Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 105
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    E D I T O R I A L!!!!!
    Please refer to the 1st post in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I am starting this thread for the folks who feel they must discuss Iraq and motives in my other thread that says not to post opinions. This thread will be a free for all post whatever the hell you like here.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...19&postcount=1
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Please refer to the 1st post in this thread.
    Well shut my mouth!!! I can never tell these threads apart anymore. Two Iraq threads, and who knows how many of those Evolution/Creation threads...

    I'm starting to see double again

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well shut my mouth!!! I can never tell these threads apart anymore. Two Iraq threads, and who knows how many of those Evolution/Creation threads...

    I'm starting to see double again
    No biggy, this is supposed to be a companion thread to "Good vs Bad". It felt good getting you though.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Even if the Iran gov is not officially or directly supporting these groups in their country they are unofficially offering them a haven to conduct these acts within their own borders.

    Some Iraq bombs made in Iran -NYTimes report

    http://reuters.myway.com//article/20...-BOMBS-DC.html
    Hobbes -- I believe that Iran's leadership and Revolutionary Guard is knowingly supplying these sophisticated "shaped" weapons to almost any force capable of damaging our soldiers. They are doing it even if that means supporting sunnis who have sometimes also launched attacks that have harmed shiites. They are doing it even though they know that it will become increasingly hard to disguise their tentacles.

    The Iranians just want to bloody us enough that we leave in humiliation -- and never come back. They don't want the "credit", so they are doing just enough provide the appearance of plausable denial.

    It would be my assumption that the professional military also believes this, but that the Rumyworld's political leadership do not want that to be spoken.

    That is because there would be overwhelming pressure for us to act against iran if it got out that Americans are being killed and injured because of Iranian help to the insurgents.

    But we can hardly continue fighting in iraq -- invading iran is no longer even a fantasy.

    Clearly I'm cynical -- but I can recall the shameful memory of 80's Lebanon like it was only months ago. The Iranians were ultimately responsible for attacking our marines and our embassy -- but reagan never really came out and blamed them -- and we just quietly slunk away.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/07/2005 at 04:04 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #45  
    I agree. I have stated several times that I feel that the US has gone to extreme measures through multiple Administrations over the last several decades to avoid going toe to toe with Iran, and supporting causes that would help put a political and military buffer between the US and Iran. But that only works as long as Iran continues to do it in the shadows. Once it becomes blatant and undeniable in the public arena, the game is going to have to change.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree. I have stated several times that I feel that the US has gone to extreme measures through multiple Administrations over the last several decades to avoid going toe to toe with Iran, and supporting causes that would help put a political and military buffer between the US and Iran. But that only works as long as Iran continues to do it in the shadows. Once it becomes blatant and undeniable in the public arena, the game is going to have to change.

    How will it change --- how can it change ??

    One of the advantages of possessing a great military is not having to use it.

    In the past when we were upset enough to rattle our armour, the bad guys would get in line. (the most recent and spectacular example: Sadamm opening EVERYTHING to UNLIMITED inspection in the months prior to our idiotic illegal war.)

    But we have now blown our wad on the little generalissimo's iraqi adventure -- and we can no longer make credible military bluffs.

    Iran has essentially said that they will help kill our troops and pursue atomic weapons -- and dared us to do anything about it. (bring it on !!!)

    I don't need much of an imagination to picture a desert somewhere in Iran, where for the last year Revolutionary Guards have been practicing blowing up old captured Iraqi tanks and APCs. They've no doubt transferred that knowledge, and the tools they've refined, to those fighting us across their border.

    Iran used to be surrounded by enemies. Aside from Saddam's Iraq which most people know -- most don't realize that Iran was one of the fiercest opponents of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    I long wanted to destroy the Taliban (way before 9/11, I wanted to vastly increase our help to the Northern Alliance). But one of the results of our destroying both the Taliban and Saddam is that Iran is now left without a credible adversary.

    Can anyone disagree that Iran is the victor of the great generalissimo's escapade ?
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    the most recent and spectacular example: Sadamm opening EVERYTHING to UNLIMITED inspection in the months prior to our idiotic illegal war.
    Absolutely false, he still did tried to give them the run around, as he had an invested interest to not having his WMD capabilities confirmed. For example they submitted a FULL DISCLOSURE of all their WMD activities. Then when the team found something, they would say, "Oh, I'm sorry, this is what we should have said in our Full Disclosure" and add additional documentation that should have been included in the orginal only after they got caught.

    Saddam did not want it confirmed that he did not have any WMDs because he used that possibility as a deterrent against Iran. So he tried to stall and add as much uncertainty as possible into the process, whether to hide the fact he had WMDs from us or to hide the fact that he did NOT have WMDs from Iran....we did not know and could not confirm that his lying about his lying was actually try or another lie.

    Iran has essentially said that they will help kill our troops and pursue atomic weapons -- and dared us to do anything about it. (bring it on !!!)
    This has never changed. They just tried for the last 20 years to keep the nuke part hidden and lied about it.

    I don't need much of an imagination to picture a desert somewhere in Iran, where for the last year Revolutionary Guards have been practicing blowing up old captured Iraqi tanks and APCs. They've no doubt transferred that knowledge, and the tools they've refined, to those fighting us across their border.
    I agree, just as they have supported many other terror acts that many administrations have chosen to ignore or overlook, including Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

    Can anyone disagree that Iran is the victor of the great generalissimo's escapade ?
    I got to tell you your slanted slurs do really take the wind out of your sail, when trying to present a reasonably balanced arguments. Oh, well.

    Again, yes there have been benefits for Iran. Which makes them even more of an enemy to be concerned about. But you are looking at the snapshot, not the whole picture.

    That Saddam has already testified that he had plans to get Nukes, including re-establishing the infrastructure of producing Nukes and the financing of the program, which apparently included in part the Oil for Food Scandal.

    That Iran had been hiding their Nuke program for around 20 years with lies concerning all sides of it during that time that were less sure at the time we went into Iraq of what Iran was possibly up to, beyond the normal rumors.

    As I stated in the Iran thread when this same point was brought up by you, that there is a lot consider:

    But I do agree with you that we would be hard pressed, though unwisely possible, to initiate military options against Iran while we are still tied to cleaning up the situation in Iraq. I personally feel that Iraq needed to be addressed, my big question is the timing concerning other threats at the time and now. I assume that you would agree that all cannot be taken care of at once. Then it comes down to what to do first.

    IRAN: As I mentioned in the first post, I personally think that the US has always been all too aware of the threat of Iran, which has lead to many of our decisions in dealing with both Iraq and Iran. I personally think that is one (among a mountain of others) consideration why during the first Gulf war, we did not go all the way to take out Bagdad, is that Iraq offers a political buffer between the US and Iran and helps to stop a full head on toe to toe situation.

    To tell you the truth Iran possibly scares me more than any other immediate threat for a couple reasons. NK obviously can hurl nukes our way, but I feel is unable to wage any other long term war because of their economy being so bad, food so scarce, and energy resources always low. But Iran I feel has the economy, political momentum, and the man power to wage a VERY serious war against the US. This would make the Iraq war look like game a Risk compared to it, if it came to feet on the ground.

    NKorea: The big difference between Iraq and NK is that NK already has up to 8 unconfirmed nukes with an unconfirmed delivery capability to launch a strike against the entire West Coast of the US with a push of a button. Iraq was claiming (or at least not allowing confirmation that they were not) to be really close to nuke capability and we still had a chance to act before they got it.

    Syria: I think this could have been a possibility, not because of their political, or economical, or military factors, but for making their county a safe haven for terrorist. I think it would have been a similar situation as in Iraq. A quick fall of the gov and a long haul effort to reform the gov while dealing with all the terrorist in the country and those who would come in to join the fight. It may be a target soon because of their continual support of terrorist while thumbing their nose at the rest of us.

    Pakistan: This again falls into a NK category as they also have nukes and have proved with 5 tests in 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ . Again a country that already has nukes is a whole different situation than one on verge of getting them, like Iran and Iraq.

    Lybia: After seeing that the US meant business with those playing games with WMDs, already gave theirs up and welcomed us in to make sure there they had it all. This is an example of what can happen when we stand up to threats and follow through on what we say we are going to do.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/07/2005 at 03:26 PM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Absolutely false, he still did tried to give them the run around, as he had an invested interest to not having his WMD capabilities confirmed. For example they submitted a FULL DISCLOSURE of all their WMD activities. Then when the team found something, they would say, "Oh, I'm sorry, this is what we should have said in our Full Disclosure" and add additional documentation that should have been included in the orginal only after they got caught.

    Saddam did not want it confirmed that he did not have any WMDs because he used that possibility as a deterrent against Iran. So he tried to stall and add as much uncertainty as possible into the process, whether to hide the fact he had WMDs from us or to hide the fact that he did NOT have WMDs from Iran....we did not know and could not confirm that his lying about his lying was actually try or another lie. :

    You are describing how he had acted in the years after the first gulf war -- when he had disarmed -- but was afraid that the iranians would act upon him if they knew this.

    In the months prior to the war Saddam was desperately demonstrating ABSOLUTE cooperation with the inspections. They established beyond a reasonable doubt (inspite of junior's lies and attempts at obstruction) that Iraq did not possess WMD.


    :[/QUOTE] I got to tell you your slanted slurs do really take the wind out of your sail, when trying to present a reasonably balanced arguments. Oh, well. :[/QUOTE]


    My animus toward that chicken hawk phoney is too overpowering to permit me to refer to him politely. (I intend to write more on that topic, btw)

    :[/QUOTE] I agree, just as they have supported many other terror acts that many administrations have chosen to ignore or overlook, including Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

    Again, yes there have been benefits for Iran. Which makes them even more of an enemy to be concerned about. But you are looking at the snapshot, not the whole picture.

    That Saddam has already testified that he had plans to get Nukes, including re-establishing the infrastructure of producing Nukes and the financing of the program, which apparently included in part the Oil for Food Scandal.

    That Iran had been hiding their Nuke program for around 20 years with lies concerning all sides of it during that time that were less sure at the time we went into Iraq of what Iran was possibly up to, beyond the normal rumors. :[/QUOTE]


    I have no love or great respect for raygun's presidency -- but I am compelled to acknowledge that they at least understood the different risks presented by Iran & Iraq.

    We supported Saddam during the long bloodbath of the Iran/Iraq war -- rumy even told Saddamm AFTER he'd gassed thousands of Kurds that he should ignore the criticism we'd say in public -- that he should only pay attention to all the intelligence help etc, that we were providing him in secret.

    But the junior generalissomo never learned why his daddy left saddam in power when we easily could have toppled him. (to paraphrase: "education is um, like important").

    Unforgivably, daddy even watched as saddam murdered thousands and thousands of the shiites who rose in rebellion in answer to his foolish invitation to rise up. The Shiites remember even if few americans do.

    The neutered Saddam did not present a threat to us -- Iran did, and does.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/07/2005 at 05:37 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    You are describing how he had acted in the years after the first gulf war -- when he had disarmed -- but was afraid that the iranians would act upon him if they knew this.

    In the months prior to the war Saddam was desperately demonstrating ABSOLUTE cooperation with the inspections. They established beyond a reasonable doubt (inspite of junior's lies and attempts at obstruction) that Iraq did not possess WMD.
    I am not discribing what happened after the first war.....but what happened AFTER the inspectors when back in 2002 after Saddam gave himself a 4 year free break when he kicked out the inspectors in 1998.

    I agree there were major intel issues. I do question the timing of when to do what, as I addressed above. But Saddam did not take advantage of this last chance to declare a full and accurate accounting of his WMD programs, either future, current at the time, or past.....which could have stalled the US' claim to go to war against Iraq....especially with the votes they were buying with the Oil for Food.

    Here is an example of what I was talking about:

    November 8, 2002: Resolution 1441
    CNN. UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

    The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.

    "How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

    Iraq reportedly was reviewing the document. "Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Al-Douri told The Associated Press.

    --------------

    Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix wasted no time Friday in announcing his intention to begin work in Iraq. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday the 18th of this month, so it will be within seven to 10 days that we have planned," he told reporters.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/
    December 8, 2002: Iraq must provide a "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration" of any weapons of mass destruction program. They actually supplied it a day early, which gives the distinct impression that they were confident it was complete and accurate since they did not use the last day to review and finish the report that needed to be fully comprehensive.

    December 19, 2002
    USA TODAY. UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Top U.N. weapons inspectors reported Thursday that Iraq's weapons declaration has gaps and inconsistencies and the U.S. ambassador immediately declared Iraq in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions.

    ------------

    Negroponte spoke after chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided the Security Council with initial assessments of the 12,000-page declaration. "We are consistent in the view that there has been relatively little given in the declaration by way of evidence concerning the programs of weapons of mass destruction," Blix told reporters after the briefing.

    Negroponte said Iraq's "practice of omissions, evasions and untruths" was cause for a new "material breach" of its disarmament obligations — diplomatic language that could throw the United States into a war with Iraq.

    -----------------

    Blix noted inconsistencies in Iraq's biological declaration, noting that the latest report did not include a table that had been provided in 1999 on Baghdad's purchase of material that it used to grow biological warfare agents including anthrax.

    This omission "needs to be explained," Blix told the council, according to his briefing notes.

    Also, he said Iraq was using chemical equipment destroyed by inspectors before they left in December 1998 and was developing a missile known as the Al Samoud with a range, in 13 flight tests, that exceeded the range permitted under U.N. resolutions.

    "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence," Blix said. "They can still provide it orally but it would have been better if it was in the declaration."

    ElBaradei noted that the Iraqis have been opening doors for inspectors on the ground but said: "We have not gotten what we need in terms of additional evidence."

    ----------------

    In preparing its declaration, Iraq had a list of outstanding questions prepared by the former U.N. inspection agency and by an international panel of experts. Inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 and Iraq barred them from returning until last month.

    The unanswered questions included: How much anthrax did Iraq actually produce, and was it all destroyed as Baghdad claims? Where are 550 artillery shells that it filled with mustard gas? Why were no remnants found of warheads for 50 long-range missiles that Iraq said it destroyed? What happened to all the deadly VX nerve agent that Iraq produced.

    The report by former chief inspector Richard Butler listed biological agents Iraq produced including deadly botullinum toxin, anthrax and ricin; gangrene gas, which rots flesh; and aflatoxin, which causes liver cancer. Baghdad also said it did research on rotavirus, which causes diarrhea; and hemorrhage conjunctivitis virus, which affects the eyes.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...aqreport_x.htm
    Friday, 10 January 2003 Blix Briefing Notes To UN Security Council
    I will also note that Iraq, in the Declaration, has declared the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel. This import has taken place in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq. Inspections have confirmed the presence of a relatively large number of missile engines, some imported as late as 2002. We have yet to determine the significance of these illegal imports relating to the specific WMD-mandate of UNMOVIC.

    Another outstanding issue regards the chemical agent VX. We have found no additional information in the Declaration that would help to resolve this issue. Instead, it contains information that is contradicted by documents previously found by UNSCOM. Iraq will have to further clarify the matter.
    --------------

    As I reported to you on 19 December, UNMOVIC asked Iraq, on the basis of paragraph 7 of resolution 1441 (2002), to provide the names of all personnel currently or formerly associated with some aspects of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction.

    A list was submitted to us before the end of last year as requested. It consisted of 117 persons for the chemical sector, 120 for the biological sector and 156 persons for the missile sector. This is an inadequate response. The lists do not even comprise all those who have been previously listed in Iraq's Full, Final and Complete Declarations, besides the numerous Iraqi personnel that are known from UNSCOM interviews and found in Iraqi documents, to have participated in past weapons programmes.

    We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request we made.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0301/S00040.htm
    February 24, 2003
    Associated Press. Top U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei say Iraq still isn't fully cooperating or providing evidence to answer outstanding questions about its nuclear, chemical, biological and long-range missile programs.

    To demonstrate that Iraq is cooperating, Saddam must not only show that it is doing more to answer those questions. He must also comply with Blix's order to begin destroying all Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles and the engines and components for them by Saturday.

    -----------

    Blix, meanwhile, will meet Monday and Tuesday with his College of Commissioners, an advisory body, to go over the report due Saturday. Blix will present the commissioners with a list of more than 35 outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs.

    http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/47899.html
    July 06, 2003 Blix states in several interviews that Iraq still has not answered the answers so we could have confirmed or denied Saddams claims and/or lies.

    August 1, 2003
    President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

    "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=9191
    I don't think this would count as "Saddam was desperately demonstrating ABSOLUTE cooperation".
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/09/2005 at 04:44 PM.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The neutered Saddam did not present a threat to us -- Iran did, and does.
    It is easy to say that now. But what is often challenging to do is to look at the what we knew at the time the decisions were being made........and not with the knowledge we have now. IMHO, This is where a lot of your argument falls apart.

    I shared with you in one of the first posts the choices of those who we could have gone after at that time, and some thoughts on each.

    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddams reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,
    Congress had already voted for going after Iraq on Friday, October 11, 2002 ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html ).
    Nov 8th 2002 the UN Security Council Approves Iraq Resolution ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html ).
    March 20th, 2003 US attacks Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/ ).

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 monts AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    No matter what your personal political opinions are, you cannot muddle facts we know true today as if they were well known then when decisions had to be made.

    I would have supported going after Iran at the time as well, even though we didn't know about their nuke program at the time. But I have little doubt that we would be in the same boat as we are now in Iraq, but in a worse situation. Iran can only support the insurgence under the table with a low profile. Imagine what it would be like if they were free and open to oppose us in this situation? No matter if it was Iran or Iraq, both have to be dealt with. And since even after we had finish dealing with Iran, I doubt that we would still know for sure or not about Saddam's status with his WMDs that there is no doubt that he DID have. It also would have flipped the coin and offered many HUGE benefits for Iraq, just as Iraq's situation has offered benefits to Iran. In both cases, AQ would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases Syria, would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases, we would be fighting an uphill battle against resistant terrorist fearful of a Dem gov who are going to oppose us every minute that we fight to establish democracy in the mist of them.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/09/2005 at 05:19 PM.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #51  
    I thought this was a big enough deal to post twice. Let's talk about how this is going to effect the 'progress' in Iraq. Seems like they are reverting back to the tribal roots that drive most of the middle east. All it seems to be is the way of the gun and sword.


    Quote Originally Posted by NY Times
    Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced

    BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 9 - Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.

    The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, recounted the events in a telephone interview on Tuesday and called the move a municipal coup d'état. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.

    "This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."

    The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr. Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.

    The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in heavily Shiite areas in southern Iraq but also accused of abuses like forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shiite religious law.

    "If we wanted to do something bad to him, we would have done that," said Mazen A. Makkia, the elected city council chief who led the ouster on Monday and who had been in a lengthy and unresolved legal feud with Mr. Tamimi.

    "We really want to establish the state of law for every citizen, and we did not threaten anyone," Mr. Makkia said. "This is not a coup."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/in...gewanted=print
  12. #52  
    I haven't seen any follow up on that story yet.
  13. #53  
    Threats to Arab journalists and media outlets:

    http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp

    CENTCOM: A militant web forum posted an article on June 29 criticizing and asking for names of Arab journalists who have “participated in slandering the mujahideen.” The piece reasons that “war with the enemies of religion includes all fields…,” including a war of ideology and information. In response, viewers of the posting suggested both prominent print and satellite media outlets and individual journalists as targets. At the end of the posting the author unequivocally states, “We ask [the] mujahideen to prepare to assassinate them.”

    These discussions are further proof that al-Qa'ida and other extreme groups are not willing to have their ideology OR their actions criticized or analyzed by a free, democratic press. A larger sample of the statement on the site:

    Posted to an Abu-Dhabi based website called "The Fortress" on July 7, 2005:

    Original language: Arabic

    This web-site is a forum for open discussions in Arabic. In its disclaimer it states that the site is available to both Muslims and non-Muslims without regard to race, age, or status. It also states that opinions posted here are in no way reflections of the opinions of the site managers and is not monitored. Registration is required to enter the site.

    Enemies throughout history have come to realize that they cannot defeat this nation [ Iraq ] militarily; therefore, they resorted to different methods in order to defeat this nation [ Iraq ]. One of the most important methods used is the ideological and media information war.... Regrettably, they were able to succeed in implementing many of their goals and plans, which they were unable to do in an arena of military conflict. Today, the Americans have come to realize that they cannot win the war in Iraq by military force alone. Therefore, they have put all of their media resources into supporting the war effort. The goal is to slander the mujahideen and their image so that people will not rally around them, to influence the mujahideen morale…, to disperse the mujahideen by focusing on and promoting small mistakes, which happen here and there, and emphasizing them by repeating them. Many of the Arab journalists are participating in this conspiracy by either appearing on the satellite networks, or writing in other newspapers. In order to make the people aware of the dangers that these people might present, I’ve come up with this suggestion where we can list names of such journalists, and I’m asking every brother to add a name of any journalist that he has heard about or has come to know, and it is preferable that you post a blurb on the journalist’s indiscretions as well.
  14. #54  
    The big quesion: are insurgents and/or terrorists in Iraq killed faster than new ones appear? So far, it doesn't look like it, neither in Iraq, nor in other places (London), where the Iraq situation (among other things) shows the successful effects of suicide bombing.

    http://www.spacewar.com/news/iraq-05zq.html

    Analysis: Iraq Statistics Tell Grim Story
    by Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst
    Washington DC (UPI) Aug 08, 2005

    If the U.S. Army and its Iraqi allies are killing as many insurgents as reports indicate they are per month, why is the insurgency intensifying instead of collapsing? ...

    After falling from 18,000 in January and February and down to 16,000 in March and April, the U.S. estimate of the strength of the insurgency quietly crept up again from 15,000-20,000 for June to "No more than 20,000" in July, the IIP reported. Yet the U.S. military has also reported or estimated the number of insurgents detained or killed as 21,000 since Sept. 1, 2004, and 2,000 per month through May, June and July. ...

    Therefore, either many of those being killed and detained are not insurgents at all or, far more likely, they are indeed, but in general they are just foot soldiers being scooped up.

    Most alarmingly of all, the figures suggest that the insurgency is able to operate and organize among a far wider cross section of the Sunni Muslim minority in Iraq than the widely quoted estimates have suggested, and that it enjoys a far broader popular support base in the Sunni community This, in fact, is the conclusion reached by several U.S. military analysts, speaking on condition of anonymity to UPI.

    It appears, therefore, that the figures quoted are as accurate and reliable as it is possible for them to be in such a situation. But it is the conclusions to be drawn from them that make the grimmest reading.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #55  
    I dont know, but here is some gun camera footage that shows what can happen.

    Payback
    Rated TVMLV
    Last edited by clairegrrl; 08/11/2005 at 11:43 AM.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. #56  
    Thats the second time today I've been eating and saw something like this

    Not as bad as the other one though...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #57  
    Was that with an infrared thingie??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Not as bad as the other one though...
    ...though shooting a heavily wounded insurgent lying on the floor, clearly in pain, from a helicopter is not exactly heroic, nor legal even in times of war... seems to have become normal in this war, for some.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Was that with an infrared thingie??
    Bad luck we didn't hear the guy on the floor scream after he was hit the first time, before they finished him off, right?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...though shooting a heavily wounded insurgent lying on the floor, clearly in pain, from a helicopter is not exactly heroic, nor legal even in times of war... seems to have become normal in this war, for some.
    These people are not insurgents.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions