Rekna

Note: Articles not posted in entirity just the intro blurbs

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9AE7F0EA4F.htm
http://www.islamonline.net/English/N...rticle01.shtml
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...883C79AF78.htm

Ok so why have I posted all of these? The fact is Iraq is very unstable. Unfortunatly our media doesn't report a lot of what goes on in Iraq. Although there is a decent amount of spin in articles from Aljazeera and IslamOnline I still like to read them because they cover stories our media won't for instance from Aljazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...816BA7A5F0.htm

Why would we fire on a crowd of people? These people were not the ones that damaged the vehicle these were people flocking to the scene of an accident to gauck at it. Do we really have that sensitive of equipment on our bradly fighting vehicles?

If we keep killing scores of Iraqi's we will only fuel their hatred twoard us. For every 1 we kill 10 more pop up to fill there place. We are stuck in a quagmire here. We need to drastically change our Iraq policy. Avoid the cities and let local governments run themselfs until elections are set up. We need to keep our troups away from the Iraqis because it is just making things worse.

Rdr4evr

You are surprised that US troops would fire at innocent bystanders? This is a usual occurrence as the US military will fire at anything and everything. Its unfortunate that all those unarmed people had to die in this manner. And you are right about killing one and having 10 more pop up. The hatred for this country is only going to escalate from this point forward thanks to our wonderful leader.

Mephisto2

The helicopter reported it had been fired upon from the crowd. Personally I think that's bullshit, but that's the official reason.

I think the Iraqi situation is a terrible one, with no easy answers. We can sit around for years and wring our hands debating why it was invaded, whether it was justified or not etc. We shouldn't debate if Iraq was linked to Al Queda, as we know that's not the case, but the invasion was originally predicated upon WMD's and the flagrant disregard for UN Resolutions.

What we should be doing is trying to work out how to stabilize the country, withdraw Western powers as soon as possible, repair broken bridges (both literally and figuratively) and concentrate on treating the causes (as well as the symptoms) of international terrorism.

Fundamentalist terrorism is here with us to stay. But we can work towards "emasculating it" in many ways.

There are no easy answers. It makes me sad and angry at the same time.


Mr Mephisto

onetime2

Funny that despite the fact that "our media" isn't reporting it I got all that information in the local newspapers, tv, and radio. I guess I must just be special.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Rekna

The problem is many times the american media leaves out details or slants it to pro US government. (Where aljazeera does the opposite and slants pro iraqi). Also it is usualy is hidden somehwere behind scott peterson.... What I do is read both places and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

here is another
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C077629783.htm

Ustwo

Change 'pro-Iraqi' to pro-terrorist and you might have a point.

Or do you think Iraq is better off in the hands of foreign terrorists and hard line Baathists who kill innocent Iraqi citizens on purpose?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

Anybody but America!

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

The reports provided the details and nothing more. Details are details. Even with slanted news pieces it's not difficult to pick out the details like who, what where, when, how many, etc (which are typically fairly accurrate). I tend to come to my own conclusions and naturally filter out the fluff from the "reporters" and their bosses.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

e is an overview of this past week's events that argues it might be the emergence of civil war:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...304852,00.html

bushwar is a fiasco, it is opening onto other fiascos--the only way the right can continue to support this lunacy is to engage in term substitution, limiting interpretive possibilities, dismissing news sources outright, obstructing thinking whenever possible.
it is in the case of border control when thinking about iraq that you can see the delusional status of right ideology most clearly. want to see a little example--as usual, ustwo is available for examination.....

the iraq adventure is an incoherent colonial occupation without a plan, undertaken without adequate understanding of what they were getting into, that tried to shift authority to a puppet regime in allawi for damage control purposes, only to find that the legitimacy of that regime is obviously, to say the least, a problem.
now, if this article is correct, you have the opening rounds of outright civil war in a context where the americans are not a stablizing center but an active part, a faction--chaos on all quadrants---how far will thing shave to spiral down before the right even starts to think that maybe, just maybe, they, like the rest of us, have been chumped?

and not a bit of it has anything to do with the war on terrorism, and even ideologues of the ustwo caliber--low-wattage repeaters in the conservative radio ring--know it. there is not a single justification for this adventure that holds any water outside the sad, self-limiting little world of the right.

what is really unfortunate is that while the right splits off into irrational cheerleading and others cry foul, people who are none of us die on all sides. in great numbers.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_wall

I'm gonna have to say Ustwo is gonna disagree with Roachboys post

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

roachboy

probably...heh heh....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

MSD

That may be true of a few, but the majority are honest people who would not intentionally kill civilians in cold blood. If what you are saying was true, than Iraq's major cities would not be standing. I don't appreciate this sort of unprovoked attack on my friends who are serving honorably in the armed forces.

Lebell

Nor do I.

Can it happen?

I suppose.

But my friends and family that have served are not the blood thirsty murderers you have callously named them to be.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Seaver

You're right... that's why we would bomb the military buildings only at night (least amount of collateral), and many times informed them ahead of time so the janitors could get out of the building. Sound firing on anything and everything to you?

onetime2

I love how some will claim they support our soldiers yet the second the soldiers defend themselves their reputations are impugned and their motives, professionalism, and respect for life are trampled upon by those sitting thousands of miles away staring at a computer or tv screen. Not unlike those soldiers who returned fire on a mosque containing insurgents trying to kill them.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but, alas, I am not.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

i do not see how heading in this direction will help anything---on the other hand, it would seem to me that if the guardian's assessment of what is starting to happen in iraq is correct, and if the americans find themselves as a faction rather than as an overarching ordering force--which appears to be a real possibility--then i would expect that the incoherence of american occupation will increase.
that general incoherence will in all probability decrease the ability of combattants to be sure who they are fighting, and with that will increase the occaision for "accidents" or "collateral damage"--seen in this way, you can avoid the snippy "my friends are nice people and they are in iraq and so this cant be intentional so fuck you" kind of argument and their counter.

if good people, nice people, on all sides, find themselves in an increasing chaotic situation, the blame for that has to rest with the administration that put them in this situation. if that chaos is such that good, nice people become capable of committing atrocities in specific situations, triggered by specific events, out of fear or out of not being able to determine who was who, then, again, blame has to rest on the administration that put them there.

over and over on this and other boards i see the same kind of argument deployed: my firends are good people, they are in iraq therefore anything you say about atrocities (from the american side, in this case, in particular--but they have no monopoly) is a priori offensive as a way of trying to short circuit political argument about the nature of the war in iraq.
if that is what is going on, then i would caution the folk who go this way to think about why they make this kind of argument.
there is a real danger that they are instrumentalizing the associations with their friends/relatives, and by doing that are not developing the arguments they imagine they are, but are instead trying to shut down debate.

if you cant win the debate, you can at least get the thread closed.

there is the gap that seperates emotion felt personally from emotion as written in a public space--there is a switch in meaning and function. you cant stop that switch from occurring, so you can at least keep it in mind.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

Interesting but unwarranted, since two of the people making the comments referenced have the power to close this thread, but didn't.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Rdr4evr

Unfortunately, I must be exposed to all the wrong information. I have never seen nor heard anything positive about the US military occupying Iraq. Everything I hear and see is ALWAYS negative. Maybe I am not searching in the right place. Maybe your "honorable friends" care deeply for those poor Iraqis and would die for their innocent souls. Please direct me to some positive sources so maybe I can change my view. And by positive, I dont mean anti-Iraqi bullshit.


Exactly......If I state that the Iraqi militants are my friends and that their beheadings are justified, I would be flamed to no end. There is a double standard when this issue is involved.

Wow, they actually wait till the janitors leave??? Do they send them roses as well......that is so incredibly sweet. I never heard of such a thing, are you in the military? And if not, where did you get your info. When I see military footage, it seems that they go about their campaigns in the day time quite a bit, and I never see them warn the poor children they are about to blow to oblivion. Once again, maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places.

If you are referring to me in this post. I just want to let you know I never was for the US soldiers. I have always felt the same way toward them and I always will.

I am not trying to offend anyone, but whenever some people have friends in Iraq, they will take it offensively and it pretty much kills any debate, as roachboy has stated. It is probably not to wise of me to argue when mods have friends in Iraq, but I see that as not a fair reason to get upset over my comments.

Ustwo

Define 'anti-Iraqi bullshit'

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rdr4evr

Isn’t it self explanatory? Your views, for example, are anti-Iraqi. So anyone who is not bias towards one side or the other. A neutral source is what I speak of. Not anti-Iraqi American media.

irateplatypus

take that back.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Ustwo

Oh really? You are inside my head? You know I hate the Iraqi people? I am, anti-terrorist, anti-despotist, anti-mass grave, but I am NOT anti-Iraqi.

Now please sir, tell me why you think I am anti-Iraqi? What makes you think I hate the people of Iraq?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Locobot

So funny Roachboy, so true too! lol

powerclown

The way I see it, the Apache wasn't firing on a crowd, it fired on the Bradley to destroy it and prevent the looting of it. This is standard operating procedure for military vehicles destroyed and surrounded by the enemy. If you are in a warzone and have nothing better to do than loiter around a burning combat vehicle watching the pretty flames, looking for shit to steal, your a prime candidate for a Darwin Award.

Mephisto2

Ohh... I get it powerclown.

It's THEIR fault that they were cut to pieces by an attack helicopter.

I understand now.

Kinda like it was the fault of the gooks in My Lai, eh? [/sarcasm]

Oh, and for the record, the initial reports stated that the Apache believed it was fired upon from that crowd. It had nothing to do with destroying a Bradley IFV.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

Yes it was their fault, in fact as a rule its best to avoid burning vehicles and its best to avoid waving the flag of the enemy over that vehicle and its also best to avoid shooting at an apache helicopter. Any one of the three is a good cause for a Darwin award.

Also while I see many condemnations of anything the US does fighting wise, I have yet to see anyone who would be, shall I say, a 'Bush hater' , say anything negative about the purposeful targeting of civilians in Iraq by terror organizations.

Also
We know that Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, nor has the Bush admin ever said they did. We do know that Iraq had dealings with Al Queda and provided safe haven to Abu Musab Zarqawi who is currently leading the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rdr4evr

Being anti-something does not mean that you hate them, it means that you are opposed to them. And If I am not mistaken, being opposed to something does not neccessarily mean you hate them. But must I really search your posts and quote your anti-Iraqi, or for that matter anti-middle eastern statements? I could do that, and if you really want me too, I might. But will that really further the discussion in any way?

Pacifier

Not "we", "you" cause you want to believe.

Days before last year's invasion of Iraq that Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist infidel" : 36»
Yeah, sure they were buddies...

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mephisto2

I am not a "Bush-hater" (your moniker). Nor am I a "Bush-Butt-Lackey" (my sarcastic moniker).

Yet I have repeatedly and consistently condemned the terrorist targeting of civilians. Not only in Iraq, but also Ireland, Chile, Sierra Leone, America, and probably some others I can't explicitly remember. You can search for the specific posts if you wish.

If you can't see them, it's because you're not opening your eyes.


They had "dealings"? We also know that Iraq did specifically not support Al Queda. And if we're justifying the invasion of countries that had "dealings" with Al Queda, when do the attacks on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, France, Germany, UK and Turkey begin? Oh, and the United States... I wonder how Bush would explain that one?


I agree with you. The Bush Administration should really stop it.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

And you don't want to believe. I only go with what seems logical and we know Abu Musab Zarqaw is currently in Iraq, and we know Saddam would pay the family of homicide bombers in Israel. Now maybe you would trust what Osama Bin Laden said, I'm sure he would have no reason to lie about relations, but oddly I don't. Perhaps its a character flaw that I don't trust mass murderers.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rdr4evr

Exactly why I dont trust Bush.

irateplatypus

this is getting silly.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Pacifier

Yes, the keyword is "currently". What makes you think Saddam, a secular leader, supported fanatical islamists in his own land?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Rekna

You don't have to search very far
hopefully he isn't calling the Iraqi's terrorists. I have a feeling that he is claiming aljazeera is pro-terrorist but this is not true. They just have a western perspective. They see things differently then we do.

Mephisto2

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2471.html
That's a conservative web-site by the way.

Allow me to quote

"Following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. This effort was unsuccessful."

"The Administration’s attempt at nation-building and indeed empire-building in Iraq constitutes the very antithesis of conservatism and is doomed to ultimate failure. If continued, it will further provoke an increasingly visible global backlash of anti-Americanism which will likely culminate in further catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US homeland, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands more Americans. The prompt withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is absolutely necessary to minimize further loss of life among our heroic and selflessly-serving military servicemen. It is also essential to do so in order to conserve our military strength and save untold billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for winnable missions that clearly advance, rather than jeopardize the US national security interest."

The article was written by David T. Pyne, Esq. a national security expert who serves as President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a national security think-tank based in Arlington, VA.


Moving on, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks determined that Iraq and Osama bin Laden did not collaborate on the attacks. Allow me to quote Statement 15 (REF:http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...atement_15.pdf)

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Finally, a news story from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

But I guess you know better?


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

I knew you would say this. Hate makes one predictable.


You see Mr. Mephisto, this is what I mean by a Bush hater, you always seem to assume I am targeting you, and I am not. I don't agree with you on much but you seem to have the gift of reason. I think you overestimate my support of Bush, I don't agree with about half of his domestic agenda, but over all I respect your postings.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

You know, at the risk of this becoming a love-fest, I have to say the same about you Ustwo.

Hahah...

Mr Mephisto

Rekna

kindof homo-erotic

onetime2

Nope, not referring specifically to you as I had no idea of your stance.

I mean in the general sense here on TFP and in the world of politics. I've heard countless people who want to either be elected or have "their" guy elected claim to be for the troops and then turn around and say "well they shouldn't have fired on this person or that person" or "they should have retreated rather than firing on the mosque" etc. Being "for" the troops means understanding that you are not there and giving them the benefit of the doubt until there is any kind of proof that there was an obviously better alternative to their actions. They are there to accomplish a mission whether you agree with that mission or not every person has a right to defend themselves. If you're fine with the Iraqis killing US soldiers to defend themselves then you should be ok with US soldiers killing Iraqis to defend themselves. Argue all you want that they should or shouldn't be there but the simple fact is the soldiers are there and they have no choice in the matter at this point. They have a RIGHT to defend themselves and do all they can to bring themselves safely back to their families.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Rdr4evr

Must.............Hit.............Back...........Button.......