The Iraq thread 3

[ralphwiggum 6]

given the fact that FOX has consistently(until recently) had news shows that was supporting TBA's decision, (O'reilly factor comes to mind) would it be surprising that FOX tends to give more news out that supports their position, instead of covering the otherside?

for example, I don't think remember when FOX talked about how bad some situations were in Baghdad.

as same with AJ, they tell story that they want to hear more often.

[denoir 0]

o jeez, your trying to point out Fox's News as being biased by using a human interest story that usually last around 5 minutes at the end of the broadcast c'mon every news channel has them, im not saing Fox is unbiased but please try and prove it using something else.

Albert posted about an independent study called Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War which showed a significant difference between the news sources. FOX News followers had significantly more misconceptions about the war (pro-Bush biased) than other news sources.

[full report - look from page 13 for media source comparisons[

[MLF 0]

hey hey hey hey, i know Fox news is biased as hell i was just pointing out that Human Interest Stories cannot be used to justify the argument of the Channels Biased Nature.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]ANY warzone is a dangerous place to work for journalist. and yet the statment is claiming that Iraq is the most dangerous place in history.

I would have thoughed you would bring something better like "US soldiers are killing journalists and making it dangerous for them to report" but instead you bring this,planting words in their mouth.Where did they say in history?They are strictly refering to the journalists activating in present as you can see the detailed descriptions of how they died.And Iraq IS in the present by far the most dangerous place in the world for reporters right now.

Quote[/b] ]first, it cannot be stressed enough how Arabs have problem with Jewish-Anglo-US conspiracy theory, and on top of that they are raising issues about UN, which is composition of the whole group of nations. UN had its hands tied for MANY actions, and they do not make much of that fact come to light.

I see it as a very valid question.It was on the lips of every single person when the war started.It was not blaming UN but instad asked if US "our way of the highway" policy made the UN irrelevent.

Quote[/b] ]Analysts say the chaos gives the

US/UK forces an excuse to stay

What`s false about that?As the attacks intesify so does the need for security and it gives them legitimacy for their staying as Iraqis can`t handle the situtation right now.We already know the June 30 sovereignty will be limited because of lack of security so again what`s your point?

Overall what you did was nitpicking.I can make the same analysis you did on CNN or any other news agency and draw the same conclusion.

No news agency is perfect but saying Al-Jazeera is in the same league as FOX news by the least far-fetched.

AJ never glorified Resistance actions,they aren`t calling them heroes,they haven`t even claimed the majority of Iraqis support them.

Quote[/b] ]and speaking of the news you quoted,

1)it's not AJ news

2)the POWs were not picked up per se. IIRC, one of the POWs did say in an interview that the place they were in was searched by US troops.

1)Well of course it`s not AL Jazeera.I didn`t want you to call it propaganda.It`s from an Australian agency that strenghtens the Al-Jazeera report that US POW`s were treated well.

2)US ground troops made the claim they were realesed by the Iraqi Army.Maybe a "missunderstanding" with the higher command

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]hey hey hey hey, i know Fox news is biased as hell i was just pointing out that Human Interest Stories cannot be used to justify the argument of the Channels Biased Nature.

the problem is that at least the story that i quoted deals with human interest in iraq, portraying the US intervention as the possitive thing, when it is actually neither the blessing nor curse.

your point is well taken, and on local news level, FOX tends to have a set formula where bad news come out first, but end the news with heart-warming human touchy story.

of course, all of that gets thrown out as soon as there is a 'live' police pursuit.

[MLF 0]

One thing i must say is that Fox News use alot of Pictures and Video's so when im tired/hungover i just turn off the sound and watch

o btw check this out

Marines in Fallujah

Reuters Video of Fierce fighting

Check out the Link Combat Confusion, really Shows that the US troops are up against.

also check out the US Forces Renew Falluja Strikes and listen to the guy speaking and what he says.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]ANY warzone is a dangerous place to work for journalist. and yet the statment is claiming that Iraq is the most dangerous place in history.

I would have thoughed you would bring something better like "US soldiers are killing journalists and making it dangerous for them to report" but instead you bring this,planting words in their mouth.Where did they say in history?They are strictly refering to the journalists activating in present as you can see the detailed descriptions of how they died.And Iraq IS in the present by far the most dangerous place in the world for reporters right now.

define 'now' How many full scale war with persistent military action is happening in in the world? and when reporters goto war zone, they are risking their lives.

without a comparison, they are calling it the most dangerous.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]first, it cannot be stressed enough how Arabs have problem with Jewish-Anglo-US conspiracy theory, and on top of that they are raising issues about UN, which is composition of the whole group of nations. UN had its hands tied for MANY actions, and they do not make much of that fact come to light.

I see it as a very valid question.It was on the lips of every single person when the war started.It was not blaming UN but instad asked if US "our way of the highway" policy made the UN irrelevent.

then another valid question is, "why are there so many Arabs immigrating to US or UK, and be able to have their way, while as ME nations tend to discourage foreigners practicing their way of life, thus increasing Arab influence while not having equivalent exchange of culture?"

read the header paragraph again. "ANGLO-US" war. instead of US, they added word "ANGLO".

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Analysts say the chaos gives the

US/UK forces an excuse to stay

What`s false about that?As the attacks intesify so does the need for security and it gives them legitimacy for their staying as Iraqis can`t handle the situtation right now.We already know the June 30 sovereignty will be limited because of lack of security so again what`s your point?

what is false? the fact that TBA wants to get its ass out of Iraq ASAP, and they want it with handling over of limited power in June 30th. Is there a legitimacy to suggest that US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen?

Quote[/b] ]Overall what you did was nitpicking.I can make the same analysis you did on CNN or any other news agency and draw the same conclusion.

No news agency is perfect but saying Al-Jazeera is in the same league as FOX news by the least far-fetched.

AJ never glorified Resistance actions,they aren`t calling them heroes,they haven`t even claimed the majority of Iraqis support them.

nitpicking the fact that there is innuendo within the news report is in fact a way to show signs of bias. go ahead, make analysis on CNN. then you also have to agree that my analysis stands as much as yours on CNN since it's the same 'nitpicking'

of course AJ will not air that majority of Iraqis support insurgents. cause as soon as they do i can assure you that it will have to deal with other medias who can show that that is not the case either. but then again, since majority of people are not with insurgents, that means there are more people who are not taking sides. and how would that sound to Arab viewers?

Quote[/b] ]1)Well of course it`s not AL Jazeera.I didn`t want you to call it propaganda.It`s from an Australian agency that strenghtens the Al-Jazeera report that US POW`s were treated well.

2)US ground troops made the claim they were realesed by the Iraqi Army.Maybe a "missunderstanding" with the higher command

of course they were treated well. otherwise it would have strengthened the TBA's argument that Iraqi military were a bunch of international law breaking thugs. so what's the surprise there? so did Iraqi army have a choice?

on top of that, during war there were confusion. the fate of 507 batatlion(?) was in question for many hours, and so was the casualty or surviving members. are you claiming that it was Iraqis who released them?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]of course, all of that gets thrown out as soon as there is a 'live' police pursuit.

Fox News Alert!

High-speed chase in progress!

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3245724/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]TIKRIT, Iraq -- Wednesday is Saddam Hussein's 67th birthday -- and things are unusually quiet in his hometown of Tikrit.

In years past, there were giant celebrations on Saddam's birthday, organized by his government. Last year, despite the coalition's overthrow of that government, there were still some 200 flag-waving Iraqis who marked their former leader's birthday.

But, Wednesday, there are no signs of celebration.

Shops are open in Tikrit, and people are allowed to go about their business. But, schools and universities are closed -- although one military spokesman says he's unaware of anyone issuing that order.

anyone want to send some birthday cakes?

[Schoeler 0]

OMG! They saw two trucks! I see that the spirit of of making claims about invisible WMD lives on in the US military. So contrary to your later statement:

Quote[/b] ]There is no mention in the report of the Marine explanation that the attack began when the Iraqis started to fire on American units.

they weren't fired upon, but they SAW TWO TRUCKS. Oh man, I saw at least three trucks today and quite many cars. I better arm myself.

Come on Denoir! I know you are better informed than that.

Those two trucks happened to be driving with their lights off after curfew and into an area that has been the source of heavy fighting in the last week. It is a warehouse area the insurgents have been using to stage their attacks from. Civilians have reportedly abandoned the area days ago due to the intense fighting. The Marines believe the area is being reinforced and rearmed at night and that the buildings are being used to store weapons.

Are you telling me as a former soldier, you would not have struck those two trucks?

The odds of civilians remaining anywhere near that area after the degree of combat that has been taking place there over the last week is minimal. If they are there, they are likely supporting the insurgents. The use of AC-130 gunships indicated the Marines are trying to be precise.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]read the header paragraph again. "ANGLO-US" war. instead of US, they added word "ANGLO".

Could it be because Blair was along with Bush the stunchest supporter of the war and because it`s the only other country that has a considerable force in Iraq  

Quote[/b] ] Is there a legitimacy to suggest that US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen?

There you go again.Where oh where did they say US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen.Is says the violence is an excuse but not a premeditated one.So no "arab conspiracy theory" here either

Quote[/b] ]define 'now' How many full scale war with persistent military action is happening in in the world? and when reporters goto war zone, they are risking their lives.

without a comparison, they are calling it the most dangerous.

If you would have read the article without the words "arab crap" ringing in your mind you would`ve knew it`s not Al-Jazeera who calls it the most dangerous place in the world but The Committee to Protect Journalists which is not on arab organisation.

Guess what,many other agency took the story

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/56446/

Quote[/b] ]Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist, CPJ reiterates following latest deaths; Reuters protests U.S. military's treatment of journalists

I guess if you would have read this instead you wouldn`t have thought they are making comparations with other wars,right?

But when it`s Al-Jazeera it`s got to be a conspiracy....

Quote[/b] ]of course they were treated well. otherwise it would have strengthened the TBA's argument that Iraqi military were a bunch of international law breaking thugs. so what's the surprise there? so did Iraqi army have a choice?

The surprise is how fast you are able to forget your own words

Quote[/b] ] or them being nice to POWs?

Quote[/b] ]are you claiming that it was Iraqis who released them?

Not me Ralph,US ground troops,again I am sorry you don`t take the time to read the articles properly before you judge them.

Quote[/b] ]But some coalition ground forces said the PoWs were being marched to freedom by Iraqi soldiers when the U.S. 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Company came across them.The commander of the entire military operation in Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks, said he was also told that "our guys picked them up on the road."

[quicksand 0]

And another page from the never ending saga:Prisoners tortured,abused and humilliated.

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (AP) U.S. soldiers stacked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid, and attached wires to one detainee to convince him he might be electrocuted, according to photographs obtained by CBS News which led to criminal charges against six Americans.

CBS said the photos, to be shown Wednesday night on ``60 Minutes II,'' were taken late last year at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, where American soldiers were holding hundreds of prisoners captured during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In March, the U.S. Army announced that six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade faced court martial for allegedly abusing about 20 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The charges included dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person.

At the time, U.S. military officials declined to provide details of the evidence against the six soldiers. But on Wednesday, at a news briefing in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the investigation began when an American soldier reported the abuse and turned over evidence that included photographs.

Kimmitt confirmed that CBS had obtained those photographs.

One picture, according to CBS, shows an Iraqi prisoner who was told to stand on a box with his head covered and wires attached to his hands. CBS said the prisoner was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.

In another photograph, CBS said, prisoners' bodies were stacked in a pyramid, and one man had a slur written in English on his skin.

In an interview with CBS correspondent Dan Rather, Kimmitt said the photographs were dismaying.

``We're appalled,'' Kimmitt said. ``These are our fellow soldiers, these are the people we work with every day, they represent us, they wear the same uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down.''

``If we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect, we can't ask that other nations do that to our soldiers,'' Kimmitt said.

``60 Minutes II'' identified one of the implicated soldiers as Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, who described to Rather what he saw in the Iraqi prison.

``We had no support, no training whatsoever, and I kept asking my chain of command for certain things, rules and regulations, and it just wasn't happening,'' Frederick said, according to a CBS News release.

``60 Minutes II'' also quoted from an e-mail which Frederick reportedly sent to his family in which he said of Iraqi prisoners: ``We've had a very high rate with our styles of getting them to break; they usually end up breaking within hours.''

At the news briefing in Baghdad, Kimmitt said the abuse allegations had triggered reviews of the command structure that oversees detentions in Iraq and of the interrogation procedures used in detention facilities.

``We are committed to treating all persons under coalition custody with dignity, respect and humanity,'' Kimmitt said. ``Coalition personnel are expected to act appropriately, humanely and in a manner consistent with Geneva Conventions.''

A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said investigators have recommended administrative punishment for a number of commanders at Abu Ghraib. The official would not give details on the recommended punishments or how many commanders faced action.

Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, said in March that many former detainees in Iraq claimed to have been tortured and ill-treated by coalition troops during interrogation.

Methods often reported, it said, included prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings, exposure to loud music and prolonged periods of being covered by a hood.

Sick,just sick ...I have all the understanding for the effect called war trauma but this is nothing of the sort,they had the job of guarding a secure place not protecting convoys and watching out for roadside bombs.They diserve nothing less then the straight jacket.

``We had no support, no training whatsoever, and I kept asking my chain of command for certain things, rules and regulations, and it just wasn't happening,'' Frederick said, according to a CBS News release.

Oh I see now,so he understood that he had to beat,torture them,treathen their lives and any other possible demented action to assure they have no hope what so ever of surving.

What is ever more concerning is that it took US millitary leaked photos to alarm itself.By every sign this has been going on for months.At the Abu Gharib prison there are hundreads if not close to a thousand soldiers guarding it as there are political detainees hold up in it.I am affraid to imagine how many of them knew of the situation and tolerated it..

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]read the header paragraph again. "ANGLO-US" war. instead of US, they added word "ANGLO".

Could it be because Blair was along with Bush the stunchest supporter of the war and because it`s the only other country that has a considerable force in Iraq  

AJ could have used "Coalition" or "US/UK", but they added "Anglo" which is a term used to describe an ethnic group. just using the term suggest that AJ is not free from its bias of "blonde, blue eyed infidels."

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] Is there a legitimacy to suggest that US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen?

There you go again.Where oh where did they say US/UK forces are letting the violence to happen.Is says the violence is an excuse but not a premeditated one.So no "arab conspiracy theory" here either

read the quote I had last page. it said 'analyst' suggest that US/UK troops are using violence to justify their staying. If AJ was half a decent news organization, they would have worked to show that US/UK forces are NOT causing the violence or letting it happen, but by posting that 'analysis' AJ is purporting as if US/UK forces are ready to let violence happen, which is not true since TBA's intent was that they get out of Iraq ASAP, as long as the place is what they dreamt of.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]define 'now' How many full scale war with persistent military action is happening in in the world? and when reporters goto war zone, they are risking their lives.

without a comparison, they are calling it the most dangerous.

If you would have read the article without the words "arab crap" ringing in your mind you would`ve knew it`s not Al-Jazeera who calls it the most dangerous place in the world but The Committee to Protect Journalists which is not on arab organisation.

Guess what,many other agency took the story

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/56446/

Quote[/b] ]Iraq remains the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist, CPJ reiterates following latest deaths; Reuters protests U.S. military's treatment of journalists

I guess if you would have read this instead you wouldn`t have thought they are making comparations with other wars,right?

But when it`s Al-Jazeera it`s got to be a conspiracy....

how about this?

there is an organization saying one thing, but is not the whole truth. then use that to claim the whole thing is something.

say for example, the line of logic would allow some moron to say "since OBL is form SA, and SA is an arab nation, therefore all Arabs are terrorist."?

absolutely not true. the group that is quoted is saying one thing, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is true. comparing to other wars, what is the amount of casualties suffered?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]of course they were treated well. otherwise it would have strengthened the TBA's argument that Iraqi military were a bunch of international law breaking thugs. so what's the surprise there? so did Iraqi army have a choice?

The surprise is how fast you are able to forget your own words

Quote[/b] ] or them being nice to POWs?

and why are you quoting out of conext read the original statement carefully. 'them' refers to US marines.

Quote[/b] ]are you claiming that it was Iraqis who released them?

Quote[/b] ]Not me Ralph,US ground troops,again I am sorry you don`t take the time to read the articles properly before you judge them.

Quote[/b] ]But some coalition ground forces said the PoWs were being marched to freedom by Iraqi soldiers when the U.S. 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Company came across them.The commander of the entire military operation in Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks, said he was also told that "our guys picked them up on the road."

"But some coalition ground forces "

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]The seven were discovered Sunday by a group of Marines sent to Samarra, 75 miles [120 kilometers] north of Baghdad, to keep traffic from interfering with tanks headed to battle in Tikrit. When they got there, an Iraqi policeman walked up and asked if they had come for the prisoners. The policeman led the Marines to a nearby building where they found the U.S. soldiers under guard.

walking down the road, getting picked up?

====

and aside, "If you would have read the article without the words "arab crap" ringing in your mind you would`ve knew it`s not " is not a good way to make an argument, since it is flamebaiting. I could have gone on tyrade of racist remarks but i refrained from so. i beleive you can do to.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Sick,just sick ...I have all the understanding for the effect called war trauma but this is nothing of the sort,they had the job of guarding a secure place not protecting convoys and watching out for roadside bombs.They diserve nothing less then the straight jacket.

ever heard of prison riot? i guess the CIA op who was killed in afghanistan was safe, and was not killed by taliban prisoners.

[miles teg 1]

I agree that the soldier can not soley blame his superiors for the abuses he committed.  However most definitely the commanders of that soldier and of the prison need to be disciplined and changed out if they can't keep discipline amongst the guards and interrogators.  

Also Ralph, you do not need to torture prisoners to avoid rioting. That would be insane to do so. In fact that's a good way to cause a riot.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ralphwiggum 6]

Also Ralph, you do not need to torture prisoners to avoid rioting.  That would be insane to do so.  In fact that's a good way to cause a riot.

definitely. however i was making rebutal to the argument that prison is a secure place. I tried to show that there are instances when prisoner can overtake prison authorities.

[denoir 0]

Come on Denoir!  I know you are better informed than that.

I'm not talking about that. Since there were huge secondaries, obviously they were carrying weapon/ammo.

What I'm talking about is CNN/coalition press reports claiming in one instance that the fighting restarted because US troops were fired upon and in the other instance they are saying because they saw two suspicious trucks.

Quote[/b] ]Are you telling me as a former soldier, you would not have struck those two trucks?  

If there was a cease-fire in effect and if I was serious about it (one condition of the cease-fire was for the rebels to hand over their heavy weapons - not to be disarmed by force), then no. If I was not serious about the cease-fire and wanted to blow up enemy weapons and ammo, then sure.

Quote[/b] ]The odds of civilians remaining anywhere near that area after the degree of combat that has been taking place there over the last week is minimal.  If they are there, they are likely supporting the insurgents.  The use of AC-130 gunships indicated the Marines are trying to be precise.

Artillery was used as well. [see the news report that Bals. posted]

And today we can read [Associated Press]

Quote[/b] ]

Guerrilla attacks broke out in at least three neighborhoods of Fallujah that had been relatively quiet during the past three days. And the U.S. response intensified: when a Marine was wounded, warplanes dropped 10 laser-guided bombs — most of them 500-pound bombs but at least one 1,000 pound — on buildings that were the source of guerrilla fire, Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.

At least twice, AC-130 gunships opened up on guerrilla positions with their heavy cannons.

Throughout the day, the sound of each battle was heard — the rattle of gunfire and the thud of mortars — then came the noise that often marked Marine strikes to put an end to the fight: heavy explosions, raising flames and palls of smoke.

Guerrillas fired on a train station just outside the city's northern edge, prompting a battle in the Golan neighborhood, an insurgent bastion. Fighting also erupted on the northeast, southeast and in the center of the city.

The extent of the battle was difficult to gauge. Witnesses reported at least 25 buildings wrecked by fighting. Hospitals only counted 10 wounded Iraqis, but ambulances could not reach areas where fighting was going on, and residents reported large numbers of dead and wounded.

At the White House, President Bush said "most of Fallujah is returning to normal."

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]f there was a cease-fire in effect and if I was serious about it (one condition of the cease-fire was for the rebels to hand over their heavy weapons - not to be disarmed by force), then no. If I was not serious about the cease-fire and wanted to blow up enemy weapons and ammo, then sure.

Then the rebels would have handed them in the old fashioned way. By firing them at you.

[denoir 0]

Then the rebels would have handed them in the old fashioned way. By firing them at you.

Of course they would. That's why they should have not been talking about some cease fire fantasy to begin with. And that's exactly what I said when the cease fire was announced. It was fairly obvious from the start that the people that wanted the fighting to stop were not the same people that were actually fighting.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/middleeast/28CND-IRAQ.html

Quote[/b] ]

A resident of the nearby town of Kufa calling a relative in Baghdad said members of the Mahdi Army were staging fake funerals in the town so they could use coffins to carry surface-to-air missiles into the golden-domed mosque in Kufa, where Mr. Sadr preaches every Friday. The resident reported the existence of the vigilante group, known as the Thulfikar Army, earlier this week. Occupation officials have warned that the Mahdi Army is stockpiling weapons in mosques, shrines and schools.

Quote[/b] ]Residents of Najaf said they have found seven bodies this week of members of the Mahdi Army, five of them in the city's sprawling cemetery. The residents attributed the killings to the mysterious Thulfikar Army.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/international/middleeast/29IRAQ.html

Quote[/b] ]

In Najaf, the American military appeared to be getting more help from a shadowy vigilante group known as the Thulfikar Army, which may have been behind the recent deaths of supporters of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric, according to residents of the city. An American commander said "there may be some validity" to reports of attacks by the vigilantes.

A "new shia army" that puts Sadr "army" in high alert...

Quote[/b] ]Artillery was used as well

I heard only aircraft were used on those positions and the pool reporter reportered that too.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/international/middleeast/29JAZE.html

Quote[/b] ]The Pentagon is keeping score. Occupation officials in the Arabic Media and Programs Unit are maintaining a "truth matrix," a computerized list of supposedly false or unfair broadcasts. The list, which includes more than 50 entries, cites, for example, an erroneous report on April 21 by Al Jazeera that two American helicopters were downed in Falluja, and, on April 20, an Al Arabiya broadcast that coalition forces had used civilians as "human shields."

Quote[/b] ]To combat these images, commanders are directing soldiers and marines to use their personal digital cameras to take pictures of any insurgents shooting from mosques, from behind crowds of women and children or other places that would violate the laws of war. The photos would then be made available to Western and Arab news outlets.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Started reading Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward the other day. Fascinating stuff.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Of course they would. That's why they should have not been talking about some cease fire fantasy to begin with. And that's exactly what I said when the cease fire was announced. It was fairly obvious from the start that the people that wanted the fighting to stop were not the same people that were actually fighting.

I always find it a surreal moment when we agree...

Quote[/b] ]Started reading Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward the other day. Fascinating stuff.

Please do tell...

I'm pretty sure it would be on topic for here.

(Also notice your new sig. Just see Thin Red Line or just find it more appropriate these days?)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Started reading Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward the other day. Fascinating stuff.

Please do tell...

I'm pretty sure it would be on topic for here.

It more or less documents the entire progression of the plan for invading Iraq from its origins as a neocon wet dream all the way to fruition. Not in those terms, of course- Woodward does a stunning (in my humble opinion) job maintaining a respectable level of objectivity. That being said, the principal characters provide enough of their own spin to make it interesting. His nose for the minutae is still as good as ever as is his dry wit (early in the book he details a Pentagon briefing Bush attends in which he eats the courtesy peppermint placed at his seat, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chief's mint; former Defense Secretary Cohen's also). So far it's been great for reading when I should be paying attention in class.

Quote[/b] ]

(Also notice your new sig. Just see Thin Red Line or just find it more appropriate these days?)

Haven't actually seen it in a couple years, but I thought it fit the times. That reminds me though, I'm going to have to see if I can find that DVD the next time I'm at the store.

[theavonlady 2]

A new resistance in Iraq, from the Iraq The Model blog:

Quote[/b] ]Wednesday, April 28, 2004

A tough decision.

Today I was reading Al-Sabah newspaper and one title caught my attention “a local armed group confronts Al-Sadr militia†I must admit that I felt relieved at first. At last, some Iraqi civilians took it upon themselves to fight the terrorists. But after a minute of thinking, this question came to my mind; is this what we want to see, Iraqi civilians carry arms to fight the thugs?

The armed group in question distributed a leaflet in which they threaten all those outlaws and terrorists who bring instability and disturb the safety of the city, saying that they will be eliminated.

And on the ground, there were some clashes between this group and Al-Sadr militia in which some men from "Mahdi army" were killed and some others wounded. This clarifies some important points which are-as written in the leaflet-“enough is enough, we should stand up for the challengeâ€.

Let us first try to take a closer look at what these news mean. When local people (definitely Sheát) rise against what was considered to be a powerful, somewhat holly and a 'largely' supported extremist, this proves that all the crap said about a revolution being in the air has no base at all. it means that either the people of Najaf are not fascinated with the idea of revolting against the coalition and are ready to cooperate with them, or that the people of Najaf saw that what Sadr militia was doing is not a true revolt against the Americans, but rather it was terrorizing Iraqis, looting and releasing their brother criminals from prisons to help them gain control over the huge amounts of money that comes to the wholly mosque (we are talking about REAL money here), all with the Iranian clerics acting behind the scene. That's why the people of Najaf couldn't stand their atrocities anymore and decided to face them with all the risk such a decision carries.

The situations have been dealt with by limited military operations and giving time for negotiations and this is understandable when it comes to a holly city for a large section of the Iraqi people, in which some members of the GC played devil's advocate especially the SCIRI and the Iraqi Islamic party (in case of Fallujah), but there still remains the problem that those people don’t understand the meaning of peace talks and negotiations and take these as signs of weakness, and also led to a situation where the people in Najaf lost hope in the coalition and couldn’t tolerate the thugs anymore and started to try solving the problem by their hands. So, is this what we want?

In the 'best' scenario is that this new militia will defeat the Mahdi army but after that this group or maybe other groups will probably claim that they have the right to remain in power and run the city. What logic can we use then to convince them otherwise? How can you tell a man who risked his life and lost a family member to achieve his freedom that he should drop his arms and obey the authorities that left him to deal with the threats alone? Can we assure him that what happened will not take place again?

I know that making the decision to fight the terrorists (inside Najaf) by the coalition and the new Iraqi army carries considerable risks (not as serious as some people try to make it look though) in the time being, but by leaving the issue as it is to be solved by civilians through violence or going back to negotiations (the way these thugs negotiate remind me of the way Saddam used in negotiating with the international community) can only make the losses in the future much more worse.

I hope that the fools who were asking us to carry Ak-47 and fight the terrorists are happy now. Some Iraqis have done that, and if nothing serious is done, others will sure join them.

Not carrying weapons by my people should be a victory for peace and humanity. Our real enemies, and I mean the Arab and Muslim dictators and clerics and not their tools, want to see us carry our arms again and I’m sad to see some Iraqis being forced to do this because this is what the enemies of life and freedom want. The task of disarming the militia is-beyond any doubt- the responsibility of the coalition and they are doing a good job in that, but still the extremists control large sectors of Fallujah and Najaf and terrorize people even in Baghdad (they have spread the word that anyone who criticize Al-Sadr will be executed without a trial by the Mahdi army!!)

My refusal to carry the weapons is my contribution to the process and is the way that Iraqis should use to show their support to the coalition. This is the best we can do and we’ll continue to show that we refuse the existence of armed militias (whatever their ideologies were) and stress on the necessity of building a modern, strong police and a new army that respects the constitution and obeys the law that protects the sons of this country and makes their land safer than ever.

By Ali.

- posted by Omar @ 21:09