The Iraq thread 3

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]This to me is a poorly contrived way of saying the Marines were defeated.

No ! Damnit !!

I DIDN´T SAY THAT AND I WILL NOT SAY THAT !!!

Goddamnit I´m really getting pissed Schoeler.

This is what I wrote

!!!

Quote[/b] ]Violent military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) warned. "It's definitely time, time now for those who prefer restraint and dialogue to make their voices heard."

Mohsen Abdul-Hamid, a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council also called on the United States to stop attacks in Fallujah and said if the United States refused, his Iraqi Islamic Party would consider withdrawing from the council.

"We call on the American troops that are bombing Fallujah to stop immediately and withdraw outside of the city," Abdul-Hamid told al-Jazeera television. "Otherwise, we'll be forced ... to consider the subject of withdrawal."

!!!!

Clear enough now ?!?

Quote[/b] ]What would you have had us do?

How shall I answer a question your top military advisors can´t answer ?

The top issue at all is the war without UN backing and without international approval. Iraq´s population doesn´t trust the US for good reasons. That´s the number 1 problem.

The approach of US officials in Iraq is not accepted by Iraq´s population. You have a credibility problem down there. That´s problem number 2.

Unproffessional acts of warcrimes and breaches of the geneva convention is problem number 3.

I don´t have "the" solution for Falluja but maybe some negotiations that worked perfectly for other towns in Iraq would have been a good point to start from.

Falluja was simply ignored by coaltion troops. They always faced resistance there and they never really made a serious approach to solve the local conflict. Now after 4 contractors were killed the military was going whoopy and wanted to play boss.

It didn´t work. Maybe a financial approach would have been more satisfying for both parts. As I said it worked in other towns of Iraq. So why didn´t you try it that way ?

Revenge ? Revenge for 4 contractors ?

Offer them infrastructure, offer them water, food, offer them whatever money can buy to make their lives better and try to cooperate with the Interim government and don´t override it everytime you can. That would be a serious approach to the problem.

Remember, Falluja is just one town. Most of the important things in Iraq are still undecided. The division of political power will be the next. Kurds, Shias and all of the major parties in Iraq will demand their piece of the pie. If you keep up that surpression attitude in Iraq you will experience a lot more opposition than you have right now.

Buy them. It´s dirty but it works.

One thing is for sure. As long as Iraq doesn´t belong to Iraqi´s anymore like it is right now, they will fight you with sticks, stones, AK´s or whatever they can use to show you their hatred.

The US has to come up with solutions, not anyone else. Even if someone else tries to assist them or help them like the UN already did they don´t follow these advice.

If you can´t listen you have to pull yourself out of the mud. Unfortunally for Iraq as the Iraqi´s pay the bill for that in thousands.

Quote[/b] ]I think you believe it was the right choice as well. What I can't understand is why you simply can't come out and say that.

Sure it was a right step into the right direction but the case is not solved yet. So no "hurray" from me.

Quote[/b] ]It seems, and I may be wrong here, that anti-American sentiment prevents you from acknolwedging any good decision made.

You can repeat it 10000000000000 times.

And I will repeat this 100000000000000000 times:

I don´t have any anti-american sentiments I only watch the current developements in Iraq and at your homefront !!

Last time Schoeler. Next time I won´t be patient anymore.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What is in their pants that make them full?

The US military doctrine to save their own lives at all costs, even if that means bombarding a town with 285,000 civillians

in it. Clear enough SpongeBob ? Literally the US forces sealed of the town from electricity, water and food plus medical care. So you collectively punished let´s say 280,000 inhabitants for the actions of a few.

Estimations about 2000 to 5000 fighters like the TBA says

are even not confirmed by the pentagon wich speaks of 500 to 1200 fighters. Even the local authorities in Iraq don´t see 5000 fighters in Falluja as the TBA does.

Anything to contribute apart from that ?

[theavonlady 2]

Things are really getting messy over there!

Iraq congress members under investigation.

Quote[/b] ]Allegations include abduction, robbery, assault, car theft

By Lisa Myers

Senior investigative correspondent

NBC News

Updated: 7:39 p.m. ET April 28, 2004

Members of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi were airlifted into southern Iraq the day Saddam’s government fell. Chalabi was President Bush’s guest at the State of the Union address. Even today, the INC gets $340,000 a month from the Pentagon to feed the United States intelligence information.

But NBC News has learned that members of the group are now under investigation by Iraqi police in Baghdad — allegations of:

abduction

robbery

stealing 11 Iraqi government vehicles

assaulting police by firing on them during a search.

An Iraqi police official says one doctor claims he was kidnapped at gunpoint: “They bound him, took him to an unknown place and after he got back to his house he discovered they took $20,000. We caught the suspects and they said they were from the INC.â€

Iraqi authorities tell NBC that four INC operatives are under arrest, and an arrest warrant has been issued for the INC’s chief of intelligence.

The INC confirms its offices were searched six times and 11 cars seized. But officials say they’ve done nothing illegal. “There is something going on which basically is, what it appears to me, is trying to put political pressure on the INC,â€according to INC official Mudhar Shawkat.

All this comes in the wake of findings that key intelligence on weapons of mass destruction provided by Chalabi’s group was false, perhaps even fabricated.

In fact, the former head of the weapons hunt, David Kay, questions why a group that provided “fabricated information†is still on the U.S. payroll. “You know, once taken, excused," says Kay. "Twice taken you’re an idiot. And I think we’re now at the point of we’re really an idiot.â€

Tonight, a Pentagon spokesman says he knows nothing about the police investigation but that the 4 million taxpayer dollars going to Chalabi’s group is already being reviewed.

[Akira 0]

Hmmm, Ralph and Tex throwing around accusations of anti-Americanism. Akira and Schoeler making odd statements in defence of those shelling Fallujah...hmm

Is this a trend? Have you gotten fed up with all the criticism from people, directed at the US politics and military?

Well, before you go rushing off to the Bush camp (which Ralph seems to be doing in an alarming speed), remember this: those coming with the criticism were right before. As a matter of fact they have been consistently right about the post-war situation. No WMD. No terrorist ties. Insurgencies. US brutalities etc while you have consistently been wrong because you always assumed the best about US troops/politics.

I know it must suck with your country and soldiers being criticized all day long, but so far the criticism has been very well founded.

Whoa there Seabiscuit....

I made one statement about the suspicious trucks, and how the Marines were right in that case to blast them. That is all. I've made no comment about 500lb bombs or Spectre's.

While, indeed, it gets quite tiresome to see another "US Does Something Else Wrong," it's obviously just par on these forums. I don't need someone else to point out what I know my country is doing wrong. If it makes you (that is the royal "you") feel good to post about every thing the US does wrong, then by all means. Fire away.

And if it makes you (again...the royal "you") feel good to say "I was right! I was right!" then by all means do so, though it adds very little to what little new discussion is going on here.

And as for "always assumed the best about US troops/politics", you can treat the others like naive school children if you wish, but I will take offense to it. I have never assumed "the best" of anything, certainly not politics. It may seem like it to you, but that is just because I am not always assuming the worse.

Please return to today's regularly scheduled flame-fest----

[miles teg 1]

I am just extremely irritated by people who seem to think its acceptable to criticize American actions no matter what they are.  

Do I think we should be in Iraq?

No.

Do I think we should pull out now?

No friggin way.  We made our bed and now we have to lie in it.  We owe that to the Iraqi people.

What pisses me off is when we do end up doing the right thing, like pulling out of Fallujah, some people just can't seem to give credit where credit is due.  Pulling out was a good decision, it shouldn't be mis-characterized.

I think certain people are explioting certain subjects to covertly air a thinly veiled anti-American sentiment.  I see no fault in challenging them to stand up for themselves and actually say what they are thinking.

@Denoir

You of all people should know I'm not one of those "my country, right or wrong" types.  But I don't like hypocrisy and I don't like deflected, concealed or indirect attacks.  If someone wants to bash America, go right ahead.  I'll either agree or fight back depending upon my views.  I just resent hidden agendas.

I'm not saying this is you or Bals, but at times it sure feels that way.

Dude... I'm an American citizen and furthermore I served in the Army.  I can say without any "anti-american" or anti-military sentiment and with a fair degree of certainty that we pulled of Fellujah because we just simply DID NOT have enough troops to take Fellujah without massive numbers of casualties.  I firmly believe that after this election, if Bush is reelected we will almost certainly see the draft started up and a massive build up of troops in Iraq if we truly want to pacify that country militarily and violently.  Even then its not a sure thing and the numbers of casualties plus the resentment towards the draft will certainly cause a lot of problems in this country.   It also will force young people across this country to start to think about what their government is doing rather then just shrug their shoulders and watch the news in Iraq as entertainment (if they even bother to watch the news at all).  

On college campuses across the country there is already alot of anti-war sentiment.  Start up the draft and this will double.

But back to Fellujah, US forces there basically got driven off not so much military, but politically...our bluff was called.  Using only a couple of thousand troops to take a city the size of Fellujah, no matter how elite the force, and how much air support they have, is just insane.  That is why recently the Pentagon announced that it was sending in more heavy armor. The Marines however, from all reports have faught very well with suprisingly few casualties. But they know from intelligence reports that Fellujah is being heavily prepared defensively in the deeper areas of the city.

Patrolling into those areas would be begging for high casualties. I would blame the Marine commander in charge of the Fellujah operation for not begging for more troops.

But ultimately others above him put him in that position.

This type of combat is where they can learn alot from the IDF.  The IDF know that heavy tanks and heavy APC's are key in getting troops into areas with large numbers of RPG's, mines, and improvised explosive devices.  They also make use of special ballistic shields, designated marksman, and more importantly....bulldozers.   The big IDF D9 armored bulldozers are actually key weapons in suppressing areas full of snipers and boobietrapped buildings.   Their answer to this type of defensive tactic by the Palistinians is just to level those buildings rather then send in troops to get ambushed.  

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

The US Army has been using bulldozers against houses used by militants already.  But currently they lack the heavily armored versions used by the IDF that are necessary in places like Fellujah.  Either that or they may figure out how to rig up a M1 tank with a large dozer blade designed more for demolition then for digging fighting positions.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[theavonlady 2]

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

This is false.

[bmgarcangel 0]

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

This is false.

I agree with you about taht avon

[denoir 0]

Whoa there Seabiscuit....

Did you just call me a seabiscuit?

Quote[/b] ]I made one statement about the suspicious trucks, and how the Marines were right in that case to blast them. That is all. I've made no comment about 500lb bombs or Spectre's

As a matter of fact as far as I can see, you actually didn't say anything controversial. Sorry, I don't know why I dragged you into this. I must have...well, I don't know. Anyhow sorry for the wrong accusation.

[bmgarcangel 0]

The assault has begun, or so it seems.....it said on CNN today that firefights are begining all over the place. Bombs are going off from both sides. Its time!

[miles teg 1]

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

This is false.

According to Israeli sources, of coarse its false. No civilians ever die in such operations... but according to numerous international press sources and of coarse Palistinian sources (like the in the documentary "Jenin Jenin" but I guess that was a bunch of lies also eh?) there are often are casualties from these bulldozing operations. Yes of coarse most people leave but there were reports of edlerly for example who did not leave quite fast enough and who were killed in Jenin during the last big offensive there in which most of the center of the camp was pretty much obliterated.

Hell even one American was killed in a similar such operation not that long ago. Oh wait her body was planted there in front of the bulldozer right? No that's right the driver didn't see her... funny how the supporting IDF infantry didn't see her either.

The IDF D9's ALWAYS have infantry support. I have yet to see any video of them being used where they didn't have infantry providing overwatch.

At any rate, I'm not arguing whether or not they're humane.

What I was saying and what you completely ignored was that I was saying that they are perhaps the most effective measure for destroying heavily defended and boobie trapped buildings.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a matter of fact as far as I can see, you actually didn't say anything controversial. Sorry, I don't know why I dragged you into this. I must have...well, I don't know. Anyhow sorry for the wrong accusation.

Not a problem. I know you are just used to me arguing with you :P

[theavonlady 2]

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

This is false.

According to Israeli sources, of coarse its false.   No civilians ever die in such operations...

This is false, too.

Quote[/b] ] but according to numerous international press sources and of coarse Palistinian sources (like the in the documentary "Jenin Jenin" but I guess that was a bunch of lies also eh?)

The UN said it was a lie. All you're doing is massacring truth.

Truth first casualty of Jenin massacre.

Welcome to the club of the brainwashed, Miles.

Quote[/b] ]there are often are casualties from these bulldozing operations. Yes of coarse most people leave but there were reports of edlerly for example who did not leave quite fast enough and who were killed in Jenin during the last big offensive there in which most of the center of the camp was pretty much obliterated.

How many? Give me a number, Miles. You can litterally count these tragic deaths on two hands - maybe even one.

Quote[/b] ]

Hell even one American was killed in a similar such operation not that long ago. Oh wait her body was planted there in front of the bulldozer right? No that's right the driver didn't see her... funny how the supporting IDF infantry didn't see her either.

Her name was Rachel Corrie. The driver most likely didn't see her. She may have fallen over. Too bad. I really don't have pity for ISM members who actively support terrorists and endanger my people's lives.

Quote[/b] ]The IDF D9's ALWAYS have infantry support.

Wrong. The usually have armor support. Not infantry unless they are very distant.

Quote[/b] ]I have yet to see any video of them being used where they didn't have infantry providing overwatch.

There was a big confrontation last week after dozens of rockets were fired on a Gush Katif community, causing damage and injuries. All the news wire pics showed a D9 with a tank escort. Not a foot soldier in site.

I'm sure it depends on the circumstances.

Quote[/b] ]

At any rate, I'm not arguing whether or not they're humane.

What I was saying and what you completely ignored was that I was saying that they are perhaps the most effective measure for destroying heavily defended and boobie trapped buildings.

I'm not arguing about that. It sure is true. I'm arguing about your use of the words "a lot" in describing the total casualties incurred by such actions since these tactics have been in use. It's simply false.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Well, back on the Iraq topic.

The deployment of Iraqi troops under an ex-Saddam general is a risky move. I'm not saying that it is a step that lacks logic - as a matter of fact I suggested the same thing a while ago - but it is very risky.

[*] Can the Iraqi troops be trusted? According to the coalition 10% of the Iraqi forces are rebel infiltrators and 40% deserters.

[*] We don't know the identity of the resistance movement. The coalition has been naming them "anti-Iraqi terrorists" - a completely useless categorization. Fallujah was a pro-Saddam center - are they old regime loyalists? Are they fighters from other countries in the region? Very relevant and very unanswered questions.

[*] How will an ex-Saddam commander be recieved? As a liberator? As a traitor? Where will his loyalty lie?

[*] How good is it if Iraqis start shooting at Iraqis? So far the notion of a civil war has been a possibility but nothing has actually happened (excluding the attacks on Iraqi police stations). Will this destabilize Iraq?

So, there are plenty of things that could potentially go wrong. And we have too little information to even make an educated guess.

[theavonlady 2]

[*] We don't know the identity of the resistance movement. The coalition has been naming them "anti-Iraqi terrorists" - a completely useless categorization. Fallujah was a pro-Saddam center - are they old regime loyalists? Are they fighters from other countries in the region? Very relevant and very unanswered questions.

I link to this article a few pages back:

Hussein's Agents Are Behind Attacks in Iraq, Pentagon Finds

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]on isde note, you gotta wonder if this guy is credible given that he was giving advice to TBA

Glad we agree on

then you have to cast doubts if his choice of words is appropriate or not.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]and who are you to say what is nice or not?

I was just exercising my freedom of speach

sure and I can with some really flaming content too

Quote[/b] ]If you are asking if I am against US population as a whole,I feel most offended by this question but I am gonna answer it anyway which is way more then you did.I think being against an entire country for the mistakes of a gouverment is the most hateful and meaningless thing to do.In my life I`ve met quite many Americans and most were decent person with whom I had good times.

If you are asking if I am against US soldiers as a whole then again my answer is no.Many are doing a good job and are also victims of Bush deceiving agenda.They have been called to serve their country and are doing so.

However I am against soldiers who kill unarmed civillians,torture prisoners for their personal enjoyment,and destroy taxi cars to punish a man for stealing a pile of wood.This however belongs to another discussion.

If you are asking if I`m against TBA..Should we go there,even you seem to acknowledge the failures of your gouverment and deceptions used to manipulate the public

if you follow this thread carefully you'd know my position regarding TBA. However, there are problems when one side thinks they are righteous and start strutting around. before Iraq war it was TBA, now it's the other side. neither side offers a good solution, just taking advantage of the situation.

on you post, you seems to imply that most of US military is bunch of thugs which is not true. although you didn't explicitly say that, it is equivalent of saying "arabs are <inser another cultuarlly insensitive coment>".

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]how can this war be worst for journalist? what is standard to measure what a 'worst' is? think about that. my link provided that there are other wars that costed more journalists's life, thus showing that there is a big war. what is the measurement based upon?

Again it has nothing to do with Al-Jazeera being biased.it was CPJ statement and it was not talking about war.It just said that Iraq is the worst place for journalist to be in.They are talking about journalist from the present,and I don`t think they can time travell to other conflicts

OK to be sure there will be no further missunderstanding I am gonna explain this as good as I can:

CPJ is an organisation that protects journalists and watch their rights and how they are treated.6 months ago they issued a warning that Iraq is the most dangerous place for journalists to be in.Using logics,who do you think they were refering to,if not to current journalists,noting the dangers they are facing in there,and maybe suggesting to others not to venture in the country.

Al-Jazeera took the story,using the exact words and not even mentioning Reuters warning that journlalists are not treated well by US soldiers.

notice that CPJ announced it and AJ reported it. I showed you, using exactly their own statistics that there were more dangerous war for journalist than this one. however, AJ decided to forgo 2 minutes of clicking to say "iraq war is the most dangerous" when there clearly were much worse war for journalists. Why would AJ do that? if it does not have bias, it would have at least try to check for counter arguments. notice that the news section i linked is not 'hot off the press' but a special series. they had plenty of time to check, yet they did not emplo critical analysis on the source of information.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]not really. i knew that some advisory for TBA is only slightly better job then being a prostitute

Glad we agree on that also,I used his words to proove that even TBA officials are using the expression "anglo-us alliance" and that it has no racist substract.

it is, and just because both sides use it doens't mean it is correct. N-word to describe blacks is not a nice thing to do, and it is tru even if it is said by a black.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]so then the weblogger whom avon linked is also a valid source since he is merely quoted by USA today.

Hmm..remember this

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

Until I`ve asked you for the article you made it sound like Al-Jazeera was the one suggesting US is letting violence to happend forgeting everything about that fact that they were quoting an Iraqi.

Is the blogger opinion that of usatoday.com?Absolutley not.

how about rest of the blog saying their lives were getting better? now look who is being picky.

the USA today featured the article, and there is no doubt that some people think "patriotic US media" is manipulating the situation by showing a part of Iraqis, not its majority. by featuring a segment of Iraq, AJ is also trying to show that US military is trying to let the violence continue to legitimize their stay.

Until I`ve asked you for the article you made it sound like Al-Jazeera was the one suggesting US is letting violence to happend forgeting everything about that fact that they were quoting an Iraqi.

Is the blogger opinion that of usatoday.com?Absolutley not.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]so Tommy Franks knows EVERY thing that is going on? in every organization there is that blasted while-noice effect, which can hamper delay of message sending.

He just stated what he knew after the soldiers were released.

Using your own logic:So Rumsfeld(the first who said they were rescued) knows everything going on?How is he more aware then the general who was actually in Iraq and briefed by the soldiers who found the POWs...

first, my logics was that preliminary reports are always in need to verification. your source updated their website several times which indicates that they also had problem getting their story straight. so what is not to beleive that the story could not have been true?

my logic was that in preliminary reports, things are almost always scketchy. re read my post again.

Hmmm, Ralph and Tex throwing around accusations of anti-Americanism. Akira and Schoeler making odd statements in defence of those shelling Fallujah...hmm

Is this a trend? Have you gotten fed up with all the criticism from people, directed at the US politics and military?

Well, before you go rushing off to the Bush camp (which Ralph seems to be doing in an alarming speed), remember this: those coming with the criticism were right before. As a matter of fact they have been consistently right about the post-war situation. No WMD. No terrorist ties. Insurgencies. US brutalities etc while you have consistently been wrong because you always assumed the best about US troops/politics.

I know it must suck with your country and soldiers being criticized all day long, but so far the criticism has been very well founded.

does it ever come to your mind that your opinion could be wrong? when SHTF, you have to 1)get the situation under control 2)then assess the problem, thus assign proper credit/penalty.

the level of criticismus getting to the point that it is a reflexion of self-satisfaction rather than objective talk. just because anti-TBA proved to be right doesn't mean that they are always correct everytime.

and TBA will have job openings soon in November

[miles teg 1]

...of coarse it REALLY pisses off the residents and often results in a lot of civilians (who can't or refused to leave their homes) getting killed, but it is effective in the short term.

This is false.

According to Israeli sources, of coarse its false.   No civilians ever die in such operations...

This is false, too.

Quote[/b] ] but according to numerous international press sources and of coarse Palistinian sources (like the in the documentary "Jenin Jenin" but I guess that was a bunch of lies also eh?)

The UN said it was a lie. All you're doing is massacring truth.

Truth first casualty of Jenin massacre.

Welcome to the club of the brainwashed, Miles.

Quote[/b] ]there are often are casualties from these bulldozing operations.   Yes of coarse most people leave but there were reports of edlerly for example who did not leave quite fast enough and who were killed in Jenin during the last big offensive there in which most of the center of the camp was pretty much obliterated.

How many? Give me a number, Miles. You can litterally count these tragic deaths on two hands - maybe even one.

Quote[/b] ]

Hell even one American was killed in a similar such operation not that long ago.  Oh wait her body was planted there in front of the bulldozer right?  No that's right the driver didn't see her... funny how the supporting IDF infantry didn't see her either.

Her name was Rachel Corrie. The driver most likely didn't see her. She may have fallen over. Too bad. I really don't have pity for ISM members who actively support terrorists and endanger my people's lives.

Quote[/b] ]The IDF D9's ALWAYS have infantry support.

Wrong. The usually have armor support. Not infantry unless they are very distant.

Quote[/b] ]I have yet to see any video of them being used where they didn't have infantry providing overwatch.

There was a big confrontation last week after dozens of rockets were fired on a Gush Katif community, causing damage and injuries. All the news wire pics showed a D9 with a tank escort. Not a foot soldier in site.

I'm sure it depends on the circumstances.

Quote[/b] ]

At any rate, I'm not arguing whether or not they're humane.  

What I was saying and what you completely ignored was that I was saying that they are perhaps the most effective measure for destroying heavily defended and boobie trapped buildings.

I'm not arguing about that. It sure is true. I'm arguing about your use of the words "a lot" in describing the total casualties incurred by such actions since these tactics have been in use. It's simply false.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

AL you're reading more into what I'm saying by making assumptions about my beliefs. I did not say that the Jenin Jenin incident was a massacre. I said that civilians died. On the 2nd link you quoted it says:

"Three months later, in August 2002, the United Nations and Human Rights Watch put the final fatality figures at 26 Palestinian fighters, 26 civilians and 23 Israeli soldiers."

I wouldn't call that a massacre but according to the UN and Human Rights Watch, 26 civilians died. Even in the film "Jenin, Jenin" didn't get the sense that they showed it as a massacre. It was more of a perspective of the Palistinians of the Jenin camp and how they viewed the whole incident. They also did interview an old man who had been shot by IDF soldiers and was still wrapped in bandages from his wounds. As this little old man was telling his story he was crying... these weren't tears of anger. Yes you can picture in your mind a stereotypical image of an old weasel-looking Arab man shedding crocodile tears, but if so, this man did not fit that image. He seemed incredibly sincere and traumatized by the event. You can dismiss all those people of liars and say his wounds were faked but then you'd be no better then the Arabs who think every terrorist attack is staged by the Israelies.

This is where human beings in general have so much trouble. We have tremendous difficulty stepping back and looking at things in perspective from both sides of a conflict. People think that you have to take one side or the other. That is bullshit. You DO NOT have to do that especially when both sides are doing idiotic things and acting upon their base emotions rather then using their minds.

It is very easy to get angry watching that old man tell his story about the attrocities commited by IDF soldiers against him.

But I can also full understand the mindset of an IDF soldier who's just been shot at all day and has had 23 of his fellow soldiers gunned down.

That's part of war and people don't seem to understand how war affects people's psychology.

The same goes for the war in Iraq.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]sure and I can with some really flaming content too :P

If that`s what makes you feel better be my guest.I tend to usually disregard flame wars invitations

Quote[/b] ]if you follow this thread carefully you'd know my position regarding TBA. However, there are problems when one side thinks they are righteous and start strutting around. before Iraq war it was TBA, now it's the other side. neither side offers a good solution, just taking advantage of the situation.

Perfectly understood.So the only thing we can do is going to the roots of the problem which was starting the war.Who is responsable for that?

Quote[/b] ]on you post, you seems to imply that most of US military is bunch of thugs which is not true. although you didn't explicitly say that, it is equivalent of saying "arabs are <inser another cultuarlly insensitive coment>".

That`s a lie 100%

To quote myself:

Quote[/b] ]If you are asking if I am against US soldiers as a whole then again my answer is no.Many are doing a good job and are also victims of Bush deceiving agenda.They have been called to serve their country and are doing so.

This is the only part where I`ve talked about US soldiers in general.If someone neutral is kind enough of pin pointing where I am implying that most of US military is bunch of thugs I again will be most pleased.If not I will be forced to belive that your statement is a straight forward lie.

Quote[/b] ]first, my logics was that preliminary reports are always in need to verification. your source updated their website several times which indicates that they also had problem getting their story straight. so what is not to beleive that the story could not have been true?

my logic was that in preliminary reports, things are almost always scketchy. re read my post again.

They modified the article for the new information coming in as you say,When there was no more new information they stopped modifing it.What does it make my article less accurate then yours?

Quote[/b] ]notice that CPJ announced it and AJ reported it. I showed you, using exactly their own statistics that there were more dangerous war for journalist than this one. however, AJ decided to forgo 2 minutes of clicking to say "iraq war is the most dangerous" when there clearly were much worse war for journalists. Why would AJ do that? if it does not have bias, it would have at least try to check for counter arguments. notice that the news section i linked is not 'hot off the press' but a special series. they had plenty of time to check, yet they did not emplo critical analysis on the source of information.

I am trully sorry Ralph,my english vocabulary is limited .I find no other word more appropriate to caracterize your comment except by calling it once again a lie.I`ve asked you numerous times to read the article again but you it seems you`ve ignored my request.

This time we don`t need no outside help.It`s painfully clear.

Here is the full quote of the article

Quote[/b] ]Headline Journalists killed in Iraq: Profile

CPJ has said"Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist."

In 2003 alone, according to the CPJ's estimates, 13 journalists died in "hostile acts". Others died due to illness or accidents.  

These are the names and affiliations of those journalists who died in the line of duty in Iraq starting as early as the first days of war:  

And once again your statement:

AJ decided to forgo 2 minutes of clicking to say "iraq war is the most dangerous"

Sorry to say this but if you will continue your manner of twisting facts,planting words,and accusing me with straight forward lies I am afraid I will feel forced to stop the on going debate as its geting to a go nowhere situation by the minute.

[theavonlady 2]

AL you're reading more into what I'm saying by making assumptions about my beliefs.

You clearly implied that there were numerous deaths caused use of D9s.

If you didn't mean it, don't say it. If you mean in, back it up with facts.

Quote[/b] ]I did not say that the Jenin Jenin incident

Do you have a stutter or is that the name of the trash movie you base your "facts" on?

Quote[/b] ]I said that civilians died.

About the movie "Jenin, Jenin", you said very sarcasticly: "but I guess that was a bunch of lies also eh?".

The answer is it was nothing but lies.

Quote[/b] ]On the 2nd link you quoted it says:

"Three months later, in August 2002, the United Nations and Human Rights Watch put the final fatality figures at 26 Palestinian fighters, 26 civilians and 23 Israeli soldiers."

I wouldn't call that a massacre but according to the UN and Human Rights Watch, 26 civilians died.  Even in the film "Jenin, Jenin" didn't get the sense that they showed it as a massacre.  It was more of a perspective of the Palistinians of the Jenin camp and how they viewed the whole incident.  They also did interview an old man who had been shot by IDF soldiers and was still wrapped in bandages from his wounds.  As this little old man was telling his story he was crying...  these weren't tears of anger.  Yes you can picture in your mind a stereotypical image of an old weasel-looking Arab man shedding crocodile tears, but if so, this man did not fit that image.  He seemed incredibly sincere and traumatized by the event.  You can dismiss all those people of liars and say his wounds were faked but then you'd be no better then the Arabs who think every terrorist attack is staged by the Israelies.

You are so naive, Miles. From my link above:

Quote[/b] ]2. Another impressive segment of the film is an interview with a 75-year-old resident of Jenin who, crying bitterly, testified that he had been taken from his bed in the middle of the night and shot in the hand, and, when he failed to obey the soldiers' orders to get up, was shot again in the foot.

This same elderly man was brought to me for treatment after a clean-up operation in one of the houses used by a Hamas cell in the refuge camp. He had indeed sustained a slight injury to the hand and suffered from light abrasions on his leg (although certainly not a bullet wound). IDF soldiers brought him to the station for treating the wounded, and there he was treated, including by me.

One of the army doctors diagnosed heart failure, and we immediately offered to transfer him for treatment to the "Emek" Hospital in Afula. He requested to be treated at the hospital in Jenin since he was not fluent in Hebrew. After the Jenin hospital refused to admit him, we transferred him to Afula. He was in the internal medicine ward for three days and received treatment for heart problems and anemia, from which he suffered as a result of an existing chronic disease.

Is that the man, Miles?

Quote[/b] ]This is where human beings in general have so much trouble.  We have tremendous difficulty stepping back and looking at things in perspective from both sides of a conflict.

Step back, Miles. You've been had big time.

When you've seen Pierre Rehov's counter documentary "Road To Jenin" (What? No one's showing it? Wonder why ), please come back with your review.

Quote[/b] ]People think that you have to take one side or the other.  That is bullshit.

So far everything you've said is.

Quote[/b] ]You DO NOT have to do that especially when both sides are doing idiotic things and acting upon their base emotions rather then using their minds.

You're full of crap all the way through, Miles. Israel's interest is in defending itself. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote[/b] ]It is very easy to get angry watching that old man tell his story about the attrocities commited by IDF soldiers against him.

Yes, I can see how angry that bullshit has gotten you.

Quote[/b] ]But I can also full understand the mindset of an IDF soldier who's just been shot at all day and has had 23 of his fellow soldiers gunned down.  

That's part of war and people don't seem to understand how war affects people's psychology.

The same goes for the war in Iraq.

Fascinating. I didn't know that.

Sorry I can't hang around for your rebound. Can't say it hasn't been fun - 'cause it hasn't.

[EiZei 0]

Last time I recall there were no IDF soldiers in Iraq. Middle east thread anyone?

[Akira 0]

Since it was brought up in this thread I'll post this here. Good thing Sinclair Broadcasting is looking out for my interests....

Quote[/b] ] NewsBlues.com is reporting [no free link] that Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its ABC-affiliated stations not to carry tomorrow's "Nightline," which will air the names and photos of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.

Sinclair General Counsel Barry Faber tells the site: "We find it to be contrary to the public interest."

The boycott will affect eight ABC-affiliated Sinclair stations.

>>>>

STATEMENT OF THE SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP

The ABC Television network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30th edition of “Nightline†will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.

While the Sinclair Broadcast Group honors the memory of the brave members of the military who have sacrificed their lives in the service of our country, we do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of “Nightline†this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.

We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of the 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorists attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday.

ABC NEWS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO SINCLAIR

We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt "Nightline's" tribute to America's fallen soldiers which will air this Friday, April 30. The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country. ABC News is dedicated to thoughtful and balanced coverage and reports on the events shaping our world with neither fear nor favor -- as our audience expects, deserves, and rightly demands. Contrary to the statement issued by Sinclair, which takes issue with our level of coverage of the effects of terrorism on our citizens, ABC News and all of our broadcasts, including "Nightline," have reported hundreds of stories on 9-11. Indeed, on the first anniversary of 9-11, ABC News broadcast the names of the victims of that horrific attack.

In sum, we are particularly proud of the journalism and award winning coverage ABC News has produced since September 11, 2001. ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades.

[denoir 0]

Yepp, freedom of speech is as valuable as the broadcasting rights to it... Difficult to cricumvent though. You can't forbid bastards like Rupert Murdoch from owning media. And you can't tell him how to run his company either. So in the end you have a couple of global media conglomerates that present the kind of filtered "truth" that their owners want to.

[miles teg 1]

AL you're reading more into what I'm saying by making assumptions about my beliefs.

You clearly implied that there were numerous deaths caused use of D9s.

If you didn't mean it, don't say it. If you mean in, back it up with facts.

Quote[/b] ]I did not say that the Jenin Jenin incident

Do you have a stutter or is that the name of the trash movie you base your "facts" on?

Quote[/b] ]I said that civilians died.

About the movie "Jenin, Jenin", you said very sarcasticly: "but I guess that was a bunch of lies also eh?".

The answer is it was nothing but lies.

Quote[/b] ]On the 2nd link you quoted it says:

"Three months later, in August 2002, the United Nations and Human Rights Watch put the final fatality figures at 26 Palestinian fighters, 26 civilians and 23 Israeli soldiers."

I wouldn't call that a massacre but according to the UN and Human Rights Watch, 26 civilians died.  Even in the film "Jenin, Jenin" didn't get the sense that they showed it as a massacre.  It was more of a perspective of the Palistinians of the Jenin camp and how they viewed the whole incident.  They also did interview an old man who had been shot by IDF soldiers and was still wrapped in bandages from his wounds.  As this little old man was telling his story he was crying...  these weren't tears of anger.  Yes you can picture in your mind a stereotypical image of an old weasel-looking Arab man shedding crocodile tears, but if so, this man did not fit that image.  He seemed incredibly sincere and traumatized by the event.  You can dismiss all those people of liars and say his wounds were faked but then you'd be no better then the Arabs who think every terrorist attack is staged by the Israelies.

You are so naive, Miles. From my link above:

Quote[/b] ]2. Another impressive segment of the film is an interview with a 75-year-old resident of Jenin who, crying bitterly, testified that he had been taken from his bed in the middle of the night and shot in the hand, and, when he failed to obey the soldiers' orders to get up, was shot again in the foot.

This same elderly man was brought to me for treatment after a clean-up operation in one of the houses used by a Hamas cell in the refuge camp. He had indeed sustained a slight injury to the hand and suffered from light abrasions on his leg (although certainly not a bullet wound). IDF soldiers brought him to the station for treating the wounded, and there he was treated, including by me.

One of the army doctors diagnosed heart failure, and we immediately offered to transfer him for treatment to the "Emek" Hospital in Afula. He requested to be treated at the hospital in Jenin since he was not fluent in Hebrew. After the Jenin hospital refused to admit him, we transferred him to Afula. He was in the internal medicine ward for three days and received treatment for heart problems and anemia, from which he suffered as a result of an existing chronic disease.

Is that the man, Miles?

Quote[/b] ]This is where human beings in general have so much trouble.  We have tremendous difficulty stepping back and looking at things in perspective from both sides of a conflict.

Step back, Miles. You've been had big time.

When you've seen Pierre Rehov's counter documentary "Road To Jenin" (What? No one's showing it? Wonder why ), please come back with your review.

Quote[/b] ]People think that you have to take one side or the other.  That is bullshit.

So far everything you've said is.

Quote[/b] ]You DO NOT have to do that especially when both sides are doing idiotic things and acting upon their base emotions rather then using their minds.

You're full of crap all the way through, Miles. Israel's interest is in defending itself. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote[/b] ]It is very easy to get angry watching that old man tell his story about the attrocities commited by IDF soldiers against him.

Yes, I can see how angry that bullshit has gotten you.

Quote[/b] ]But I can also full understand the mindset of an IDF soldier who's just been shot at all day and has had 23 of his fellow soldiers gunned down.  

That's part of war and people don't seem to understand how war affects people's psychology.

The same goes for the war in Iraq.

Fascinating. I didn't know that.

Sorry I can't hang around for your rebound. Can't say it hasn't been fun - 'cause it hasn't.

Very interesting site Al. Although personally I would believe international sources over this doctor. As for the old man...that would be a HUGE lie and that old man should win a grammy for acting if he was lying as that would have been one of the most impressive acting performances that I have ever seen in my life... but that is assuming this is the same old man as the one treated by this doctor and that this doctor has an excellent memory for faces. If this doctor really wanted to prove his point he could get an international agency to verify this claim as they should have hospital records of this man and assuming the man is still alive, his current place of residence could have been tracked down by an international agency.

I have issues with the rest of that doctors remarks as well, but I won't get into that as this is the wrong thread.

Forget I ever mentioned Israel as it would hijack the thread for several pages if we got into that debate again about Jenin.

What I was trying to get across is that D9 Bulldozers can level huge areas in a much more efficient and less deadly manner then bombs but not without potential casualties. Militants seem to be alot more afraid of being crushed by a bulldozer then of being bombed for some reason. D-9's backed my infantry and tanks could level areas of Fellujah very quickly.

Of coarse it would piss off the locals to no end, especially those whos homes were destroyed...but then again so do bombs.

At any rate, it's a moot point now as the Marines seem to be in the process of pulling back from Fellujah.

The Arab press, regardless of the political realities, is likely to spin this as a massive victory for Iraqis and all Arabs against the US occupation forces in Iraq.

Overall it was a stupid operation to try with so few men and whoever the general was that was threating to "take Fellujah in short order" should be sacked. That was a plain stupid remark and he should have known better then to make such threats when he knew full well the difficult of carrying out such as assault.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

US to pull out of Fallujah (apparently)

url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3670193.stm[/url]

Going to be leaving the defence to locals, apparently.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

[

(hint)

[miles teg 1]

US to pull out of Fallujah (apparently)

url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3670193.stm[/url]

Going to be leaving the defence to locals, apparently.

Um.... leaving the defence? I don't think the Marines were defending anyone but fellow soldiers. I hadn't heard of the militants in Fellujah attacking families in Fellujah...hell even a good chunk of the police force in Fellujah sided with the militants.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>