Tikrit.

No doubt Saddam Hussein was spouting the exact same rhetoric as he was gassing the Kurds and Shi'ites.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by Troll:
If your dog misbehaved and you then beat your girlfriend to show him who was boss, would that stop the dog from biting you, or might your girlfriend just team up with the dog?

your analogy is forced and lame. I'm not talking about beating innocents. By disciplining the dog, and through a display of force, the other animals will understand who's running the show. In an anarchical and chaotic situation, it is critical to establish stability and control first. Worry about PR and political correctness later.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by eklipse:
[B]If you honestly believe that any large group of people within Iraq (or anywhere else) want anything other than freedom or that they yearn for the torture, rape and murder of women and children, then you are more naive than I ever previously gave you credit for.

you're jerking your own chain here, then. The horrors that Saddam and Uday perpetrated also provided insiders and loyalists with a timeless drug: power. The secret police, the baathists, the military, and so on. These are the losers that want the old regime back. They want power and wealth, nothing more. The torture, rape, murder, and exploitation of Iraqis was the foundation for their sick desires.

You're in serious denial, infidel, if you believe otherwise.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
If my dog tried to bite me and I didn't cut his ass for it, he would never learn that you don't mess with the Alpha Male. Perhaps it's the same way in Tikrit.

Too bad for you, the Iraqi people are not your dog. They will bite back though, otherwise people like you would never learn that you shouldn't occupy other countries.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
you're jerking your own chain here, then. The horrors that Saddam and Uday perpetrated also provided insiders and loyalists with a timeless drug: power. The secret police, the baathists, the military, and so on. These are the losers that want the old regime back. They want power and wealth, nothing more. The torture, rape, murder, and exploitation of Iraqis was the foundation for their sick desires.

You're in serious denial, infidel, if you believe otherwise.

'Iraqis having power in their own country' - now there's an interesting concept.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Too bad for you, the Iraqi people are not your dog. They will bite back though, otherwise people like you would never learn that you shouldn't occupy other countries.

Some people just don't learn though...not until it's too late.

[kvm_mkdb]

It's amazing how some of you cannot fathom that when you occupy a country people will see you as an invader and fight you...
Meanwhile it's the common people that hate us - not because of our freedom or out of envy, but because we're killing them:

Last September, US forces shot dead Sarab's two-year old sister, Dunya, and wounded two other girls in her family, 13-year-old Menal and 16-year old Bassad. The family belongs to the Albueisi tribe who farm the rich land along the Euphrates river south of Falluja. The Albueisi fought against the British and even Saddam Hussein found them difficult to control. Since April, at least 10 members of the tribe have been killed by US forces, including five policemen.
While the US authorities maintain that resistance attacks are carried out by former Baathists and supporters of Saddam, they continue to ignore the tribal nature of the insurgency which has grown steadily over recent months. Deeply conservative clans like the 50,000-strong Albueisi have codes of honour which they complain the American army ignores at checkpoints and during raids on houses.

'If the Americans came as normal citizens, we'd welcome them,' said Khalid, an Albueisi with ties to the resistance. 'When they came for liberation, I sent them food. Now I just want to kill them.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...080989,00.html

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
It's amazing how some of you cannot fathom that when you occupy a country people will see you as an invader and fight you...
Meanwhile it's the common people that hate us - not because of our freedom or out of envy, but because we're killing them:
'If the Americans came as normal citizens, we'd welcome them,' said Khalid, an Albueisi with ties to the resistance. 'When they came for liberation, I sent them food. Now I just want to kill them.

I think it is foolish to judge the US presence or actions through these shortsighted views. It is an invasion and let us not kid ourselves about this. Historians will decide whether this was all worth it.

[swrate]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
I think it is foolish to judge the US presence or actions through these shortsighted views. It is an invasion and let us not kid ourselves about this. Historians will decide whether this was all worth it.

another view for quote: "apostatic fools are getting your panties in a ruffle over such small items".

SMALL ITEMS


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...329422566.html


After Saddam > Paul McGeough > Article
In the sheiks' hands



The tribal leaders of Iraq are pivotal in ending the violence against US forces and securing the nation's peace. But the Americans do not understand their power, writes Paul McGeough in the second part of an investigation.

IT IS evening in Baghdad. In the sitting room of his home, the political scientist Wamidh Nadhmi had quickly traversed the history of the Iraq tribes and now he's demanding an answer: "Why don't the Americans simply demand that the sheiks provide law and order?"

Later, Dr Abdul Hamid Al Rawi, from the College of Political Science at the University of Baghdad, enters the debate on the tribes from a different angle: "As long as a tribe is big and powerful, then its sheik is big and powerful. Despite the efforts of the British and the monarchy it installed, and the renegades who plotted against it and its successor republics, the tribes still exist.

"They have survived the confiscation of much of the sheiks' sprawling land holdings, being stripped of much of their powers, and, when he became desperate, Saddam's appointment of what became known as the 'Swiss sheiks' - ring-ins who were not born into sheik families but who the former president believed would run the tribes according to his will.

"If the US works with the tribes in the right way, they might succeed. The tribes could provide security and protection for local directorates, hospitals, schools and factories. The tribes are able to provide stability and to be a dependable ally for the US in neighbourhood affairs.

"This is what the British did in the 1920s - they supported Sheik Abdul Razak Ali Sulieman. He was the Sheik of Sheiks of the Dulame tribe and they gave him the authority of a governor over the western region of Iraq."

Important question: could today's sheiks stop the attacks on the US?

Says Al Rawi: "Of course - if there was a deal between the US and the sheiks to serve Iraq. The sheiks have the power to declare that there will be no more attacks on the Americans."

Can he control local democratic votes?

"But of course! If the US is serious in wanting good relations with the Iraqi people, then it must have good relations with the sheiks. It is my considered view that loyalty to the tribes is bigger than ethnic or religious loyalty in Iraq.

"And since the fall of Baghdad the tribes and tribal law have become even stronger because of the political vacuum - there is no direction or security for the people and they have no one to follow except the tribe and their sheik."

Adnan Abu Odeh, a former adviser to the late King Hussein of Jordan, argues that the tribes are the strongest social force in what he calls the "broken shell" of the state of Iraq. But the sheiks don't have ambitions beyond their tribes - they are not nationalist in their outlook.

In Amman, he tells me: "They know that in the end they'll not be the main game, so they have to benefit as much as possible before the rules change. Probably the most today's sheiks can hope to get is to have people from their tribes in the new establishment to sustain benefits for the whole tribe at the highest level possible.

"The sheiks don't have the power to stop the resistance totally. But they certainly could impede its development by convincing tribesmen that it's a loser's strategy or they could be bribed to capture or betray the members of the resistance."

But he warns the Americans: "The tribes are good actors. They intimidate and they blackmail; they are experts at massaging ego - it's their usual approach; for them its an art, an instinct.

"Their national pride has been emasculated - especially by the easy fall of Baghdad and by the death of Uday and Qusay Hussein.

"The Americans need to study shame and pride in the Arab world, because while they think that Iraqis are grateful, they are not - they are feeling humiliated."

Another former adviser to Jordan's late king is Ali Shukri. Now a member of Saint Anthony's College at Oxford, he tells me: "The tribes will listen to anyone who is dishing out money and they can control the level of the resistance, so they can be pillars of the new Iraq.

"If the US cannot impose law and order, then only the tribes will be able to do it. They might have come across oceans with their Apache helicopters and Bradley fighting vehicles, but if you don't have the support of the tribes in these parts, you are dead.

"There are two ways to control them. One way is to do just that - by continually attacking and killing them. But it you want them on your side, what will you give them? What's in it for them?

"Ask them to police and to monitor border control and they will do it; they will stop anyone coming into the country and they will be effective. They will name a price. If it is met, they will be on your side.

"To the extent that the tribes are co-operating with the US right now is merely a marriage of convenience. They could be doing a lot more - overnight, they could give the Americans security, but they will want money, weapons and vehicles to do the job."

AL-SHARIF Ali Bin-al-Husayn is the man who would be king of the new Iraq. He operates from what was an official guesthouse of the old regime in the shadow of Baghdad's Babylon Hotel, which his supporters commandeered as a monarchist headquarters after the fall of the capital in April.

Dusted-off portraits of banished kings and princes - strained and stuffy - now hang in a marbled lobby that buzzes as retainers in kaftans and full dress bandoliers glide across the shiny floors, serving coffee and water to a Western-dressed crowd.

Looking and sounding like his exiled British upbringing, Ali Bin-al-Husayn, who was two years old when his cousin, King Faisal II, was murdered in 1958, sits erect in the corner of an ornate sofa and talks: "Tribalism is in our culture; even the urban populations adhere to its customs - hospitality and generosity, honour and honesty.

"And Saddam's assaults on the institutions of society made people seek the protection and assistance of their tribes, especially as Western sanctions bit. In the harsh postwar environment of neither law and order nor a social safety net, people saw themselves not as Iraqis but as members of their tribes.

"I think the US was totally unaware of this side of our culture till about a year ago. We tried to tell them, but the problem with the Americans is they think that anyone who talks and walks like them is a good guy and that they can work with them. But if people look different and dress differently, or if their religious or cultural principles are alien to them, they must be a bad guy and so should be avoided.

"So the MIT professor is a good guy, even if he has no role in Iraq, and the old man in fancy dress and with a straggly beard will be ignored - even though he is an Iraqi.

"The average Iraqi doesn't see the Americans reopening a school or a hospital. But they do see their lives being continually disrupted, so they become humiliated and disgruntled. Throw into that the terrorist activity of the remnants of the Saddam regime and the influx of Islamic groups that the Americans have allowed over our borders and you can see that the US is creating a phenomenal number of enemies who, after 35 years of dictatorship, are more than willing to pick up a weapon and vent their frustration on easy targets."

[swrate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swrate:
[B]another view for quote: "apostatic fools are getting your panties in a ruffle over such small items".

SMALL ITEMS


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...329422566.html


suite:
In postwar Iraq, the historic role of Lawrence of Arabia is raised again and again as an implicit criticism of the US and its failure to understand the subtleties and imperatives of tribal life.

Iraqis separate Lawrence's performance from that of his government. They take great pride from the fact that Lawrence almost became an Arab just so that he could understand them - he wore their dress, he ate their food and he lived their lives. In the south, Sheik Ali Bin Mohammed Al Menshed, explains: "He was an intelligent man and he succeeded in getting into the hearts of our people."

BUT if there is a gulf of understanding between the Iraqis and the US, there is another dangerous fault line in the US appreciation of the power of the sheiks and their tribes - US officers in the field seem to get it, but their more ideologically bound bosses in the Baghdad bunkers don't. Lieutenant-Colonel John J. Bryant initially defended the US effort to reconstruct Iraq. But after a pause, he said: "In terms of the resources we have, the challenge is huge."

Asked about the power of the sheiks, he said: "It's awesome - we just don't understand it. At a meeting with a couple of sheiks and a lot of citizens, we were talking about how our colleagues in other parts of Iraq were having more problems that we did.

"What the citizens said was 'if the sheiks want us to be kind to the Americans, then we will be kind'. In a nutshell, that told me a whole lot. There is a financial part to every deal and if an aid group or the US comes into an area, then the sheik needs to be seen as having brought them in."

Further north in Falluja, where the Americans encounter some of the toughest Iraqi resistance, a youthful Lieutenant Colonel Chris Hickey, the senior coalition commander in the region, is upfront: "The hardest thing for me coming into the region is understanding the local power relations.

"I've got seven tribes here, but I'm still learning where they are and who's in charge.

"It's confusing - I've been here for a few weeks and I ask the mayor for a meeting with the sheiks, but later I'm told that the people he lined up for me are not the real sheiks!"

Almost in desperation, he asks: "What does a sheik look like? I go to meetings with people who dress and look like sheiks - but they don't carry a sheik ID card. So till I figure this out, I have to stand above tribal politics and deal with the higher goals of safety, peace and prosperity.

"We know what's wrong with this town but it can't be fixed properly without organisations like the United Nations. But those people will not come here till we have a safe and secure environment.

"My point of leverage with the sheiks is if they want to achieve these goals, they will have to make this a secure place - 11 attacks on my vehicles and convoys in the last week is not my idea of secure."
In Falluja, Hickey's predecessors made a tentative embrace of tribal values - that started paying "blood money" to injured Iraqis and to the families of those killed by US forces after the local mayor argued that without such payments, they'd get locked into cycles of violence.

Hickey explains: "It's $1500 for a death and up to $500 for injuries, provided the victims were not involved in shooting at us when they are hit. We're keeping up the payments in the hope that five generations of Iraqis will not come after us for revenge killings.

"The idea was to bring down the level of violence and it works to a degree. There has been a fall-off in the revenge attacks, but those who are simply opposed to us are still shooting at us. It's hard to impose Western ideas of democracy instantly, so we're taking baby steps first."

In the hyper-protected CPA bunker in central Baghdad, formerly one of Saddam's sprawling palace complexes where a US tank named Cranky is on guard duty at one of the gates and the occupation administrator, Paul Bremer, has just let a contract for the removal from the palace roof corners of four huge busts of Saddam which some of his staff worry might be jinxing their work, there seems to be a confident expectation that Iraqis will outgrow their tribal ways just as soon as they understand this gift of Western democracy.

Likening tribal Iraqis to the farm labourers who flocked to British cities during the industrial revolution, a senior official, who asked not to be named, said: "It will be interesting to see how it plays out because the Baath Party tried to leap frog Iraq from the 1600s to the 20th century, and it didn't do a very good job.

"The significance of the bigger tribes doesn't escape me. But if it was as easy as talking to five or six sheiks to put a stop to the violence, we'd have done it. We're not that dense."

His first response was that the tribes were not a significant issue for Washington. Pressed, he said: "If it is a question of harnessing the power of the tribes, then it's a question of finding tribal leaders who can operate in a post-tribal environment. We'll have to rely on these people to carry the message of what the new democracy is about."

But then he almost contradicts himself when he makes this observation of today's Iraq and the US-sponsored effort to draw up a new national constitution which will be put to a national referendum: "The sheiks don't write the law - they are the law."

end

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by amsalpemkcus:
I think it is foolish to judge the US presence or actions through these shortsighted views. It is an invasion and let us not kid ourselves about this. Historians will decide whether this was all worth it.

exactly. Their premature musings reek of the same pseudo-intellectualism and broken analyses the left-wing pacifists excreted before the war: ranting incessantly about an Arab uprising, a region-wide Arab unification, and even a world-wide effort to stop the war.

When enough time has passed to view the results of US actions or inactions, decisions and nondecisions, then you bitter, impotent, apostatic souls can flitter in with your wanker-riffic half-brained sewage.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
exactly. Their premature musings reek of the same pseudo-intellectualism and broken analyses the left-wing pacifists excreted before the war: ranting incessantly about an Arab uprising, a region-wide Arab unification, and even a world-wide effort to stop the war.

When enough time has passed to view the results of US actions or inactions, decisions and nondecisions, then you bitter, impotent, apostatic souls can flitter in with your wanker-riffic half-brained sewage.

to talk incessantly about an Arab uprising, a region-wide Arab unification, and even a world-wide effort to stop the war.

the shisms in Islam would have to agree.

the shisms in Judaism also
christians, its easier, one prophet mainly

I am not surprised you didnt read the article,

commnunication is important
?
which American President said, something like:

To win a war one has to talk to and listen to the ennemy.

I think he went even further then that.

Behind gun-powder situations
we totally ignore some of the facts
"on the field"
The Saudias for example, have friends all over the world, USA, Europe, Japan,
thats why Ben Laden does not like them.

he relies on ...... connections

the roots of terrorism are linked despair with mafia

The war zones different tribes fighting, alliances, signing agreements and making the land grow.
most of those involved changed religion
in Chechenya for example the population became Muslim in reaction to the governement.
Afghanistan follow different religious lines. "shisms"
Tibet

was sidered to see 4.2 million (new?)adherants to a internet jeehad branch.

I think discussing and finding solutions would of been easier if no boys had lost life

strong despair can bring populations to commit suicide by killing others for a cause. (if they have the strength and means: under Hitler, difficult)

Terrorism is a global problem and needs to be debated with all parties involved

BTW: Baghdad was bombed in Febrary 2001
Wolfowitz and his team had plans since the 90's
in the Middle-East, the population knew it would happen long before hand, it was called the petrol road map to Afghanistan, (oil pipe-lines)
through nations
The media CNN FOX gave the population the idea of "Target Irak" months ahead. there was even count down days, it was so ridiculous, like a TV reality show.

Tragic

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
exactly. Their premature musings reek of the same pseudo-intellectualism and broken analyses the left-wing pacifists excreted before the war: ranting incessantly about an Arab uprising, a region-wide Arab unification, and even a world-wide effort to stop the war.

When enough time has passed to view the results of US actions or inactions, decisions and nondecisions, then you bitter, impotent, apostatic souls can flitter in with your wanker-riffic half-brained sewage.

All you say is a mix of abuse and rhetoric: you call people that disagree with you fools, dogs, sh!theads, etc...

Did you try reading the archives? Some 'pinko left-wing pacifists' have been telling you all along that:

• Iraq was no threat
• Thousands of innocents will die
• Iraqis will not dance on the streets, rather
• Many will see our soldiers as invaders and fight back

After all that happened as above all you can come up with is stuff like 'the schools are opening, but the liberal media doesn't report that'. Of course not. Schools have been opening in Iraq every year for the last 1000+ years!

Nobody disputes that Saddam was a ruthless dictator; but even bloodthirsty tyrants shouldn't be looked at with shortsightedness - Iraq wasn't the open-air torture camp we often see it depicted as - most people had regular lifes, a job, security was provided, etc. The situation now is catastrophical for them: no jobs, no security, no means to conduct a regular life. Women no longer enjoy the level of freedom of movement and independence they once had.
Yeah they can criticize the government now - but that has very little value in such environment.

I'm not alone in telling you that:

• The majority of resistance fighters are not baathist or foreign terrorists
• By employing terror tactics (as right now in Tikrit) we're only fueling resentment

You are free not to listen, not to agree and/or bring forward your arguments, but knock it off with the abuse and other offensive crap.

[Mohammed Atef]

your ranting aside, my comment is correct. Plenty of you 'dogs' ( Your words, not mine) predicted everything but the downfall of civilisation, yet the outrageous claims of some Arab unification--a new caliphite, if it floats your boat--to oppose the Great Satan did not come to pass. My argument is clear: your ilk are once again jumping the gun, tossing the bones and reading from them predictions on a dubiously grandiose scale. In less 'rhetorical' () words: In a few years time we will be able to judge the success or failure of US tactics. Until then, infidels, get off it.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
everything but the downfall of civilisation, yet the outrageous claims of some Arab unification--a new caliphite, if it floats your boat--to oppose the Great Satan did not come to pass.

I don't know anything about such assertions. I (and others) have been very vocal about the points I made above. Was it jumping the gun? hell no.

Now we are telling you: by employing such tactics (like in Tikrit) the US will cause resistance among Iraqis to grow

Deride this assertion as a rant. In a few months, come out with new justifications for this blunder, new rhetoric to justify your dear Crusades.

And who are you to tell other people to 'get off it'? Grow up.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You know recent developments in Iraq show a cycle of violence similar to what we see in Palestine.

Yup:

Meanwhile, US jet fighters have bombed a house south of Baghdad used for anti-coalition attacks after troops captured its six occupants, a US military official told AFP Tuesday.

"We used F-16s to precision-bomb the house," said Captain Dan Froehlich, a spokesman for the 82nd Airborne's 3rd Brigade.

He said the house near Mahmudiyah, south of the capital, was used to plan attacks on coalition forces and to stash weapons.

The bombing, conducted Monday evening, came a few days after a convoy came under attack in the area, presumably from the six people who were found inside the house. Weapons, including several rocket-propelled grenade launchers, were seized.

He said the operation highlighted the successes US forces have been achieving south of Baghdad, where they have been receiving numerous tip-offs from local residents.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../56733/1/.html

[eklipse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You know recent developments in Iraq show a cycle of violence similar to what we see in Palestine.

Yup:

US occupation soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth as they arrested him for speaking out against occupation troops.

The arrest was captured on camera by international photojournalists.

Asked on Tuesday_why the man had been arrested_and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene: "This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...3773B4B141.htm

[Atef's Cadaver]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yup:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...3773B4B141.htm

hahahahahahahahahh! Al Jazeera is definitely an unbiased and honest source. As reliable and honest as trusting Adolf Hitler to light the Menorah.

You flower-power wanna-bes will never learn that by believing, quoting, and relying on such sources you're only falling in line and marching to their propagandising, terrorist-sympathising beat. Better Lackies of Saddam you could not be. I haven't seen such Tools of Propaganda and Lies since Schroder, Chirac, and Castro teamed up earlier this summer to become Saddam's cheerleaders in the Menage-a-Puke.

[voodoo]

Wow! That was effective and fast bannination

[Twilly Spree]

I'd say.

This carcass has been making us conservatives look bad for a long time. He's hurting us rather than helping us.

I wonder if he really is the alter ego of some hardcore leftie? Trying to damage our arguments by acting like an clown.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Atef's Cadaver:
hahahahahahahahahh! Al Jazeera is definitely an unbiased and honest source. As reliable and honest as trusting Adolf Hitler to light the Menorah.

You flower-power wanna-bes will never learn that by believing, quoting, and relying on such sources you're only falling in line and marching to their propagandising, terrorist-sympathising beat. Better Lackies of Saddam you could not be. I haven't seen such Tools of Propaganda and Lies since Schroder, Chirac, and Castro teamed up earlier this summer to become Saddam's cheerleaders in the Menage-a-Puke.

Um.....it was a Reuters article - as noted by al-Jazeera - original story here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...6&section=news

And here's a towel:



Wipe that foam from around your mouth.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Wow! That was effective and fast bannination

Thank you mods!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I'd say.

This carcass has been making us conservatives look bad for a long time. He's hurting us rather than helping us.

I wonder if he really is the alter ego of some hardcore leftie? Trying to damage our arguments by acting like an clown.

yeah, that's gotta be it.
Couldn't be a conservative....oh no, no, no. It has to be a liberal attacking other liberals and spouting hardcore conservative rhetoric to discredit hardcore conservatives...yeah, that's a great tactic.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
:rolleyes: yeah, that's gotta be it.
Couldn't be a conservative....oh no, no, no. It has to be a liberal attacking other liberals and spouting hardcore conservative rhetoric to discredit hardcore conservatives...yeah, that's a great tactic. :rolleyes:

Draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying this guy is either way.

But ask yourself this: Who has the carcass made look worse, the liberals or the concervatives of this forum?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying this guy is either way.

But ask yourself this: Who has the carcass made look worse, the liberals or the concervatives of this forum?

It is a good point. If I wanted to make conservatives look foolish, I'd act like the carcass... knee-jerk and insulting.

Twilly, you don't seem to fit in with the other neo-cons around here. What's the deal with that?

You don't flame, troll, or knee-jerk from what I've seen. We're different politically but it looks like we can agree to disagree.

[gadster]

For the neocon apologists:

The five stages of grief:
One:_ Shock and Denial_
Two:_ Anger_
Three:_ Bargaining_
Four:_ Depression
Five:_ Acceptance_

'Get well soon'.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Draw your own conclusions. I'm not saying this guy is either way.

But ask yourself this: Who has the carcass made look worse, the liberals or the concervatives of this forum?

oh, I'll agree that he has made conservatives look extremely bad IMHO, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
There are several other conservatives who say the exact same things, just not as rudely. In fact, they nearly all agree on certain issues... Are you suggesting all the other conservatives on this board are merely liberals masquerading as conservatives?

That would take quite a bit of coordination.
As a famous rope-tricking entertainer once said:
"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

[nvaughan3]

it's extremely strange that I cannot find this story, or any parts of it, anywhere else except for another local TV website.

The US Army has admitted here that their aim was to intimidate the town.

I must have missed that part of the story.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Some of you folks are gonna be miserable for your entire lives unless you learn to deal with your envy of America.

I think some of them are going to be miserable no matter what.

[finboy]

Originally posted by gadster:
For the neocon apologists:

The five stages of grief:
One:_ Shock and Denial_
Two:_ Anger_
Three:_ Bargaining_
Four:_ Depression
Five:_ Acceptance_

So what stages are the Nobody Nine in right now? Does it differ by "candidate"?

[petehammer]

Finboy:
Always on topic, never derailing or confrontational.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
it's extremely strange that I cannot find this story, or any parts of it, anywhere else except for another local TV website.



I must have missed that part of the story.

its an associated press byline. In 5 minutes I found the following links to the story....are you google-impaired, perhap?

nevertheless...here are some more links...

link one
link two
link three
link 4
link 5
link 6
link 7

I could go on...

the paragraphs that speak to the intending intimdation, found in some form in all the stories:

D'Agata says, "The scale and force of the military bombardment was clearly aimed at rattling guerrillas in the region, but it may inflame otherwise peaceful local Iraqis. The attack began on a Friday -- a Muslim day of rest -- during the Holy Month of Ramadan." He added that the reimposition of the curfew won't win any fans among Tikrit resident, either.

The show of force late Friday and early Saturday was a warning to the 120,000 people of Tikrit not to support insurgents, suspected of shooting down a Black Hawk helicopter hours earlier, killing six soldiers.

But while it succeeded in scaring residents, the barrage only confirmed for many that the United States is their enemy.

Like many in Tikrit, the retired general refused to have his name published for fear of reprisals by the Americans. However, he was keen to recount a night of fear and anguish that brought U.S. tanks and Humvees practically to the doorsteps of his home, a one-story dwelling less than 200 yards from where the Black Hawk crashed.

He recalled that eight or nine U.S. tanks -- other residents put the number at five or six -- were deployed in the area around his house starting from sunset Friday. Machine guns fitted on tanks and Humvees opened up on a half-completed house nearby, which he said belonged to a police colonel serving under the U.S.-backed, Tikrit local council.

He said the youngest of his seven children, 4-year-old Mohammed, was awakened by the thud of explosions and could not go back to sleep until the shelling stopped. The general's 70-year-old sister who lives at the same house and suffers from a heart condition trembled with fear all night, and the entire family sought to calm her down fearing that she might die.

"We Iraqis know the ethics of war and we know that knights don't do what the Americans are doing here," said the retired officer. "What were they shooting at anyway? I think they just wanted to terrorize us."

U.S. troops bombarded the grassy outback surrounding the crash site with mortar fire to scare off insurgents. U.S. jets circled for hours over Tikrit, 200 kilometers (120 miles) north of Baghdad, dropping several 500-pound bombs near the crash site area.

After midnight, Russell's convoy of Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles, their headlights turned off, set out across the town toward three buildings that insurgents were suspected of using.

Shoulder-fired rockets, a missile, and heavy machine gun fire slammed into the abandoned warehouse.

Soldiers yelled, "knock, knock" and "good morning" in celebration as the structure crumbled amid plumes of dust and smoke.

Although most houses had their lights on, nobody dared to look outside.

In one house, a woman was heard coughing.

Soldiers training their guns and the red laser night-sights that they use on the second-floor window.

The coughing quickly stopped.

In retaliation, U.S. rocket and heavy machine gun fire destroyed a warehouse and two houses believed to have been used by militants. Air Force fighters screeching overhead dropped bombs, which rattled houses. Mortar rounds howled, and tracer bullets lit up the sky.

"We want to remind this town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them," said Lt. Col. Steven Russell of the 4th Infantry Division, who led raid in Tikrit, a city of 120,000 people about 120 miles north of Baghdad.

[nvaughan3]

Excuse me, I'm not looking for other AP stories about the event. I'm looking for other sources carrying that AP article with the same wording. I'm late for work and cant check all of them but the three I checked quickly did not contain the wording the article in the OP did. It seems to me that is has been heavily edited and may not portray the situation to the fullest.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Excuse me, I'm not looking for other AP stories about the event. I'm looking for other sources carrying that AP article with the same wording. I'm late for work and cant check all of them but the three I checked quickly did not contain the wording the article in the OP did. It seems to me that is has been heavily edited and may not portray the situation to the fullest.

obviously the stories all have AP as their source (as did the story you quote). The site you quoted was summarizing what was contained in the quotes I provided.
Not sure why this confuses you.

[nvaughan3]

I'm not really confused by anything other than the fact that it seems the article quoted in the OP would have shown up elsewhere, even if heavily edited. Summarization is exactly what I don't want , the links you provided showed a much fuller and broader picture.

[rambo47]

Pu238. 'Nuf said.

[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...329639474.html

Iraqis confident they can beat you, CIA tells Bush

By Jonathan Landay in Washington
November 13, 2003

A new, top-secret CIA report from Iraq warns that growing numbers of Iraqis believe the US-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance.

The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the US-led drive to rebuild the country as a democracy could collapse unless corrective actions are taken immediately.

Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, who has arrived unexpectedly in Washington for strategy sessions, essentially endorsed the CIA's findings, a Bush Administration official said.

The president of Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council, Jalal Talabani, last night called for a provisional government to be installed as soon as possible.

The report's bleak tone and Mr Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President George Bush, his chief aides and Mr Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties at home over increasing US casualties.

Two Administration officials described the report's findings in broad terms, but did not give excerpts or details.

The report landed on Monday, so the speed of the leak suggested that senior policymakers want to make sure the assessment reaches Mr Bush.

Some of them have complained that it is almost impossible to provide Mr Bush with analyses that are other than the optimistic views of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and other hardliners.

The CIA analysis suggests US policy in Iraq has reached a turning point, as the Bush Administration moves to escalate the war against the guerillas and accelerate the transfer of power to Iraqis.

But the CIA also warns that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders has shown an ability to govern the country, let alone preside over the drafting of a constitution.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...329639474.html

this bears repeating:

Some of them have complained that it is almost impossible to provide Mr Bush with analyses that are other than the optimistic views of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and other hardliners.

[nvaughan3]

more faceless, nameless, baseless sources.

[Troll]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
more faceless, nameless, baseless sources.

How's this for size?.

"An intelligence source in Washington familiar with the CIA report described it as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

"It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course," the source said."

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
more faceless, nameless, baseless sources.

There's no mention of it at www.foxnews.com

So it must be true.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
more faceless, nameless, baseless sources.

Then maybe you should read this article by Milt Bearden, a 30-year veteran in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, served as senior manager for clandestine operations:

These growing attacks against U.S. forces have two clear goals: Inflict casualties and force a reaction that alienates the local population. Both are being achieved, as the quick-response raids by coalition troops to seize those behind the attacks fuel Iraqi alienation.

There were two stark lessons in the history of the 20th century: No nation that launched a war against another sovereign nation ever won. And every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...trategy09.html

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Troll:
How's this for size?.

"An intelligence source in Washington familiar with the CIA report described it as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

"It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course," the source said."

Oh, a nameless, faceless, baseless source from the guardian.. That's so much better.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Then maybe you should read this article by Milt Bearden, a 30-year veteran in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, served as senior manager for clandestine operations:


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...trategy09.html

He could have been a 100 year veteran, doesn't mean he's in the loop now or knows what he's talking about as it applies to the current situation.

However, he makes some good points and the way he lays out his thoughts is very interesting.

[tie]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
more faceless, nameless, baseless sources.
...
Oh, a nameless, faceless, baseless source from the guardian.. That's so much better.

It sounds accurate to me, and here are two senators who should know.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Lugar, the Philadelphia Inquirer had a report earlier this week, said there was a CIA study of the public attitudes in Iraq. And this was recently, and they said that the people of Iraq, many of them, many, many more every day are coming to the conclusion that the U.S. occupation is going to fail, and that they're joining the resistance. What can you tell us about that report?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Well, I think the report, and probably you've stated fairly accurately, and as Joe Biden said, General Abizaid indicated that consequently, the strategy of the Iraqis is to break our will -- break our will by firing on the U.N., on the Red Cross, now on the Italians, on one after another, to try to discourage them and in some cases just to get out, leave us by ourselves. The numbers of attacks upon our people have been increasing. In short, the idea is, by attrition of our will, to gain whatever they want. So this is very serious. I think the poll indicates that Iraqis, as opposed to being eager to get involved in democracy right now, are hunkering down. They're rather fearful that if we're gone, then they are going to be the targets for the terrorists who are left after them.

JIM LEHRER: So Senator Biden, could you conclude, at least at this point, that the tactics of the terrorists, the tactics of the insurgents is working?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Well, it's working in the sense that it's creating doubt. Look, it's a little bit like if you live in a neighborhood where the drug dealer controls the corner and you know when you call the police and the drug dealer is... and the police are going to come arrest the guy, but then release him, they're going to know that you're the guy who called the drug dealer, and you're in real trouble. So what you want to know is whether the police are really going to come in, clean the street, clean the corner and stay there, stay there to make sure the drug dealers don't come back because, otherwise, what you do is you accommodate. You don't want to get yourself in trouble, so you accommodate. And there's people now who think that in Iraq.

And by the way, I deliberately did not go to the briefing of the CIA that was held today so I would be able to speak about what my impression is about that Philadelphia Inquirer report. My impression is it's absolutely dead-on accurate. And the reason why I'm so sure it is, it's totally consistent with a hearing that the chairman held where we had the Hammer report, a former comptroller, I believe he was at the Pentagon, asked to go over to Iraq late June, early July and with very prominent Americans come back with a report. They told us in our committee that the window of opportunity is closing very rapidly, and that if we don't demonstrate we're in control and staying fairly soon, we're going to lose the Iraqi people, not just the insurgents, the Iraqi people. And so it seems to me totally consistent with the reality on the ground, and that's why it's important to move with urgency now.

[nvaughan3]

No offense, but if you are going to post that I would think a link to the inquirer story would be neccesary as well.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
No offense, but if you are going to post that I would think a link to the inquirer story would be neccesary as well.

no offense, but you could search it yourself if you require it. I know *I'm* done spending time hunting down links you could easily find yourself....its just a cheap tactic intended to prove someone wrong if they don't want to do your legwork for you. It goes something like this...

rational person: Newspaper A says Z.
nvaughn: no offense, but I refuse to believe you unless you provide a link.
rational person: ok, here's eight links.
nvaughn: no offense, but I refuse to believe you because I don't have time to read those links.
rational person: ok, here's some quotes on what the links say in newspaper B.
nvaughn: no offense, but I refuse to believe what you quoted unless you post links.
rational person: but when I post links you refuse to read them.
nvaughn: exactly! this proves you're wrong because you can't jump through my arbitrary hoops in just the right way.